The impact of farmer support programmes on market access of small holder farmers in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces
- Authors: Mpuzu, Misery Sikelwa
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Traditional farming -- South Africa , Family farms -- South Africa , Sustainable agriculture -- South Africa , Food security -- South Africa , Food -- Safety measures , Farms, Small -- South Africa , Technological innovations -- South Africa , Export marketing -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD (Agricultural Economics)
- Identifier: vital:11197 , http://hdl.handle.net/10353/d1007140 , Traditional farming -- South Africa , Family farms -- South Africa , Sustainable agriculture -- South Africa , Food security -- South Africa , Food -- Safety measures , Farms, Small -- South Africa , Technological innovations -- South Africa , Export marketing -- South Africa
- Description: Most smallholder farmers in South Africa are characterized by poor resources such as land, labour and capital while they play an important role in poverty alleviation especially in poor rural areas. Smallholder farmers are increasingly recognized because of their contribution to household food security. The world markets are increasingly being integrated due to globalization and liberalization. As a result, smallholder farmers are facing increasing market competition, not only in international markets but in local markets as well. However, smallholder farmers often face a number of barriers to accessing these markets arising in part from the tightening of food safety and quality standards requiring compliance with phytosanitary and sanitary standards and growing power of supply chain integration. Furthermore, the viability of these smallholder producers is constrained by institutional obstacles which include lack of access to information, high marketing and transaction costs and low quality and lack of critical volume in the absence of bulking up arrangements, etc. These barriers have contributed to the exclusion of smallholder/small-scale farmers from formal markets. In order to address these obstacles and speed up the pace of agrarian reform many support schemes (farmer support programmes) are now being designed to specifically address market access and value chain issues through unique co-innovation arrangements to improve the farmer’s access to profitable international chains. A number of farmer support programmes (FSP) have been implemented in South Africa to reduce the risk of a lack of capacity and a lack of economic and/or financial experience in smallholder farms. Intervention measures have been instituted to these smallholder farmers to assist them to move out of poverty through agricultural production. The aim of this study was to understand the roles played by farmer support programmes in addressing income and welfare levels and sustainability of smallholder farmers in South Africa. Eighty nine (89) farmers were interviewed for this study and almost half (49%) of them received support from various organizations while 51% of the sampled farmers did not receive any support. The study was designed to compare the two groups between the treated and control group to assess the impact of these programmes.Using a Tobit and Propensity Score Matching technique, potential diffusion effects were eliminated between farmers supported by Farmer Support Programmes and farmers that did not belong to support services. The latter was selected from comparable communities with no agricultural support services. Findings from the Tobit regression and propensity score matching are consistent across the two methods, suggesting that being a member of any agricultural support programme has a significant positive impact on income and welfare of smallholder farmers.Farmer Support Programmes and collective marketing activities such as the collection and sale of members’ products appear to have a significant and positive impact on smallholder welfare of those farmers engaged in them. In the second analysis the study tested the types of arrangements that farmers would adopt to market their produce. From the results it was established that those farmers who were supported by institutional arrangements or FSP had better access to markets than those farmers who operated as individuals. Marginal effects are used to show the degree to which farmers chose a particular marketing channel or institutional arrangement that these farmers take when trying to access better paying markets. Then the final analysis is on factors that determine the extent to which collective action contribute to farmers’ income and market access. A number of variables (age, distance to the market, region the farmers are located) were evaluated using the multinomial regression model. Empirical results suggest that among South African cooperatives, those established in KwaZulu-Natal and partly in the Eastern Cape and upon the voluntary initiative of farmers are more sustainable and have access to better paying markets both locally and internationally than the other areas. The results also show that NGO-supported cooperatives have a longer life span than Government controlled cooperatives.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Mpuzu, Misery Sikelwa
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: Traditional farming -- South Africa , Family farms -- South Africa , Sustainable agriculture -- South Africa , Food security -- South Africa , Food -- Safety measures , Farms, Small -- South Africa , Technological innovations -- South Africa , Export marketing -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD (Agricultural Economics)
- Identifier: vital:11197 , http://hdl.handle.net/10353/d1007140 , Traditional farming -- South Africa , Family farms -- South Africa , Sustainable agriculture -- South Africa , Food security -- South Africa , Food -- Safety measures , Farms, Small -- South Africa , Technological innovations -- South Africa , Export marketing -- South Africa
- Description: Most smallholder farmers in South Africa are characterized by poor resources such as land, labour and capital while they play an important role in poverty alleviation especially in poor rural areas. Smallholder farmers are increasingly recognized because of their contribution to household food security. The world markets are increasingly being integrated due to globalization and liberalization. As a result, smallholder farmers are facing increasing market competition, not only in international markets but in local markets as well. However, smallholder farmers often face a number of barriers to accessing these markets arising in part from the tightening of food safety and quality standards requiring compliance with phytosanitary and sanitary standards and growing power of supply chain integration. Furthermore, the viability of these smallholder producers is constrained by institutional obstacles which include lack of access to information, high marketing and transaction costs and low quality and lack of critical volume in the absence of bulking up arrangements, etc. These barriers have contributed to the exclusion of smallholder/small-scale farmers from formal markets. In order to address these obstacles and speed up the pace of agrarian reform many support schemes (farmer support programmes) are now being designed to specifically address market access and value chain issues through unique co-innovation arrangements to improve the farmer’s access to profitable international chains. A number of farmer support programmes (FSP) have been implemented in South Africa to reduce the risk of a lack of capacity and a lack of economic and/or financial experience in smallholder farms. Intervention measures have been instituted to these smallholder farmers to assist them to move out of poverty through agricultural production. The aim of this study was to understand the roles played by farmer support programmes in addressing income and welfare levels and sustainability of smallholder farmers in South Africa. Eighty nine (89) farmers were interviewed for this study and almost half (49%) of them received support from various organizations while 51% of the sampled farmers did not receive any support. The study was designed to compare the two groups between the treated and control group to assess the impact of these programmes.Using a Tobit and Propensity Score Matching technique, potential diffusion effects were eliminated between farmers supported by Farmer Support Programmes and farmers that did not belong to support services. The latter was selected from comparable communities with no agricultural support services. Findings from the Tobit regression and propensity score matching are consistent across the two methods, suggesting that being a member of any agricultural support programme has a significant positive impact on income and welfare of smallholder farmers.Farmer Support Programmes and collective marketing activities such as the collection and sale of members’ products appear to have a significant and positive impact on smallholder welfare of those farmers engaged in them. In the second analysis the study tested the types of arrangements that farmers would adopt to market their produce. From the results it was established that those farmers who were supported by institutional arrangements or FSP had better access to markets than those farmers who operated as individuals. Marginal effects are used to show the degree to which farmers chose a particular marketing channel or institutional arrangement that these farmers take when trying to access better paying markets. Then the final analysis is on factors that determine the extent to which collective action contribute to farmers’ income and market access. A number of variables (age, distance to the market, region the farmers are located) were evaluated using the multinomial regression model. Empirical results suggest that among South African cooperatives, those established in KwaZulu-Natal and partly in the Eastern Cape and upon the voluntary initiative of farmers are more sustainable and have access to better paying markets both locally and internationally than the other areas. The results also show that NGO-supported cooperatives have a longer life span than Government controlled cooperatives.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
An exploration of conflict in farming family businesses in the southern Cape, South Africa
- Authors: Kleynhans, Maria Magdalena
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Conflict (Psychology) , Family-owned business enterprises -- South Africa , Family farms -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MPhil
- Identifier: vital:8246 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1011275 , Conflict (Psychology) , Family-owned business enterprises -- South Africa , Family farms -- South Africa
- Description: Family businesses are considered to be among the most important contributors to wealth and employment in virtually the world. This qualitative study looked at farming family businesses. Farming family businesses present certain unique features that discern them from other family businesses and are worthy of investigation. Two domains are identified in the literature and research about conflict in family business: The business and the family. The researcher postulated that the domain of the family is too broadly drawn and that farming family systems in the Sibling Partnership Stage, with their unique way of life and functioning, consist of several sub-systems which impact on the business. Conflict develops in and between the sub-systems. This study looked at conflict within farming family businesses from a systemic viewpoint, particularly focusing on the process aspects, the interactional dynamics in and between the sub-systems. Four active types of subsystems were identified in the case studies: Couples subsystems, parent child subsystems, sibling subsystems, in-law subsystems or subsystems of which at least one member is an in-law. The research aim was to explore the circular patterns in the two cases as systems and to uncover the function of the conflict in these systems. In both cases, circular conflict patterns came to the fore with the subsystems part of the feedback loops. The conflict escalation happened between the subsystems as elements and the conflict paths were circular, not linear. Sub-themes around family scripts, communication and perceptions about fairness were also uncovered in the research. Both cases were family businesses in the two-generational development stage. The function of the conflict in both systems could only be hypothesised due to the exploratory nature of the research. The researcher hypothesized that the function of the conflict in the systems centred around conflict as an attempt in the system to shake loose from entrenched restricting family scripts. The important themes that presented themselves in the research not envisaged in the planning stage. These themes are part of the systemic patterning in both the cases: Perceptions of fairness or rather unfairness feed into the conflict loop. Rewards and compensation are sensitive matters in all families. The more there are perceptions of unfairness in a subsystem, the more entrenched that belief becomes, the more the conflict in the system escalates and the bigger the emotional distance gets from the assumed beneficiaries of benefits.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- Authors: Kleynhans, Maria Magdalena
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: Conflict (Psychology) , Family-owned business enterprises -- South Africa , Family farms -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MPhil
- Identifier: vital:8246 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/d1011275 , Conflict (Psychology) , Family-owned business enterprises -- South Africa , Family farms -- South Africa
- Description: Family businesses are considered to be among the most important contributors to wealth and employment in virtually the world. This qualitative study looked at farming family businesses. Farming family businesses present certain unique features that discern them from other family businesses and are worthy of investigation. Two domains are identified in the literature and research about conflict in family business: The business and the family. The researcher postulated that the domain of the family is too broadly drawn and that farming family systems in the Sibling Partnership Stage, with their unique way of life and functioning, consist of several sub-systems which impact on the business. Conflict develops in and between the sub-systems. This study looked at conflict within farming family businesses from a systemic viewpoint, particularly focusing on the process aspects, the interactional dynamics in and between the sub-systems. Four active types of subsystems were identified in the case studies: Couples subsystems, parent child subsystems, sibling subsystems, in-law subsystems or subsystems of which at least one member is an in-law. The research aim was to explore the circular patterns in the two cases as systems and to uncover the function of the conflict in these systems. In both cases, circular conflict patterns came to the fore with the subsystems part of the feedback loops. The conflict escalation happened between the subsystems as elements and the conflict paths were circular, not linear. Sub-themes around family scripts, communication and perceptions about fairness were also uncovered in the research. Both cases were family businesses in the two-generational development stage. The function of the conflict in both systems could only be hypothesised due to the exploratory nature of the research. The researcher hypothesized that the function of the conflict in the systems centred around conflict as an attempt in the system to shake loose from entrenched restricting family scripts. The important themes that presented themselves in the research not envisaged in the planning stage. These themes are part of the systemic patterning in both the cases: Perceptions of fairness or rather unfairness feed into the conflict loop. Rewards and compensation are sensitive matters in all families. The more there are perceptions of unfairness in a subsystem, the more entrenched that belief becomes, the more the conflict in the system escalates and the bigger the emotional distance gets from the assumed beneficiaries of benefits.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »