IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205768.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Barrowclough, Michael
  • Boys, Kathryn A.
  • Carpio, Carlos

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Barrowclough, Michael & Boys, Kathryn A. & Carpio, Carlos, 2015. "An Evaluation of Firm and Contract Characteristics Valued by Supply Chain Partners in Specialty Crop Marketing Channels," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205768, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205768
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205768/files/BarrowcloughBoysCarpio2015AAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205768?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. 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, January.
    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 667-677.
    5. 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, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    8. Vassalos, Michael & Hu, Wuyang & Woods, Timothy A. & Schieffer, Jack & Dillon, Carl R., "undated". "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.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    11. Hu, Wu-Yueh, 2012. "Effect of Contract Farming on the Farmers' Average Return - The Case of the Grain Industry in the U.S.A," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124659, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2019. "Willingness Toupee," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(3), pages 1738-1742, July.
      • David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2019. "Willingness Toupee," Working Papers 19-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    15. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    16. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Demko, Iryna & Plakias, Zoe & Katchova, Ani, "undated". "How do farmers compose their portfolio of local food marketing channels?," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259931, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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 J. Barrowclough & Jeffrey Alwang, 2018. "Conservation agriculture in Ecuador’s highlands: a discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 2681-2705, December.
    2. Asinyaka Michael, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Energy Efficient Refrigerating Appliances in Accra, Ghana: A Choice Experiment Approach," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 70(1), pages 15-39, April.
    3. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    4. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    5. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    6. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    7. Caplan, Arthur J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Toll, Kristopher, 2021. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for residential amenities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    8. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    10. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Allen Blackman & Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz & Leonardo Corral & Maja Schling, 2024. "The Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 100(2), pages 333-352.
    12. Katsunori Yamada & Masayuki Sato, 2010. "Another Avenue for Anatomy of Income Comparisons: Evidence from Hypothetical Choice Experiments," ISER Discussion Paper 0795rrr, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka, revised May 2012.
    13. Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang & Zhu, Zhanguo & Penn, Jerrod, 2023. "Consumer preference for food products addressing multiple dimensions of poverty: Evidence from China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Bakti Hasan-Basri & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim & Normizan Bakar, 2015. "Willingness To Pay For Recreational Attributes Of Public Parks: A Choice Experiment Approach," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    16. Schueftan, Alejandra & Aravena, Claudia & Reyes, René, 2021. "Financing energy efficiency retrofits in Chilean households: The role of financial instruments, savings and uncertainty in energy transition," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. Serge Garcia & Katrin Erdlenbruch & Boniface Derrick Mbarga, 2024. "A discrete choice experiment to measure the impact of flood risk information on residential location choices [Une expérience de choix discrets pour mesurer l'impact de l'information sur les risques," Working Papers hal-04594157, HAL.
    18. Katsunori Yamada & Masayuki Sato, 2010. "Another Avenue for Anatomy of Income Comparisons: Evidence from Hypothetical Choice Experiments," ISER Discussion Paper 0795rr, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka, revised Nov 2011.
    19. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    20. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea15:205768. 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/aaeaaea.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.