IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/masspp/182535.html

Linking Malawian smallholders to larger-scale agribusiness enterprises for inclusive development: A conceptual critique of the anchor enterprise model

Author

Listed:
  • Benson, Todd
  • Cockx, Lara
  • De Weerdt, Joachim

Abstract

While smallholder farming has been and remains at the center of agricultural transformation efforts in Malawi, the limited success of smallholder-centered agricultural development strategies has led policymakers to explore alternative approaches. One emerging approach involves larger farms or agribusiness firms partnering with smallholder farming households, in what we will refer to as an anchor enterprise model. Under this model, smallholder farming households contribute land and labor to produce crops or livestock products that serve as inputs for, or are marketed jointly with, the anchor enterprise. In return, the anchor enterprise provides support such as technical assistance, inputs, transport, or storage. This partnership is intended to be commercial and mutually beneficial. While support for such partnerships is growing and the anchor enterprise model is increasingly being used in development programming in Malawi, there is still little clarity on what they involve, what they aim to achieve, and the conditions they need for success. This study seeks to address these questions and assess whether such linkages between larger farms or agrifood processors and smallholder farming households can contribute to sustainable, resilient, and inclusive wealth creation in Malawi. The findings from this study are also summarized in a policy note (Benson, Cockx, and De Weerdt, 2025). Anchor enterprise partnerships can be valuable development models in specific contexts. In particular, they can help both larger enterprises and smallholders overcome constraints imposed by weaknesses in Malawi’s factor, input, and output markets, enabling both land and labor to be used more productively. However, the viability of the model depends heavily on the nature of the product at its center. Anchor enterprise models are generally not suitable for grain or other generic staple crops. For such products, partnerships are costly and carry high risk since farmers can easily find and sell to other buyers than their anchor enterprise partner if market prices rise above the agreed price for the partnership (side-selling). Similarly, if market prices drop below the agreed price, enterprises may buy elsewhere (side-buying). Rather, these partnerships are most likely to be economically justified for higher value, less widely grown, more specialized, more complex to produce or process, or highly perishable agricultural products. For these products, the risk of default is lower as the reduction in transaction costs provides both parties with strong incentives for maintaining a longer-term commercial relationship. These incentives are especially important as the legal framework governing commercial partnerships in Malawi's agrifood sector remains underdeveloped. Formal contracts were found to be important but not central to successful anchor enterprise operations. Partnerships that endure are built on a strong economic rationale, clear financial incentives for all parties, and a degree of bilateral dependency. Anchor enterprise models cannot be profitably and sustainably employed for many types of commercial agricultural production in Malawi. Consequently, only a small portion of farming households can directly participate, and the poorest and most vulnerable are generally less likely to be included. Nonetheless, where such models work well, they can deliver indirect benefits to the broader rural community, including its poorer and more vulnerable members, by stimulating local demand for labor, goods, and services. Complementary interventions aimed at strengthening the capacity of the poorest households to capture these indirect benefits may, however, be necessary for the model to contribute meaningfully to inclusive development. A model centered around commercial farms or agro-processors requires an enabling environment for such enterprises to operate effectively. This includes macroeconomic stability, an investment climate that facilitates private investment in agribusiness, and trade and exchange rate policies that support formal exports. To be sustainable, anchor enterprise models must be grounded in a strong economic rationale for partnering. Government and development partners can, however, support such partnerships without eroding their commercial foundations by, for example, investing in new institutions for conflict prevention and resolution, providing enterprises with assistance in managing relationships with smallholder partners, organizing financial and business training for farmers to reduce information asymmetries, or supporting organizations that can act as effective third-party intermediaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Benson, Todd & Cockx, Lara & De Weerdt, Joachim, 2026. "Linking Malawian smallholders to larger-scale agribusiness enterprises for inclusive development: A conceptual critique of the anchor enterprise model," MaSSP working papers 46, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:masspp:182535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/182535
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benson, Todd & Cockx, Lara & De Weerdt, Joachim, 2025. "The development potential of anchor enterprise models in Malawi," Impact assessments 54, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Chamberlin, Jordan & Jayne, T.S., 2020. "Does farm structure affect rural household incomes? Evidence from Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Hannah Ameye & Fantu Nisrane Bachewe & Bart Minten & Seneshaw Tamru, 2025. "Farm size and agricultural productivity of nutritious foods: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(2), pages 296-337, June.
    4. Ward Anseeuw & Thomas Jayne & Richard Kachule & John Kotsopoulos, 2016. "The Quiet Rise of Medium-Scale Farms in Malawi," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-22, June.
    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. Liverpool-Tasie, Saweda & Nuhu, Ahmed Salim & Awokuse, Titus O. & Jayne, Thomas S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo & Adelaja, Adesoji, 2020. "Spillover effects of Medium-Scale Farms on Smallholder Behavior and Welfare: Evidence from Nigeria," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304606, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne & Emma Isinika Modamba & Holger Kray, 2021. "Characteristics and Spillover Effects of Medium-Scale Farms in Tanzania," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(6), pages 1877-1898, December.
    3. Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool‐Tasie & Ahmed Salim Nuhu & Titus Awokuse & Thomas Jayne & Milu Muyanga & Adebayo Aromolaran & Adesoji Adelaja, 2023. "Can medium‐scale farms support smallholder commercialisation and improve welfare? Evidence from Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 48-74, February.
    4. Mabaya, Edward & Kachule, Richard & Waithaka, Michael & Mugoya, Mainza & Kanyenji, George & Tihanyi, Krisztina, "undated". "Malawi Country Report 2020," TASAI: The African Seed Access Index-Reports 317014, TASAI: The African Seed Access Index.
    5. Thomas Jayne & Milu Muyanga & Ayala Wineman & Hosaena Ghebru & Caleb Stevens & Mercedes Stickler & Antony Chapoto & Ward Anseeuw & Divan van der Westhuizen & David Nyange, 2019. "Are medium-scale farms driving agricultural transformation in sub-Saharan Africa?," Post-Print hal-05174391, HAL.
    6. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Katchova, Ani L., 2022. "How Economic Conditions Changed the Number of U.S. Farms, 1960-88: A Replication and Extension of Gale (1990) to Midsize Farms in the U.S. and Abroad," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321202, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    7. Chamberlin, Jordan & Jayne, T. S., "undated". "Farmland Concentration And Rural Income Growth: Evidence From Tanzania," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 265608, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    8. Koirala, Pankaj & Kotani, Koji & Managi, Shunsuke, 2022. "How do farm size and perceptions matter for farmers’ adaptation responses to climate change in a developing country? Evidence from Nepal," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 188-204.
    9. Lay, Jann & Nolte, Kerstin & Sipangule, Kacana, 2018. "Large-Scale Farms and Smallholders: Evidence from Zambia," GIGA Working Papers 310, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    10. Holden, Stein T,, 2017. "Policies for Improved Food Security: - The Roles of Land Tenure Policies and Land Markets," CLTS Working Papers 9/17, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 21 Oct 2019.
    11. Sarah Ephrida Tione, 2020. "Agricultural Resources and Trade Strategies: Response to Falling Land-to-Labor Ratios in Malawi," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-32, December.
    12. Ana Claudia Sant'Anna & Ani L. Katchova, 2023. "How economic conditions changed the number of U.S. Farms, 1960–1988: A replication and extension of Gale (1990) to midsize farms in the United States and abroad," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1400-1426, September.
    13. Peng Wang & Fanzhi Wang, 2022. "A study of the impact of land transfer decisions on household income in rural China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Deininger, Klaus W. & Xia, Fang, "undated". "Assessing Impacts of Large Scale Land Transfers: Challenges and Opportunities in Malawi’s Estate Sector," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258112, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Chamberlin, Jordan & Jayne, T.S., 2020. "Does farm structure affect rural household incomes? Evidence from Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    16. Debonne, Niels & van Vliet, Jasper & Ramkat, Rose & Snelder, Denyse & Verburg, Peter, 2021. "Farm scale as a driver of agricultural development in the Kenyan Rift Valley," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    17. Adane Tufa & Arega Alene & Hambulo Ngoma & Paswel Marenya & Julius Manda & Md Abdul Matin & Christian Thierfelder & David Chikoye, 2024. "Willingness to pay for agricultural mechanization services by smallholder farmers in Malawi," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 248-276, January.
    18. Gamel Abdul-Nasser Salifu, 2021. "The Proof of Economic Welfare Is in the Eating of Nutritious Diets by the Resource-Poor: A Political Economy Analysis of the International Evidence of Dietary Consumption in Rural Africa," International Journal of Business Administration, International Journal of Business Administration, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(1), pages 57-68, January.
    19. William J. Burke & Thomas S. Jayne & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2020. "Do Medium‐scale Farms Improve Market Access Conditions for Zambian Smallholders?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 517-533, June.
    20. Benson, Todd & Cockx, Lara & De Weerdt, Joachim, 2025. "The development potential of anchor enterprise models in Malawi," Impact assessments 54, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:fpr:masspp:182535. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.