IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2023i1p106-d1309184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blockchain Adoption and Organic Subsidy in an Agricultural Supply Chain Considering Market Segmentation

Author

Listed:
  • Chunmei Li

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China)

  • Tianjian Yang

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China
    School of Modern Post (School of Automation), Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China)

  • Ying Shi

    (China Telecom Corporation Limited Research Institute, Guangzhou 510630, China)

Abstract

The quality authenticity of organic agricultural products has always been a hot issue for consumers. Blockchain’s advantages in information traceability and preventing data from being tampered with can reduce fake and counterfeit products, increasing the consumers’ trust in the quality of organic agricultural products. Considering market segmentation of consumer types in organic agricultural products (OPs) and conventional agricultural products (CPs), this study builds a game-theoretical model to explore how participants decide between blockchain traceability platforms and organic subsidy strategies. Results show that the producer should introduce the blockchain when the fraction of blockchain technology’s total cost shared by the producer is smaller and the fixed cost of implementing blockchain is higher or when the fraction of blockchain technology’s total cost shared by the producer is higher and the fixed cost of implementing blockchain is lower. The retailer is inclined to an organic subsidy, and the smaller the market proportion of undifferentiated-conscious consumers (UCCs), the more inclined the retailer is to the organic subsidy strategy. In addition, the market share of UCCs positively promotes the sales quantities and supply chain profits of CPs but is not conducive to the sales quantities of OPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chunmei Li & Tianjian Yang & Ying Shi, 2023. "Blockchain Adoption and Organic Subsidy in an Agricultural Supply Chain Considering Market Segmentation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:106-:d:1309184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/1/106/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/1/106/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dickinson, David L. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2002. "Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing To Pay For It?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Kanying Liu & Yong Lan & Wei Li & Erbao Cao, 2019. "Behavior-Based Pricing of Organic and Conventional Agricultural Products Based on Green Subsidies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Dionne, Kim Yi & Horowitz, Jeremy, 2016. "The Political Effects of Agricultural Subsidies in Africa: Evidence from Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 215-226.
    4. Ozinci, Yaacov & Perlman, Yael & Westrich, Sara, 2017. "Competition between organic and conventional products with different utilities and shelf lives," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 74-84.
    5. Peng, Hongjun & Pang, Tao, 2019. "Optimal strategies for a three-level contract-farming supply chain with subsidy," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 274-286.
    6. Chunmei Li & Tianjian Yang & Zijing Bian, 2023. "Does Environmental Education Always Contribute to Remanufacturing Supply Chain Development?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-18, March.
    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. Nematollahi, Mohammadreza & Tajbakhsh, Alireza & Mosadegh Sedghy, Bahareh, 2021. "The reflection of competition and coordination on organic agribusiness supply chains," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Cruz, Luciano Barin & Delgado, Natalia Aguilar & Begnis, Heron Sergio Moreira & Pedrozo, Eugenio Avila, 2006. "Ampliando o Conceito de Rastreabilidade: Em Busca de Sustentabilidade nas Cadeias Produtivas," 44th Congress, July 23-27, 2006, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil 146380, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER).
    4. Ximing Chen & Jie Shang & Muhammad Zada & Shagufta Zada & Xueqiang Ji & Heesup Han & Antonio Ariza-Montes & Jesús Ramírez-Sobrino, 2021. "Health Is Wealth: Study on Consumer Preferences and the Willingness to Pay for Ecological Agricultural Product Traceability Technology: Evidence from Jiangxi Province China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Sylvester Amoako Agyemang & Tomáš Ratinger & Miroslava Bavorová, 2022. "The Impact of Agricultural Input Subsidy on Productivity: The Case of Ghana," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(3), pages 1460-1485, June.
    6. Yuling Sun & Xiaomei Song & Yihao Jiang & Jian Guo, 2023. "Strategy Analysis of Fresh Agricultural Enterprises in a Competitive Circumstance: The Impact of Blockchain and Consumer Traceability Preferences," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    8. Sam Hamer & Jeremy Seekings, 2017. "Social protection, electoral competition, and political branding in Malawi," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-99, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    11. Zulug, Aslı & Miran, Bülent & Tsakiridou, Efthimia, 2015. "Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Country of Origin Labeled Product in Istanbul," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(2), pages 1-10.
    12. Lusk Jayson L & Alexander Corinne & Rousu Matthew C., 2007. "Designing Experimental Auctions for Marketing Research: The Effect of Values, Distributions, and Mechanisms on Incentives for Truthful Bidding," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-32, October.
    13. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    14. Dickinson, David L. & Hobbs, Jill E. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2003. "A Comparison of U. S. and Canadian Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Red-Meat Traceability," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22060, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Brian Mennecke & Anthony Townsend & Dermot J. Hayes & Steven M. Lonergan, 2006. "Study of the Factors that Influence Consumer Attitudes Toward Beef Products Using the Conjoint Market Analysis Tool, A," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 06-wp425, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    16. Leandro De Magalhaes & Isabel Spirgel-Sinclair, 2021. "Could Regression Discontinuity estimates of incumbency e ects help monitor parliamentary elections? Evidence from Malawi," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 21/741, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    17. Yamane, Fumihiro, 2010. "Estimation of Consumer Welfare Change from the Revision of Age Criterion for BSE Testing: Hypothetical Revealed Preference Method Using Monitoring Survey Data," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 12, pages 1-19.
    18. Lee, Ji Yong & Fox, John A. (Sean), 2015. "Strategic bidding in a private value experimental auction with positive and negative bids," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204984, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Caracciolo, Francesco & Cembalo, Luigi, 2010. "Traceability and Demand Sensitiveness: Evidences from Italian Fresh Potatoes Consumption," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(4), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Cao, Yu & Yi, Chaoqun & Wan, Guangyu & Hu, Hanli & Li, Qingsong & Wang, Shouyang, 2022. "An analysis on the role of blockchain-based platforms in agricultural supply chains," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    21. Resnick, Danielle & Haggblade, Steven & Babu, Suresh & Hendriks, Sheryl L. & Mather, David, 2018. "The Kaleidoscope Model of policy change: Applications to food security policy in Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 101-120.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:106-:d:1309184. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.