Farmers’ self-reported value of cooperative membership: evidence from heterogeneous business and organization structures

被引:0
|
作者
Alho E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Economics, University of Helsinki and Pellervo Economic Research PTT, Eerikinkatu 28 A, Helsinki
关键词
Agricultural cooperatives; Member benefits; Ordered probit; Transaction costs;
D O I
10.1186/s40100-015-0041-6
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The value of membership of an agricultural producer cooperative to a farmer is universally understood to include market access, improved bargaining power, and reduced transaction costs. As a result of consolidation in agriculture, many farmers in developed countries have found themselves in complex cooperative structures in which market orientation may elevate capital-related membership benefits over the traditional patronage and farming-related benefits. This study utilized the heterogeneity in producer organization structures to examine the significance to farmers of membership in modern agricultural cooperatives. Survey data including 682 Finnish agricultural producers in the livestock sector enabled the subjective value of cooperative membership and the relationship with transaction cost benefits to be analyzed. The effect of vertical integration in cooperatives on the self-reported value of membership benefits was assessed with a sample consisting of members in three types of cooperative organizations: dairy marketing, dairy supply, and meat cooperatives. The findings confirm that a stable market channel is still the most important benefit that producers perceive as deriving from cooperative membership. Multivariate ordered probit analysis indicated that the market channel is equally appreciated by large and small producers, but the reduced uncertainty brought by a cooperative buyer is particularly valuable to farmers who are investing in farm expansion. The survey findings indicate that the more competition for the raw material from producers there is in an area, the greater is the pressure cooperatives may be under to develop their service offering in order to attract members. © 2015, Alh.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] DO SELF-REPORTED HEALTH INDICATORS PREDICT MORTALITY? EVIDENCE FROM MATLAB, BANGLADESH
    Razzaque, Abdur
    Mustafa, A. H. M. G.
    Streatfield, Peter Kim
    JOURNAL OF BIOSOCIAL SCIENCE, 2014, 46 (05) : 621 - 634
  • [33] Determinants of Poverty, Self-Reported Shocks, and Coping Strategies: Evidence from Rural Nepal
    Gautam, Narayan Prasad
    Raut, Nirmal Kumar
    Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal
    Raut, Nirjala
    Rashid, Muhammad Haroon U.
    Ma, Xiangqing
    Wu, Pengfei
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (04) : 1 - 20
  • [34] Small area contextual effects on self-reported health: Evidence from Riverside, Calgary
    Godley, Jenny
    Haines, Valerie A.
    Hawe, Penelope
    Shiell, Alan
    BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2010, 10
  • [35] Small area contextual effects on self-reported health: Evidence from Riverside, Calgary
    Jenny Godley
    Valerie A Haines
    Penelope Hawe
    Alan Shiell
    BMC Public Health, 10
  • [36] Identifying Factors Associated with Self-Reported Adult Telehealth Utilization: Evidence from Mississippi
    Davis, Will
    Kim, Ayoung
    TELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH, 2025,
  • [37] Social Desirability Bias in self-reported wellbeing Measures: Evidence from an online survey
    Caputo, Andrea
    UNIVERSITAS PSYCHOLOGICA, 2017, 16 (02)
  • [38] Consistency of Parental and Self-Reported Adolescent Wellbeing: Evidence From Developmental Language Disorder
    Kenyon, Sheila M. Gough
    Palikara, Olympia
    Lucas, Rebecca M.
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 12
  • [39] EXTRAVERSION, NEUROTICISM, PSYCHOTICISM AND SELF-REPORTED DELINQUENCY - EVIDENCE FROM 8 SEPARATE SAMPLES
    RUSHTON, JP
    CHRISJOHN, RD
    PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 1981, 2 (01) : 11 - 20
  • [40] Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from a panel data analysis of smallholder dairy farmers in Bihar, India
    Kumar, Anjani
    Saroj, Sunil
    Joshi, P. K.
    Takeshima, Hiroyuki
    FOOD POLICY, 2018, 75 : 24 - 36