Stakeholders’ Preferences towards Contract Attributes: Evidence from Rice Production in Vietnam
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Conceptual Framework
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Sites
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Typologies of RCF
4.2. Preferences for Contract Attributes and Attribute Levels
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Percent | Score | Percent | Score | Percent | Score | Percent | Score | Percent | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.09 | 99 | 6.81 | 79 | 32.42 | 59 | 71.14 | 39 | 94.49 | 19 |
0.20 | 98 | 7.55 | 78 | 34.25 | 58 | 72.85 | 38 | 95.08 | 18 |
0.32 | 97 | 8.33 | 77 | 36.15 | 57 | 74.52 | 37 | 95.62 | 17 |
0.45 | 96 | 9.17 | 76 | 38.06 | 56 | 76.12 | 36 | 96.11 | 16 |
0.61 | 95 | 10.06 | 75 | 40.01 | 55 | 77.68 | 35 | 96.57 | 15 |
0.78 | 94 | 11.03 | 74 | 41.97 | 54 | 79.17 | 34 | 96.99 | 14 |
0.97 | 93 | 12.04 | 73 | 43.97 | 53 | 80.61 | 33 | 97.37 | 13 |
1.18 | 92 | 13.11 | 72 | 45.97 | 52 | 81.99 | 32 | 97.72 | 12 |
1.42 | 91 | 14.25 | 71 | 47.98 | 51 | 83.31 | 31 | 98.04 | 11 |
1.68 | 90 | 15.44 | 70 | 50.00 | 50 | 84.56 | 30 | 98.32 | 10 |
1.96 | 89 | 16.69 | 69 | 52.02 | 49 | 85.75 | 29 | 98.58 | 9 |
2.28 | 88 | 18.01 | 68 | 54.03 | 48 | 86.89 | 28 | 98.82 | 8 |
2.69 | 87 | 19.39 | 67 | 56.03 | 47 | 87.96 | 27 | 99.03 | 7 |
3.01 | 86 | 20.93 | 66 | 58.03 | 46 | 88.97 | 26 | 99.22 | 6 |
3.43 | 85 | 22.32 | 65 | 59.99 | 45 | 89.94 | 25 | 99.39 | 5 |
3.89 | 84 | 23.88 | 64 | 61.94 | 44 | 90.83 | 24 | 99.55 | 4 |
4.38 | 83 | 25.48 | 63 | 63.85 | 43 | 91.67 | 23 | 99.68 | 3 |
4.92 | 82 | 27.15 | 62 | 65.75 | 42 | 92.45 | 22 | 99.80 | 2 |
5.51 | 81 | 28.86 | 61 | 67.48 | 41 | 93.19 | 21 | 99.91 | 1 |
6.14 | 80 | 30.61 | 60 | 69.39 | 40 | 93.86 | 20 | 100.00 | 0 |
References
- FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture–Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017; p. 180. [Google Scholar]
- Calicioglu, O.; Flammini, A.; Bracco, S.; Bellù, L.; Sims, R. The future challenges of food and agriculture: An integrated analysis of trends and solutions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Du, Z.-X.; Lai, X.-D.; Long, W.-J.; Gao, L.-L. The short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on family farms in China—Evidence from a survey of 2324 farms. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 2877–2890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2020. Agricultural Markets and Sustainable Development: Global Value Chains, Smallholder Farmers and Digital Innovations; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Kangogo, D.; Dentoni, D.; Bijman, J. Determinants of Farm Resilience to Climate Change: The Role of Farmer Entrepreneurship and Value Chain Collaborations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoang, V. Impact of Contract Farming on Farmers’ Income in the Food Value Chain: A Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Study in Vietnam. Agriculture 2021, 11, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellemare, M.F.; Novak, L. Contract farming and food security. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 99, 357–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satish, B.S. Contract Farming—A way to Sustainable Agriculture: A Case of Mango Contract Farming in Karnataka. SDMIMD J. Manag. 2021, 11, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Silva, C.A.; Rankin, M. Contract Farming for Inclusive Market Access; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; p. 227. [Google Scholar]
- Otsuka, K.; Nakano, Y.; Takahashi, K. Contract farming in developed and developing countries. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2016, 8, 353–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meemken, E.-M.; Bellemare, M.F. Smallholder farmers and contract farming in developing countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minot, N.; Sawyer, B. Contract farming in developing countries: Theory, practice, and policy implications. In Innovation for Inclusive Value Chain Development: Successes and Challenges; Devaux, A., Torero, M., Donovan, J., Horton, D., Eds.; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 127–155. [Google Scholar]
- Champika, P.J.; Abeywickrama, L. An evaluation of maize contract farming system in Sri Lanka: Adoption, problems and future prospects. Trop. Agric. Res. 2015, 26, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nhan, T.Q. Effect of private-led contract farming on rice growers’ yield, cost, selling price and return: Evidence from Vietnam’s central Mekong Delta. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 731–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behera, D.K.; Swain, B.B. Coperative-Led Contract Farming On Farm Productivity In India. Appl. Econom. Int. Dev. 2021, 21, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, A.K.; Shaik, S.; Khanal, A.R.; Bairagi, S. Contract farming and technical efficiency: Evidence from low-value and high-value crops in Nepal. Agribusiness 2018, 34, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alulu, J. Participation in Contract Farming and Its Effects on Technical Efficiency and Income of Vegetable Farmers in Western Kenya; University of Nairobi: Nairobi, Kenya, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, A.K.; Rezitis, A.N.; Tsionas, M.G. Estimating Technical Efficiency and Production Risk under Contract Farming: A Bayesian Estimation and Stochastic Dominance Methodology. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 70, 353–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Huong, N. Contract Farming in Vietnam: Empirical Research on Marketing Determinants, Farm Performance and Technical Efficiency of the Export-Oriented Rice Sector in the Mekong River Delta; Agricultural Sciences, University of Goettingen: Göttingen, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bidzakin, J.K.; Fialor, S.C.; Awunyo-Vitor, D.; Yahaya, I. Contract farming and rice production efficiency in Ghana. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2020, 10, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubbert, C.; Abdulai, A. Does the Contract Type Matter? Impact of Marketing and Production Contracts on Cashew Farmers’ Farm Performance in Ghana. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubbert, C. Participation in contract farming and farm performance: Insights from cashew farmers in Ghana. Agric. Econ. 2019, 50, 749–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kalamkar, S.S. Inputs and Services Delivery System under Contract Farming: A Case of Broiler Farming. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2012, 25, 515–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellemare, M.F.; Lee, Y.N.; Novak, L. Contract farming as partial insurance. World Dev. 2021, 140, 105274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olounlade, O.A.; Li, G.-C.; Kokoye, S.E.H.; Dossouhoui, F.V.; Akpa, K.A.A.; Anshiso, D.; Biaou, G. Impact of Participation in Contract Farming on Smallholder Farmers’ Income and Food Security in Rural Benin: PSM and LATE Parameter Combined. Sustainability 2020, 12, 901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruml, A.; Qaim, M. Smallholder farmers’ dissatisfaction with contract schemes in spite of economic benefits: Issues of mistrust and lack of transparency. J. Dev. Stud. 2021, 57, 1106–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.F.; Nakano, Y.; Kurosaki, T. Impact of contract farming on land productivity and income of maize and potato growers in Pakistan. Food Policy 2019, 85, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bezabeh, A.; Beyene, F.; Haji, J.; Lemma, T. Impact of contract farming on income of smallholder malt barley farmers in Arsi and West Arsi zones of Oromia region, Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2020, 6, 1834662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tefera, D.; Bijman, J. Economics of contracts in African food systems: Evidence from the malt barley sector in Ethiopia. Agric. Food Econ. 2021, 9, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yusuf Ibrahim, H.; Umar Garba, S.; Wahab Munir, J. Impact of a Contract Farming Scheme on Income, Food Security, and Nutrition among Maize Farmers in North Western, Nigeria. J. Nutr. Food Secur. 2021, 6, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Chen, Y.J. The Impact of Contract Farming on Agricultural Product Supply in Developing Economies. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2021, 30, 2395–2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruml, A.; Ragasa, C.; Qaim, M. Contract farming, contract design and smallholder livelihoods. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2022, 66, 24–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochieng, D.O.; Ogutu, S.O. Supermarket contracts, opportunity cost and trade-offs, and farm household welfare: Panel data evidence from Kenya. World Dev. 2022, 149, 105697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loquias, M.P.; Digal, L.N.; Placencia, S.G.; Astronomo, I.J.T.; Orbeta, M.L.G.; Balgos, C.Q. Factors Affecting Participation in Contract Farming of Smallholder Cavendish Banana Farmers in the Philippines. Agric. Res. 2022, 11, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, A.K.; Kumar, A.; Joshi, P.K.; D’Souza, A. Impact of contract farming on yield, costs and profitability in low-value crop: Evidence from a low-income country. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2018, 62, 589–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, A.H.M.; Roy, D.; Kumar, A.; Tripathi, G.; Joshi, P.K. Dairy Contract Farming in Bangladesh: Implications for Welfare and Food Safety; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Volume 1833. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, A.; Roy, D.; Joshi, P.K.; Tripathi, G.; Adhikari, R.P. Impact of contract farming of paddy seed on smallholder farm profits: Evidence from Nepal. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2019, 32, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Roy, D.; Tripathi, G.; Joshi, P.K.; Adhikari, R.P. Does contract farming improve profits and food safety? Evidence from tomato cultivation in Nepal. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2018, 8, 603–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagri Binpori, R.; Awunyo-Vitor, D.; Wongnaa, C.A. Does contract farming improve rice farmers’ food security? Empirical evidence from Ghana. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 18, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazifi, B.; Bello, M.; Suleiman, A.; Suleiman, M.S. Impact of Contract Farming on Productivity and Food Security Status of Smallholder Maize Farmer’s Households in Kano and Kaduna States, Nigeria. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Food Sci. 2021, 5, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellemare, M.F.; Lim, S. In all shapes and colors: Varieties of contract farming. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2018, 40, 379–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sari, B.R. The analysis of organic rice contract farming in cambodia: A lesson learned for indonesia. J. Ekon. Dan Kebijak. 2011, 4, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, S.; Chand, P. Prevailing practices and dimensions of contract wheat seed farming in Haryana state. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2004, 17, 149–161. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, H.K.; Chiong, R.; Chica, M.; Middleton, R.; Pham, D.T.K. Contract Farming in the Mekong Delta’s Rice Supply Chain: Insights from an Agent-Based Modeling Study. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 2019, 22, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andersson, C.I.M.; Chege, C.G.K.; Rao, E.J.O.; Qaim, M. Following Up on Smallholder Farmers and Supermarkets in Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 97, 1247–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero Granja, C.; Wollni, M. Dynamics of smallholder participation in horticultural export chains: Evidence from Ecuador. Agric. Econ. 2018, 49, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, C.B.; Bachke, M.E.; Bellemare, M.F.; Michelson, H.C.; Narayanan, S.; Walker, T. Smallholder participation in contract farming: Comparative evidence from five countries. World Dev. 2012, 40, 715–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ton, G.; Vellema, W.; Desiere, S.; Weituschat, S.; D’Haese, M. Contract farming for improving smallholder incomes: What can we learn from effectiveness studies? World Dev. 2018, 104, 46–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatto, M.; Wollni, M.; Asnawi, R.; Qaim, M. Oil Palm Boom, Contract Farming, and Rural Economic Development: Village-Level Evidence from Indonesia. World Dev. 2017, 95, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anh, L. Cần Khuyến Khích Phát Triển Hợp tác, Liên Kết sản xuất Cánh Đồng lớn Gắn với Tiêu thụ Hiệu Quả [Necessary to Encourage the Development of Cooperation, Linking the Production of Large Fields Associated with Efficient Consumption]; Communist Party of Vietnam Online Newspaper: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2018; Available online: https://dangcongsan.vn/preview/pid/0/newid/474312 (accessed on 22 March 2021).
- Abebe, G.K.; Bijman, J.; Kemp, R.; Omta, O.; Tsegaye, A. Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes. Food Policy 2013, 40, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruml, A.; Qaim, M. Effects of marketing contracts and resource-providing contracts in the African small farm sector: Insights from oil palm production in Ghana. World Dev. 2020, 136, 105110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widadie, F.; Bijman, J.; Trienekens, J. Farmer preferences in contracting with modern retail in Indonesia: A choice experiment. Agribusiness 2020, 37, 371–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamed Al Ruqishi, B.; Gibreel, T.; Akaichi, F.; Zaibet, L.; Zekri, S. Contractual agriculture: Better partnerships between small farmers and the business sector in the sultanate of Oman. Asian J. Agric. Rural Dev. 2020, 10, 321–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung Anh, N.; Bokelmann, W.; Thi Thuan, N.; Thi Nga, D.; Van Minh, N. Smallholders’ Preferences for Different Contract Farming Models: Empirical Evidence from Sustainable Certified Coffee Production in Vietnam. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arouna, A.; Michler, J.D.; Lokossou, J.C. Contract farming and rural transformation: Evidence from a field experiment in Benin. J. Dev. Econ. 2021, 151, 102626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, G.M.d.; Martino, G.; Ciliberti, S.; Frascarelli, A.; Chiodini, G. Farmer preferences regarding durum wheat contracts in Italy: A discrete choice experiment. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 4017–4029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groot-Kormelinck, A.; Trienekens, J.; Bijman, J. Coordinating food quality: How do quality standards influence contract arrangements? A study on Uruguayan food supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021, 26, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poku, A.-G.; Birner, R.; Gupta, S. Making Contract Farming Arrangements Work in Africa’s Bioeconomy: Evidence from Cassava Outgrower Schemes in Ghana. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bogetoft, P.; Olesen, H.B. Ten rules of thumb in contract design: Lessons from Danish agriculture. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2002, 29, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, S.; Wollni, M. The role of farmers’ trust, risk and time preferences for contract choices: Experimental evidence from the Ghanaian pineapple sector. Food Policy 2018, 81, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ihli, H.; Seegers, R.; Winter, E.; Chiputwa, B.; Gassner, A. Preferences for tree fruit market attributes among smallholder farmers in Eastern Rwanda. Agric. Econ. 2021, 53, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rondhi, M.; Aji, J.M.M.; Khasan, A.F.; Putri, A.T.R.; Yanuarti, R. Risk Aversion, Risk Preference and Farmers’ Decision to Participate in Broiler Contract Farming: A Case Study in Jember, Indonesia. J. Sustain. Agric. 2019, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochieng, D.O. Towards Designing Better Contracts: Assessing Contract Preferences of Small Farmers and Buyers: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Cotton and Tea Schemes in Malawi: Synopsis; International Food Policy Research Institute: Lilongwe, Malawi, 2020; Volume 37. [Google Scholar]
- Arouna, A.; Adegbola, P.; Zossou, R.; Babatunde, R.; Diagne, A. Contract Farming Preferences of Smallholder Rice Producers in Benin: A Stated Choice Model Using Mixed Logit. Tropicultura 2017, 35, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schelle, C.; Pokorny, B. How Inclusive Is Inclusive? A Critical Analysis of an Agribusiness Initiative in Kenya. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochieng, D.O.; Veettil, P.C.; Qaim, M. Farmers’ preferences for supermarket contracts in Kenya. Food Policy 2017, 68, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schipmann, C.; Qaim, M. Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand. Food Policy 2011, 36, 667–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, S.; Chand, P.; Dabas, J.; Singh, H. Characteristics and determinants of contract design of wheat seed farming in India: A basis of decision making. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 2010, 65, 621–638. [Google Scholar]
- Lemeilleur, S.; Subervie, J.; Presoto, A.E.; Souza Piao, R.; Saes, M.S.M. Coffee farmers’ incentives to comply with sustainability standards. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2020, 10, 365–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martino, G.; Polinori, P. An analysis of the farmers contractual preferences in process innovation implementation: A case study in the Italian poultry context. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guentang, L.S.B. Adoption of Bioenergy Crops, Income and Contract Preferences among Farmers in Northern Ghana: The Case of Jatropha; University of Ghana: Accra, Ghana, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Permadi, D.B.; Burton, M.; Pandit, R.; Race, D.; Walker, I. Local community’s preferences for accepting a forestry partnership contract to grow pulpwood in Indonesia: A choice experiment study. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 91, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Broeck, G.; Vlaeminck, P.; Raymaekers, K.; Vande Velde, K.; Vranken, L.; Maertens, M. Rice farmers’ preferences for fairtrade contracting in Benin: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 846–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sauthoff, S.; Musshoff, O.; Danne, M.; Anastassiadis, F. Sugar beet as a biogas substrate? A discrete choice experiment for the design of substrate supply contracts for German farmers. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 90, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassalos, M.; Hu, W.; Woods, T.; Schieffer, J.; Dillon, C. Risk preferences, transaction costs, and choice of marketing contracts: Evidence from a choice experiment with fresh vegetable producers. Agribusiness 2016, 32, 379–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roe, B.; Sporleder, T.L.; Belleville, B. Hog producer preferences for marketing contract attributes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2004, 86, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mighell, R.L.; Jones, L.A. Vertical Coordination in Agriculture; Farm Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1963.
- Eaton, C.; Shepherd, A. Contract Farming: Partnerships for Growth; Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Bijman, J. Contract Farming in Developing Countries: An Overview; Wageningen University, Department of Business Administration: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. World Investment Report 2009: Transnational Corporations, Agricultural Production and Development; 9211127750; UN: New York, NY, USA; Geveva, Switzerland, 2009; p. 314. [Google Scholar]
- Deb, R.; Suri, T. Endogenous emergence of credit markets: Contracting in response to a new technology in Ghana. J. Dev. Econ. 2013, 101, 268–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarp, F.; Vinh, D.Q.; Tuan, N.D.A. Characteristics of the Vietnamese Rural Economy: Evidence from a 2016 Rural Household Survey in 12 Provinces of Vietnam; United Nations Univ.: Tokyo, Japan, 2017; p. 141. [Google Scholar]
- Ruml, A.; Parlasca, M.C. In-kind credit provision through contract farming and formal credit markets. Agribusiness 2021, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehry, M.; Ahmadpour, M.; Mohammadi, H.; Sُalarpour, M. Investigating the Tendency of Pistachio Producers in Yazd Province to Participate in Contract Farming. Agric. Econ. Res. 2021, 13, 127–154. [Google Scholar]
- Enthoven, L.; Van den Broeck, G. Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ola, O.; Menapace, L. Smallholders’ perceptions and preferences for market attributes promoting sustained participation in modern agricultural value chains. Food Policy 2020, 97, 101962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ba, H.A.; de Mey, Y.; Thoron, S.; Demont, M. Inclusiveness of contract farming along the vertical coordination continuum: Evidence from the Vietnamese rice sector. Land Use Policy 2019, 87, 104050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anh, D.T.; Tinh, T.V.; Vang, N.N. The Domestic Rice Value Chain in the Mekong Delta. In White Gold: The Commercialisation of Rice Farming in the Lower Mekong Basin; Cramb, R., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore, 2020; pp. 375–395. [Google Scholar]
- General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Planted Area of Paddy by Province; General Statistics Office of Vietnam: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2021. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/px-web/?pxid=E0613&theme=Agriculture%2C%20Forestry%20and%20Fishing. (accessed on 3 March 2021).
- Pham, T.T.; Dang, H.L.; Pham, N.T.A.; Dang, H.D. Adoption of contract farming for managing agricultural risks: A case study in rice production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussein, A. The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? J. Comp. Soc. Work 2009, 4, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbert, M.; Ruigrok, W. The ‘‘what’’and ‘‘how’’of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organ. Res. Methods 2010, 13, 710–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, D.W., III. Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. Qual. Rep. 2010, 15, 754–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khapayi, M.; Van Niekerk, P.; Celliers, P.R. Agribusiness challenges to effectiveness of contract farming in commercialization of small-scale vegetable farmers in Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 2018, 4, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Given, L.M. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; p. 1043. [Google Scholar]
- Lofland, J.; Lofland, L.H. Analyzing Social Settings; Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, CA, USA, 1971; p. 136. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, A.L. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1987; p. 319. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, R.P. Basic Content Analysis; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1990; p. 96. [Google Scholar]
- Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 4th ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018; p. 472. [Google Scholar]
- Smalley, R. Plantations, Contract Farming and Commercial Farming Areas in Africa: A Comparative Review; Future Agricultures Consortium: Brighton, UK, 2013; p. 73. [Google Scholar]
- Anavrat, V.; Mokde, M. Contract farming viability perception of mosambi orange growers. Progress. Agric. 2017, 17, 280–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anavrat, V.; Bante, R.; Mokde, M. Acid lime Growers’ Feasibility Perception of Contract Farming. Curr. Agric. Res. J. 2017, 5, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohini, A.; Selvanayaki, S.; Selvi, M.P. Contract farming-an efficient marketing method of Ailanthus excelsa. Indian J. Econ. Dev. 2015, 11, 939–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anavrat, V.; Mokde, M. Operational feasibility perception of contract farming in Nagpur mandarin. Agric. Sci. Dig. 2016, 36, 287–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, N. Contract farming practice in Indian Punjab: Farmers’ perspective. Int. J. Food Agric. Econ. 2014, 2, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrett, H.E. Statistics in Psychology and Education; Vakils Feffer and Simons Ltd.: Bombay, India, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Chigunhah, B.R.; Svotwa, E.; Munyoro, G.; Mabvure, T.J.; Govere, I. Private Capital Formation Activities and Bank Credit Access Among Farmers in Zimbabwe. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues 2020, 10, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabarathnam, V.E. Manual on Field Experience Training for ARS Scientists; National Academy of Agricultural Research Management: Hyderabad, India, 1988.
No. | Authors | PublishedYear | Commodities (Study Site) | Methods/Approaches | Contract Attributes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Oliveira, Martino, Ciliberti, Frascarelli and Chiodini [57] | 2021 | Durum wheat (Italy) | - Discrete choice experiment (DCE) - Conditional logit model (CL), and Nested CL | Price, rules of production, rules of quality, forms of payment, renegotiation |
2 | Ihli, Seegers, Winter, Chiputwa and Gassner [62] | 2021 | Tree fruit (Rwanda) | - DCE - Mixed logit model (MXL) | Models, payment schedule, input/service provision, forms of contract, relation to the purchasers, investment costs |
3 | Widadie, Bijman and Trienekens [53] | 2020 | Vegetable (Indonesia) | - CE - MXL | Price, payment, quality, sale place, quantity |
4 | Hamed Al Ruqishi, Gibreel, Akaichi, Zaibet and Zekri [54] | 2020 | Vegetable (Oman) | - DCE - MXL - Latent class model | Type of partner, cropping decision rights, quality specifications, technical assistance, duration, price |
5 | Ochieng [64] | 2020 | Cotton and tea (Malawi) | - Choice experiment (CE) - MXL | Price, delivery point, quality, payment, benefits |
6 | Lemeilleur, Subervie, Presoto, Souza Piao and Saes [70] | 2020 | Coffee (Brazil) | - CE - CL and MXL | Sustainable practice, technical assistance, forms of contract, price |
7 | Martino and Polinori [71] | 2019 | Poultry (Italia) | - CE - CL | Duration, income, degree of autonomy, disinfection practices, price |
8 | Fischer and Wollni [61] | 2018 | Pineapple (Ghana) | - DCE - MXL - Latent class CL | Price, agreement timing, quality requirements, transparency of quality control, payment schedule |
9 | Guentang [72] | 2018 | Jatropha (Ghana) | - DCE - MXL | Price setting, forms, support from the buyer, renegotiation option |
10 | Permadi, et al. [73] | 2018 | Pulpwood (Indonesia) | - CE - CL | Duration, labor participation, timber insurance, training, road improvement, income |
11 | Arouna, Adegbola, Zossou, Babatunde and Diagne [65] | 2017 | Rice (Benin) | - CE - MXL | Duration, credit provision, models, control over the production activities, agreement on quality, payment, product quality specification, price |
12 | Ochieng, Veettil and Qaim [67] | 2017 | Vegetables (Kenya) | - CE - MXL | Price, sale place, sale forms, sale timing, payment |
13 | Van den Broeck, Vlaeminck, Raymaekers, Vande Velde, Vranken and Maertens [74] | 2017 | Rice (Benin) | - DCE - MXL - Latent class model | Herbicide use, chemical fertilizer use, child labor, fair-trade premium, input provision, price |
14 | Sauthoff, et al. [75] | 2016 | Sugar beets (Germany) | - DCE - Generalized multinomial logit model | Duration, contract acreage, price, spring harvest |
15 | Vassalos, et al. [76] | 2016 | Tomato (USA) | - DCE - CL - MXL | Price, quantity, penalty, certification cost |
16 | Abebe, Bijman, Kemp, Omta and Tsegaye [51] | 2013 | Potato (Ethiopia) | - DCE - Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) - CL - Alternative-specific CL | Price, forms, duration, quantity; seed quality specification, product quality specification, quality control mechanism, place of quality inspection; input provisions, technical assistance, delivery arrangement, credit arrangement |
17 | Schipmann and Qaim [68] | 2011 | Sweet pepper (Thailand) | - Contingent CE - MXL | Price, payment, input provision, relation to the trader |
18 | Kumar, Chand, Dabas and Singh [69] | 2010 | Wheat seed (India) | - Pair-wise ranking technique (for ranking order of contract attributes) | Ratio of contract and open market price, quantity, payment, reimbursement of transport cost, timely certification procedure, timely seed take off by firm, technology backup to farmers, adequate financial support |
19 | Roe, et al. [77] | 2004 | Hog (USA) | - CE - Unweighted and weighted model by a linear function | Organizational structure of contract issuer, base price formula, floor and ceiling price, quality premium schedule, duration, minimum quantity delivery requirements, ledger provisions |
Contract Attributes | Government Officials | Contracting Buyers | Farmers | Overall | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HGR | RBQ | RBS | HGR | RBQ | RBS | HGR | RBQ | RBS | HGR | RBQ | RBS | |
1. Price options | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
2. Payment | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
3. Delivery arrangement | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
4. Input provision | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
5. Input use requirements | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
6. Product quality standards | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
7. Credit arrangement | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
8. Production method specification | 6 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
9. Service Provision | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
10. Product quality specification | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
11. Technical assistance | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 |
12. Monitoring and controlling during the production process | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
13. Place of quality inspection | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 13 | 13 |
14. Contract quantity | 12 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 13 | 14 | 14 |
15. Time of signing contract | 14 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
16. Contract duration | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
17. Form of contract | 17 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 17 |
18. Types of contract | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 |
19. Models of contract | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 |
Contract Attributes | Attribute Levels | Government Officials | Contracting Buyers | Farmers | Overall | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RBQ | Rank | RBQ | Rank | RBQ | Rank | RBQ | Rank | ||
1. Price options | 1. Fixed price | 77.50 | 2 | 65.00 | 3 | 32.14 | 4 | 61.11 | 3 |
2. Flexible price (or Market price) | 27.50 | 4 | 72.50 | 2 | 42.86 | 3 | 48.15 | 4 | |
3. Adjusted price | 60.00 | 3 | 85.00 | 1 | 85.71 | 2 | 75.93 | 1 | |
4. Premium price | 85.00 | 1 | 30.00 | 4 | 89.29 | 1 | 65.74 | 2 | |
2. Payment | 1. Immediate | 86.67 | 1 | 33.33 | 3 | 95.24 | 1 | 69.14 | 2 |
2. Delayed 3–5 days after delivery | 33.33 | 3 | 66.67 | 2 | 33.33 | 3 | 45.68 | 3 | |
3. 50% before harvesting and the rest after delivery 3–5 days | 80.00 | 2 | 100.00 | 1 | 71.43 | 2 | 85.19 | 1 | |
3. Delivery arrangement | 1. After harvesting | 100.00 | 1 | 100.00 | 1 | 100.00 | 1 | 100.00 | 1 |
2. After drying | 50.00 | 2 | 50.00 | 2 | 50.00 | 2 | 50.00 | 2 | |
4. Input provision | 1. No | 25.00 | 4 | 25.00 | 4 | 92.86 | 1 | 42.59 | 4 |
2. By the contractors | 90.00 | 1 | 100.00 | 1 | 39.29 | 3 | 80.56 | 1 | |
3. By the agricultural cooperatives | 85.00 | 2 | 67.50 | 2 | 82.14 | 2 | 77.78 | 2 | |
4. By the government | 50.00 | 3 | 57.50 | 3 | 35.71 | 4 | 49.07 | 3 | |
5. Input use requirements | 1. No | 25.00 | 4 | 25.00 | 4 | 82.14 | 2 | 39.81 | 4 |
2. Banning active-ingredients | 100.00 | 1 | 60.00 | 3 | 96.43 | 1 | 84.26 | 1 | |
3. Using at least a fixed value of inputs provided by the contractors | 75.00 | 2 | 65.00 | 2 | 50.00 | 3 | 64.81 | 2 | |
4. Using 100% inputs provided by the contractors | 50.00 | 3 | 100.00 | 1 | 25.00 | 4 | 62.04 | 3 | |
6. Product quality standards | 1. High quality | 60.00 | 3 | 50.00 | 3 | 100.00 | 1 | 66.67 | 3 |
2. GAP | 87.50 | 1 | 82.50 | 2 | 67.86 | 2 | 80.56 | 1 | |
3. Organic | 77.50 | 2 | 92.50 | 1 | 57.14 | 3 | 77.78 | 2 | |
4. SRP | 25.00 | 4 | 25.00 | 4 | 25.00 | 4 | 25.00 | 4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tuyen, M.C.; Sirisupluxana, P.; Bunyasiri, I.; Hung, P.X. Stakeholders’ Preferences towards Contract Attributes: Evidence from Rice Production in Vietnam. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063478
Tuyen MC, Sirisupluxana P, Bunyasiri I, Hung PX. Stakeholders’ Preferences towards Contract Attributes: Evidence from Rice Production in Vietnam. Sustainability. 2022; 14(6):3478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063478
Chicago/Turabian StyleTuyen, Mai Chiem, Prapinwadee Sirisupluxana, Isriya Bunyasiri, and Pham Xuan Hung. 2022. "Stakeholders’ Preferences towards Contract Attributes: Evidence from Rice Production in Vietnam" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063478