Proceso de tutoría y aprendizaje

Transaction specific factors are those which directly relate to price as well as marketing costs including transportation costs, payment including mode and speed of payment, channel offers (i.e. buying capacity, contract or agreement with the channel and incentives, both monetary and non-monetary). They are likely to influence farmers’ decisions to choose channels (Table 2.5).

Price

Price is one key indicator that many studies have examined. Table 2.5 shows price as a significant factor in every sector and in both developing (Afghanistan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Vietnam, Thailand, and Zimbabwe) and developed countries (Belgium, Greece, Hungary, U.K. and U.S.).

33

Table 2.5 Summary of transaction specific factors influencing the choice of marketing channels by farmers tested or explored in previous studies

Sector Countries Farm Scale Channels Price Transportation cost Payment Channel offers Sources

Grain Malawi Small Both X Chirwa, 2009

Grain Myanmar Other Indirect Soe et al., 2015

Grain Vietnam Other Both √ Cazzuffi & McKay, 2012

Beverage Ethiopia Other Indirect √ √ Gelaw et al., 2016

Beverage Costa Rica Other Indirect √ Wollni & Zeller, 2007

Beverage Kenya Other Indirect √ √ Harrizon et al., 2016

Beverage Mexico Other Indirect √ √ √ Milford, 2014

Beverage Nigeria Other Both √ √ √ Ogunleye & Oladeji, 2007

Beverage Peru Other Indirect Higuchi et al., 2012

Fruit & Vegetable Benin Other Indirect √ Arinloye et al., 2015

Fruit & Vegetable Cambodia Other Indirect X Phon & Yamaji, 2016

Fruit & Vegetable Central Africa Small Indirect Jagwe & Machethe, 2011

Fruit & Vegetable Ethiopia Other Indirect √ √ Abebe et al., 2016

Fruit & Vegetable Ethiopia Other Indirect Woldie & Nuppenau, 2009

Fruit & Vegetable Honduras Small Indirect √ √ √ √ Blandon et al., 2010

Fruit & Vegetable Hungary Other Indirect Ferto & Szabó, 2002

Fruit & Vegetable India Other Indirect Panda & Sreekumar, 2012

Fruit & Vegetable Kenya Other Both √ √ √ Maina et al., 2015

Fruit & Vegetable Peru Other Indirect √ √ √ Escobal & Cavero, 2012

Fruit & Vegetable South Africa Small Both Jari & Fraser, 2012

Fruit & Vegetable Swaziland Other Indirect Mabuza et al., 2014

Fruit & Vegetable Swaziland Other Indirect X Xaba & Masuku, 2013

Fruit & Vegetable Thailand Small Both Mukiama et al., 2014

Fruit & Vegetable Thailand Other Indirect √ X √ Schipmann & Qaim, 2011

Fruit & Vegetable Turkey Other Direct Adanacioglu, 2017

Fruit & Vegetable U.S. Small Both √ √ LeRoux et al., 2009

Fruit & Vegetable U.S. Other Both √ Farmer & Betz, 2016

Fruit & Vegetable U.S. Other Direct Monson et al., 2008

34

Table 2.5 Summary of transaction specific factors influencing the choice of marketing channels by farmers tested or explored in previous studies (cont.) Sector Countries Farm Scale Channels Price Transportation cost Payment Channel offers Sources

Livestock Afghanistan Other Indirect √ √ √ Srinivas et al., 2014

Livestock China Other Indirect X √ √ Gong et al., 2006

Livestock China Other Both √ Huang et al., 2012

Livestock Greece Other Both √ √ √ Tsourgiannis et al., 2008

Livestock Greece & U.K. Other Both √ √ Tsourgiannis et al., 2012

Livestock Ethiopia Other Both √ Girma & Abebaw, 2012

Livestock India Small Indirect √ Kumar et al., 2011

Livestock India Other Both X Bardhana et al., 2012

Livestock India Other Indirect √ √ Sharma et al., 2009

Livestock India Other Both X √ √ Staal et al., 2006

Livestock Kenya Small Indirect √ √ Mburu et al., 2007

Livestock Kenya Other Both √ Mutura et al.,2015

Livestock Macedonia Small Both Voors & Haese, 2010

Livestock Namibia Other Indirect √ √ De Bruyn et al., 2001

Livestock Namibia Other Indirect √ √ Shiimi et al., 2012

Livestock South Africa Other Indirect Mafukata, 2015

Livestock South Africa Other Both √ √ Musemwa et al., 2007

Livestock South Africa Other Indirect Ndoro et al., 2015

Livestock Uganda Other Both X √ √ Sikawa & Mugisha, 2011

Generic Belgium Other Both √ √ Verhaegen & Huylenbroeck,

2001

Generic Hungary Small Both √ √ √ Benedek et al., 2014

Generic Pakistan Small Indirect √ Ahmed et al., 2016

Generic U.S. Other Both Park & Lohr, 2006

Note: √ = Significant factors, X = Non-significant factors

35

Price is related to grading/quality conditions; all previous studies that measured grading found this to be a significant factor. For example, price has been found to have positive significance in the decision to use particular marketing channels, for example traditional village traders, companies, and the Royal project of sweet pepper farmers in Thailand (Schipmann & Qaim, 2011). Gelaw et al. (2016) identified that price was one of the most significant factors to choose trader by coffee farmers in Ethiopia because they received higher price from this channel.

However, price was not always the main driving factor influencing the choice of marketing channels in maize (Chirwa, 2009), vegetable (Phon & Yamaji, 2016; Xaba & Masuku, 2013) and dairy (Gong et al., 2006; Staal et al., 2006; Bardhana et al., 2012; Sikawa & Mugisha, 2011). The possible explanation of these results is that they are small- scale farmers (Chirwa, 2009) with low bargaining power (Gong et al., 2006), incurring high transportation costs if they choose to sell to the higher price offer (Staal et al., 2006).

Transportation cost

A number of studies have explored the role that cost plays in shaping choice of marketing channels, particularly transportation cost. Transportation cost is associated with the distance from the market which the longer distance, the higher the transport cost (Sikawa & Mugisha, 2011; Shiimi et al., 2012). All studies that measured this factor found a significant influence on marketing channel choice decision-making (Table 2.5). For example, high transportation cost had a negative effect on access to the markets by small farmers in Pakistan because higher cost leads to a disinclination of farmers to market their produce (Ahmed et al., 2016). Maina et al. (2015) found that the increased of transportation cost by one shilling increased the probability of selecting local traders, brokers and marketing group for selling mango in Makueni County, Kenya by 88.87%, 88.76% and 10.56% respectively.

Payment

Terms of payment including modes (e.g. cash or credit) and speed of payment (e.g. prompt, delayed or advance payments) has a significant influence on marketing channel

selection. Small-scale farmers need immediate payment in cash (De Bruyn et al., 2001),

whereas some farmers still prefer to choose a channel that offers a price premium with payment delay (Gong et al., 2006). Tsourgiannis et al. (2008) identified that speed of payment has a significant effect on the choice of marketing channel of sheep and goat farmers in Greece when choosing local milk processing plants, cooperatives and large national dairy firms.

Their results differ from Schipmann & Qaim (2011); this research found that payment mode was not significantly influential for marketing channel choice, for both contract and non-contract farmers if payment was later than one week after delivery.

36

Most previous studies found that payment was a determinant factor in the choice of marketing channel for both small-scale and other farmers. This study examines payment in terms of cash payment, mode, and speed of payment. The definition of this factor for this study followed phase one interviews.

Channel offers

The offer made by indirect channels, in terms of buying capacity, monetary and non- monetary incentives, and services, can be an important decision-making influence. All previous studies exploring how variables determine channel selection found that this factor has a significant impact on marketing channel selection. Buying capacity was identified by farmers as one aspect of channel offering (Benedek et al., 2014). Farmers favoured channels which would purchase all their products, especially if they had the freedom to deliver whenever the product becomes available (Blandon et al., 2010).

Incentives may refer to gifts (Arinloye et al., 2015), provision of market information (Arinloye et al., 2015), technical training/knowledge transfer (Schipmann & Qaim, 2011; Arinloye et al., 2015), bonus payment (Harrizon et al., 2016), willingness to help the farmer in times of social and economic crisis (Gelaw et al., 2016), and financial support (Staal et al., 2006; Mburu et al., 2007; Milford, 2014; Arinloye et al., 2015). For example, research by Mburu et al. (2007) and Milford (2014) found that if cooperatives provided loans or prepayments to farmers, it had a positive influence on choosing the cooperative as a channel.