Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Food Policy 34 (2009) 5359

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Collective action initiatives to improve marketing performance:


Lessons from farmer groups in Tanzania
James Barham a,*, Clarence Chitemi b
a
b

Department of Agriculture, Marketing Services Branch, Washington, DC, United States


Faida Market Link Company Limited, Arusha, Tanzania

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Accepted 2 October 2008

Keywords:
Collective action
Agricultural marketing
Farmer groups
Social capital
Planned change initiatives
Tanzania

a b s t r a c t
This study aims to examine the extent to which certain characteristics and asset endowments of smallholder farmer groups facilitate collective action initiatives to improve group marketing performance. This
is approached through an evaluation of a government-led programme in Tanzania, which is attempting to
increase smallholder farmers incomes and food security through a market-oriented intervention. Findings suggest that more mature groups with strong internal institutions, functioning group activities,
and a good asset base of natural capital are more likely to improve their market situation. Gender composition of groups also affects group marketing performance, as an enabling factor for male-dominated
groups. Structural social capital in the form of membership in other groups and ties to external service
providers, and cognitive social capital in the form of intra-group trust and altruistic behaviour are not signicant factors in a groups ability to improve its market situation.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction
In recent years, the importance of smallholder agriculture has
been greatly recognized. This growing recognition has led to two
major crosscurrents of theory and practice aimed at boosting Africas faltering agricultural economies. First, agricultural development will not occur without engaging smallholder farmers who
account for the overwhelming majority of actors in this sector
(Magingxa and Kamara, 2003; Diao and Hazell, 2004; Resnick,
2004). The second current is that the major obstacle facing smallholder-led agricultural growth is lack of market access, which proponents contend, will lead to increased incomes and food security,
more rural employment, and sustained agricultural growth (Dorward et al., 2003; Stiglitz, 2002; Poulton et al., 1998).
Market access proponents make a strong case that, for small
farmers to thrive in the global economy, it is necessary to create
an entrepreneurial culture in rural communities (Lundy et al.,
2002). This means shifting the focus from production-related programmes to more market-oriented interventions. This has placed
renewed attention on institutions of collective action, such as
farmer groups, as an efcient mechanism for enhancing marketing
performance (Kariuki and Place, 2005).
The primary aim of this study is to identify the underlying factors that enable smallholder producer groups to improve their
market situation. Specically, we aim to examine the extent to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 571 331 1897.
E-mail addresses: james.barham@usda.gov, barhamjg@yahoo.com (J. Barham).
0306-9192/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.002

which certain group characteristics and asset endowments facilitate collective action initiatives to improve group marketing performance. This is approached through an evaluation of a
government-led programme in Tanzania, which aims to increase
smallholder farmers incomes and food security through a market-oriented intervention, and improve farmers marketing performance by enhancing their stocks of human and social capital. This
involves establishing new groups, strengthening existing groups,
providing skills training in marketing and entrepreneurship, and
linking these groups to other chain actors.
Collective action and social capital
Agrawal (2001) synthesized the works of several previous
authors (including Wade, 1988; Ostrom, 1990, 1992; Baland and
Platteau, 1996) in an effort to identify a common list of enabling
conditions for successful collective action outcomes in natural resource management. These conditions include: (i) small group size;
(ii) clearly dened boundaries; (iii) shared norms; (iv) past successful experiences; (v) appropriate leadership; (vi) interdependence
among group members; (vii) heterogeneity of endowments, homogeneity of identities and interests; and (viii) low levels of poverty.
The review of collective action theory parallels the social capital
literature. Uphoff and Wijayaratna (2000) highlight how structural
forms of social capital (roles, rules, procedures and social networks) facilitate mutually benecial collective action and how
cognitive forms of social capital (norms, values, attitudes and trust)
are conducive for mutually benecial collective action. Other

54

J. Barham, C. Chitemi / Food Policy 34 (2009) 5359

studies, such as Pretty and Ward (2001) and Krishna (2001), have
similarly shown how human and social capital formation have
been pivotal in solving many communities development problems, particularly in natural resource management.
While there is substantial evidence for the importance of social
capital in maintaining natural capital, fewer studies examine how
it is utilized for collective action to improve marketing performance. This is particularly apparent when examining how group
characteristics may inuence or determine marketing outcomes.
The studies that do emerge often examine higher-tier organizations, such as cooperatives or agribusiness enterprises (for example
Jones, 2004; Johnson et al., 2002). This paper contributes to research into the effects of social capital and other group characteristics on the marketing performance of lower-tier organizations
such as producer groups.

This component was planned as a joint partnership between the


district governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The main tasks of the NGOs known as Partner Agencies (PAs)
are to train producer groups in a number of capacity-building
and marketing skills and, where possible, to establish sustainable
market linkages with other chain actors. AMSDP started in January
2004 with eight PAs in eight regions of Tanzania. The research site
for this study is located in the northern highland region of Tanzania. Our research partners were two local PAs in the Arusha and
Kilimanjaro regions: the Traditional Irrigation and Environmental
Development Organization (TIP) in the district of Arumeru and Faida Market Link Company Limited (FAIDA) in the district of Hai.

Study hypotheses

To assess the effect of the intervention on producer group outcomes, a pretestposttest research design was utilized (Johnson,
1998). The pretest observations (the rst round of interviews) were
conducted as the groups were undergoing training with the PAs. Six
to eight months later at the conclusion of the intervention, the same
groups underwent posttest assessment (the second round of interviews) to ascertain changes in their market situations.

Eight hypotheses were derived from collective action and social


capital literature to be tested to determine the extent to which certain group assets and characteristics affect a groups ability to improve its market situation.
Social capital hypotheses
Farmer groups with the following attributes will be better positioned to improve their marketing performance:
1. A high level of trust among members;
2. More altruistic behaviour;
3. More ties to other organizations within and outside their
community.
The rst two hypotheses deal with cognitive social capital while
the third hypothesis is concerned with testing the effects of structural social capital on group marketing performance.
Collective action hypotheses
The next set of hypotheses was derived from the collective action literature. These state that farmer groups will be better positioned to improve their marketing performance if they have
some or all of the following attributes:
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Lower levels of poverty;


Smaller group size;
Past successful experiences;
Heterogeneity of endowments;
Homogeneity of identities and interests.

In reference to the fourth hypothesis, poverty is broadly dened


to include varying levels of livelihood asset congurations (natural,
physical, nancial, human, social capital) accessible to groups.

Research methods

Conceptual model
A conceptual model was developed to understand the ow of
the planned change process. The model utilizes the terminology
and perspectives of cultural materialism (Harris, 1979) and tries
to separate the determining factors from the enabling or constraining factors that affect group marketing performance. As represented in Fig. 1, the wider and determinate infrastructure
encapsulates this planned changed initiative and includes such factors as smallholder groups farming systems, agro-ecological conditions, and their physical access to markets.
Farmer groups are represented under the social structure; this
includes a number of factors affecting a groups ability to enact
successful collective action initiatives such as the groups asset
congurations, composition and characteristics. The PAs intervene
to enhance human capital in the form of marketing skills, business
acumen and other training, represented by the solid line from the
PA to the social structure. The PAs also provide some groups with
market linkages to other chain actors; this is represented by the
dotted line to collective action initiatives and the lines connecting
PA intervention to market chain actors. Farmer groups also carry
out collective action initiatives without linkages from the PA, represented by the lines connecting collective action initiatives to the
market chain actors. The performance outcomes represent the extent to which groups have improved their market situation and resulted in positive livelihood outcomes.
Study sample

Background on programme and study area


This study examines a planned change initiative in Tanzania
called the Agricultural Marketing Systems Development Programme (AMSDP), which targets poor smallholder farmers with
the overarching goal of increasing their incomes and food security
through improvements in market access. Within AMSDP, improving market access includes the following components: (1) reforming the regulatory and taxation systems; (2) improving market
infrastructure; (3) establishing agricultural marketing information
systems; and (4) strengthening producer groups and creating market linkages. The primary focus of this study is the fourth component of the programme.

As shown in Table 1, the sample for this study comprised 34


groups with a mean group size of 35 members. Thirty-seven percent of all group members working with FAIDA and 29% of those
working with TIP participated in the rst round of interviews
and completed questionnaires about themselves and their households. Thus, the total study sample represents 33% of all group
members.
Dependent variable: group marketing performance
As the primary dependent variable of this study, a marketing
performance rating (MPR) was constructed to evaluate concrete
signs that groups market situation had improved through the

55

J. Barham, C. Chitemi / Food Policy 34 (2009) 5359

Infrastructure

Physical access to markets


Agro-ecological factors
Farming systems

Social Structure
Farmer Groups

Collective
Action
Initiatives

Group composition
and characteristics
Group assets

PA Intervention

Performance Outcomes
Improved market situation
and positive livelihood
outcomes

Market Chain Actors

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for research study.

Table 1
Group study sample.

Table 2
Explanatory variables categorized by factor domains.
FAIDA
N

TIP
%

Sample total

Infrastructure

Social structure

PA intervention

Market access
Distance to market
Road conditions

Group assets
Wealth ranking
Education
Providers/Partners
Membership in other groups
Altruism
Intra-group trust (3 variables)

Partner agency
PA linkage

Sample size

16

18

34

Size of group
Mean
Range

32
1540

38
20150

35

Total membership

507

Total membership sampled

189

678
37

199

Agro-ecological factors
Commodity types
Reliable water source
Land

1185
29%

388

33%

project intervention. Each group was given a marketing performance rating ranging from 0 to 2, in the following manner:
Rating 0 No improvement. Groups were given this rating if,
according to their own assessment, the project intervention had
led to little meaningful or concrete improvement in their market
situation.
Rating 1 some improvement. Groups were given this rating
where they showed the ability to successfully put training into
practice. Such groups were able to provide concrete examples of
how their market situation had improved from participation in
the project.
Rating 2 large improvement. A few groups showed the ability to
improve their market situation with a level of success that separated them from the other groups. In most cases, these groups
showed striking market improvements by initiating several collective action initiatives.
Explanatory variables
Improved marketing performance is an outcome of a number of
endogenous and exogenous factors. A number of explanatory variables affecting MPR were identied a priori based on the literature
reviewed in the previous section.1 Table 2 categorizes the explanatory variables by the factor domains that relate to the studys conceptual model.
The Infrastructure domain takes into account physical market
access and agro-ecological factors, represented by ve variables:
distance to markets, road conditions, staple food crops, land, and

1
See Barham and Chitemi (2007) for detailed description of how the variables were
constructed.

Group composition/characteristics
Group maturity
Group size
Activity level
Gender categories
Leadership by sex
Group heterogeneity
Educational
Gender
Wealth

reliable water source. The distance to markets variable measures


the distance from group meeting place to the major market in
the region. The commodity types variable refers to the crops grown
by group members that were put forward as a possible agro-enterprise venture, and delineates between those groups that grow traditional staple food crops (cereals and legumes) and those groups
dealing in other commodities (vegetables, coffee, livestock, rice).
The Social structure domain includes several explanatory variables that represent group assets, group composition and characteristics,2 and group heterogeneity. Under the group assets
heading, the providers/partners and membership in other groups
variables are used to represent structural social capital.3 Altruism4
2
The group maturity variable refers to whether a group existed prior to the
intervention, or was newly formed for the purposes of the intervention. The leadership
by sex variable is the proportion of male to female elected leaders in a group. The
activity level variable refers to the number of effectively operating internal group
activities.
3
The providers/partners variable refers to the number of service providers and/or
business partners the group worked with prior to the intervention adjusted for
number of years of the groups existence. The membership in other groups variable
refers only to membership in other agricultural and development-oriented groups.
4
The altruism variable was based on group members playing a one-shot Public
Goods Game (PPG). Higher group scores represent more altruistic behaviour.

56

J. Barham, C. Chitemi / Food Policy 34 (2009) 5359

and three intra-group trust variables (general, help, and money


trust) are used to represent cognitive social capital.5 The PA intervention domain takes into account the partner agency with which the
farmer groups worked and whether or not the groups were actively
linked to other market chain actors in an effort to improve their market situation.
Results
Through a number of collective action measures, 19 farmer
groups (56%) improved their market situation. Thirteen farmer
groups had some market improvement with a MPR of 1, and six
groups had large improvements with a MPR of 2.
A number of group assets, characteristics, and other explanatory
variables were tested to ascertain how these might play a determining factor in group marketing performance. Tests of association and
correlation (ANOVA and Pearsons R) were conducted to analyse the
statistical signicance of mean values between farmer groups. Table 3 provides a summary of the results of the bivariate analyses.6
Six variables are statistically signicant (p < 0.10), and two
other variables are marginally signicant (p < 0.11).7 Those variables most strongly associated with improved marketing performance are reliable water source, activity level and commodity
types. Group maturity, partner agency, and education variables are
also statistically signicant factors in improved marketing performance. PA linkages and leadership by sex show some association
with improved performance, which warrants further examination.
Discussion
The following tables provide descriptive statistics of the significant factors associated with improved group Marketing Performance Ratings, categorized by the three factor domains of the
studys conceptual model. The MPR is shown on a scale of 02;
market improvement classies groups into those that did and
did not improve their market situation8 (Table 4).

Table 3
Test of signicance using ANOVA and Pearsons R.
Explanatory variables

F statistic

Infrastructure
Market access
Distance to market
Road conditions

34
34

0.066

Agro-ecological Factors
Commodity types
Reliable water source
Land

34
34
32

Social structure
Group assets
Wealth ranking
Education
Providers/Partners
Membership in other groups
Altruism
General trust
Help trust
Money trust

34
34
34
32
34
32
32
32

Group composition/characteristics
Maturity
34
33
Size of groupa
Activity level
34
Gender categories
34
Leadership by sex
34
Group heterogeneity
Educational
Gender
Wealth

34
34
34

PA intervention
Partner agency
PA market linkages

34
34

R statistic

P value

Test

0.322
0.936

Pearsons R
ANOVA

0.097

0.005***
0.000***
0.596

ANOVA
ANOVA
Pearsons R

0.199
0.313
0.048
0.068
0.030
0.099
0.033
0.049

0.260
0.072*
0.788
0.710
0.867
0.590
0.859
0.792

Pearsons
Pearsons
Pearsons
Pearsons
Pearsons
Pearsons
Pearsons
Pearsons

0.281

0.045**
0.557
0.000***
0.747
0.108

ANOVA
Pearsons R
Pearsons R
ANOVA
Pearsons R

0.147
0.182
0.073

0.406
0.304
0.681

Pearsons R
Pearsons R
Pearsons R

0.085*
0.107

ANOVA
ANOVA

0.175

4.670
19.806

4.375
0.106
0.579
0.411

3.160
2.753

R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R

p < 0.10.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
a
The size of group statistic excludes one group with 150 members because it acts
as an extreme outlier.
**

***

Infrastructure
Reliable water source
Eighty-four percent of the groups with market improvements
had a reliable water source. There is little question that when

Table 4
Infrastructure variables associated with improved marketing performance.
5
Three statements concerning intra-group trust were presented using a three-point
Likert scale, with participants responding that they: (1) agreed with the statement;
(2) felt neutral or middle about the statement; or (3) disagreed with the statement.
They responded to the following three statements: Most members in your group can
be trusted (General Trust); Most members in your group are willing to help if you
need it (Help Trust); In your group, members can generally trust each other in matters
of lending and borrowing money (Money Trust). These answers were then coded from
1 to 3 and aggregated to the group level to provide three general measurements of
intra-group trust.
6
The reliance on bivariate analyses for this study has its obvious shortcomings.
Such analyses can only describe the association of one independent variable to the
dependent variable, without accounting or controlling for the other independent
variables in the study. Unfortunately, due to the small sample size and large number
of independent variables to be tested, the use of multivariate analyses was concluded
to be an unreliable test to render statistically reliable results. To offset this, attempts
have been made in the discussion sections of this paper to explain how several of the
independent factors interact with one another to affect group marketing
performance.
7
Due to the small sample size (n = 34), all independent variables with a p value
below 0.10 are considered statistically signicant, to bring attention to variables that
warrant further examination.
8
The discussion of results focuses exclusively on statistically signicant factors
positively associated with improved group marketing performance. See Barham
(2007) for descriptive statistics on all independent variables tested in this study,
including a discussion on why certain variables were or were not found to be
statistically signicant factors in improving group marketing performance.

Explanatory variables

Marketing performance rating

Market improvement

No

Yes

Reliable water source


Yes
No

3
12

9
4

6
0

3
12

15
4

84
25

Commodity types
Cereals/legumes
Coffee
Livestock
Rice
Vegetables/fruit

10
2
3
0
0

4
0
1
1
7

0
1
1
1
3

10
2
3
0
0

4
1
2
2
10

29
33
40
100
100

% Improved

groups rely solely on rain-fed agriculture, they have a more limited


range of opportunities to exploit market potentials and improve
their situation. It is also worth noting that all six groups with an
MPR of 2, or large market improvements, had access to a reliable
water source. This is not to say that improvements cannot be made
without a reliable water source, as evidenced by the four groups
that were able to do this. But in all four cases, water was not as limiting in improving marketing performance as it was for other
groups. For example, two interventions did not require a reliable

57

J. Barham, C. Chitemi / Food Policy 34 (2009) 5359

water source, while two others entered a contract agreement with


an agricultural company to grow artemisia.9 These two groups met
the criteria determined by the company for contract availability,
which were based largely on soil types and land availability, as well
as rainfall.
Commodity types
This variable proved to be statistically signicant because certain crops have greater market potential, especially in local markets. Cereals and legumes are the traditional staple food crops for
many smallholders. When these staple food crops are grown on a
large scale, they offer substantial regional and international market
potential. But most farmer groups lack both the production scale
and the contacts to exploit these markets. Only 4 out of 14 groups
promoting cereals/legumes as an agro-enterprise improved their
market situation.
However, this nding is misleading, since two of these groups
improved their market situation by entering into contracts with
agribusinesses one group growing artemisia and the other growing ower seeds essentially diversifying away from maize and
beans with these cash crops. The other two groups improved their
market situation through maize: one by bulk storing its crop and
fetching a higher price later in the season, and the other by a combination of bulk purchasing (of hybrid seed and fertilizer) and collectively marketing to a new buyer. These two groups succeeded
because of their capacity to mobilize capital investments, which
is beyond the present capacity of most of the groups in this study.
Another signicant nding is that all ten groups promoting vegetables and fruits saw their market situation improve. The obvious
reason for these groups success lies in the substantial market demand for these crops, but the less obvious reason is that it appears
the PA training was particularly well suited to exploiting these
commodities market potentials. Training in such areas as costbenet analysis and negotiation skills allowed many groups to
reorient their production to the more protable vegetable and fruit
crops, and to negotiate for higher prices.
But these ndings also point to the larger issue of agro-ecology
and farming systems. Many farmers grow cereals and legumes because it is what the land can support, especially where they rely on
rain-fed agriculture. Only 29% of the groups growing staple food
crops have a reliable water source, compared to 70% of the groups
growing non-staple food crops. Even with the most well intentioned training, many of the groups growing cereals and legumes
simply do not have the natural assets to pursue alternative marketing strategies (Table 5).
Social structure
Activity level
Groups with a greater number of activities were found to be
more likely to improve their market situation. Eighty-four percent
of the groups with improved marketing performance had at least
one group activity. Even more telling is that 10 out of 19 groups
with market improvement had two or more activities, whereas
none of the groups with no market improvement had more than
one group activity. Although not quite expected, this nding makes
sense: a certain vitality was observed in groups that have functioning group activities. It gives groups an ongoing sense of identity
and purpose, and sustaining these activities requires the group to
establish internal institutions to guide the effective coordination
and rapid mobilization of group resources.

9
Artemisia (Artemisia annua) is a herbal plant that is processed into artemisinin,
used in the treatment of malaria.

Table 5
Social structure variables associated with improved marketing performance.
Explanatory variables

Marketing performance
rating

Market improvement

No

Activity level

0.53

1.46

2.17

0.53

Yes

Maturity
Newly formed groups
Existing groups

8
7

6
7

0
6

8
7

Leadership by sex (m:f)

0.49

0.60

0.71

0.49

0.64

Education

6.6

7.1

7.6

6.6

7.2

% Improved

1.68

6
13

43
65

Table 6
PA Intervention variables associated with improved marketing performance.
Explanatory variables

Partner agency (PA)


FAIDA
TIP
PA linkage
Linked
Not linked

Marketing performance rating

Market improvement

No

Yes

% Improved

9
6

6
7

1
5

9
6

7
12

44
67

3
12

7
6

3
3

3
12

10
9

77
43

Group maturity
The maturity of the group refers to whether groups were newly
formed at the beginning of the project or already existing. Sixtyve percent of the existing groups (13 out of 20) were able to improve their market situation compared to fewer than half of the
newly formed groups (43%). This nding is associated with the
activity level variable, since those with maturity and functioning
group activities are better positioned to mobilize resources and
take advantage of emerging market opportunities than groups that
have just started and lack such experience. For the six newly
formed groups that did improve their market situation, four did
so by entering into contract arrangements with agribusinesses.
They were thus less in need of a cohesive group, and relied instead
on the strength and connections of their leaders, the right agroecological conditions, and the PAs help in establishing linkages.
Leadership by sex
The data show that groups with a greater ratio of male to female
leaders are more likely to improve their market situation. Furthermore, where the rest of the gender categories10 show a fairly even
mix of groups with and without improvement, in the category of
male-dominated groups, 75% of the groups (6 out of 8) showed improved marketing performance. Female-only groups are clearly often disadvantaged compared to their male counterparts when it
comes to marketing.
Education
The ndings show that groups with no market improvement
averaged fewer than seven years of schooling (i.e. primary education only), while groups with improvement averaged over seven
years of schooling (some secondary education). Given that this
intervention dealt primarily with training, groups with higher education levels were probably able to absorb more content and put it
into practice (Table 6).

10

See Barham (2007) for the full description of gender category variables.

58

J. Barham, C. Chitemi / Food Policy 34 (2009) 5359

PA Intervention
Partner agency and PA linkages
The two partner agencies had varying levels of success improving farmer groups marketing performance. TIP fared better than
FAIDA with two-thirds of its groups (67%) improving their situation, including ve with large improvements, whereas FAIDA saw
fewer than half of its groups (44%) improving, and only one large
improvement. TIP and FAIDA together were involved in actively
linking 13 groups to other chain actors, 10 of which (77%) improved their market situation. TIPs higher success rate can be explained by the fact that more of their groups had access to more
collective resources that could be harnessed to positively change
their market situation. More often than not, TIP groups were better
educated, had more internal cohesion, were endowed with more
natural assets, and worked with commodities that had greater
market potential.
This also explains why TIP had more opportunities to actively
link their groups to other chain actors. TIP initiated linkages of nine
farmers groups with other chain actors (seven led to an improved
market situation), whereas FAIDA initiated four farmer group linkages (three led to an improved market situation).
Hypotheses revisited
In this section, the study hypotheses are revisited to ascertain
the extent to which they can be supported or rejected based on
the results of the bivariate analyses.
Hypotheses relating to group assets
The study hypothesised that farmer groups will be better positioned to improve their marketing performance if the group has
some or all of the following attributes:
 High level of trust among members (hypothesis 1);11
 More altruistic rather than self-interested behaviour (hypothesis
2);
 More ties to other organizations within and outside the community (hypothesis 3);
 Lower levels of poverty (hypothesis 4).12
Beginning with poverty, bivariate analysis highlighted the
importance of natural assets water and commodity types as
signicant factors in improved marketing performance. Likewise,
groups with more years of schooling were more likely to improve
their market situation. Surprisingly, group wealth ranking (a measure of groups physical and nancial assets) did not prove to be a
signicant factor in an improved market situation. These ndings
partially support hypothesis 4, which can be restated as follows:
Better educated groups with a good stock of natural capital and
favourable agro-ecological conditions will be better positioned to
improve their marketing performance.
A similar conclusion, however, cannot be put forward in relation to the three social capital hypotheses. In the bivariate analysis,
neither the proxy indicators for cognitive social capital (intragroup trust and altruistic behaviour) nor those for structural social
capital (membership in other groups and providers/partners) were
statistically signicant factors in improved marketing performance. These ndings do not, however, reject the hypothesis that
trust among members is an important attribute for successful col-

11
The rst three hypotheses were tested using: general trust, help trust, money
trust, and altruism (cognitive social capital); and providers/partners and membership
in other groups (structural social capital).
12
This hypothesis was tested by using the following variables: wealth ranking;
reliable water source; land; education; and commodity types.

lective action initiatives. Groups with no market improvement had


an average total trust score of 2.48, while groups with market
improvement averaged 2.49. While the difference is statistically
insignicant, it shows that practically all groups have a high level
of trust among members.
Hypotheses relating to group composition and characteristics
The second set of hypotheses states that farmer groups will be
better positioned to improve their marketing performance if the
group has some or all of the following attributes:





Smaller group size (hypothesis 5);


Past successful activities (hypothesis 6);13
Heterogeneity of endowments (hypothesis 7);
Homogeneity of identities (hypothesis 8).14

Group size did not have any effect on group marketing performance, and there is no evidence in this study to support the
hypothesis that smaller farmer groups will be better positioned
to improve their market situation over larger groups. In regard to
hypothesis 6, it is clear that the group maturity and activity level
variables are positively associated with a groups ability to improve
its market situation. The association was particularly strong for the
activity level variable. A set of rules must be followed in order to
run successful group activities, and especially with multiple group
activities. The positive association of group maturity to improved
marketing performance bolsters this nding. A far greater number
of the groups in existence before the project intervention was able
to implement collective action initiatives to improve their market
situation. Unlike new groups, mature groups had a set of institutions to guide group behaviour. The combination of functioning
internal institutions and successful group activities provides the
condence for groups to take on new initiatives, and enables them
to undertake PA training and put it into practice.
There is no evidence from this study sample to support the
hypotheses that heterogeneity of endowments (hypothesis 7) or
homogeneity of identities (hypothesis 8) will better position
groups to improve their market situation.
A nal important nding that does not t neatly within the
hypotheses is that groups with a higher proportion of male to female leaders were more likely to improve their market situation.
Many female-only and female-dominated groups nd themselves
disadvantaged compared to their male counterparts when searching for and accessing new markets for existing products, and possibly even more so in pursuing new products, as would be found
under contract arrangements. Women generally assume more of
the responsibility for their households production and reproduction activities and simply do not have time to spend searching
out new market opportunities. This is compounded by the fact that
women do not have the same socio-political networks as men,
which hinders their access to new resources and services that
could lead to new market opportunities.

Study conclusions
In the nal summation of these ndings, it is appropriate to return to the studys conceptual model. Within the infrastructure domain, the two driving forces for improved marketing performance
are determined by the commodities being promoted (e.g., growing
13

Hypothesis 6 was tested using the maturity and activity level variables.
Hypotheses 7 and 8 were tested using the variables: leadership by sex; gender
composition categories; and three heterogeneity variables (education, gender,
wealth).
14

J. Barham, C. Chitemi / Food Policy 34 (2009) 5359

non-staple food crops) and whether or not the groups have a reliable water source. The ndings support the premise that groups
endowed with favourable agro-ecological factors, such as a reliable
water source, good lands and soils, and crops with inherent market
potential, are far better positioned to improve their market situation. Groups lacking these natural assets will nd their marketing
alternatives severely limited.
Variables in the social structure domain can play an enabling
role in a groups ability to take advantage of market opportunities.
The enabling factors found here to be positively associated with
improved marketing performance included: group maturity, number of group activities, a higher proportion of male leaders, and
better educated groups.
The PA intervention in the form of direct market linkages was
also an important factor in group market success. However, in
most cases the PA was able to link these groups to agribusinesses
because they were endowed with assets (water, land and soils) that
made the partnership worthwhile for the agribusiness, bolstering
the premise of the primacy of infrastructure.

Reconsidering the planned change initiative


Returning to the Planned Change Initiative, the PA interventions
attempted to improve the marketing performance of smallholder
farmer groups by providing group strengthening and marketing
skills training, and where possible, linking these farmer groups to
other market chain actors. At the heart of this intervention is the
PAs attempt to create a culture of entrepreneurship. This involves
training farmers to be more business-oriented, to think of their
crops as commodities, and to organize group activities as business
enterprises, while urging the farmer groups to become less riskadverse.
Understood from this perspective, the PA intervention is a classic example of the education model of social change, in which the
basic premise is that the way a person behaves can be altered by
changing the way she or he thinks. However, this may actually
work the other way round (Bernard, 1995). With natural assets
such as good land and a reliable water source, some groups are already in a better position than others to improve their market situation. If such groups can be assured that calculated risks will not
lead to unrecoverable shocks, a culture of entrepreneurship is more
likely to develop naturally. This is where the PA intervention can,
and did, have an impact. By strengthening groups and their marketing skills, many of the groups already endowed with a core
set of natural assets were given the condence to seek out and exploit new market opportunities.
However, the role of the social structure as an enabling or constraining factor should not be disregarded. Even if groups are endowed with natural assets, constraining social structures (e.g., a
lack of internal institutions or discriminatory external institutions)
will make these groups less likely to succeed in marketing
initiatives.
There is a nal point that should be made categorically: even
the most organized and trustworthy of groups, equipped with
the best marketing skills possible, will have little likelihood of
improving their market situation without the requisite set of natural assets. Any intervention that confuses the determinacy of
the social structure over the infrastructure will not produce the desired change. At the end of the day, telling farmers that they should
become rural entrepreneurs will fall on deaf ears if the asset base
and group capacity required to engage in market activities are simply missing.
This does not mean that market-oriented interventions should
only target wealthy farmers and exclude the poor. It means that
promoters of this approach must be far more realistic about the

59

time frame by which to expect poor smallholder farmers to make


substantive gains in their market situation. This certainly requires
a project cycle period beyond the typical three years, and it will involve substantial asset building in natural and nancial capitals
(e.g., rotating credit schemes), alongside such human and social
capital building as promoted in AMSDP. This also necessitates
change agents to have the appropriate methods and tools to assess
a farmer groups asset levels and resource mobilization capacity.
This is all the more crucial since one of the more dangerous
assumptions made by market advocates is that promotion of market-oriented interventions will lead to greater food security; yet, it
is all too clear that failed attempts to engage in the market are
more likely to lead to greater food insecurity and other detrimental
livelihood outcomes.15 Careful analysis of group assets and capacity
are essential to discern the level of risk and the type of collective action initiatives most appropriate to bring about signicant improvements to their market situation.
References
Agrawal, A., 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of
resources. World Development 29 (10), 16491672.
Baland, J., Platteau, J., 1996. Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role
for rural communities? FAO/Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, New
York/Oxford/New York.
Barham, J., 2007. Linking farmers to markets: assessing planned change initiatives
to improve the marketing performance of smallholder farmer groups in
northern Tanzania. PhD Dissertation, University of Florida.
Barham, J., Chitemi, C., 2007. Collective action initiatives to improve marketing
performance: lessons from farmer groups in Tanzania. CAPRi Working Paper 74.
IFPRI, Washington, DC.
Bernard, R., 1995. Research Methods in Anthropology. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek,
CA.
Diao, X., Hazell, P., 2004. Exploring Market Opportunities for African Smallholders.
2020 Conference Brief, 6. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Dorward, A., Kydd, J., Morrison, J., Urey, I., 2003. A policy agenda for pro-poor
agricultural growth. World Development 32 (1), 7389.
Harris, M., 1979. Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture.
Random House, Inc., New York.
Johnson, J., 1998. Research design and research strategies. In: Bernard, R. (Ed.),
Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Johnson, N., Suarez, R., Lundy, M., 2002. The importance of social capital in
Colombian rural agro-enterprises. Paper Presented at the 25th International
Conference of Agricultural Economists, Durban, South Africa.
Jones, E., 2004. Wealth-based trust and the development of collective action. World
Development 32 (4), 691711.
Kariuki, G., Place, F., 2005. Initiatives for rural development through collective
action: the case of household participation in group activities in the highlands
of central Kenya. CAPRi Working Paper 43. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Krishna, A., 2001. Moving from the stock of social capital to the ow of benets: the
role of agency. World Development 29 (6), 925943.
Lundy, M., Ostertag, C., Best, R., 2002. Value adding, agro-enterprise and poverty
reduction: a territorial approach for rural business development. Rural AgroEnterprise Development Project Paper. CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
Magingxa, L., Kamara, A., 2003. Institutional perspectives of enhancing smallholder
market access in South Africa. Paper Presented at the 41st Annual Conference of
the Agricultural Economic Association of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ostrom, E., 1992. The rudiments of the theory of the origins, survival, and
performance of common-property institutions. In: Bromley, W. (Ed.), Making
the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Politics. ICS Press, San Francisco, CA.
Poulton, C., Dorward, A., Kydd, J., Poole, N., Smith, L., 1998. A new institutional
economics perspective on current policy debates. In: Dorward, A., Kydd, J.,
Poulton, C. (Eds.), Smallholder Cash Crop Production Under Market
Liberalization: A New Institutional Economics Perspective. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK.
Pretty, J., Ward, H., 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29 (2), 209227.
Resnick, D., 2004. Smallholder African agriculture: progress and problems in
confronting hunger and poverty. DSGD Discussion Paper 9. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Stiglitz, J., 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
Uphoff, N., Wijayaratna, C., 2000. Demonstrated benets from social capital: the
productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Development
28 (11), 18751890.
Wade, R., 1988. Village republics: economic conditions for collective action in South
India. ICS Press, San Francisco, CA.

15
See Barham (2007) for a more lengthy discussion on programmatic and policy
recommendations for engaging smallholder farmers in agro-enterprise development
initiatives.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai