cashew value chain; choice experiment; logit model; Market information system; Food Science; Agronomy and Crop Science; Soil Science; Plant Science
Abstract :
[en] In Benin, cashew value chain is a promising sector in terms of its export earnings potential and its contribution to the diversification of the country agricultural sources of income. However, its efficiency is hindered, among others, by information asymmetry issue. Market information system (MIS) has been used as an alternative for addressing such issue. Unfortunately, as in most african countries, most MIS still depend on donor for their financing, hence raising the issue of MIS sustainability once the funding ran out. Stakeholders renewed interest in setting up payment-based MIS. To analyze MIS design through estimating users (i.e. cashew growers) willingness to pay for its characteristics, the study grounds its assumption on consumer utility theory. Therefore, the study assumes that a respondent is willing to pay for MIS services if the service provided matches his preferences. Accordingly analyzing cashew growers’ preferences for MIS characteristics will inform about the appropriate design increasing respondent’s willingness to paying for it. Data were collected from 344 cashew growers. Respondents’ preferences were analyzed using choice experiment approach. The results showed that most growers still doubt about MIS effectiveness. However, analyzing their preferences reveal that respondents are willing to pay to receive information in the evening, once in a week, from their farmer’s association, through their mobile phone and in local language.
Midingoyi, Soul-Kifouly G.; Agricultural Policy Analysis Program, National Institute of Agricultural Research of Benin, Benin
Codjo, Victor; School of Rural Economy, Agro. Economics and Management, National University of Agriculture, Benin
Language :
English
Title :
Cashew growers’ preferences for market information system design in Benin: a choice experiment approach
Alternative titles :
[en] NA
Original title :
[en] NA
Publication date :
18 March 2022
Journal title :
Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences
ISSN :
0552-9034
eISSN :
2076-0906
Publisher :
University of Agriculture
Special issue title :
NA
Volume :
59
Issue :
1
Pages :
19 - 28
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Name of the research project :
NA
Funders :
NA
Funding number :
NA
Funding text :
Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this research by the Support Program for Agricultural Diversification (PADA) of the Program Support Framework for Agricultural Diversification (ProCAD). The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the donors.
Adamowicz, W. and P. Boxall. 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 80:64-75.
Adégbola, P.Y. and J. Zinsou.2010. Analyse des déterminants des exportations béninoises de noix d’anacarde. Conference Paper. African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE). Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23 Agricultural Markets in Niger. American Economic Journal. 2:46-59.
Aker, J.C. 2011b. Dial “A” for agriculture: a review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics. 42:631-647.
Aker, J.C. and I.M. Mbiti. 2010. Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 24:207-32.
Aker, J.C. and M. Fafchamps. 2015. Mobile phone coverage and producer markets: Evidence from West Africa. The World Bank Economic Review. 29:262-292.
Baltas, G. and P. Doyle. 2001. Random utility models in marketing research: a survey. Journal of Business Research. 51:11-125.
Ben-Akiva, M. and S. Lerman. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Birol, E.D. and R. Asare-Marfoet. 2011. A Latent Class Approach to Investigating Farmer Demand for Bio fortified Staple Food Crops in Developing Countries: The Case of High Iron Pearl Millet. HarvestPlus Working Paper No. 7. Maharashtra, India.
Cembalo, L., G. Ciciaet and T.D. Giudice. 2009. The influence of country of origin on German consumer preferences for peaches: a latent class choice model. Paper prepared for presentation at the 113 th EAAE Seminar “A resilient European food industry and food chain in a challenging world”, Chania, Crete, Greece, date as in: September. pp. 9.
Choice Metrics. 2018. Ngene 1.2.0 User Manual and Reference Guide. http://www.choice-metrics.com/NgeneManual 120.pdf.
CTA. 2008. Les Systèmes d’Information de Marché (SIM): Des dispositifs efficaces pour une meilleure transparence des marchés? Inter-réseaux Développement. pp.11.
EL Bouazizi, N. 2018. Les déterminants de l’asymétrie d’information sur les marchés financiers Etude empirique sur les sociétés cotées à la bourse de Casablanca. pp. 243-276.
Espinosa, G., J. Barreiro-Hurle and E. Ruto. 2009. What do farmers want from agri environmental scheme design? A Choice Experiment Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 61: 259-273.
Faustin, V., A.A. Adegbidi, S.T. Garnett, D.O. Koudandé, V. Agbo and K.K. Zander. 2010. Peace, health or fortune? Preference for chicken traits in rural Benin. Ecological Economics. 69:1848-57.
Fiebig, D.G., M.P. Keane, J. Louviere and N. Wasi. 2010. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark. Science. 29:1-29.
Gillet, M. and P. Gillet. 2013. Les outils du système d'information, facteur clé de succès ou d'échec dans l'évolution des organisations: le cas des universités. Gestion et management public: la Revue du RECEMAP. 2:55-77.
Hanemann, M. 1984. Discrete-continuous models of consumer demand. Econometrica. 52: 541-546.
Hanley, N., S. Mouato and E.R. Wright. 1998. Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys. 15:57-71.
Hausman, J. and D. McFadden. 1984. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica. 52:1219-1240.
Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose and W.H. Greene. 2005. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press. Psychometrika. 72:449-450.
Huber, J. and K. Zwerina. 1996. The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs. Journal of Marketing Research. 33:307-317.
Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Économique (INSAE). 2009. Dynamique des filières d’exportation au Bénin de 1999 à 2008: Cas de quatre produits (anacarde, ananas, tabac, sucre de canne). Ministère de la Prospective, du Développement, de l’Évaluation des Politiques Publiques et de la Coordination de l’Action Gouvernementale (MPDEPP-CAG), République du Bénin. pp. 56.
Islam, M. S and A. Grönlund. 2010. Agriculture market information services (AMIS) in the least developed countries (LDCs): nature, scopes, and challenges. In International Conference on Electronic Government. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp.109-120.
Johnson, F., R. Lancsar, D. Marshall, H. VikramKilambi, A. Regier, W. Brian, B.K. Bresnahan and F.P. John. 2013. Constructing Experimental Designs for Discrete-Choice Experiments: Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health. 16:3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.
Kikulwe, E.M., E. Fischer and M. Qaim. 2014. Mobile money, smallholder farmers, and household welfare in Kenya. PloS ONE. pp. 9:13.
Kizito, A.M. 2011. The structure, conduct, and performance of agricultural market information systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Doctoral theses in Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.pp. 411.
Kpenavoun, C.S. and E. Gandonou. 2013. Effet du Système Public d’Information sur les Marchés (SPIM) sur les prix reçus par les producteurs de maïs au Bénin. Bulletin de la Recherche Agronomique du Bénin (BRAB). Numéro 73-Juin 2013, Pp. 1840-7099. 13.
Lam, F., E. Roure, K. Cruz and C. Umaña. 2016. Système d’informations sur les marchés agricoles (SIMA). Institut Interaméricain de Coopération pour l’Agriculture (IICA). Licence Creative Commons.pp. 85.
Lancaster, K.J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy. 74: 132-157.
Martin, T., M. Saidi, F.A. Komlan, S. Simon, M. Kasina, F. Vidogbena, L. Parrot, A. Adegbidi, L.A. Wasilwa, S. Subramanian, V. Baird and M. Ngouajio. 2014. Des filets anti insectes pour protéger les cultures maraîchères en Afrique Subsaharienne: une technologie rentable et adaptée aux conditions climatiques. 10e Conférence internationale sur les ravageurs en agriculture, Montpellier, France, 22 et 23 octobre 2014. pp. 9.
McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York. pp. 105-142.
Mikami, K. 2007. Asymmetric information and the form of enterprise: capitalist firms and consumer cooperatives. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/ Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft. 163:297-312.
Mikami, K. and S. Tanaka. 2008. Food processing business and agriculture cooperatives in Japan: market power and asymmetric information. Asian Economic Journal. 22:83-107.
Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche (MAEP). 2017. Statistiques agricoles de 1998 à 2014. Cotonou: Direction de Statistique Agricole (DSA). https://benin.opendataforafrica.org/emcqbqg/statistiques-agricoles-benin.
Ministère de l'Agriculture de l'Elevage et de la Pêche (MAEP). 2003. Statistiques agricoles. Direction de la Programmation et de la Prospective (DPP). http://countrystat.org/home.aspx?c=BEN&tr=148
Mittal, S. and M. Mehar. 2012. How Mobile Phones Contribute to Growth of Small Farmers? Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture. 51:227-244.
Nakasone, E., M. Torero and B. Minten. 2014. The power of information: The ICT revolution in agricultural development. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 6: 533-550.
Pierskalla, J.H. and F.M. Hollenbach. 2013. Technology and collective action: The effect of cell phone coverage on political violence in Africa. America Political Science Review. 107: 207-224.
Ruto, E. and G. Garrod. 2009. Investigating farmers ‘preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 52: 631-647.
Scarpa, R. and T. Guidice. 2004. Market segmentation via Mixed Logit: Extra-Virgin Olive Oil in Urban Italy. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization (JAFIO). 2: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.2202/1542-0485.1080.
Shen, J. 2009. Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data. Applied Economics. 41:2915-2924.
Shepherd A, 1997. Les systèmes d'information sur les marchés: théorie et pratique. Rome, Italie. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).pp. 66.
Singh, V., S. Sankhwar and D. Pandey. 2015. The role of information communication technology (ICT) in agriculture. Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. 3:2-10.
Subervie, J. and F. Galtier. 2014. L'information sur les prix agricoles par la téléphonie mobile: le cas du Ghan. Paris: AFD. pp.53.
Svensson, J. and D. Yanagizawa. 2009. Getting Prices Right: The Impact of the Market Information Service in Uganda. Journal of the European Economic Association. 7:435-445.
Tapsoba, D.H. 2007. Une estimation du choix des consommateurs canadiens en matière de véhicules personnels, de nouvelles technologies et de carburants de remplacement par Logit mixte. Mémoire de maîtrise. Université Laval, Canada.
Train, K. 2002. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. University of California, Berkeley, National Economic Research Associates. Cambridge University Press. Pp.388.
Yamane, T. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York: Harper and Row. pp. 919.