IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea08/5966.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contracting for Consistency: Hog Quality and the Use of Marketing Contracts

Author

Listed:
  • Jang, Jongick
  • Sykuta, Michael E.

Abstract

Achieving consistency in hog quality has been one of the greatest challenges in the US pork industry. Packers, processors and retailers all ranked lack of uniformity in live hogs, carcasses, and retail cuts with regard to size and backfat as the most important quality issue facing the industry in the mid 1990s (NPPC, Pork Quality Audit, 1994), and quality consistency continues to be a leading industry concern (Martinez and Zering, 2004). The past 15 years have also witnessed dramatic changes in the organization of the US hog industry. In 1993, over 82% of hogs were sold through spot markets while 11% were sold under marketing contracts. By 2005, only 11% of hogs were sold through spot markets, with 67% sold under marketing contracts and over 20% owned by packers through formal integration or production contracts. This change in industry structure has not gone unnoticed by agricultural economists. A large body of literature examines the relations between hog quality and newly developed organization modes, particularly production contracting and vertical integration. A variety of theoretical frameworks and empirical approaches have been employed, whether using surveys (Kliebenstein and Lawrence, 1995), simulation techniques (Poray, 2002), contract document analysis (Martinez and Zering, 2004), and quality outcome analysis (Muth, et al., 2007). However, research focusing on production contracts and formal vertical integration fails to address the dominant institutional form, namely marketing contracts. Likewise, research focusing on market-based incentive mechanisms fails to provide a consistent explanation for the use and design of long-term hog marketing contracts. We propose a theoretical explanation for the use of long-term marketing contracts in the presence of buyer-specific quality attributes in an otherwise commoditized industry. This theoretical framework draws from and builds upon existing theories of contracting and organizational economics. In particular, the paper develops an analytical model that accounts for the use and structure of long-term marketing contracts to increase intertemporal quality consistency in hog procurement. The paper links the packer’s decision to move from spot-market transactions to long-term marketing contracts to the packer’s downstream product differentiation strategy. We provide empirical evidence to support the model and its explanatory power relative to existing theories.

Suggested Citation

  • Jang, Jongick & Sykuta, Michael E., 2008. "Contracting for Consistency: Hog Quality and the Use of Marketing Contracts," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 5966, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea08:5966
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.5966
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/5966/files/470513.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.5966?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tian Xia & Richard J. Sexton, 2004. "The Competitive Implications of Top-of-the-Market and Related Contract-Pricing Clauses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 124-138.
    2. Yanguo Wang & Edward C. Jaenicke, 2006. "Simulating the Impacts of Contract Supplies in a Spot Market-Contract Market Equilibrium Setting," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1062-1077.
    3. Lawrence, John D. & Kliebenstein, James, 1995. "Contracting and Vertical Coordination in the United States Pork Industry," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5050, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Kliebenstein, James & Lawrence, John D., 1995. "Contracting and Vertical Coordination in the United States Pork Industry," ISU General Staff Papers 199501010800001264, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. James B. Kliebenstein & John D. Lawrence, 1995. "Contracting and Vertical Coordination in the United States Pork Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(5), pages 1213-1218.
    6. Kliebenstein, James B. & Lawrence, John D., 1995. "Contracting and Vertical Coordination in the United States Pork Industry," ISU General Staff Papers 199507010700001264, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Magali Aubert & Zouhair Bouhsina & Jean Marie Codron & Sylvain Rousset, 2013. "Pesticide safety risk, food chain organization, and the adoption of sustainable farming practices. The case of Moroccan early tomatoes," Post-Print hal-02806083, HAL.
    2. Lemeilleur, Sylvaine & Codron, Jean-Marie, 2011. "Marketing cooperative vs. commission agent: The Turkish dilemma on the modern fresh fruit and vegetable market," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 272-279, April.

    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. Hueth, Brent & Ligon, Ethan & Dimitri, Carolyn, 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Agricultural Contracts: Data and Research Needs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1-7, December.
    2. Fraser, Iain, 2005. "Microeconometric analysis of wine grape supply contracts in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 1-24.
    3. Bhuyan, Sanjib, 2005. "Does Vertical Integration Effect Market Power? Evidence from U.S. Food Manufacturing Industries," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Goodrich, Brittney K. & Goodhue, Rachael E., 2020. "Are All Colonies Created Equal? The Role of Honey Bee Colony Strength in Almond Pollination Contracts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. Jeffrey M. Gillespie & Joan R. Fulton, 2001. "A Markov chain analysis of the size of hog production firms in the United States," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(4), pages 557-570.
    6. Sneeringer Stacy E, 2009. "Effects of Environmental Regulation on Economic Activity and Pollution in Commercial Agriculture," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-35, July.
    7. Love, H. Alan & Burton, Diana M., 1999. "A Strategic Rationale For Captive Supplies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 1-18, July.
    8. McBride, William D. & Key, Nigel D., 2003. "Economic And Structural Relationships In U.S. Hog Production," Agricultural Economic Reports 33971, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Charles R. Knoeber, 2000. "Les contrats de production dans l'agriculture américaine. Une caractérisation de la recherche empirique actuelle," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 259(1), pages 3-15.
    10. Hudson, Darren, 2001. "Cross-Commodity Perspective On Contracting: Evidence From Mississippi," Research Reports 15800, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    11. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ifft, Jennifer, 2017. "Risk Preferences, Contracts and Technology Adoption by Broiler Farmers in China," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 257248, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Liu, Xuanli & Miller, Gay Y. & McNamara, Paul E., 2005. "Do Antibiotics Reduce Production Risk for U.S. Pork Producers?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Jason R.V. Franken & Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2017. "Risk attitudes and the structure of decision†making: evidence from the Illinois hog industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 41-50, January.
    14. Adhikari, Bishwa B. & Harsh, Stephen B. & Cheney, Laura Martin, 2003. "Factors Affecting Regional Shifts Of U.S Pork Production," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22200, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Poray, Michael C. & Gray, Allan W. & Boehlje, Michael, 2002. "Evaluation of Alternative Coordination Systems Between Producers and Packers in the Pork Value Chain," Staff Papers 200386, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    16. Bhuyan, Sanjib, 2003. "What Determines Vertical Mergers in U.S. Food Manufacturing Industries?," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22146, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Martinez, Stephen W., 2002. "Vertical Coordination Of Marketing Systems: Lessons From The Poultry, Egg, And Pork Industries," Agricultural Economic Reports 34051, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    18. Cozzarin, Brian P. & Barry, Peter J., 1998. "Organizational Structure In Agricultural Production Alliances," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 1(2), pages 1-17.
    19. Key, Nigel D. & McBride, William D., 2001. "Does Contracting Raise Farm Productivity? The Impact Of Production Contracts On Hog Farm Performance," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20721, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Kumar, Shiv & Devender & Chakarvarty, Kavita & Chand, Puran & Dabas, J.P.S., 2007. "Mode of Operation and Performance of Contract Farming of Cottonseed in Haryana," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 20(1).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aaea08:5966. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.