IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i11p4371-d1399331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Decision-Making and Moderator Effects of Transaction Costs, Service Satisfaction, and the Stability of Agricultural Productive Service Contracts: Evidence from Farmers in Northeast China

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Xue

    (College of Land and Environment, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China
    College of Economics and Management, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Hongbin Liu

    (College of Land and Environment, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Zhenzhen Chai

    (College of Economics and Management, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Zimo Wang

    (College of Engineering, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

Abstract

Agricultural producer service (APS) plays a crucial role in the sustainable development of modern agriculture. Enhancing the stability of contracts between farmers and APS is the key to promoting the high-quality development of the latter. This research aimed to explore the decision-making and moderator effects of transaction costs, service satisfaction, and the stability of APS contracts by constructing a theoretical framework. Based on survey data from 893 farmers in Northeast China’s black soil area, we employed the Mvprobit model to examine the relationship between transaction costs, service satisfaction, and contract stability. The key findings are as follows: Firstly, transaction costs have a dual impact on contract stability in agricultural productive services, acting as both inhibitors and promoters. Higher information and execution costs reduce farmers’ willingness to maintain current cooperative relationships, while higher negotiation costs make farmers more inclined to stick with the status quo. Secondly, farmers’ satisfaction with services positively moderates the influence of transaction costs on contract stability, with highly satisfied farmers being more affected than those with lower satisfaction levels. Lastly, farmers’ personal, family, and social characteristics all shape their preferences during the formation process. To mitigate cooperation risks and bolster cooperation contract stability, this study suggests that the government implement supervision and incentives to reduce transaction costs for farmers when procuring services and enhance the efficiency of farmer–service provider connections.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Xue & Hongbin Liu & Zhenzhen Chai & Zimo Wang, 2024. "The Decision-Making and Moderator Effects of Transaction Costs, Service Satisfaction, and the Stability of Agricultural Productive Service Contracts: Evidence from Farmers in Northeast China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4371-:d:1399331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4371/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4371/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2022. "Are There Too Many Farms in the World? Labor Market Transaction Costs, Machine Capacities, and Optimal Farm Size," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(3), pages 636-680.
    2. Yangchenhao Wu & Kaifeng Duan & Wang Zhang, 2023. "The Impact of Internet Use on Farmers’ Land Transfer under the Framework of Transaction Costs," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, September.
    3. H. Holly Wang & Yanbing Wang & Michael S. Delgado, 2014. "The Transition to Modern Agriculture: Contract Farming in Developing Economies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1257-1271.
    4. Yuxuan Xu & Jie Lyu & Ying Xue & Hongbin Liu, 2022. "Does the Agricultural Productive Service Embedded Affect Farmers’ Family Economic Welfare Enhancement? An Empirical Analysis in Black Soil Region in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-22, November.
    5. Zhang, Y., 2001. "Economics of transaction costs saving forestry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 197-204, February.
    6. Zhang, Shemei & Sun, Zhanli & Ma, Wanglin & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2020. "The effect of cooperative membership on agricultural technology adoption in Sichuan, China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    7. Chen, Kunqiu & Long, Hualou & Liao, Liuwen & Tu, Shuangshuang & Li, Tingting, 2020. "Land use transitions and urban-rural integrated development: Theoretical framework and China’s evidence," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Lioliou, Eleni & Willcocks, Leslie & Liu, Xiaohui, 2019. "Researching IT multi-sourcing and opportunistic behavior in conditions of uncertainty: A case approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 387-396.
    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. Fukase,Emiko & Kim,Yeon Soo & Chiarella,Cristina Andrea, 2022. "Exploring the Sources of the Agricultural Productivity Gender Gap : Evidence from Sri Lanka," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10025, The World Bank.
    2. Lin Xie & Biliang Luo & Wenjing Zhong, 2021. "How Are Smallholder Farmers Involved in Digital Agriculture in Developing Countries: A Case Study from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Raushan Bokusheva & Lukáš Čechura & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2023. "Estimating persistent and transient technical efficiency and their determinants in the presence of heterogeneity and endogeneity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 450-472, June.
    4. Stefano Ciliberti & Simone Del Sarto & Angelo Frascarelli & Giulia Pastorelli & Gaetano Martino, 2020. "Contracts to Govern the Transition towards Sustainable Production: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Analysis in the Durum Wheat Sector in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Ellen Banzhaf & Sally Anderson & Gwendoline Grandin & Richard Hardiman & Anne Jensen & Laurence Jones & Julius Knopp & Gregor Levin & Duncan Russel & Wanben Wu & Jun Yang & Marianne Zandersen, 2022. "Urban-Rural Dependencies and Opportunities to Design Nature-Based Solutions for Resilience in Europe and China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Liyan Yu & Jerker Nilsson & Feng Zhan & Song Cheng, 2023. "Social Capital in Cooperative Memberships and Farmers’ Access to Bank Credit–Evidence from Fujian, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Vittorio Bassi & Raffaela Muoio & Tommaso Porzio & Ritwika Sen & Esau Tugume, 2022. "Achieving Scale Collectively," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2937-2978, November.
    8. Chen, Shuo & Lan, Xiaohuan, 2020. "Tractor vs. animal: Rural reforms and technology adoption in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa, 2020. "A meta-analysis understanding smallholder entry into high-value markets," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    10. Marijn A. Bolhuis & Swapnika R. Rachapalli & Diego Restuccia, 2021. "Misallocation in Indian Agriculture," NBER Working Papers 29363, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Lu Wang & Jianli Luo & Yuxia Liu, 2021. "Agricultural cooperatives participating in vegetable supply chain integration: A case study of a trinity cooperative in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-20, June.
    12. William J. Burke & Stephen N. Morgan & Thelma Namonje & Milu Muyanga & Nicole M. Mason, 2023. "Beyond the “inverse relationship”: Area mismeasurement may affect actual productivity, not just how we understand it," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 557-569, July.
    13. Xinyao Li & Lingzhi Wang & Bryan Pijanowski & Lingpeng Pan & Hichem Omrani & Anqi Liang & Yi Qu, 2022. "The Spatio-Temporal Pattern and Transition Mode of Recessive Cultivated Land Use Morphology in the Huaibei Region of the Jiangsu Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    14. Zheng, Hongyun & Ma, Wanglin & Wang, Fang & Li, Gucheng, 2021. "Does internet use improve technical efficiency of banana production in China? Evidence from a selectivity-corrected analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    15. Benali, Marwan & Brümmer, Bernhard & Afari-Sefa, Victor, 2017. "Small producer participation in export vegetable supply chains and poverty: evidence from different export schemes in Tanzania," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 262583, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    16. Briones, Roehlano M., 2015. "Small Farmers in High-Value Chains: Binding or Relaxing Constraints to Inclusive Growth?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 43-52.
    17. Wanglin Ma & Hongyun Zheng & Amaka Nnaji, 2023. "Cooperative membership and adoption of green pest control practices: Insights from rice farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(3), pages 459-479, July.
    18. Christian Dippel & Dustin Frye & Bryan Leonard, 2020. "Property Rights without Transfer Rights: A Study of Indian Land Allotment," NBER Working Papers 27479, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2022. "Как Да Оценим Управленческата Ефективност На Българските Земеделски Стопанства [How to assess the governance efficiency of Bulgarian agricultural farms]," MPRA Paper 113590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Wang, Sen & Bogle, Tim & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2012. "Forestry and the New Institutional Economics," Working Papers 130818, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4371-:d:1399331. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.