Why Are Farmers Reluctant to Sell: Evidence from Rural China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Farmers’ Agricultural Products Sales Decision
2.2. Sales Decision Framework for Small-Scale Fruit Grower
3. Data
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Basic Characterization of the Sample
4. Empirical Model and Descriptive Statistics
4.1. Empirical Model
4.2. Key Variables and Descriptive Statistics
5. Estimation Results and Robustness Test
5.1. Estimation Results
5.2. Robustness Test
6. Conclusions, Policy Implications and Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
- Hu, Y.; Chen, X.; Qi, C.J. Fruit price fluctuations, product substitutability, and spatial differences between northern and souther China. J. Agro-For. Econ. Manag. 2022, 21, 58–66. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Wang, N.; Sheng, L.Y. Cause analysis and rescue strategy research of fresh agricultural products “hard to sell and expensive to buy”—From the perspective of middlemen’s purchase and sale behavior. China Bus. Mark. 2021, 35, 28–36. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assouto, A.B.; Houensou, D.A.; Semedo, G. Price risk and farmers’ decisions: A case study from Benin. Sci. Afr. 2020, 8, e00311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Huang, J.K. A multi-objective decision model of farmers’ crop production. Econ. Res. J. 2010, 45, 148–157. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Qi, L.; Yu, M.X. The causes and reflections of the phenomenon of farmers’ “reluctant to sell”. Commer. Res. 2011, 181–184. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattos, F.L.; Fryza, S.A. Do farmers exhibit disposition effect? Evidence from grain markets. Manag. Financ. 2014, 40, 487–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vollmer, E.; Hermann, D.; Mußhoff, O. The disposition effect in farmers’ selling behavior: An experimental investigation. Agric. Econ. 2019, 50, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y.; Huang, D.; Han, Y.; Wu, L. Storage losses, market development and household maize-selling decisions in China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2023, 15, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, P.; Xu, Z. Price expectations, risk aversion, and choice of sales methods for large-scale farmers under incomplete market conditions. Agribusiness 2022, 38, 1012–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.; Yang, X.; Zhang, R. The determinants of grape storage: Evidence from grape growers in China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahneman., D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2013; pp. 99–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bontems, P.; Thomas, A. Regulating nitrogen pollution with risk averse farmers under hidden information and moral hazard. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 88, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ritov, I.; Baron, J. Status-quo and omission biases. J. Risk Uncertain. 1992, 5, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, E.U.; Blais, A.R.; Betz, N.E. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2002, 15, 263–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.F.; Jin, W.D.; Chen, K. Risk preference, information acquisition and pig-breeding pollution exposure behaviors: An empirical analysis based on 1489 pig breeders survey data. China Rural Surv. 2020, 04, 129–144. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Courtois, P.; Subervie, J. Farmer bargaining power and market information services. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 97, 953–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, S.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Z. Impact of Internet use on rural residents’ income. Quant. Econ. Tech. Econ. Res. 2021, 38, 103–119. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.Y.; Mao, X.F. “Internet +” remodeling Chinese agriculture: Representation, mechanism and essence. Reform 2020, 317, 134–144. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Goetz, S.J. A selectivity model of household food marketing behavior in sub-Saharan Africa. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1992, 74, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Accorsi, R.; Bortolini, M.; Baruffaldi, G.; Pilati, F.; Ferrari, E. Internet-of-things paradigm in food supply chains control and management. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 11, 889–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dan, B.; Wu, S.N.; Wang, L. Realization Path of “Direct Farmer-to Consumer” Model in Fresh Agricultural Products Supply Chain under “Internet Plus” Environment—A Multicase Study Based on Trust Community Construction. Nankai Bus. Rev. 2021, 24, 81–93. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Y.; Niu, Z.H. Risk aversion, information acquisition ability and farmers’ adoption behavior of green control techniques. Chin. Rural Econ. 2019, 8, 109–127. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wu, L.; Yin, S.; Lu, J. Resource basis, ecosystem and growth of grain family farm in China: Based on rough set theory and hierarchical linear model. Agric. Syst. 2017, 154, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, R.T. Information, efficiency, and welfare in agricultural markets. Agric. Econ. 2010, 41, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghadim, A.K.A.; Pannell, D.J.; Burton, M.P. Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Agric. Econ. 2005, 33, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.H.; Gu, H.Y. How can the application of the internet and information technologies alleviate rural residents’ risk aversion attitude. Analysis based on the micro data of China Family Panel Studies. Chin. Rural Econ. 2020, 430, 33–51. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Cui, B.Y.; Cheng, Y.Q. Will Internet use increase peasant household education investment: Micro evidence from CHFS 2019. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2022, 1–19. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.T.; Qi, C.J. The influence of transaction costs on farmers’ choice of agricultural marketing methods—A survey of citrus farmers. China Rural Surv. 2011, 05, 33–44+96. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liu, E.M.; Huang, J. Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China. J. Dev. Econ. 2013, 103, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brick, K.; Visser, M. Risk preferences, technology adoption and insurance uptake: A framed experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2015, 118, 383–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Guan, R.; Yu, J. Impacts of risk attitude and risk perception on land transfer-based on panel data of 1 429 households in Henan, Shandong, Hebei, Anhui, and Jiangsu. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2019, 6, 149–158+167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.H.; Cai, Q.; Chang, Q. A study on the identification and positioning of key control points of stagnant primary agricultural products--an empirical analysis based on 32 incidents of stagnant agricultural products. Rural Econ. 2013, 02, 51–55. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yao, Z.F.; Zheng, S.F. Empirical analysis of influence factors of large-scale grain-production households’ behavior of choosing grain sales way—Based on the PT theory and Slogit Model. J. Northwest AF Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2013, 13, 39–45. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, W.J.; Yan, T.W.; Zhang, J.B. Can Internet use promote farmers to adopt straw returning technology?—An empirical analysis based on Endogenous Switching Probit Mode. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2021, 3, 50–62. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Cai, R.; Ma, W.L.; Wang, S.J. Collective action of small farmers’ participation in large markets: Cooperative member commitment and its influencing factors. China Rural Econ. 2015, 04, 44–58. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Variable | Description | Observation | Percentage | Variable | Description | Observation | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 227 | 44.09 | Education | Primary and below | 204 | 50.25 |
Female | 179 | 55.91 | Junior high | 147 | 36.21 | ||
Age | <45 | 64 | 15.76 | Senior High School | 46 | 11.33 | |
45~60 | 224 | 55.17 | Junior college | 7 | 1.72 | ||
>60 | 118 | 29.06 | Bachelor and above | 2 | 0.49 | ||
Orchard area (mu) | <4 | 120 | 29.56 | Sales methods | Intermediaries | 237 | 58.37 |
4~8 | 207 | 50.99 | Multiple channels | 169 | 41.63 | ||
>8 | 79 | 19.46 | Multiple channels | E-commerce platforms | 23 | 5.67 | |
Citrus sales revenue | <50,000 | 223 | 54.93 | Social platform | 141 | 34.73 | |
50,000~10,0000 | 137 | 33.74 | Short video platform | 11 | 2.71 | ||
100,000~150,000 | 33 | 8.13 | Supply to supermarkets | 6 | 1.48 | ||
≥150,000 | 13 | 3.2 | Sell offline to customers | 36 | 8.87 |
Variables | Definition and Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | |||
Citrus sales behavior | 1 if the farmer is reluctant to sell, otherwise 0 | 0.320 | 0.467 |
Key independent variables | |||
Risk aversion | New technology adoption intention: Likert 1–5 points, 1 = very unwilling, 5 = very willing | 2.773 | 1.032 |
Internet use | Means of 5 categories of indicators | 3.607 | 1.340 |
Gender | 1 = Male, 0 = Female | 0.559 | 0.497 |
Age | Citrus growers’ actual age(years) | 54.892 | 10.589 |
Education | 1 = Primary and below; 2 = Junior high; 3 = Senior high school; 4 = Junior college; 5 = Bachelor and above | 1.660 | 0.784 |
Cooperative membership | 1 if farmer is a cooperative member,0 otherwise | 0.197 | 0.398 |
Labor force | Total household labor force (person) | 3.032 | 1.094 |
Economic status | 1 = Very poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Medium, 4 = Good, 5 = Very good | 2.640 | 1.030 |
Planting scale | Actual citrus planting area (mu) | 7.142 | 24.847 |
Yield | Average yield per mu (kg), taking the natural logarithm | 7.958 | 0.417 |
Planting years | Citrus planting duration(years) | 27.744 | 10.060 |
Proportion of sales revenue | Total revenue from sales of citrus as a percentage of total family revenue (%) | 81.344 | 28.055 |
Cooperative relationship. | 1 = Very poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Medium, 4 = Good, 5 = Very good | 3.155 | 1.119 |
Village characteristics | |||
Transportation condition | 1 = Poor; 2 = General; 3 = Better | 2.037 | 0.835 |
Market distance | Distance to the nearest agricultural trading market in the village (km) | 7.850 | 9.539 |
Variable | Subject | Mean | Std. | Standard Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Internet use | Learning | 2.022 | 1.417 | 0.724 | 0.778 | 0.853 | 0.538 |
Working | 2.163 | 1.635 | 0.777 | ||||
Social | 5.293 | 1.873 | 0.715 | ||||
Entertainment | 5.488 | 2.027 | 0.678 | ||||
Business | 3.069 | 2.159 | 0.769 |
Variable | Sales Behavior | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
No Reluctant Selling | Reluctant Selling | |||
Observation | Percentage (%) | Observation | Percentage (%) | |
High level of Internet use | 146 | 76.40% | 45 | 23.60% |
Low level of Internet use | 130 | 60.50% | 85 | 39.50% |
Pearson correlation coefficient | 0.171 *** |
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Risk aversion | — | −0.223 *** (0.073) | — | −0.292 *** (0.078) |
Internet use | — | — | 0.168 ** (0.066) | 0.202 *** (0.067) |
Risk aversion × Internet use | — | — | — | 0.144 *** (0.054) |
Gender | −0.037 (0.144) | −0.011 (0.146) | −0.039 (0.147) | 0.033 (0.152) |
Age | 0.001 (0.009) | 0.002 (0.009) | 0.008 (0.009) | 0.009 (0.010) |
Education | 0.086 (0.103) | 0.114 (0.105) | 0.006 (0.107) | 0.010 (0.111) |
Cooperative membership | −0.040 (0.184) | −0.014 (0.187) | −0.110 (0.187) | −0.112 (0.194) |
Labor force | −0.101 (0.067) | −0.108 (0.068) | −0.109 (0.067) | −0.104 (0.068) |
Economic status | 0.027 (0.072) | 0.082 (0.075) | 0.009 (0.071) | 0.071 (0.075) |
Planting scale | 0.043 ** (0.019) | 0.050 ** (0.021) | 0.035 * (0.019) | 0.039 * (0.020) |
Yield | 0.447 ** (0.178) | 0.435 ** (0.182) | 0.408 ** (0.178) | 0.407 ** (0.182) |
Planting years | 0.006 (0.008) | 0.004 (0.008) | 0.004 (0.008) | 0.002 (0.008) |
Proportion of sales revenue | 0.010 *** (0.003) | 0.010 *** (0.003) | 0.010 *** (0.003) | 0.010 *** (0.003) |
Cooperative relationship. | −0.028 (0.065) | −0.038 (0.065) | −0.018 (0.064) | −0.051 (0.066) |
Transportation development | −0.542 *** (0.098) | −0.535 *** (0.099) | −0.558 *** (0.100) | −0.546 *** (0.102) |
Market distance | −0.068 *** (0.010) | −0.070 *** (0.011) | −0.070 *** (0.010) | −0.071 *** (0.011) |
Constant | −3.591 ** (1.619) | −3.039 * (1.641) | −3.987 ** (1.645) | −3.445 ** (1.677) |
Observations | 406 | 406 | 406 | 406 |
Wald chi2 | 78.930 *** | 80.000 *** | 81.230 *** | 89.330 *** |
Pseudo r-squared | 0.199 | 0.216 | 0.211 | 0.242 |
Variables | Replacing the Regression Model | Limiting the Sample | Re-Measuring the Key Variables | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk aversion | −0.406 *** (0.131) | −0.502 *** (0.140) | −0.240 *** (0.091) | −0.347 *** (0.100) | −0.751 *** (0.233) | −1.167 *** (0.354) |
Internet use | 0.306 *** (0.115) | 0.341 *** (0.119) | 0.198 ** (0.084) | 0.235 *** (0.086) | 0.314 *** (0.088) | 0.356 *** (0.093) |
Risk aversion × Internet use | — | 0.237 ** (0.096) | — | 0.164 ** (0.068) | — | 0.515 ** (0.229) |
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observations | 406 | 406 | 272 | 272 | 272 | 272 |
Wald chi2 | 74.150 *** | 78.208 *** | 71.610 *** | 75.140 *** | 76.080 *** | 73.370 *** |
Pseudo r-squared | 0.233 | 0.244 | 0.254 | 0.268 | 0.276 | 0.289 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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
Wang, P.; Liu, D. Why Are Farmers Reluctant to Sell: Evidence from Rural China. Agriculture 2023, 13, 814. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040814
Wang P, Liu D. Why Are Farmers Reluctant to Sell: Evidence from Rural China. Agriculture. 2023; 13(4):814. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040814
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Pan, and Di Liu. 2023. "Why Are Farmers Reluctant to Sell: Evidence from Rural China" Agriculture 13, no. 4: 814. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040814