IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae09/51753.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consulting the stakeholders on pro-poor market segmentation of maize seed in Africa

Author

Listed:
  • De Groote, Hugo
  • Andam, Kwaw S.
  • Hall, Mike
  • Munyua, Bernard Gathigi
  • Ngigi, Obadiah
  • Spielman, David J.

Abstract

Market segmentation, while popular in the pharmaceutical industry, is rarely used in agricultural technology dissemination, where beneficiary targeting is preferred. Market segmentation, while easy and cheap, tends to generate leakages, while beneficiary targeting, is typically associated with high administrative costs and distortionary effects. To achieve a better understanding of the potential for using market segmentation to improve the adoption of agricultural technology, a consultation was organized in Kenya in May and June 2008 with stakeholders from the seed sector, NGOs, Ministry of Agriculture, agro-dealers and researchers. The consultation included individual visits to 9 stakeholders, a formal meeting with 39 stakeholders, and a formal questionnaire filled in by 18 respondents. Results indicate that indirect identification of the poor is difficult, since poor and non-poor live in the same areas and use the same technologies. The consultations show that several organizations in Kenya, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and seed companies, supply reduced-cost inputs to the poor, and they commonly use direct identification of the poor. The costs of such exercises seem to be high, but no data are available on costs or the accuracy of the identification. There seems is no experience with tiered pricing, although stakeholders generally find it interesting. Most stakeholders showed an interest in experimenting with pro-poor market segmentation for maize seed. The two main market segmentation strategies that are viable are direct targeting, which is likely to be expensive but with limited leakage, and tiered pricing, which is likely to be a lot cheaper but with higher leakage, and which would need a control mechanism to avoid beneficiaries coming back for a second tier. To compare the costs and the benefits of both methods, as well as of different implementation options, a pilot study is needed. The main product of such a study should be maize seed at reduced prices (between 20% and 50%), up to a given quantity per farmer, provided at a discount (between 2 and 15 kg/household). The main tool would be cash vouchers, to be distributed by an independent agency based on direct identification of the target group, or the tiered pricing system, where each farmer receives vouchers for a specified amount. The agro-dealers will redeem their vouchers at an independent financial institution.

Suggested Citation

  • De Groote, Hugo & Andam, Kwaw S. & Hall, Mike & Munyua, Bernard Gathigi & Ngigi, Obadiah & Spielman, David J., 2009. "Consulting the stakeholders on pro-poor market segmentation of maize seed in Africa," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51753, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae09:51753
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.51753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51753/files/Stakeholder%20consultation_IAAE%20v4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.51753?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. Barrett, Christopher B., 2008. "Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from eastern and southern Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 299-317, August.
    2. Michael Kremer, 2003. "Randomized Evaluations of Educational Programs in Developing Countries: Some Lessons," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 102-106, May.
    3. Kelly, Valerie & Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Gordon, Ann, 2003. "Expanding access to agricultural inputs in Africa: a review of recent market development experience," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 379-404, August.
    4. Joshua Angrist & Eric Bettinger & Michael Kremer, 2006. "Long-Term Educational Consequences of Secondary School Vouchers: Evidence from Administrative Records in Colombia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 847-862, June.
    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. Martin Schlotter & Guido Schwerdt & Ludger Woessmann, 2011. "Econometric methods for causal evaluation of education policies and practices: a non-technical guide," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 109-137.
    2. Wanjala, Bernadette, 2016. "Can the big push approach end rural poverty in Africa? : Insights from Sauri millennium village in Kenya," Other publications TiSEM 5a686b22-6749-4e9e-8bf4-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Orazem, Peter F. & King, Elizabeth M., 2008. "Schooling in Developing Countries: The Roles of Supply, Demand and Government Policy," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 55, pages 3475-3559, Elsevier.
    4. David K. Evans & Anna Popova, 2016. "What Really Works to Improve Learning in Developing Countries? An Analysis of Divergent Findings in Systematic Reviews," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 31(2), pages 242-270.
    5. Ahmed, Mohamed M. & Balie, Jean, 2016. "Why is it important to measure the Market Development Gap? An application to the agricultural sector of Uganda," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246446, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    6. Michael Kremer & Edward Miguel & Rebecca Thornton, 2009. "Incentives to Learn," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(3), pages 437-456, August.
    7. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    8. Donkor, Emmanuel & Mbeche, Robert & Mithöfer, Dagmar, 2023. "Strategic business decisions of retailers in the edible insect value chain in Uganda," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 26(2), January.
    9. Masino, Serena & Niño-Zarazúa, Miguel, 2016. "What works to improve the quality of student learning in developing countries?," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 53-65.
    10. Tigist Mekonnen Melesse, 2015. "Agricultural Technology Adoption and Market Participation under Learning Externality: Impact Evaluation on Small-scale Agriculture from Rural Ethiopia," Working Papers 2015/06, Maastricht School of Management.
    11. Masino, Serena & Niño-Zarazúa, Miguel, 2016. "What works to improve the quality of student learning in developing countries?," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 53-65.
    12. Lambrecht, Isabel Brigitte & Ragasa, Catherine, 2018. "Do development projects crowd-out private sector activities? Evidence from contract farming participation in Northern Ghana," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 9-22.
    13. Sylvaine Lemeilleur, 2014. "The role of input vouchers in modernizing the fresh fruit and vegetable market in Turkey," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 477-487, July.
    14. Bachke, Maren Elise, 2019. "Do farmers’ organizations enhance the welfare of smallholders? Findings from the Mozambican national agricultural survey," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    15. Mekonnen, Tigist, 2017. "Impact of agricultural technology adoption on market participation in the rural social network system," MERIT Working Papers 2017-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    16. Trinidad, Jose Eos, 2020. "Material resources, school climate, and achievement variations in the Philippines: Insights from PISA 2018," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    17. Juan A. Correa & Francisco Parro & Loreto Reyes, 2014. "The Effects of Vouchers on School Results: Evidence from Chile's Targeted Voucher Program," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(4), pages 351-398.
    18. David K. Evans & Arkadipta Ghosh, 2008. "Prioritizing Educational Investments in Children in the Developing World," Working Papers WR-587, RAND Corporation.
    19. Tabe-Ojong, M.P.J. & Mausch, K. & Woldeyohanes, T. & Heckelei, T., 2018. "A Triple-Hurdle Model of the Impacts of Improved Chickpea Adoption on Smallholder Production and Commercialization in Ethiopia," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277287, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Mejia, Daniel & St-Pierre, Marc, 2008. "Unequal opportunities and human capital formation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 395-413, 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:ags:iaae09:51753. 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/iaaeeea.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.