Do bottom-up and independent agricultural cooperatives really perform better? Insights from a technical efficiency analysis in Ethiopia

Gezahegn, Tafesse W.; Passel, Steven Van; Berhanu, Tekeste; D’Haese, Marijke; Maertens, Miet

doi:10.1080/03031853.2019.1663223

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…. 1026) and j stands for the j-th inputs used in the production process (labor (A), land (B), and capital (C); ln stands for natural logarithm); L and S are dummies for large-scale irrigation user and smallscale irrigation user smallholder farmers, respectively; D is a vector of district dummies allowing for neutral output shift among different districts (Mecha and Fogera) (see [26,27]). The term Ui is a onesided (Ui ≥ 0) efficiency component that captures the technical (in)efficiency of smallholder farmers.…”

Section: Stochastic Frontier Model Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia: A Stochastic Frontier Approach

Zewdie

Moretti

Tenessa

et al. 2021

Land

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade, to improve crop production and productivity, Ethiopia has embarked on an ambitious irrigation farming expansion program and has introduced new large- and small-scale irrigation initiatives. However, in Ethiopia, poverty remains a challenge, and crop productivity per unit area of land is very low. Literature on the technical efficiency (TE) of large-scale and small-scale irrigation user farmers as compared to the non-user farmers in Ethiopia is also limited. Investigating smallholder farmers’ technical efficiency (TE) level and its principal determinants is very important to increase crop production and productivity and to improve smallholder farmers’ livelihood and food security. Using 1026 household-level cross-section data, this study adopts a technology flexible stochastic frontier approach to examine agricultural TE of large-scale irrigation users, small-scale irrigation users and non-user farmers in Ethiopia. The results indicate that, due to poor extension services and old-style agronomic practices, the mean TE of farmers is very low (44.33%), implying that there is a wider room for increasing crop production in the study areas through increasing the TE of smallholder farmers without additional investment in novel agricultural technologies. Results also show that large-scale irrigation user farmers (21.05%) are less technically efficient than small-scale irrigation user farmers (60.29%). However, improving irrigation infrastructure shifts the frontier up and has a positive impact on smallholder farmers’ output.

show abstract

Section: Stochastic Frontier Model Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia: A Stochastic Frontier Approach

Zewdie

Moretti

Tenessa

et al. 2021

Land

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They also found that cooperative performance is dependent on good CG. Meanwhile, Gezahegn et al (2020) suggest the significant negative effect on cooperative technical efficiency of several factors, including members' participation, number of employees, chairman's level of education, and education committee. They also found that community-initiated cooperatives (as opposed to government-initiated cooperatives and cooperatives that compensate board members have positive effects on cooperative technical efficiency.…”

Section: Atmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperative Governance and Cooperative Performance: A Systematic Literature Review

Jamaluddin,

Saleh,

Abdullah

et al. 2023

SAGE Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the proliferation of systematic literature review studies on cooperative organization, a similar review of cooperative governance and performance literature has yet to be conducted. To close this gap, this paper presents a systematic literature review on the relationship between cooperative governance (CG) and cooperative performance using the PRISMA approach. Major search engines were used in the compilation of studies published between 2009 and 2021. A review of the 30 selected papers indicate there are four categories of CG used in relation to cooperative performance: board characteristics, policy compliance, management, leadership and strategies, and the board’s social or human capital. The results also suggest mixed and inconclusive findings on the CG–cooperative performance relationship. The current study seeks to contribute to the existing literature by highlighting patterns and gaps of past studies on the CG–cooperative performance relationship, thereby providing insights for future research.

show abstract

“…Member-formed cooperatives are more likely to have strong membership commitment than outsider-formed cooperatives (e.g. Gezahegn, Van Passel, Berhanu, D'haese, & Maertens, 2020;Golovina & Nilsson, 2011). Therefore, member-formed cooperatives are more likely to survive.…”

Section: Formation Naming and Formalization Of Farmer-based Cooperative Societiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of farmer‐based cooperative societies in the upper west region of Ghana

Dary

Grashuis

2020

Ann Public Coop Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study describes the ownership and governance characteristics and the challenges of farmer-based cooperative societies from three districts in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Primary data were obtained from 59 active and 14 inactive cooperatives in the selected districts. The study concludes that Ghanaian cooperatives in the sample bear much resemblance to the traditional form which emerged in Europe and North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Generally, such cooperatives have relatively small memberships from local communities who use a democratic governance system and do not delegate control to outsiders. While the cost of owning and transacting is limited with such characteristics, many traditional cooperatives lack the specific knowledge, economic efficiency, and resource endowment necessary to become or remain competitive. Indeed, the active cooperatives listed finance, access to inputs, tractor services and poor leadership as key challenges, while inactive cooperatives blamed poor member commitment as the primary culprit for their inactivity. Efforts aimed at promoting and supporting farmer cooperatives should focus on addressing these key challenges. Also, financial and technical support should probably be conditional on group performance and not group formation itself.

show abstract

Do bottom-up and independent agricultural cooperatives really perform better? Insights from a technical efficiency analysis in Ethiopia

Cited by 9 publications

References 49 publications

Agricultural Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia: A Stochastic Frontier Approach

Agricultural Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia: A Stochastic Frontier Approach

Cooperative Governance and Cooperative Performance: A Systematic Literature Review

Characterization of farmer‐based cooperative societies in the upper west region of Ghana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About