IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare10/59092.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technical Efficiency And Technology Gaps On 'Clean And Safe' Vegetable Farms In Northern Thailand: A Comparison Of Different Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Kramol, Prathanthip
  • Villano, Renato A.
  • Fleming, Euan M.
  • Kristiansen, Paul

Abstract

"Clean and safe" agricultural products are an important issue among consumers, farmers and governments. Many developing countries develop their produce at various points along the ‘clean’ continuum based on production practices related to use of synthetic chemicals. Organic farming is applied to technologies with no chemicals or synthetic fertilisers used during production or processing. It was initially developed by farmers and non-government organisations in Thailand, and subsequently implemented by the Thai government through a series of policies on clean produce to meet international standards. Safe-use and pesticide-free practices lie between organic and conventional practices, and are possible steps when converting conventional farms to organic farms. We compare the technical efficiencies and technology gaps of the four farming systems in northern Thailand of which three - organic, pesticide-free and safe-use - are designated ‘clean and safe’. Farm-level data on vegetable production were collected from random samples of farms using these technologies. A metafrontier model was estimated, enabling the estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gap ratios (TGRs) for vegetable farms operating under the different production systems. Conventional farms were expected to have the highest mean TGR (smallest distance from the metafrontier) as they are least constrained in the way they farm, and results bear out this expectation. The mean TGR for conventional farms is 0.80, significantly higher than that for organic farms at 0.45. But all production systems have farms lying on the metafrontier. In contrast to the TGR results, conventional farms have the lowest mean technical efficiency relative to their group frontier (0.33) and pesticide-free vegetable farms the highest (0.47), most likely reflecting the different degrees of technical assistance provided to farmers in these groups. Organic farming is that farmers in this group did not perform markedly worse than farmers in other groups in terms of productivity. There are numerous organisations and projects providing assistance for ‘clean and safe’ vegetable farming in northern Thailand. Scope exists to improve the performance of farmers in all groups as technical efficiencies and TGRs of farms vary widely in all groups. Improvements are needed for agronomic technology, supply chains, farmer capacity in production and marketing, and effectiveness of technology transfer strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Kramol, Prathanthip & Villano, Renato A. & Fleming, Euan M. & Kristiansen, Paul, 2010. "Technical Efficiency And Technology Gaps On 'Clean And Safe' Vegetable Farms In Northern Thailand: A Comparison Of Different Technologies," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59092, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare10:59092
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.59092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/59092/files/Kramol_%20P.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.59092?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. Alfons Oude Lansink & Ky–sti Pietola, 2002. "Effciency and productivity of conventional and organic farms in Finland 1994--1997," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(1), pages 51-66, March.
    2. Christopher O’Donnell & D. Rao & George Battese, 2008. "Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 231-255, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Djokoto, Justice Gameli & Pomeyie, Paragon, 2018. "Productivity of organic and conventional agriculture – a common technology analysis," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 120(3), December.

    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. Fogarasi, Jozsef & Latruffe, Laure, 2009. "Farm performance and support in Central and Western Europe: a comparison of Hungary and France," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51053, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Latruffe, Laure & Fogarasi, József & Desjeux, Yann, 2012. "Efficiency, productivity and technology comparison for farms in Central and Western Europe: The case of field crop and dairy farming in Hungary and France," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 264-278.
    3. Kapelko, Magdalena & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2017. "Dynamic multi-directional inefficiency analysis of European dairy manufacturing firms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 338-344.
    4. Ligia Alba Melo-Becerra & Antonio José Orozco-Gallo, 2015. "Eficiencia técnica de los hogares con producción agropecuaria en Colombia," Documentos de trabajo sobre Economía Regional y Urbana 227, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    5. Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Tiedemann, Torben, 2010. "Organic Or Conventional? Optimal Dairy Farming Technology Under The Eu Milk Quota System And Organic Subsidies," 50th Annual Conference, Braunschweig, Germany, September 29-October 1, 2010 93934, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Mercedes Beltrán & Ernest Reig, 2014. "Comparing conventional and organic citrus grower efficiency in Spain," Working Papers 1406, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    7. Ahmed, Elsadig Musa & Krishnasamy, Geeta, 2013. "Are Asian technology gaps due to human capital quality differences?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 51-58.
    8. Watkins, K. Bradley & Hristovska, Tatjana & Mazzanti, Ralph & Wilson, Charles E. Jr & Schmidt, Lance, 2014. "Measurement of Technical, Allocative, Economic, and Scale Efficiency of Rice Production in Arkansas Using Data Envelopment Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(1), pages 1-18, February.
    9. Fang, Lei, 2022. "Measuring and decomposing group performance under centralized management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 1006-1013.
    10. Silvia Saravia-Matus & T. S. Amjath-Babu & Sreejith Aravindakshan & Stefan Sieber & Jimmy A. Saravia & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2021. "Can Enhancing Efficiency Promote the Economic Viability of Smallholder Farmers? A Case of Sierra Leone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Wirat Krasachat & Suthathip Yaisawarng, 2021. "Directional Distance Function Technical Efficiency of Chili Production in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    12. Yongqi Feng & Haolin Zhang & Yung-ho Chiu & Tzu-Han Chang, 2021. "Innovation efficiency and the impact of the institutional quality: a cross-country analysis using the two-stage meta-frontier dynamic network DEA model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3091-3129, April.
    13. Stergiou, Eirini, 2022. "Environmental Efficiency of European Industries across Sectors and Countries," MPRA Paper 114635, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Zhiqian Yu & Ning Zhu & Tomas Baležentis, 2017. "Impact of Public Education and Regional Economic Growth in China: A Shadow-Price Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, July.
    15. Meike Weltin & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Sustainable Intensification Farming as an Enabler for Farm Eco-Efficiency?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 315-342, January.
    16. Pei-Ing Wu & Je-Liang Liou & Hung-Yi Chang, 2015. "Alternative exploration of EKC for $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ CO 2 emissions: inclusion of meta-technical ratio in quantile regression model," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 57-73, January.
    17. Shahbaz Nasir & Kaliappa Kalirajan, 2016. "Information and Communication Technology-Enabled Modern Services Export Performances of Asian Economies," Asian Development Review, MIT Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, March.
    18. Wollni, Meike & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2012. "Productive efficiency of specialty and conventional coffee farmers in Costa Rica: Accounting for technological heterogeneity and self-selection," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 67-76.
    19. Xi, Xun & Xi, Baoxing & Miao, Chenglin & Yu, Rongjian & Xie, Jie & Xiang, Rong & Hu, Feng, 2022. "Factors influencing technological innovation efficiency in the Chinese video game industry: Applying the meta-frontier approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Moritz Flubacher & George Sheldon & Adrian Müller, 2015. "Comparison of the Economic Performance between Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms in the Swiss Mountain Region Using Matching and Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 7(1), pages 76-84.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aare10:59092. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.