IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/annpce/v94y2023i4p1323-1344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The regulatory effect of cooperation degree in increasing tobacco farmers’ income by mitigating production risk shocks

Author

Listed:
  • Ruoyan Zhang
  • Ru Chen

Abstract

Context: Different from general agriculture, tobacco agriculture in China adopts the production mode of farmers’ cooperatives to instruct farmers to engage in tobacco agricultural production under a policy of tobacco control. In addition to providing convenience for industry technical standardization, the policy goal aims to cope with the impact of production risk shocks and ultimately ensure the modernization and transformation of the tobacco industry and the stability of income of farmers. Objective: This study intends to explore the influence mechanism of the different degrees of cooperation and participation in cooperatives on the income of tobacco farmers from the perspective of risk shocks. Methods: Through the quantitative methods of the OLS regression model, hierarchical regression model and moderation model, this paper analyzes the data of 393 farmers engaged in tobacco agricultural production in Shaanxi Province obtained from survey and empirically analyzes the relationship between the degree of cooperation and participation in cooperatives and income. Interaction terms between risk shocks and cooperation are introduced to verify the regulatory effect of participation in tobacco farmers’ professional cooperatives on mitigating risk shocks and improving agricultural income. Results and conclusions: The results show that while risk shocks, including natural risks, market risks and policy risks, negatively affect the income of tobacco farmers, the degree of cooperation and participation has a significant positive effect on the income of tobacco farmers, and the degree of peasant households’ participation in the professional cooperative of tobacco farmers as a moderator variable has a regulatory effect on mitigating the impact of risk shocks on the income of tobacco farmers. The mechanism of action is that tobacco farmers participate in cooperatives to a higher degree, which can further promote the association of farmers and jointly resist risk shocks by reducing production costs, improving the technical level, and strengthening risk prevention and other measures to improve the income level. Significance: It would be helpful to encourage tobacco farmers to take the initiative to participate in the daily management‐related affairs and decisions of cooperatives, strengthen technical training, obey cooperative management, and actively respond to cooperative policies to effectively resist risk shocks and stabilize farmers’ income level and family welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruoyan Zhang & Ru Chen, 2023. "The regulatory effect of cooperation degree in increasing tobacco farmers’ income by mitigating production risk shocks," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(4), pages 1323-1344, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:annpce:v:94:y:2023:i:4:p:1323-1344
    DOI: 10.1111/apce.12410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12410
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/apce.12410?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amfo, Bismark & Ali, Ernest Baba, 2020. "Climate change coping and adaptation strategies: How do cocoa farmers in Ghana diversify farm income?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Dercon, Stefan & Christiaensen, Luc, 2011. "Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 159-173, November.
    3. Rulon D. Pope, 2003. "Agricultural Risk Analysis: Adequacy of Models, Data, and Issues," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1249-1256.
    4. Phoebe Koundouri & Marita Laukkanen & Sami Myyrä & Céline Nauges, 2009. "The effects of EU agricultural policy changes on farmers' risk attitudes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 53-77, March.
    5. Ceballos, Francisco & Kannan, Samyuktha & Kramer, Berber, 2020. "Impacts of a national lockdown on smallholder farmers’ income and food security: Empirical evidence from two states in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. Ryszard Kata & Małgorzata Leszczyńska, 2021. "Stability and Social Sustainability of Farm Household Income in Poland in 2003–2020," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Yang, Dan & Liu, Zimin, 2012. "Does farmer economic organization and agricultural specialization improve rural income? Evidence from China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 990-993.
    8. Amare, Mulubrhan & Mariara, Jane & Oostendorp, Remco & Pradhan, Menno, 2019. "The impact of smallholder farmers’ participation in avocado export markets on the labor market, farm yields, sales prices, and incomes in Kenya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Ngarava, Saul, 2020. "Impact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) on agricultural production: A tobacco success story in Zimbabwe?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Zhang, Qi & Bilsborrow, Richard E. & Song, Conghe & Tao, Shiqi & Huang, Qingfeng, 2019. "Rural household income distribution and inequality in China: Effects of payments for ecosystem services policies and other factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 114-127.
    11. Atanu Ghoshray, 2019. "Are Shocks Transitory or Permanent? An Inquiry into Agricultural Commodity Prices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 26-43, February.
    12. Ates, Hacer Celik & Yilmaz, Hasan & Demircan, Vecdi & Gul, Mevlut & Ozturk, Erdogan & Kart, Murside Çagla Ormeci, 2017. "How did post-2000 agricultural policy changes in Turkey affect farmers? – A focus group evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 298-306.
    13. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    14. Guillaume Soullier & Paule Moustier, 2018. "Impacts of contract farming in domestic grain chains on farmer income and food insecurity. Contrasted evidence from Senegal," Post-Print hal-02621852, HAL.
    15. F. van Winsen & Y. de Mey & L. Lauwers & S. Van Passel & M. Vancauteren & E. Wauters, 2016. "Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer's adoption of risk management strategies," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 56-78, January.
    16. Ito, Junichi & Bao, Zongshun & Su, Qun, 2012. "Distributional effects of agricultural cooperatives in China: Exclusion of smallholders and potential gains on participation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 700-709.
    17. Rijkers, Bob & Söderbom, Måns, 2013. "The Effects of Risk and Shocks on Non-Farm Enterprise Development in Rural Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 119-136.
    18. Song, Xiaoqing & Wang, Xiong & Li, Xinyi & Zhang, Weina & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2021. "Policy-oriented versus market-induced: Factors influencing crop diversity across China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    19. Deng, Hengshan & Huang, Jikun & Xu, Zhigang & Rozelle, Scott, 2010. "Policy support and emerging farmer professional cooperatives in rural China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 495-507, December.
    20. Bernard, Kévin & Bonein, Aurélie & Bougherara, Douadia, 2020. "Consumer inequality aversion and risk preferences in community supported agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    21. Komarek, Adam M. & De Pinto, Alessandro & Smith, Vincent H., 2020. "A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    22. Ma, Wanglin & Abdulai, Awudu, 2016. "Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from apple farmers in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 94-102.
    23. Edgardo Moscardi & Alain de Janvry, 1977. "Attitudes Toward Risk Among Peasants: An Econometric Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 59(4), pages 710-716.
    24. Fischer, Elisabeth & Qaim, Matin, 2012. "Linking Smallholders to Markets: Determinants and Impacts of Farmer Collective Action in Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1255-1268.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wanglin Ma & Awudu Abdulai, 2017. "The economic impacts of agricultural cooperatives on smallholder farmers in rural China," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 537-551, September.
    2. Yi Qu & Jing Zhang & Zhenning Wang & Xinning Ma & Guangcheng Wei & Xiangzhi Kong, 2023. "The Future of Agriculture: Obstacles and Improvement Measures for Chinese Cooperatives to Achieve Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Feyisa, Ashenafi Duguma & Maertens, Miet & de Mey, Yann, 2023. "Relating risk preferences and risk perceptions over different agricultural risk domains: Insights from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. Lin, Bin & Wang, Xiaoxi & Jin, Songqing & Yang, Wanjiang & Li, Houjian, 2022. "Impacts of cooperative membership on rice productivity: Evidence from China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    5. Hao, Jinghui & Heerink, Nico & Heijman, Wim & Bijman, Jos, 2017. "Cooperatives Membership And Smallholder Farmers’ Welfare - Evidence From Shaanxi And Shandong Provinces, China," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260914, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Hongyu Wang & Xiaolei Wang & Apurbo Sarkar & Lu Qian, 2021. "Evaluating the Impacts of Smallholder Farmer’s Participation in Modern Agricultural Value Chain Tactics for Facilitating Poverty Alleviation—A Case Study of Kiwifruit Industry in Shaanxi, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, May.
    7. Guyo Godana Dureti & Martin Paul Jr. Tabe‐Ojong & Enoch Owusu‐Sekyere, 2023. "The new normal? Cluster farming and smallholder commercialization in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(6), pages 900-920, November.
    8. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Benoît Malan, 2018. "Price premiums, payment delays, and default risk: understanding developing country farmers’ decisions to market through a cooperative or a private trader," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 363-380, May.
    9. Jasper GRASHUIS & Ye SU, 2019. "A Review Of The Empirical Literature On Farmer Cooperatives: Performance, Ownership And Governance, Finance, And Member Attitude," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 90(1), pages 77-102, March.
    10. Md. Sadique Rahman & Monoj Kumar Majumder, 2021. "Drivers of adoption and impacts of an eco-friendly agricultural technology in Bangladesh," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(12), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Yuanyuan Peng & H. Holly Wang & Yueshu Zhou, 2022. "Can cooperatives help commercial farms to access credit in China? Evidence from Jiangsu Province," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 325-349, December.
    12. Ma, Wanglin & Abdulai, Awudu, 2016. "Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from apple farmers in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 94-102.
    13. Meiyuan Wang & Bin He & Jinsong Zhang & Yanan Jin, 2021. "Analysis of the Effect of Cooperatives on Increasing Farmers’ Income from the Perspective of Industry Prosperity Based on the PSM Empirical Study in Shennongjia Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Gezahegn, Tafesse & Van Passel, Steven & Berhanu, Tekeste & D'Haese, Marijke & Maertens, Miet, 2020. "Structural and Institutional Heterogeneity among Agricultural Cooperatives in Ethiopia: Does it Matter for Farmers’ Welfare?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(2), August.
    15. Huma Neupane & Krishna P. Paudel & Mandeep Adhikari & Qinying He, 2022. "Impact of cooperative membership on production efficiency of smallholder goat farmers in Nepal," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(2), pages 337-356, June.
    16. Wachira Petcho & Sylvia Szabo & Kyoko Kusakabe & Vimolwan Yukongdi, 2019. "Farmers’ Perception and Drivers of Membership in Rice Production Community Enterprises: Evidence from the Central Region, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Giuseppe Timpanaro & Gaetano Chinnici & Roberta Selvaggi & Giulio Cascone & Vera Teresa Foti & Alessandro Scuderi, 2023. "Farmer?s adoption of agricultural insurance for Mediterranean crops as an innovative behavior," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 25(2), pages 155-188.
    18. Ji, Chen & Jin, Songqing & Wang, Haitao & Ye, Chunhui, 2019. "Estimating effects of cooperative membership on farmers’ safe production behaviors: Evidence from pig sector in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 231-245.
    19. Stefano Ciliberti & Angelo Frascarelli & Gaetano Martino, 2020. "Drivers of participation in collective arrangements in the agri‐food supply chain. Evidence from Italy using a transaction costs economics perspective," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 91(3), pages 387-409, September.
    20. Federica Di Marcantonio & Enkelejda Havari & Liesbeth Colen & Pavel Ciaian, 2022. "Do producer organizations improve trading practices and negotiation power for dairy farms? Evidence from selected EU countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(S1), pages 121-137, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:annpce:v:94:y:2023:i:4:p:1323-1344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1370-4788 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.