IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v50y2023i2p360-394..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Excess demand amid quality misperceptions: the case for low-cost seed quality signalling strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Mywish K Maredia
  • Brian Bartle

Abstract

Planting quality seed is essential for increasing crop productivity. We study the potato seed market in Kenya and estimate farmers’ willingness to pay for certified, clean and ware potato seeds that use reputation and certification strategies at varying costs to provide quality signal. We find that farmers are prone to quality misperceptions and adjust their bids for high (low) quality seed upward (downward) in response to positive (negative) quality signals. Effective demand for quality seeds exceeds supply 286 per cent after correcting quality misperceptions. We make a strong case for the need of low-cost alternatives to meet this excess demand for quality seeds.

Suggested Citation

  • Mywish K Maredia & Brian Bartle, 2023. "Excess demand amid quality misperceptions: the case for low-cost seed quality signalling strategies," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 360-394.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:360-394.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbac019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoffmann, Vivian & Gatobu, Ken Mwithirwa, 2014. "Growing their own: Unobservable quality and the value of self-provisioning," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 168-178.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    4. Mywish K. Maredia & Robert Shupp & Edward Opoku & Fulgence Mishili & Byron Reyes & Paul Kusolwa & Francis Kusi & Abdul Kudra, 2019. "Farmer perception and valuation of seed quality: Evidence from bean and cowpea seed auctions in Tanzania and Ghana," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 495-507, July.
    5. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Yue, Chengyan & Zhao, Shuoli & Gallardo, Karina & McCracken, Vicki & Luby, James & McFerson, Jim, 2017. "U.S. Growers’ Willingness to Pay for Improvement in Rosaceous Fruit Traits," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 103-122, April.
    7. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Raymond Fisman & Brian McManus, 2015. "Market Structure, Reputation, and the Value of Quality Certification," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 83-108, November.
    8. Buzby, Jean C. & Fox, John A. & Ready, Richard C. & Crutchfleld, Stephen R., 1998. "Measuring Consumer Benefits of Food Safety Risk Reductions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 69-82, July.
    9. Astrid Mastenbroek & Irma Sirutyte & Robert Sparrow, 2021. "Information Barriers to Adoption of Agricultural Technologies: Willingness to Pay for Certified Seed of an Open Pollinated Maize Variety in Northern Uganda," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 180-201, February.
    10. Jeffrey Englin & Trudy Cameron, 1996. "Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 133-147, March.
    11. Michaël Dewally & Louis Ederington, 2006. "Reputation, Certification, Warranties, and Information as Remedies for Seller-Buyer Information Asymmetries: Lessons from the Online Comic Book Market," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(2), pages 693-730, March.
    12. Johannes Hörner, 2002. "Reputation and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 644-663, June.
    13. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    14. Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, November.
    15. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Schilizzi, Steven G.M., 2015. "Quality signaling through certification in developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 105-121.
    16. Carl Shapiro, 1983. "Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(4), pages 659-679.
    17. Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
    18. Samuel D. Zapata & Carlos E. Carpio, 2014. "The theoretical structure of producer willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 613-623, September.
    19. Rosenman, Robert E & Wilson, Wesley W, 1991. "Quality Differentials and Prices: Are Cherries Lemons?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 649-658, December.
    20. Alessandro Corsi, 2007. "Ambiguity of measured WTP for quality improvements when quantity is unconstrained: a note," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(4), pages 501-515, December.
    21. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    22. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    23. Keith O. Fuglie & Witono Adiyoga & Rini Asmunati & Sukendra Mahalaya & Rachman Suherman, 2006. "Farm demand for quality potato seed in Indonesia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(3), pages 257-266, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Herrington, Caitlin L. & Ortega, David L. & Maredia, Mywish K. & Reyes, Byron A., 2023. "Does Bid Quantity Matter? Comparing Farmer Willingness-to-Pay for Specified vs Open-Ended Quantities of Biofortified Bean and Maize Seed in a Non-hypothetical Field Experiment," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335919, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav & Karlínová, Bára, 2019. "Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    4. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav, 2021. "Can time-inconsistent preferences explain hypothetical biases?," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    5. Bartels, Lara & Falk, Thomas & Duche, Vishwambhar & Vollan, Björn, 2022. "Experimental games in transdisciplinary research: The potential importance of individual payments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    6. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    7. Haefele, Michelle A. & Loomis, John B. & Lien, Aaron M. & Dubovsky, James A. & Merideth, Robert W. & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Huang, Ta-Ken & Mattsson, Brady J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Thogmartin, Wayne E, 2019. "Multi-country Willingness to Pay for Transborder Migratory Species Conservation: A Case Study of Northern Pintails," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 321-331.
    8. Kirsten Foss, 1996. "A Transaction cost Perspective on the Influence of Standards on Product Development Examples from the Fruit and Vegetable Market," DRUID Working Papers 96-9, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    9. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    10. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Ndefo & Thomas Poder, 2020. "Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 11-36, April.
    11. Wen Lin, 2023. "The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta‐regression analysis of beef valuation studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 646-663, July.
    12. Herrington, Caitlin L. & Maredia, Mywish K. & Ortega, David L. & Reyes, Byron A., 2023. "The Impact of Endogenous and Exogenous Factors on Farmer Willingness-to-Pay for Biofortified Bean Seed: A Field Experiment in Rural Zimbabwe," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335918, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Bar-El, Ronen & Hatsor, Limor & Tobol, Yossef, 2020. "Home production, market substitutes, and the labor supply of mothers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 378-390.
    14. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    15. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    16. Chloe S McCallum & Simone Cerroni & Daniel Derbyshire & W George Hutchinson & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2022. "Consumers’ responses to food fraud risks: an economic experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 942-969.
    17. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    19. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    20. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Andrew G. Meyer, 2021. "Incorporating Beliefs and Experiences into Choice Experiment Analysis: Implications for Policy Recommendations," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 823-848, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:360-394.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.