Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Problem statement
Even though horticultural products have a seasonal supply they are present
only in a specific season of the year, horticultural production in Argentina is
located in various regions among the country (Fernndez Lozano, 2012) and
has different types of products, resulting in stable supply all over the year.
Moreover, new technologies (hybrids and genetic advances, greenhouses,
fertilization, etc.) gave the possibilities to farmers to lengthen production in
different regions.
Generally domestic market is fully supply and frequently there is oversupply
(see figure 1; October-November), reducing prices dramatically (see figure 2).
On the other hand, weather conditions (i.e. storms, damages by frozen) would
cause reduction in production in short periods of time, impacting directly on
prices.
Figure 1. Supply of tomato in Buenos Aires Wholesale Market (in number
of packages average period 2003-2009, by month, by production region)
14.000
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
-
Santa Fe
Salta
Mendoza
Jujuy
Corrientes
Bs. As.
In the last 10 years, the system experimented a reduction of the area cultivated
(-2%), but an increase of production (and hence, productivity) in terms of 28%
Palau et al., 2012). This was the result of technological innovations in terms of
production (genetic, use of fertilizers, pesticides, and drip irrigation) that
increased yields. But these innovations have not been accompanied at all with
innovations in terms of selection and post-harvest protocols, distribution and
freezing capacity, traceability, quality standards. The result was a higher
production, disparate quality, lower prices in the market and lower margins.
Horticultural production experiments difficulties in terms of commercialization.
Farmers would have high amount of production (and they know how to produce
very well) but have little information about the market demand, prices,
conditions, quality standards, etc. On the other hand, in general, horticultural
products have a short life, they are delicate, they need cold facilities and
transportation, which results in higher efforts to obtain information to manage
commercialization.
The commerce of vegetables in the domestic market is the objective of this
paper. Farmers generally face a transaction problem in terms of selling its
production. Farmers with medium scale (5 to 15 has.) sell their products to
players in wholesale markets (main distribution channel, Fernndez Lozano
2012), who have higher bargaining power and market information. On the other
hand, micro and small farmers do not have volume, packing facilities or market
information in order to sell their products to wholesale markets; they sell to
intermediaries or packers who negotiate the transaction opportunistically.
Different types of institutional arrangements appear in order to coordinate
transactions. However, some of them result in high levels of transaction cost
(Williamson, 1985 among other authors) and measurement costs (Barzel,
1982). Why these transaction cost and measurement costs exist and how to
manage transactions in a better way is the purpose of this paper.
2. Objectives
The principal research question addressed in this paper is how institutional
arrangements for marketing fresh vegetables in Argentina are, trying to identify
both transaction and measurement costs.
3. Procedures
3.1.
Methodology
Goode & Hatt (1969) argue that although the case study method may not be
considered a specific technique for data collection, it is a way of organizing data
in terms of a selected unit. Several studies have shown case studies to be a
powerful agribusiness research tool in changing environments (Peterson, 1997,
Hanks, 1998 and Harling & Misser, 1998). Yin (1989), in turn, says that the case
study method attempts, in particular, to study a modern phenomenon in its real
context (where the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are
diffuse), by means of multiple sources of evidence such as interviews, archives,
documents, observation, etc. (Lazzarini, 1997 quoting Yin, 1989).
This paper introduces different case studies of transactions between medium
scale farmers and wholesale buyers, and small farmers and intermediaries /
packers by the multicase study method (Yin, 1989). Lazzarini (1991) mentions
that instead of making a case study of a unique company (or farmer in this
case), the researcher could identify two or more agribusiness
industries/companies or unit of analysis (the transaction) and compare these
different unit of analysis. This design allows a strong research set of
comparisons, despite the small total number of unit of analysis involved in the
study.
Interviews with small and medium farmers have been performed. These
interviews were useful to analyze transactions in order to sell fresh vegetables.
Questions included aspects such us transaction practices and tradition,
negotiation practices, market power, product specifications. The paper includes
a series of prices in the main wholesale market in Argentina (MCBA) and prices
paid to farmers, due to farmers information.
3.2.
Theoretical framework
The analysis has been developed following transaction costs economics (TCE)
and measurement costs theoretical framework. Both paradigms converge in the
analysis of IA (institutional arrangements) Goldberg (1976) is referring here to
institutional arrangements as defined by Davis and North (1971) which a take
as synonymous to modes of governance. IA refers to a set of rules or
agreements governing the activities of a specific group of people pursuing a
certain objective (Eaton et al., 2008). IA thus involve agreements to exchange
or coordinate goods or services. Concluding and enforcing such agreements
entails the expenditure of resources, referred to as transaction costs (Eaton et
al., 2008).
Since TCE framework three dimensions are important when the transaction is
analyzed: frequency, uncertainty and asset specificity (Williamson, 1985; 1993).
These three attributes of transaction influence the level of transaction costs and
how players organize their governance.
Transactions costs are those incurred before (ex-ante) and after (ex-post) the
transaction itself. They are the not-always-visible costs that arise from
negotiating, designing and carrying out a transaction,ex-ante1; and the costs
that arise from a bad negotiation, adjustment and/or safeguard of the contract in
question ex-post, whether these are caused by mistakes, omissions and/or
unexpected alterations (Williamson, 1993) or opportunistic actions (Hallwood,
1990). Clearly, transaction costs are a function of the level of information (and
information asymmetry) of players: the more information the player has, the
lower risk of opportunism is (and the lower of transaction costs will have).
Uncertainty and asset specificity are also related to characteristics of products
negotiate in the transaction and how these products could be measure in
terms of quality or standards (especially when standards are not full described
or enforced). Usually performance measurement is not a problem with
vegetables, as quantity is relatively easy to determine (Eaton et al, 2008). But
some characteristics may not be easily determined, such as how the product
was produced (Eaton et al., 2008), which quality corresponds to different
standards and how these standards corresponds to different prices negotiated
in the wholesale market (Palau et al., 2012). Measurements of these
magnitudes [or attributes] are subject to error. The greater the variability of the
measurement around the true value, the lesser the information about the
commodity (Barzel, 1982 p. 28).
Transactions thus involve high measurement costs which could result in high
levels of transaction costs. Barzel (1982) introduces the concept of
Measurement Cost, which is strongly aligned with the literature on Incomplete
Contracts. Based on the notion that goods have multiple attributes, including
different functionalities and services, the economic agents engage in activities
(or safeguards) to protect the property rights of the attributes of the resources
aimed at appropriating value (Saes, 2008). Thus transaction costs are the
variable that defines the relevant space for opportunities to capture (or
dissipate) the value of the attributes of a certain good. The degree to which
attributes can be protected depends on how property rights are established
(Barzel, 1997); which institutional arrangement is performed (Mnard, 2002). In
an environment with positive transaction costs, those players with higher
information and scale would have better conditions to protect their property
rights or capture others property rights (based in Barzel, 1982). The potential
errors in weighing the commodity and in assessing its attributes permit
manipulations and therefore require safeguards (Barzel, 1982 p. 27).
As a result, mitigation of transaction costs is related to how players could have
appropriate governance structures (Williamson, 1991) or institutional
arrangements. And this will have a strong relationship with how difficult is to
1
Arruada (1998) mentions that the need to protect oneself against anothers opportunism, to
safeguard the transaction, generates transaction costs.
4
References:
High
offer
Normal
Low offer
No offer
offer
Source: own elaboration by using MCBA information
On the other hand, there may be unfavorable climatic events (frost, drought,
storms, etc.) or highly favorable conditions (continued warm weather in the
winter season) which result in under or overproduction in a particular region that
impacts directly on the prices, causing excessive increases or radical drops.
Thus, it may happen that a region maintains normal conditions while another
5
goes through unfavorable circumstances; this will cause a price increase in the
market that will be beneficial to the region enjoying normal conditions. However,
this information is not always universal for all actors in the system; while the
market operators have the information, the farmers and packers do not, and this
may lead to information asymmetry by the wholesalers.
Commercialization of the production is fundamentally carried out through
different consolidating markets distributed in the great urban areas all over the
country, for a total of 60 markets (source: Ministry of Agriculture). Commercial
transactions in these markets are performed by commercial operators (market
vendors; brokers), who received vegetables on consignment and collect
between 12% and 18% commission. Other commercial operators are
intermediary companies that buy vegetables from the farmers or brokers and
sell them at the wholesale markets.
The largest wholesale commercialization center for vegetables and fruit in
Argentina is the Mercado Central de Buenos Aires (MCBA), in operation since
1983, one of the three largest in Latin America. It represents almost 10% of the
vegetables commercialized in the country: approximately 1,500,000 ton. of
produce enter the MCBA each year, 35% of which is fruit and 65% vegetables.
Approximate percentages entering the MCBA are potatoes, 40%; tomatoes,
15%; onions, 12%; carrots, 8%; and pumpkins, 6% (Source: Ministry of
Agriculture).
On the other hand, in the last few years there has been a huge development of
the supermarket chains through 4-5 leading companies, a system that allows
the farmers or packing plants access to direct commercialization with the
distribution centers. Supermarkets also obtain supplies directly from some
consolidating markets, particularly to avoid possible shortages of goods from
their suppliers or to have an impact on their price negotiations.
Beyond all this, supermarkets continue to participate with a smaller portion 25
to 30% of the retail market. Traditional produce markets and greengrocer's
shops represent 70-75% of the retail market. It may be added that in the last
few years the retail market has seen a growth of the supply of differentiated
vegetables, minimally processed, and frozen produce (Colamarino et al., 2006),
sold almost exclusively in supermarkets.
A fundamental aspect of the commercialization of agricultural products is
related to their classification. Resolution N 297/83 (SENASA), modified by RE
58/07, establishes the minimum requirements for vegetables (absence of
insects and pesticides), aspects related to their quality and ripeness, and
questions related to packing. However, there arise certain difficulties, namely:
a) it is not possible to have a controlling agent, either at the source (at farm
or packing plant level) or at the destination (at the consolidating
markets); it is not even possible to have an arbitration agency to deal
with inconsistencies in liquidations;
b) the amount of goods commercialized nationally would make it necessary
to exercise control by means of samples, which would involve errors and
deviations, as well as high measurement costs;
6
c) the size of a product determines its value or quality, and there may be
different sizes in the same package or shipment; this makes it difficult for
buyers to confirm or measure those sizes;
d) the color and texture of the product may also constitute a quality variable,
which may change during transportation and storage at a consolidating
market (in general, for the worse, due to high temperatures and
perishability of the product), while the seller of the goods is unaware of
the degradation of his product;
e) presentation, packing, weight per box, and information about the product
are also key when considering quality; frequently the small farmers do
not have the means to use good crates and labels, so the merchandise
has lower prices even though the product is of good quality.
In short, price increases and drops due to over or undersupply influence the
information that the actors of the system possess to negotiate their goods.
However, price alone is not the only fundamental element when negotiating and
commercializing the production; so are all the questions referring to quality and
classification mentioned above. If these questions are not clear and precise, or
are difficult to determine (or to measure, as established by Barzel, 1982), there
may possibly exist higher costs to determine such elements, lower prices due to
the difficulty to measure them correctly, or opportunistic actions by the actors of
the system. These aspects will be developed in the next chapter.
The small farmer (0.5 to 2.,5 has.) faces each campaign under the following
conditions: a) low per hectare production volumes and low total production; b)
lower product quality (due to lack of uniformity in size and ripeness); c) high
financial costs (in general, they do not have the money to buy supplies at the
beginning of the campaign, so they need credit from suppliers or buyers); d)
operational difficulties (labor, obsolete technology, lack of agricultural tools and
equipment).
The buyers may be intermediaries who buy merchandise to process it in
packing plants their own or leased and send it to the consolidating markets.
There are also cases of integrated farmers (with their own production and
packing plants) who buy merchandise to increase their commercialization
volume. Their profit margin lies mainly in the price difference between what they
pay the farmer and what they obtain at the market, taking out logistics, packing
and commercialization expenses (see table 2). Buyers are very well informed
about the evolution of the markets, prices, volumes, qualities, etc. In addition,
they generally work with farmers with whom they have had long term
commercial relations or informal contractual relations because they have
advances money or supplies in exchange for loyalty at the time of
commercialization.
It is worth remembering that most horticultural products have high perishability
(low shelf life) and many times the quality of the product clearly depends on the
degree of ripeness. This leads to commercial difficulties, both for the buyers
(difficulty in determining quality) and for the farmers (less negotiation power and
lack of information).
Below is a detail of the transaction, its attributes and negotiation conditions.
o Transaction:
i.
ii.
o Negotiation conditions:
i.
There exists a greater negotiation power for the buyer, who knows
both the market prices and the costs of logistics, packing and
commercialization. In addition, the farmer's negotiation power is
lower because his production scale is much smaller than the
commercialization and packing scale of the buyer.
ii.
iii.
All in all, this transaction is resolved under a typical spot market, since neither
the farmer nor the buyer has any kind of formal or informal obligation to carry
out the transaction between them (except those cases of previous financing of
supplies). In those situations in which prices in the market are high, the profit
margins for the buyers are higher (see table 2) for instance, the price
differential between market price and price paid to the farmer for August 2011,
leaving out costs and wholesaler's commission, was $0.493 per kg; while by
September 2011, this price differential was $1.823 per kg; these differentials
represented 13% and 16% of the final market price, respectively.
31/08/11
14/09/11
21/09/11
29/08/12
12/09/12
26/09/12
Farmer cost
$/kg 1.25
$/kg 1.25
$/kg 1.25
$/kg 1.75
$/kg 1.75
$/kg 1.75
Farmer margin
$/kg 0.85
$/kg 2.25
$/kg 5.75
$/kg 0.15
$/kg 2.06
$/kg 2.54
$/kg 2.10
$/kg 3.50
$/kg 7.00
$/kg 1.90
$/kg 3.81
$/kg 4.29
$/kg 0.35
$/kg 0.35
$/kg 0.35
$/kg 0.35
$/kg 0.35
$/kg 0.35
$/kg 2.45
$/kg 3.85
$/kg 7.35
$/kg 2.25
$/kg 4.16
$/kg 4.64
$/kg 0.21
$/kg 0.21
$/kg 0.21
$/kg 0.21
$/kg 0.21
$/kg 0.21
$/kg 0.06
$/kg 0.06
$/kg 0.06
$/kg 0.06
$/kg 0.06
$/kg 0.06
$/kg 2.72
$/kg 4.12
$/kg 7.62
$/kg 2.52
$/kg 4.43
$/kg 4.91
7. Mark Up farmer/packer(8-6)
$/kg 1.06
$/kg 1.44
$/kg 3.49
$/kg 1.09
$/kg 1.68
$/kg 2.87
39%
35%
46%
43%
38%
58%
$/kg 3.78
$/kg 5.56
$/kg 11.1
$/kg 3.61
$/kg 6.11
$/kg 7.78
$/kg 0.57
$/kg 0.83
$/kg 1.67
$/kg 0.54
$/kg 0.92
$/kg 1.17
$/kg 0.49
$/kg 0.61
$/kg 1.82
$/kg 0.55
&/kg 0.76
$/kg 1.70
10
Case: Intermediary/packer/medium-large
operator transaction
farmerwholesale
market
The medium to large farmer (over 2.5 has.; average 8-10 has.) faces each
campaign under the following conditions: a) larger production volumes per
hectare and high total production; b) higher quality product (due to higher
technology levels, better fertilization and irrigation, product selection
possibilities, etc.); c) medium financial costs (suppliers and distributors who
offer discounts and lower financial costs than in the previous case based on the
volumes purchased); d) operational difficulties (especially related to labor due to
the volumes he handles). This type of farmers has packing plants because their
production volume allows them to commercialize directly with the consolidating
markets, thus capturing a higher price differential than the small farmers.
The intermediaries or packers, in turn, buy from the small farmers, as was
explained in the previous case. They buy the merchandise in bulk (defining the
quality based on their knowledge of the productive practices of the supplier;
their measurement costs are low because quality adjustments are made on the
price paid to the farmer). After a packing process (at their own plant or a leased
one), they commercialize mainly at the consolidating markets (in some cases,
over 800 km. away), making shipments on consignment to different operators at
the wholesale markets. These operators commercialize at the market with a
commission of about 15%.
o Transaction:
i.
ii.
o Negotiation conditions:
i.
ii.
iii.
12
Measurement costs are linked to the quality of the products commercialized and
the difficulty to measure this quality ex ante. They follow a similar pattern to the
previous case: faced with dissatisfaction of the retail buyers with the quality of
the products bought, the wholesale operators give the sellers fraudulent
liquidations (paying them a lower price than the true price at which the
consigned product was commercialized) thus counteracting possible ex post
costs.
6. Conclusions
There are some characteristics in trading vegetables: a) high perishability, b)
high volumes in short time periods (due to agro ecological issues), c) farmers
generally have financial problems, d) there are no standards, e) high-medium
frequency of transaction with certain buyers (due to trust, which would result in
opportunistic actions), f) low level of information about market prices or prices in
terms of quality, resulting in an asymmetric information problem, g) high fiscal
and sanitary informality, h) lower prices and higher costs in the last 10 years. All
these issues interact and make more complex transactions, in which generally
small farmers have low bargaining power because of lack of information,
financial problems and scales. On the other hand, perishability and the absence
of standards and information lead to high measurement costs and then
transaction costs.
The formalization and the design of contracts are a central part of the
institutional arrangements. The integration of quality assurance concerns in the
design of contractual arrangements is mostly motivated by the existence of
potential opportunistic behavior by firms or their suppliers, leading to a reduction
of the promised quality level or to imperfect compliance to prescribed production
standards (Maz, 2002).
The intensity of contractual problems then depends on the type of commodities
and the ability to reduce measurement costs (Barzel, 1982; Allen, 1991). In this
case, adverse selection or moral hazard phenomena are just specific cases of a
more general problem created by measurement costs and the combination of
two attributes: their variability and their alterability (Maz, 2002). Fresh
vegetables for example may have highly variable quality attributes. This
variability reduces the ability of a farmer name to serve as a support for
reputation mechanisms (based in Klein and Leffler, 1981).
A second source of problems arises with the potential alterability of quality
attributes, and the temptation for the farmer to reduce the level of quality when
quality attributes cannot be immediately observed at the time of the exchange
(Maz, 2002) or the possibility of buyers/wholesale operators to lie about the
quality finally purchased. The gains of such alterations are potentially higher for
high quality products than low or standard-quality products, or for products that
have non-observable or non-verifiable attributes. Incentives for possible noncompliance or even fraud in disregarding contractual quality specifications are
then stronger (Maz, 2002).
13
14
15