2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Supermarket procurement and farmgate prices in India

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Accumulated evidence shows that reducing the chain of intermediaries between the farmerproducer and consumer can benefit the former through higher price realization [40][41][42]. A large number of startups focus on innovations for linking the farmers in far-flung areas with the buyers of their produce (Table 1).…”
Section: Output Market Linkagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accumulated evidence shows that reducing the chain of intermediaries between the farmerproducer and consumer can benefit the former through higher price realization [40][41][42]. A large number of startups focus on innovations for linking the farmers in far-flung areas with the buyers of their produce (Table 1).…”
Section: Output Market Linkagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contract farming agreements that provide farmers with a fixed price for their harvest could be viable, though they are hard to coordinate when the farmer base is atomized and sporadic and may exclude force majeur events such as a pandemic. Fostering supply chain modernization through, for instance, direct supermarket procurement could also help improve prices and reduce price risk (Nuthalapati et al., 2020). In addition, private index insurance products that provide a payout when the local market price (for a reference variety and quality) falls under a minimum threshold, without provisions for procuring the product itself, may be a potential solution to the problems associated with price guarantee schemes, by providing additional income to farmers during generalized price downfalls, yet avoiding any direct market intervention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings are discussed with reference to the market access literature (De Janvry et al, 1991;Stringfellow et al, 1997;Key et al, 2000;Berdegué, 2001 andSchwentesius and Gómez, 2002;Kirsten and Sartorius, 2002;Osborne, 2005;Coulter, 2007;Hazell et al, 2007;Barret, 2008;Hellin et al, 2009;Kyeyamwa et al, 2008;Shiferaw et al, 2008;Markelova et al, 2009;Bernard and Spielman, 2009;Markelova and Mwangi, 2010;Balaji, 2016;Sitko et al, 2018;Nuthalapati et al, 2020) which associates trade intermediaries buying at farmgate with market imperfections, rent positions, and inefficiency. The findings of this study show instead that direct access by farmers to markets is not a panacea and it is necessary to distinguish between different markets and value chains, as the market access narrative might sometimes be applied beyond its realisable scope.…”
Section: Marta Marson*mentioning
confidence: 92%