IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/masspp/34.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Beyond the passbook relationship: Assessing preferences for contracts among cotton and tea farmers and companies in Malawi

Author

Listed:
  • Ochieng, Dennis O.

Abstract

While contract farming provides opportunities to link smallholder farmers to markets, its sustainability depends on how the interests of both farmers and buyers are addressed. Previous studies analyze farmers’ preferences for contracts, but buyers’ preferences for contracts and design attributes are hardly examined. This Working Paper contributes to the knowledge gap by analyzing farmers’ and buyers’ preferences for contracts and design attributes, and the similarities and differences in preferences using a discrete choice experiment with 505 cotton farmers and 512 tea farmers in southern Malawi. Using a mixed logit model, the author examines farmers’ and buyers’ preferences and estimate farmers’ willingness to pay for improvement of contract attributes. Results show that both farmers and buyers have positive preferences for contracts in general and for many design attributes. The author however observes clear differences in preference for payment mode where farmers prefer spot payments while buyers prefer delayed payments. Further, while both parties prefer better quality products, there are no standardized grading systems for the two crops in Malawi. Consequently, buyers are skeptical of farmers’ ability to produce quality products while farmers are distrustful of buyers’ grading systems. Even though buyers are open to offer contracts that provide inputs or insurance to farmers, there are no information sharing platforms to guide in contracting farmers thus exposing buyers to risks of contract default. The author also finds that farmers prefer contracts that address their social needs as seen in their choice of contracts with funeral expenses insurance. Such attributes could strengthen the relationship between farmers and buying companies. Sustainable contract schemes require designing contracts that are acceptable to both farmers and buyers by balancing risks between the parties. Successful contract relationships have to build business relationships and foster mutual trust by developing standardized grading systems and information sharing platforms for buyers and farmers to guide selection into the schemes. To minimize side-selling, companies can advance cash credit to liquidity constrained farmers, but this must be accompanied by stronger contract enforcement mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ochieng, Dennis O., 2020. "Beyond the passbook relationship: Assessing preferences for contracts among cotton and tea farmers and companies in Malawi," MaSSP working papers 34, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:masspp:34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifpri.org/cdmref/p15738coll2/id/133675/filename/133886.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hanna Ihli & Ronja Seegers & Etti Winter & Brian Chiputwa & Anja Gassner, 2022. "Preferences for tree fruit market attributes among smallholder farmers in Eastern Rwanda," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 5-21, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    MALAWI; SOUTHERN AFRICA; AFRICA SOUTH OF SAHARA; AFRICA; contracts; cotton; tea; farmers; companies; contract farming; agriculture production; passbooks; contract preferences; buyers; choice experiment;
    All these keywords.

    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:fpr:masspp:34. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.