IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i8p3557-d1635311.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Formal Contract Farming Improve the Technical Efficiency of Livestock Farmers? A Case Study of Fattening Pig Production in Hanoi, Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Le Thi Thu Huong

    (Faculty of Accounting and Business Management, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi 12406, Vietnam)

  • Luu Van Duy

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi 12406, Vietnam)

  • Bui Phung Khanh Hoa

    (Hanoi Department of Agriculture and Environment, Hanoi 151100, Vietnam)

  • Bui Thi Nga

    (Faculty of Tourism and Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi 12406, Vietnam)

  • Nguyen Van Phuong

    (Department of Marketing, Institute of Business Administration, Vietnam National University, Hanoi 123080, Vietnam)

Abstract

Contract farming has become a sustainable strategy in agriculture around the world. Formal farming contract in pig production is one of the priorities of the Vietnamese Government for livestock development. Due to the differences in husbandry methods, a comparison of the technical efficiency between contract and noncontract pig farms has not been studied in Vietnam yet. This study attempts to do so and proposes implications for the sustainable development of pig production in Vietnam. In this study, we surveyed 201 pig farms (63 contract farms and 138 noncontract farms) in Hanoi, Vietnam, and applied data envelopment analysis (DEA) with a meta-frontier. Under group frontiers, the technical efficiency of the contract and noncontract farms are 96.11% and 88.64%, respectively. However, the meta-technology ratios of the two groups are 82.30% and 99.99%, respectively, which means that contract farms’ technical efficiency is lower than noncontract farms. An interesting finding is that although the technical efficiency of contract farms is lower than noncontract farms, their annual pig income is significantly higher, making contract farming attractive to farmers. Results of Tobit regression models showed that land rent is one of the important factors that reduce the technical efficiency of both contract and noncontract farms. This result implies that the Vietnamese government should revise the land limit policy so that farms can own more land. Another finding is that the high feed price reduces the technical efficiency of noncontract farms. The policy implication from this finding is that the Vietnamese government should develop domestic raw material areas for feed production to lessen the dependence on imported raw materials from abroad, which contributes to reducing the feed prices in Vietnam.

Suggested Citation

  • Le Thi Thu Huong & Luu Van Duy & Bui Phung Khanh Hoa & Bui Thi Nga & Nguyen Van Phuong, 2025. "Does Formal Contract Farming Improve the Technical Efficiency of Livestock Farmers? A Case Study of Fattening Pig Production in Hanoi, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:8:p:3557-:d:1635311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/8/3557/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/8/3557/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2000. "A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(6), pages 779-802.
    2. Huy, Hoang Trieu & Nguyen, Trung Thanh, 2019. "Cropland rental market and farm technical efficiency in rural Vietnam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 408-423.
    3. Léopold Simar & Paul W. Wilson, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 49-61, January.
    4. Tu, Vo Hong & Kopp, Steven W. & Trang, Nguyen Thuy & Hong, Nguyen Bich & Yabe, Mitsuyasu, 2021. "Land accumulation: An option for improving technical and environmental efficiencies of rice production in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Van Meensel, Jef & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Passel, Steven, 2010. "Comparing frontier methods for economic-environmental trade-off analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 1027-1040, December.
    6. Oleg Badunenko & Pavlo Mozharovskyi, 2016. "Nonparametric frontier analysis using Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 16(3), pages 550-589, September.
    7. Thi Ly, Nguyen & Nanseki, Teruaki & Chomei, Yosuke, 2016. "Technical Efficiency and Its Determinants in Household Pig Production in Vietnam : A DEA Approach," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 18.
    8. Bernhard Brümmer, 2001. "Estimating confidence intervals for technical efficiency: the case of private farms in slovenia," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(3), pages 285-306, October.
    9. Jabbar, Mohammad A. & Akter, Shaheen, 2008. "Market and other factors affecting farm specific production efficiency in pig production in Vietnam," Research Reports 182988, International Livestock Research Institute.
    10. Reinhard, Stijn & Knox Lovell, C. A. & Thijssen, Geert J., 2000. "Environmental efficiency with multiple environmentally detrimental variables; estimated with SFA and DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 287-303, March.
    11. McDonald, John, 2009. "Using least squares and tobit in second stage DEA efficiency analyses," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(2), pages 792-798, September.
    12. Tim Coelli & Sanzidur Rahman & Colin Thirtle, 2002. "Technical, Allocative, Cost and Scale Efficiencies in Bangladesh Rice Cultivation: A Non‐parametric Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 607-626, November.
    13. Phil Simmons & Paul Winters & Ian Patrick, 2005. "An analysis of contract farming in East Java, Bali, and Lombok, Indonesia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 513-525, November.
    14. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2007. "Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 31-64, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Mette Asmild & Jens Leth Hougaard, 2006. "Economic versus environmental improvement potentials of Danish pig farms," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(2), pages 171-181, September.
    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. ANANG, Benjamin Tetteh, 2022. "Two-stage DEA estimation of technical efficiency: comparison of different estimators," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 25(01), March.
    2. Wijesiri, Mahinda & Yaron, Jacob & Meoli, Michele, 2017. "Assessing the financial and outreach efficiency of microfinance institutions: Do age and size matter?," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 63-76.
    3. Karin Larsén, 2010. "Effects of machinery‐sharing arrangements on farm efficiency: evidence from Sweden," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(5), pages 497-506, September.
    4. Neves Bezerra de Melo, Felipe Luiz & Sampaio, Raquel Menezes Bezerra & Sampaio, Luciano Menezes Bezerra, 2018. "Efficiency, productivity gains, and the size of Brazilian supermarkets," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 99-111.
    5. Nodin, Mohd Norazmi & Mustafa, Zainol & Hussain, Saiful Izzuan, 2022. "Assessing rice production efficiency for food security policy planning in Malaysia: A non-parametric bootstrap data envelopment analysis approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Amir Moradi-Motlagh & Ali Emrouznejad, 2022. "The origins and development of statistical approaches in non-parametric frontier models: a survey of the first two decades of scholarly literature (1998–2020)," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(1), pages 713-741, November.
    7. Tsionas, Mike G., 2020. "On a model of environmental performance and technology gaps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1141-1152.
    8. Kyriacou, Andreas & Muinelo-Gallo, Leonel & Roca-Sagalés, Oriol, 2015. "On the redistributive efficiency of fiscal policy," MPRA Paper 63276, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Capasso, Salvatore & Kaisari, Maria & Kounetas, Konstantinos & Lainas, Elias, 2024. "School productive performance and technology gaps: New evidence from PISA 2018," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    10. Calogero Guccio & Marco Ferdinando Martorana & Isidoro Mazza & Giacomo Pignataro & Ilde Rizzo, 2022. "Is innovation in ICT valuable for the efficiency of Italian museums?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(9), pages 1695-1716, September.
    11. Areti Gkypali & Kostas Kounetas & Kostas Tsekouras, 2019. "European countries’ competitiveness and productive performance evolution: unraveling the complexity in a heterogeneity context," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 665-695, April.
    12. Liu, John S. & Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Lu, Wen-Min, 2016. "Research fronts in data envelopment analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 33-45.
    13. Dana PANCUROVA & Stefan LYOCSA, 2013. "Determinants of Commercial Banks’ Efficiency: Evidence from 11 CEE Countries," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 63(2), pages 152-179, May.
    14. Kounetas, Kostas & Napolitano, Oreste, 2015. "Too much EMU? An investigation of technology gaps," MPRA Paper 67600, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Nguyen, Minh-Anh Thi & Yu, Ming-Miin & Lirn, Taih-Cherng, 2022. "Revenue efficiency across airline business models: A bootstrap non-convex meta-frontier approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 108-117.
    16. Manuel Salas-Velasco, 2020. "Measuring and explaining the production efficiency of Spanish universities using a non-parametric approach and a bootstrapped-truncated regression," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 825-846, February.
    17. Osti, Surendra & Bampasidou, Maria & Fannin, J. Matthew, 2018. "Revisiting Farm efficiency of Rice-Crawfish farmers: Accounting for the H-2A program," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274339, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Thibbotuwawa, Manoj & Mugera, Amin & White, Ben, 2013. "Production Efficiency and Technology Gap in Irrigated and Rain-fed Rice Farming Systems in Sri Lanka: Non Parametric Approach," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152181, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Fleur Wouterse, 2010. "Migration and technical efficiency in cereal production: evidence from Burkina Faso," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(5), pages 385-395, September.
    20. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro & Calogero Guccio, 2014. "Searching for the source of technical inefficiency in Italian judicial districts: an empirical investigation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 369-391, December.

    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:17:y:2025:i:8:p:3557-:d:1635311. 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.