IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1476-d145144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effectiveness of the Multilateral Coalition to Develop a Green Agricultural Products Market in China Based on a TU Cooperative Game Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mingjun Deng

    (Business School, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China)

  • Guocheng Xiang

    (College of Economics and Trade, Hunan University of Commerce, Changsha 410205, China)

  • Shuntian Yao

    (Business School, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China)

Abstract

Green agriculture can improve biodiversity, increase farmers’ income, reduce agricultural non-point source pollution, solve food safety issues, and will be an important way to promote sustainable development in China. At present, the green transformation of China’s agriculture has encountered a bottleneck in the development of a green agricultural product market. How to develop a green agricultural product market has become an issue worthy of in-depth study in the academia. Previous studies have already given persuasive explanations for the inability to form a green agricultural product market, but few have explored its development path from the angle of cooperation. By employing the method of a Transferable Utilities (TU) cooperative game, and based on theoretical analyses and hypothetical data, this thesis aims to prove the effectiveness of the multilateral coalition to develop the green agricultural product market in China. The results show the effectiveness of the developed model of the green agricultural product market in which producers, consumers, food safety inspection departments, and e-commerce platforms cooperate with each other. This model meets the objective needs of the times and that of the market economy. According to the marginal contribution value of participants in different coalition orders, this thesis finds 6 kinds of coalition orders. When producers and consumers of green agricultural products enter the coalition in the last place, the marginal contribution value is maximized, which reflects the importance of the supply side and demand side of green agricultural products. In other words, the development of the green agricultural product market is a dynamic process—determined by consumers and promoted by producers—in which both sides promote and restrict each other. Finally, this article presents two policy recommendations: at the national level, to clearly proposes a strategy to build a green agricultural product e-commerce platform in China and to launch a pilot application for the specialized e-commerce platform for green agricultural products in the Guizhou province.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingjun Deng & Guocheng Xiang & Shuntian Yao, 2018. "The Effectiveness of the Multilateral Coalition to Develop a Green Agricultural Products Market in China Based on a TU Cooperative Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1476-:d:145144
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1476/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1476/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mirela Ionela Aceleanu, 2016. "Sustainability and Competitiveness of Romanian Farms through Organic Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Robert Feagan & Amanda Henderson, 2009. "Devon Acres CSA: local struggles in a global food system," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 26(3), pages 203-217, September.
    3. Christoph Saenger & Matin Qaim & Maximo Torero & Angelino Viceisza, 2013. "Contract farming and smallholder incentives to produce high quality: experimental evidence from the Vietnamese dairy sector," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 297-308, May.
    4. Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Stanton, John L. & Wiley, James B., 2011. "The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Alessandro Maffioli & Diego Ubfal & Gonzalo Vázquez Baré & Pedro Cerdán‐Infantes, 2011. "Extension services, product quality and yields: the case of grapes in Argentina," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(6), pages 727-734, November.
    6. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    7. Marcel Fafchamps & Ruth Vargas Hill & Bart Minten, 2008. "Quality control in nonstaple food markets: evidence from India," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 251-266, May.
    8. Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Stanton, John L. & Wiley, James B., 2011. "The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 48-62, April.
    9. Cheryl Brown & Stacy Miller, 2008. "The Impacts of Local Markets: A Review of Research on Farmers Markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1298-1302.
    10. Yu, Xiaohua & Gao, Zhifeng & Zeng, Yinchu, 2014. "Willingness to pay for the “Green Food” in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 80-87.
    11. Jicheng Liu & Dandan He, 2018. "Profit Allocation of Hybrid Power System Planning in Energy Internet: A Cooperative Game Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Latvala, Terhi & Kola, Jukka, 2004. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Additional Information on Food Quality and Safety," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24980, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. Anxin Xu & Chenwen Wei & Manhua Zheng & Lili Sun & Decong Tang, 2022. "Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Lin Feng & Lingyan Xu & Zhuoyun Zhou & Jianguo Du & Dandan Wang, 2022. "The Influence of Social Preference and Governments’ Strong Reciprocity on Agricultural Green Production Networks under Intensive Management in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-29, December.
    3. Zhou, Wei & Zhang, Keang & Zhang, Ying & Duan, Yunlong, 2021. "Operation strategies with respect to insurance subsidy optimization for online retailers dealing with large items," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    4. Yuqiang Wu & Weiwei Guo & Zigong Cai & Yang Tong & Jingpeng Chen, 2023. "Research on Contract Coordination Mechanism of Contract Farming Considering the Green Innovation Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, February.

    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. Xin Su & Haolong Liu & Shunqi Hou, 2018. "The Trilateral Evolutionary Game of Agri-Food Quality in Farmer-Supermarket Direct Purchase: A Simulation Approach," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-11, February.
    2. Ying, Jiahui & Shonkwiler, Vanessa P. & Campbell, Benjamin L., 2018. "Willingness to Pay or Not to Pay: Valuing Foods Some Respondents Find Distasteful," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274065, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Eija Pouta & Eero Liski & Annika Tienhaara & Kauko Koikkalainen & Antti Miettinen, 2021. "Ecosystem-Based Food Production: Consumers′ Preferred Practices and Willingness to Buy and Pay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Vincent Hoang & Takao Iida & Shigeru Matsumoto & Natsuki Watanabe & Clevo Wilson, 2016. "Consumer’s comparison between local and imported organic products: a hedonic analysis of the Japanese table wine market," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 6(3), pages 405-415, December.
    5. Sini Forssell & Leena Lankoski, 2015. "The sustainability promise of alternative food networks: an examination through “alternative” characteristics," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(1), pages 63-75, March.
    6. Teresa Madureira & Fernando Nunes & José Veiga & Pablo Saralegui-Diez, 2021. "Choices in Sustainable Food Consumption: How Spanish Low Intake Organic Consumers Behave," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
    7. Skreli, Engjell & Imami, Drini, 2012. "Analyzing Consumers’ Preferences for Apple Attributes in Tirana, Albania," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Eleni Papaoikonomou & Matías Ginieis, 2017. "Putting the farmer’s face on food: governance and the producer–consumer relationship in local food systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(1), pages 53-67, March.
    9. McCaffrey Sara Jane & Kurland Nancy, 2014. "Who defines “local”? Resistance to harmonizing standards in ethical markets," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 191-219, April.
    10. Claudia Gabriela Baicu & Olimpia State, & Daniel Adrian Gardan & Iuliana Petronela Gardan & Iulia Ruxandra Ticau, 2022. "Financial and Competitive Implications of the European Green Deal – Perceptions of Retail Managers," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 24(61), pages 683-683, August.
    11. Claudio Vitari & Erin Whittingham, 2018. "Tackling Conventional Agriculture: The Institutionalization of Community Supported Agriculture's (CSA) Principles," Post-Print halshs-01923789, HAL.
    12. John Stanton & Ferdinand F Wirth & Yingdao Dao, 2018. "An Analysis of Consumers’ Preferences between Locally Grown/Processed Food and Organic Food," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 4(1), pages 480-490, August.
    13. Roosen, Jutta & Kottl, Barbara & Hasselbach, Johanna, 2012. "Can local be the new organic? Food choice motives and willingness to pay," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 123512, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Zsófia Benedek & Imre Fertő & Adrienn Molnár, 2018. "Off to market: but which one? Understanding the participation of small-scale farmers in short food supply chains—a Hungarian case study," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 383-398, June.
    15. Stevens Azima & Patrick Mundler, 2022. "Does direct farm marketing fulfill its promises? analyzing job satisfaction among direct-market farmers in Canada," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 791-807, June.
    16. Campbell, Benjamin L. & Mhlanga, Saneliso & Lesschaeve, Isabelle, 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Peach Attributes: Market Segmentation Analysis and Implications for New Marketing Strategies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-24, December.
    17. Vivian Hoffmann & Sarah Kariuki & Janneke Pieters & Mark Treurniet, 2023. "Upside risk, consumption value, and market returns to food safety," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(3), pages 914-939, May.
    18. Mahdi, Shireen, 2012. "Quality contingent contracts : evidence from Tanzania's coffee market," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6171, The World Bank.
    19. Roxana Bobulescu & Nhu Tuyên Lê & Claudio Vitari & Erin Whittingham, 2018. "Socio-economic and ecological transition in community supported agriculture: from the 'transitional' to the 'ideal' CSA," Post-Print halshs-01923235, HAL.
    20. Si Tan & Weiping Chen, 2019. "Can members’ WeChat engagement affect relational outcomes in community‐supported agriculture? Empirical evidence from China," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(1), pages 36-52, January.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1476-:d:145144. 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.