IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v18y2019i3p38-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Recent Firm Growth in Dutch Horticulture

Author

Listed:
  • Evert Los
  • Cornelis Gardebroek
  • Ruud Huirne

Abstract

Dutch horticultural firms have expanded rapidly in recent decades, both in terms of their production area as well as in number of employees. In particular in the production of fresh fruits and vegetables, a number of very large horticultural firms emerged with often more than 100 employees, operating on tens of hectares of greenhouses. A standard explanation for firm growth is that firms want to benefit from economies of scale, where the increased scale of production would ensure lower average (fixed) production costs. This article however shows that cost reduction due to economies of scale is not the main driver behind the growth in horticultural firm size. In fact, our empirical evaluation shows that larger horticultural firms face higher average production costs compared to smaller firms. However, these higher production costs are compensated by the on average higher and more stable output prices obtained by larger firms. This positive effect of firm size on firm revenues therefore provides a different rationale for the recent growth in average size of Dutch horticultural firms. As a result, our findings demonstrate that revenue‐related aspects are becoming more important in understanding firm growth of primary producers in the horticultural sector. Les entreprises horticoles néerlandaises ont connu une expansion rapide au cours des dernières décennies, à la fois en termes de superficie de production et de nombre d'employés. En particulier, un certain nombre de très grandes entreprises horticoles de production de fruits et légumes frais ont vu le jour, comptant souvent plus de 100 employés et des dizaines d'hectares de serres. Une explication standard de la croissance des entreprises est que celles‐ci veulent profiter d’économies d’échelle, car une échelle de production accrue permettrait de réduire les coûts de production (fixes) moyens. Cet article montre toutefois que la réduction des coûts due aux économies d’échelle n'est pas le principal moteur de la croissance de la taille des entreprises horticoles. En fait, notre évaluation empirique montre que les grandes entreprises horticoles font face à des coûts de production moyens plus élevés que les petites entreprises. Toutefois, les grandes entreprises compensent ces coûts de production plus élevés par les prix de production en moyenne plus élevés et plus stables qu'elles obtiennent. Cet effet positif de la taille de l'entreprise sur le chiffre d'affaire de l'entreprise fournit donc une raison différente pour la croissance récente de la taille moyenne des entreprises horticoles néerlandaises. En conséquence, nos résultats démontrent que les questions de chiffre d'affaire deviennent de plus en plus importantes pour comprendre la croissance des entreprises des producteurs primaires du secteur horticole. In den letzten Jahren sind die Gartenbaubetriebe in den Niederlanden sowohl im Hinblick auf ihre Anbaufläche als auch in Bezug auf die Anzahl der Arbeitskräfte rasant gewachsen. Insbesondere Betriebe, die Frischobst und Gemüse anbauen, haben teilweise inzwischen mehr als 100 Angestellte und eine Gewächshausfläche von deutlich über 10 Hektar. Eine häufige Erklärung für das Wachstum der Betriebe sind Skaleneffekte, wonach eine Produktionsausweitung zu geringeren (fixen) Durchschnittskosten führt. Der vorliegende Artikel macht jedoch deutlich, dass Kosteneinsparungen durch Skaleneffekte nicht der Haupttreiber für das Wachstum der Gartenbaubetriebe ist. Tatsächlich zeigt unsere Untersuchung, dass größere Gartenbaubetriebe sogar höhere durchschnittliche Produktionskosten haben als kleinere. Die höheren Produktionskosten werden allerdings durch höhere und stabilere Erzeugerpreise bei den größeren Betrieben kompensiert. Dieser positive Effekt auf die Erlöse weist somit auf einen anderen Bestimmungsgrund für die zu beobachtende Entwicklung hin. Nach unseren Ergebnissen werden erlösbezogene Aspekte immer bedeutender, um das Wachstum der Gartenbaubetriebe zu erklären.

Suggested Citation

  • Evert Los & Cornelis Gardebroek & Ruud Huirne, 2019. "Explaining Recent Firm Growth in Dutch Horticulture," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(3), pages 38-43, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:3:p:38-43
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12208
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12208?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. Johannes Sauer & Matthew Gorton & John White, 2012. "Marketing, cooperatives and price heterogeneity: evidence from the CIS dairy sector," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 165-177, March.
    2. Shingo Kimura & Christine Le Thi, 2013. "Cross Country Analysis of Farm Economic Performance," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 60, OECD Publishing.
    3. Yu Sheng & Shiji Zhao & Katarina Nossal & Dandan Zhang, 2015. "Productivity and farm size in Australian agriculture: reinvestigating the returns to scale," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(1), pages 16-38, January.
    4. Steve McCorriston, 2002. "Why should imperfect competition matter to agricultural economists?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(3), pages 349-371, July.
    5. Richard J. Sexton, 2013. "Market Power, Misconceptions, and Modern Agricultural Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 209-219.
    6. Sheng, Yu & Zhao, Shiji & Nossal, Katarina & Zhang, Dandan, 2015. "Productivity and farm size in Australian agriculture: reinvestigating the returns to scale," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(1), January.
    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. Evert Los & Cornelis Gardebroek & Ruud Huirne, 2021. "Explaining output price heterogeneity in Dutch horticulture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 891-914, October.
    2. Federica Di Marcantonio & Pavel Ciaian & Vicente Castellanos, 2018. "Unfair trading practices in the dairy farm sector: Evidence from selected EU regions," JRC Research Reports JRC112770, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Werner Hediger, 2013. "From Multifunctionality and Sustainability of Agriculture to the Social Responsibility of the Agri-food System," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 6(1), pages 59-80.
    4. Takeshima, Hiroyuki & Hatzenbuehler, Patrick L. & Edeh, Hyacinth O., 2020. "Effects of agricultural mechanization on economies of scope in crop production in Nigeria," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. Micheels, Eric T. & Nolan, James F., 2016. "Examining the effects of absorptive capacity and social capital on the adoption of agricultural innovations: A Canadian Prairie case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 127-138.
    6. Dimitrios Panagiotou & Athanassios Stavrakoudis, 2018. "A stochastic frontier estimator of the aggregate degree of market power exerted by the US meat packing industry," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 45(3), pages 387-401, September.
    7. Beatriz Velázquez & Bruno Buffaria, 2017. "About farmers’ bargaining power within the new CAP," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Zavelberg, Yvonne & Heckelei, Thomas & Wieck, Christine, 2016. "Entry deterring effects of contractual relations in the dairy processing sector," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Sabasi, Darlington & Kompaniyets, Lyudmyla, 2015. "Impact of credit constraints on profitability and productivity in U.S. agriculture," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205689, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Arash Dourandish & Sayed Saghaian & Naser Shahnoushi Forushani & Nazanin Mohammadrezazadeh & Sina Kuhestani, 2020. "The Relation Between Property Rights, Farm Size and Technical Efficiency for the Developing Countries' Agricultural Sector," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 749-762, July.
    11. Elizabeth Ahikiriza & Joshua Wesana & Xavier Gellynck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Ludwig Lauwers, 2021. "Context Specificity and Time Dependency in Classifying Sub-Saharan Africa Dairy Cattle Farmers for Targeted Extension Farm Advice: The Case of Uganda," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, August.
    12. Jinho Jung & Juan Sesmero & Ralph Siebert, 2022. "A structural estimation of spatial differentiation and market power in input procurement," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 613-644, March.
    13. Xingguang Li & Xuexi Huo, 2022. "Agricultural labor markets and the inverse plot size–productivity relationship: Evidence from China's apple growers," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 2163-2183, November.
    14. Daniele Curzi & Maria Garrone & Alessandro Olper, 2021. "Import Competition and Firm Markups in the Food Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1433-1453, August.
    15. Jan Falkowski & Pavel Ciaian, 2016. "Factors Supporting the Development of Producer Organizations and their Impacts in the Light of Ongoing Changes in Food Supply Chains: A Literature Review," JRC Research Reports JRC101617, Joint Research Centre.
    16. Alessandro Bonanno & Carlo Russo & Luisa Menapace, 2018. "Market power and bargaining in agrifood markets: A review of emerging topics and tools," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 6-23, December.
    17. Bhanupong Nidhiprabha, 2019. "Commodity Price Cycles, the Agricultural Trap, and Thailand's Incessant Subsidies," Asian Economic Papers, MIT Press, vol. 18(2), pages 49-69, Summer.
    18. Alessandro Bonanno, 2018. "Special issue of Agribusiness, An International Journal: “New dimensions of market power and bargaining in the agri†food sector: Theories and applicationsâ€," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 3-5, December.
    19. Jasper Grashuis, 2018. "Joint ownership by farmers and investors in the agri-food industry: an exploratory study of the limited cooperative association," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Meerza, Syed Imran Ali & Giannakas, Konstantinos & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Markets and welfare effects of food fraud," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.

    More about this item

    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:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:3:p:38-43. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.