IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/agreko/10137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring perceived black economic empowerment in the South African wine industry

Author

Listed:
  • Janssens, W.
  • Sefoko, N.
  • van Rooyen, Johan
  • Bostyn, F.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a scale to measure perceived black economic empowerment (BEE) as reported by beneficiaries themselves. Two scale development procedures were carried out on randomly selected samples of 213 and 322 previously disadvantaged individual respondents within 14 and 11wine business that cover the larger part of the wine industry chain. The results led to a 'feeling' self-report scale (5-dimensions) and an evolution self-report scale (6-dimensions). The emerged dimensions are: Business ownership and control (BOC), Access to finance (ATF), Employment and Human Resources Management (EMP) [internal and external], Social capital/enabling environment (SOC) and Lobbying power and collective action (LOB). First measurement results indicate that respondents feel less empowered with respect to BOC and ATF as compared to EMP, SOC and LOB. There appears to be no gender or age differences, but there are geographical differences. The latter is mostly per farm, that is, a lot of variation in BEE is observed at the firm level. The scale can be used at the firm and industry level as a diagnostic tool to monitor BEE progress as a complementary and not a substitutive framework to the wine industry scorecard as an objective measure of BEE. Future research should focus on the gap between the two definitions and assessment tools in order to comprehensively capture BEE in its entirety. The scale can also be adapted to fit the context, for example, its use in the agricultural sector at large.

Suggested Citation

  • Janssens, W. & Sefoko, N. & van Rooyen, Johan & Bostyn, F., 2006. "Measuring perceived black economic empowerment in the South African wine industry," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 45(4), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:10137
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10137/files/45040381.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10137?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. Martin Ravallion & Michael Lokshin, 2001. "Identifying Welfare Effects from Subjective Questions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(271), pages 335-357, August.
    2. West, Quentin M., 1973. "Economic Research Trade-Offs Between Efficiency and Equity," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 9-12, July.
    3. van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1991. "Ordinal and cardinal utility : An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-89, October.
    4. Menno Pradhan & Martin Ravallion, 2000. "Measuring Poverty Using Qualitative Perceptions Of Consumption Adequacy," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(3), pages 462-471, August.
    5. Kapteyn, Arie, 1994. "The Measurement of Household Cost Functions: Revealed Preference versus Subjective Measures," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 7(4), pages 333-350, November.
    6. Wils, F.C.M., 2001. "Empowerment and its evaluation," ISS Working Papers - General Series 23178, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    7. West, Quentin M., 1973. "Economic Research Trade-Offs Between Efficiency And Equity," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 5(1), pages 1-4, July.
    8. Hildebrandt, Lutz, 1987. "Consumer retail satisfaction in rural areas: A reanalysis of survey data," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 19-42, March.
    9. Ravallion, Martin & Lokshin, Michael, 2001. "Identifying Welfare Effects from Subjective Questions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(271), pages 335-357, August.
    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. Lerato Shai & Comfort Molefinyana & Geo Quinot, 2019. "Public Procurement in the Context of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) in South Africa—Lessons Learned for Sustainable Public Procurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Yong Sebastian Nyam & Julius H. Kotir & Andries Jordaan & Abiodun Akintunde Ogundeji, 2022. "Identifying behavioural patterns of coupled water‐agriculture systems using system archetypes," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 305-323, March.
    3. Precious Tirivanhu & Prosper B. Matondi & Daowei Sun, 2016. "Systemic Evaluation of a Comprehensive Community Initiative Based on Boundary Critique in Mhakwe Ward in Zimbabwe," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 541-564, 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. Michael Lokshin & Nithin Umapathi & Stefano Paternostro, 2006. "Robustness of subjective welfare analysis in a poor developing country: Madagascar 2001," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 559-591.
    2. Lokshin, Michael & Ravallion, Martin, 2005. "Rich and powerful?: Subjective power and welfare in Russia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 141-172, February.
    3. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2002. "Subjective Questions to Measure Welfare and Well-being," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-020/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Bernard Van Praag, 2001. "Poverty in Russia," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 147-172, June.
    5. Shabana Mitra, 2016. "Synergies Among Monetary, Multidimensional and Subjective Poverty: Evidence from Nepal," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 103-125, January.
    6. Frey Bruno S. & Stutzer Alois, 2000. "Maximizing Happiness?," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 145-167, May.
    7. Ravallion, Martin & Lokshin, Michael, 2010. "Who cares about relative deprivation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 171-185, February.
    8. Victoria Giarrizzo, 2009. "Subjective economic welfare: Beyond growth," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 34(28), pages 9-34, july-dece.
    9. Ravallion, Martin & Himelein, Kristen & Beegle, Kathleen, 2013. "Can subjective questions on economic welfare be trusted ? evidence for three developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6726, The World Bank.
    10. Gero Carletto & Alberto Zezza, 2006. "Being poor, feeling poorer: Combining objective and subjective measures of welfare in Albania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 739-760.
    11. Marcel Fafchamps & Forhad Shilpi & The World Bank, 2004. "Isolation and Subjective Welfare," Economics Series Working Papers 216, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2002. "What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 402-435, June.
    13. Michael Lokshin & Martin Ravallion, 2008. "Testing for an economic gradient in health status using subjective data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(11), pages 1237-1259, November.
    14. Alois Stutzer & Bruno S. Frey, 2004. "Reported Subjective Well-Being: A Challenge for Economic Theory and Economic Policy," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 124(2), pages 191-231.
    15. Geeta G. Kingdon & John Knight, 2003. "Well-being poverty versus income poverty and capabilities poverty?," CSAE Working Paper Series 2003-16, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    16. Dedehouanou, Senakpon & Maertens, Miet, 2011. "Participation in Modern Agri-Food Supply Chain in Senegal and Happiness," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114447, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Senik, Claudia, 2004. "When information dominates comparison: Learning from Russian subjective panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 2099-2123, August.
    18. Paul Ningaye, 2011. "Ethno‐cultural diversity and multidimensional poverty differential in Cameroon," International Journal of Development Issues, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(2), pages 123-140, July.
    19. Leonardo Gasparini & Walter Sosa-Escudero & Mariana Marchionni & Sergio Olivieri, 2013. "Multidimensional poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean: new evidence from the Gallup World Poll," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 11(2), pages 195-214, June.
    20. Kaminski, Jonathan, 2008. "Wealth, Living Standards and Perceptions in a Cotton Economy: Evidence from the Cotton Reform in Burkina Faso," Discussion Papers 45780, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    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:agreko:10137. 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/aeasaea.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.