IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

An Evaluation of Firm and Contract Characteristics Valued by Supply Chain Partners in Specialty Crop Marketing Channels

Listed author(s):
  • Barrowclough, Michael
  • Boys, Kathryn A.
  • Carpio, Carlos

Marketing methods play a vital role in the efficiency of any supply-chain relationship. The relationship between buyers and sellers in the agricultural sector is dynamic and complex. While livestock and grain markets in the U.S. are generally well studied, the price setting process, buyer-seller relationships, and factors which influence the type, duration, and timing of business relationships in the market for specialty crops (SC) are less well understood. This is particularly true in the case of buyer relationships with small-scale farms. A better understanding of the dynamic relationship between small-scale SC producers and buyers is essential in achieving efficient marketing outcomes. This issue is examined from the perspective of small-scale SC growers in Virginia (VA) and North Carolina (NC). Using a Choice Experiment (CE) approach, this study: (1) identifies key contract characteristics and buyer attributes which are valued by VA and NC small-scale SC producers; (2) quantifies tradeoffs VA and NC small-scale SC producers are willing to make between buyer attributes and contract characteristics when establishing a new contractual relationship; and (3) determines the factors influencing these tradeoffs. Mean willingness-to-pay (WTP) of contract attributes and individual-specific WTP estimates are recovered using a mixed-logit model. Using these individual-specific estimates, a random-effects model is then used to determine factors driving producer WTP. While expressing concerns about specific aspects of contracts, growers overall were found receptive to the idea of using contracts as a viable marketing channel alternative. Substantial heterogeneity is found to exist amongst growers in their attitudes towards the structural framework of produce contracts, suggesting that growers have competing marketing interests with varying preferences towards contract structure. All four non-price contract attributes are found to have significant WTP estimates at a 95% confidence interval or higher. A combination of producer demographics, farm operation characteristics, contract perceptions, and attribute processing strategies are shown to impact the overall WTP for the selected contract attributes. Additionally, growers’ preferences are found to be stable throughout the study.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/205768
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association & Western Agricultural Economics Association in its series 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California with number 205768.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2015
Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205768
Contact details of provider: Postal:
555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

Web page: http://waeaonline.org/Provider-InstitutionLRePEc:edi:waeaaea

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Brent Hueth & Tigran Melkonyan, 2004. "Identity Preservation, Multitasking, and Agricultural Contract Design," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 842-847.
  2. Hudson Darren & Lusk Jayson, 2004. "Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, February.
  3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, March.
  4. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers' marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 666-676, October.
  5. Jeffrey M. Peterson & Craig M. Smith & John C. Leatherman & Nathan P. Hendricks & John A. Fox, 2015. "Transaction Costs in Payment for Environmental Service Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 219-238.
  6. MacDonald, James M. & Korb, Penelope J., 2011. "Agricultural Contracting Update: Contracts in 2008," Economic Information Bulletin 101279, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  7. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, 09.
  8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
  9. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
  10. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 667-677.
  11. Vassalos, Michael & Hu, Wuyang & Woods, Timothy A. & Schieffer, Jack & Dillon, Carl R., 2013. "Fresh Vegetable Growers' Risk Perception, Risk Preference and Choice of Marketing Contracts: A Choice Experiment," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 142506, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
  13. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: the case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Discussion Papers 108349, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
  14. Anonymous & Marchant, Mary A. & Wetzstein, Michael, 2013. "SAEA 2013 Annual Meetings," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(03), August.
  15. Maples, McKenzie & Morgan, Kimberly L. & Harri, Ardian & Hood, Kenneth & Interis, Matthew, 2014. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Environmental Production Attributes in Tomatoes: A Southeastern Consumer Survey," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162504, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205768. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.