IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205445.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the Profit Efficiency of Contract and Non-Contract Rice Farms in Taiwan -- A Meta-Frontier and A Cross-Frontier Appraoch Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Chang, Ching-Cheng
  • Chen, Chi-Chung
  • Tseng, Wei-Chun
  • Hu, Wu-Yueh

Abstract

Purpose - Contract farming has been proposed as an avenue for private sector to take over the roles previously served by the government in the provision of information, inputs or credit for small-scale farmers in the developing countries (World Bank, 2001). Increasing attention has been given to whether contract farming can provide small farmers with improved income or sufficient protection from incurring losses due to price fluctuations. In the literature, the positive relationship between the use of contracts and the increasing productivity is found (Cochrane, 1993, and Ahearn et al., 2005). A fair amount of effort has been directed at assessing the relative efficiency of contract farming over independent production. Knoeber (1989) showes that the use of production contracts in the hog and broiler industry help the diffusion of the new technologies and lead to the improvement of productivity. Key and McBride (2003) provide evidence that contracts are associated with high productivity performance in hog production in the U.S. Morrison et al. (2004) shows that smaller operations are in general less efficient than larger and more contract-intensive entities. This finding not only suggests competitive pressures on smaller farms but also point out the barriers for smaller growers to participate in contract farming scheme. For developing countries, Ramaswami et al. (2006) evaluate how the efficiency gains of poultry contracts are shared between growers and processors in India. Cost reduction from better technology and production practices is counted as efficiency gain for the processors, while average return is viewed as efficiency gain for the growers. However, there is little direct evidence regarding the potential of contract farming to increase profitability through increases in profit efficiency. Setboonsarng et al. (2005) use a stochastic profit frontier model to examine the profit efficiency of organic rice contract farming in the north and northeastern regions of Thailand. They identify a significant profit margin for contract farms across all scale of operations as compared to the non-contract farms, but efficiency gain is not as significant for the largest farm sizes. In our study by using a very special survey data from Taiwan, besides the technology/productivity efficiency, we will be able to compare the profit efficiency between contract and non-contact farms. Design/Methodology/approach - The profit inefficiency is defined as loss of profit from not operating on the profit frontier (Ali and Flinn, 1989). It can be measured by the following Rahman (2003)’s approach in which both technical and allocative inefficiency are simultaneously taken into account. Technical inefficiency is defined as the loss of profits from failing to meet the production efficient frontier. Allocative inefficiency is the loss of profits from failing to observe or respond to the relative prices of inputs and outputs. The stochastic profit frontier is defined as , where π is the vector of profit defined as gross revenue minus variable cost; p and w are the vectors of output and input prices, respectively; and Z is the vector of fixed inputs. A meta-frontier methodology of Battese et al (2004) is adopted to estimate simultaneously the efficiencies and the technological gaps for productions under different technologies relative to the potential technology available as a whole as well. Another approach that is based on Cummins et al (1999) is also applied to estimate the cross-frontier profit efficiency. Findings - The estimation result indicates that an average contract farms is 20 percent more efficient than an average non-contract farm under a comparable operating environment. We also find that the contract decision is determined not only by a profit comparison between contract and independent producers but also by other demographic determinants like age, education level, employment status and geographical locations. Finally, we find that contract rice farmers have more profit efficiency than non-contract rice farmers given a profit meta-frontier function. Originality/value/discussion - Contract farming has become an attractive policy instrument for many developing countries to assist small family farms to gain access to markets, information, credits, and necessary services to manage their risk. This study uses a very special survey data from Taiwan, including more than 300 rice farmers. Besides the technology/productivity efficiency, we compare the profit efficiency between contract and non-contact farms, which is not commonly seen in the literature. Our results imply that the contract arrangement can indeed be an effective institutional mechanism to increase profitability and competitiveness for small family farms.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang, Ching-Cheng & Chen, Chi-Chung & Tseng, Wei-Chun & Hu, Wu-Yueh, "undated". "Estimating the Profit Efficiency of Contract and Non-Contract Rice Farms in Taiwan -- A Meta-Frontier and A Cross-Frontier Appraoch Applications," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205445, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205445
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205445/files/Rice%20Contract--091013_R.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205445?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. Willis, Robert J & Rosen, Sherwin, 1979. "Education and Self-Selection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(5), pages 7-36, October.
    2. Rahman, Sanzidur, 2003. "Profit efficiency among Bangladeshi rice farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 487-503.
    3. Battese, George E. & Coelli, Tim J., 1988. "Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 387-399, July.
    4. George Battese & D. Rao & Christopher O'Donnell, 2004. "A Metafrontier Production Function for Estimation of Technical Efficiencies and Technology Gaps for Firms Operating Under Different Technologies," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 91-103, January.
    5. Nigel Key & William McBride, 2003. "Production Contracts and Productivity in the U.S. Hog Sector," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 121-133.
    6. Mary Clare Ahearn & Jet Yee & Penni Korb, 2005. "Effects of Differing Farm Policies on Farm Structure and Dynamics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1182-1189.
    7. Mei-Ying Huang & Cliff Huang & Tsu-Tan Fu, 2002. "Cultivation Arrangements and the Cost Efficiency of Rice Farming in Taiwan," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 223-239, November.
    8. Bharat Ramaswami & Pratap Singh Birthal & P.K. Joshi, 2005. "Efficiency and distribution in contract farming:The case of Indian poultry growers," Discussion Papers 05-01, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    9. Mubarik Ali & John C. Flinn, 1989. "Profit Efficiency Among Basmati Rice Producers in Pakistan Punjab," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 303-310.
    10. Olson, Jerome A. & Schmidt, Peter & Waldman, Donald M., 1980. "A Monte Carlo study of estimators of stochastic frontier production functions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 67-82, May.
    11. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1978. "Unionism and Wage Rates: A Simultaneous Equations Model with Qualitative and Limited Dependent Variables," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 19(2), pages 415-433, June.
    12. Sununtar Setboonsarng & PingSun Leung & Junning Cai, 2006. "Contract Farming and Poverty Reduction: The Case of Organic Rice Contract Farming in Thailand," Chapters, in: John Weiss & Haider A. Khan (ed.), Poverty Strategies in Asia, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Knoeber, Charles R, 1989. "A Real Game of Chicken: Contracts, Tournaments, and the Production of Broilers," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 271-292, Fall.
    14. J. David Cummins & Mary A. Weiss & Hongmin Zi, 1999. "Organizational Form and Efficiency: The Coexistence of Stock and Mutual Property-Liability Insurers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(9), pages 1254-1269, September.
    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. Subal C. Kumbhakar & Christopher F. Parmeter & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2022. "Stochastic Frontier Analysis: Foundations and Advances I," Springer Books, in: Subhash C. Ray & Robert G. Chambers & Subal C. Kumbhakar (ed.), Handbook of Production Economics, chapter 8, pages 331-370, Springer.
    2. Nmadu, Job N. & Simpa, James O., 2014. "Rethinking The Technical Efficiency Of Small Scale Yam Farmers In Nigeria Using Conventional And Non-Conventional Inefficiency Parameters," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165866, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Tim J. Coelli, 1995. "Recent Developments In Frontier Modelling And Efficiency Measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 219-245, December.
    4. Saldias, Rodrigo & von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, 2012. "Access to credit and the determinants of technical inefficiency among specialized small farmers in Chile," DARE Discussion Papers 1211, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    5. Ismaël Mourifié & Marc Henry & Romuald Méango, 2020. "Sharp Bounds and Testability of a Roy Model of STEM Major Choices," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(8), pages 3220-3283.
    6. Nathan D. DeLay & Nathanael M. Thompson & James R. Mintert, 2022. "Precision agriculture technology adoption and technical efficiency," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 195-219, February.
    7. Carrasco, Raquel, 2001. "Binary Choice with Binary Endogenous Regressors in Panel Data: Estimating the Effect of Fertility on Female Labor Participation," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 19(4), pages 385-394, October.
    8. Ahn, Heinz & Clermont, Marcel & Langner, Julia, 2023. "Comparative performance analysis of frontier-based efficiency measurement methods – A Monte Carlo simulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(1), pages 294-312.
    9. Wollni, Meike & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2012. "Productive efficiency of specialty and conventional coffee farmers in Costa Rica: Accounting for technological heterogeneity and self-selection," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 67-76.
    10. Mehta, Rajesh & Narrod, Clare & Tiongco, Marites, 2008. "Livestock industrialization, trade and social-health-environment impacts in developing countries: a case of Indian poultry sector," MPRA Paper 32678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Stewart, James I., 2006. "Migration to the agricultural frontier and wealth accumulation, 1860-1870," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 547-577, October.
    12. Rachael Goodhue & Leo Simon, 2016. "Agricultural contracts, adverse selection, and multiple inputs," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-33, December.
    13. Ivan A Canay & Magne Mogstad & Jack Mount, 2024. "On the Use of Outcome Tests for Detecting Bias in Decision Making," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(4), pages 2135-2167.
    14. Mamardashvili, Phatima & Emvalomatis, Grigorios & Jan, Pierrick, 2016. "Environmental Performance and Shadow Value of Polluting on Swiss Dairy Farms," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    15. Mark Andor & Frederik Hesse, "undated". "The StoNED age: The Departure Into a New Era of Efficiency Analysis? An MC study Comparing StoNED and the "Oldies" (SFA and DEA)," Working Papers 201285, Institute of Spatial and Housing Economics, Munster Universitary.
    16. Abramitzky, Ran, 2009. "The effect of redistribution on migration: Evidence from the Israeli kibbutz," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(3-4), pages 498-511, April.
    17. Bos, J.W.B. & Schmiedel, H., 2007. "Is there a single frontier in a single European banking market?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 2081-2102, July.
    18. Sanzidur Rahman & Aree Wiboonpongse & Songsak Sriboonchitta & Yaovarate Chaovanapoonphol, 2009. "Production Efficiency of Jasmine Rice Producers in Northern and North‐eastern Thailand," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 419-435, June.
    19. Julia Schaefer & Marcel Clermont, 2018. "Stochastic non-smooth envelopment of data for multi-dimensional output," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 139-154, December.
    20. Andor, Mark A. & Parmeter, Christopher & Sommer, Stephan, 2019. "Combining uncertainty with uncertainty to get certainty? Efficiency analysis for regulation purposes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 240-252.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Crop Production/Industries; Production Economics;
    All these keywords.

    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:aaea15:205445. 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.