This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

A quantitative framework to analyse cooperation between rural households

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Gerichhausen, M.
Berkhout, E.D.
Hamers, H.J.M.
Manyong, V.M.
Abstract

Different types of cooperative agreements between smallholders continue to play an important role in rural areas in developing countries. While some empirical studies examine the conditions catalysing the successful formation of cooperatives, quantifications of the net benefits, i.e., difference between revenues and costs, of cooperation and how farmers divide these net benefits are scarce. Therefore, we develop a quantitative framework to analyse and allocate net benefits in a cooperative production agreement. The framework allows for cooperative exchange of several types of resources and the production of multiple products. Linear programming provides insight into optimal production levels, both for individual and cooperating farmers, and gives optimal revenue levels. A transaction cost function is used to account for costs of cooperation, such as meeting costs, moral hazard and free ridership of labour use and the risks of farmers defaulting from the agreement. Transaction costs are likely to increase with the number of households participating, the total cropping area and the heterogeneity of resources of the cooperating farmers. Therefore, we introduce a measure of heterogeneity in the resources for each cooperative. Finally, cooperative game theory is used to generate fair divisions of the net benefits in a cooperative. This framework may be used to give additional explanations to the findings in empirical studies on cooperatives. We illustrate this with an empirical example from northern Nigeria. It is found that cooperation between farmers sharing complementary resources gives the highest revenues. Next, we illustrate the effects of two different transaction cost functions. For reasonable assumptions on these functions, cooperation remains economically attractive. Nevertheless, larger and more diverse coalitions are not always the most beneficial, while the returns in some small coalitions are negative, possibly impeding the formation of cooperatives in some locations.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T3W-4WK3YP7-1/2/ff55689fc97f55f31f7cec4d73db6830
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Agricultural Systems.

Volume (Year): 101 (2009)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
Pages: 173-185
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:101:y:2009:i:3:p:173-185

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Heidi Boesdal).

Related research
Keywords: Linear programming Agriculture Household models Cooperative game theory Transaction costs;

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Springer Verlag was the first commercial publisher to be listed on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-3.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.