The economic impacts of agricultural cooperatives on smallholder farmers in rural China

Abstract

This paper examines the impacts of agricultural cooperative membership on output price, gross income, farm profit, and return on investment (ROI) utilizing a recent household survey data of 481 apple producers in China. We employ a treatment effects model to account for potential selection bias that arises from the fact that cooperative members and nonmembers are systematically different in terms of both observable and unobservable factors. Our analysis reveals that cooperative membership has a positive and statistically significant impact on apple price, gross income, farm profit, and ROI. In addition, we find that the highest profit effect of cooperative membership does not in fact result in the highest ROI effect of the membership, revealing differences in farm income and profitability of investment. [EconLit citations: C35, D71, Q12, Q13].

Harnessing a ‘Currency Matrix’ for Performance Measurement in Cooperatives: A Multi-Phased Study

“…More specifically, this sub-category relates to pricing, delivery, services, and governance data, like prices paid to members by the cooperative, the percentage of in-selling (or side-selling), the scope and quality of services members receive, and the governance systems and procedures (e.g., CEO tenure, secret ballots, audited accounts, available information to members). In agricultural cooperatives, this sub-category may additionally cover features commensurate with patronage and the members' farms [117][118][119], such as farm financial ratios, profits obtained, productivity, and efficiency. One of the reasons why farmers join cooperatives is that they routinely face considerable risk of income variability, often due to monopolistic exploitation (e.g., price discrimination) from upstream or downstream partners [31,39].…”

“…They are based on objective data and, if cooperative registries are present or if the cooperative statutes are readily available, OMA information can be directly sourced. In the absence of such sources as well as when farm-level data is sought, survey-based methods (e.g., structured questionnaires) are used instead [119], which often make the data collection process somewhat troublesome, as data access might condition the consent of cooperative officials or members themselves [116]. Moreover, OMA measures in isolation cannot truly address the dual nature of the cooperative organization; neither do they account for the performance of a cooperative as an entity nor reflect all member benefits (e.g., satisfaction with membership aspects).…”

The Service Supply Effect of Cooperatives under Economic Transformation: A Demand-Supply Perspective

“…Compared with other regions, such as the United States (US), Japan, and the European Union, the development of cooperatives in China is still at the initial stage [11,12]. The impetus for the rapid growth of cooperatives comes from the government [13][14][15].…”

Essays on co-operatives’ idiosyncrasies : structure, performance, and membership

“…More specifically, this sub-category relates to pricing, delivery, services, and governance data, like prices paid to members by the co-op, the percentage of inselling (or side-selling), the scope and quality of services members receive, and the governance systems and procedures (e.g., CEO tenure, secret ballots, audited accounts, available information to members). In agricultural co-ops, this subcategory may additionally cover features commensurate with patronage and the members' farms Ma and Abdulai, 2017;Ruben and Heras, 2012), such as farm financial ratios, profits obtained, productivity, and efficiency.…”

“…They are based on objective data and, if co-op registries are present or if the co-op statutes are readily available, OMA information can be directly sourced. In the absence of such sources as well as when farm-level data is sought, survey-based methods (e.g., structured questionnaires) are used instead (Ma and Abdulai, 2017), which often make the data collection process somewhat troublesome, as data access might condition the consent of co-op officials or members themselves (Chagwiza et al, 2016). Moreover, OMA measures in isolation cannot truly address the dual nature of the co-op organization; neither do they account for the performance of a co-op as an entity nor reflect all member benefits (e.g., satisfaction with membership aspects).…”