Download miễn phí Cashew nuts supply chains in Vietnam: A case study in Dak Nong and Binh Phuoc provinces, Vietnam
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION. 4
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT .4
1. 2 RESEARCH QUESTION .5
1. 3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES .5
1. 4 DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY.6
1. 5 STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER.6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW. 7
2.1 BASIC CONCEPTS .7
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON HEDONIC PRICE MODEL .8
2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW ON SUPPLY CHAIN .10
3. CASHEW NUT INDUSTRY IN VIETNAM. 12
3.1 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION.12
3.2 POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS .14
3.3 ORGANIZATION OF COMMODITY CHAINS .18
4. SURVEY RESULTS. 21
4.1 VALUE ADDED IN THE SUPPLY CHAINS.21
4.2 POST-HARVEST PROCESSING AT HOUSEHOLD SCALE .24
4.3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ON HOUSEHOLD SURVEY .26
4.3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ON HOUSEHOLD SURVEY .26
4.3.1 The role of cashew nut in household’s income.26
4.3.2 Characteristics of households and cashew nut sale-decisive person .26
4.3.3 Seasonal impacts on cashew nut’s farmgate price .27
4.3.4 Product .27
4.3.5 Household’s bargaining position.28
4.3.6 Market price information .29
4.4 MODEL RESULT .30
4.4.1 Analytical framework and model specification.30
4.4.2 Regression result of cashew nut’s farmgate price in Binh Phuoc and DakNong provinces
in 2006.30
4.4.3 Diagnostic tests .31
4.4.4 Economic meanings of the estimation result .31
4.5 RECOMMENDATION.33
Change in the role of cashew plantation .33
Long cashew plantation under lack of investment.34
More favor to ethnic minorities in conducting supportive policies.34
Substance for an improvement of farmgate price.34
More efficient location and operation of processing units.35
Farming contract to purchase cashew nut from farmers .36
Encouragement of post-harvest activities.36
Other related policies.36
5. CONCLUSION. 37
APPENDIX. 38
REFERENCES. 63
Để tải bản Đầy Đủ của tài liệu, xin Trả lời bài viết này, Mods sẽ gửi Link download cho bạn sớm nhất qua hòm tin nhắn.
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí
Tóm tắt nội dung tài liệu:
decisive person8000.00
8100.00
8200.00
8300.00
8400.00
8500.00
Fa
rm
ga
te
p
ric
e
(V
ND
/k
g)
$
$
$
7965.33
52.49%
n=137
8302.15
35.63%
n=93
8551.61
11.88%
n=31
Figure 02. Cashew nut's farmgate price by ethnic groups
Source: Survey data in 2006
Ethn ic Kinh Ethn ic minori ties
Ethnic groups (Ethnic minorities=1)
8200.00
8300.00
8400.00
Fa
rm
ga
te
p
ric
e
(V
N
D
/k
g)
$
$
8450.00
32.09%
n=86
8200.00
67.91%
n=182
The sample includes both Kinh and ethnic minorities that are mostly Stieng and M’Nong. Half of them
have over 12-year in cashew cultivation (Appendix 4.2 and 4.3). Sale-decisive persons are commonly
males at portion of 75.76. They have not obtained high education levels indicated mostly at the first and
second grade. Their jobs are all under farm occupation, posting rate of 96.97%. Thus, job concerning is
totally similar in the sample. Educational grade of the sale-decisive person positively relates to his/her
cashew nut’s farmgate price (see Figure 03). Considering ethnicity, the average cashew nut’s farmgate
price is found discriminatory between Kinh and minorities. While Kinh households has reached higher
price, ethnic minority ones have experienced at 250 VND per kg lower (Figure 02).
27
4.3.3 Seasonal impacts on cashew nut’s farmgate price
Cashew is annually harvested in January to May. Accordingly, cashew nut transactions start in
January, lightly decrease in February and March, and then drop in April and May. During harvest, cashew
nut is all in fresh. After May, dried cashew nut possibly appears for trading in market. The survey
appears only one household having transaction after May. The number of this variable is too small
and thus is omitted in the sample. The farmgate prices are all at-harvest prices in this study. Their
temporal variation is observed under inter-seasonal impact in Jan. to May. Cashew nut transaction
has mostly been taken place in Feb. to May, amounting to 89% of total transactions (see Figure
04). Cashew nut’s farmgate prices obviously find great temporal variation though it is only affected
by inter-seasonal impacts. Its highest is in January, and then gradually reduces during remaining
period.
Figure 04. Cashew nut's farmgate price by sale months
Source: Survey data in 2006
January February Marc h Apri l May
Sale months in 2006
7000.00
7500.00
8000.00
8500.00
9000.00
Fa
rm
ga
te
p
ric
e
(V
ND
/k
g)
$
$
$
$
$
9127.27
4.10%
n=11
8785.25
22.76%
n=61 8477.53
33.21%
n=89
7596.95
30.60%
n=82
6620.00
9.33%
n=25
Households’ harvesting cashew nut
4.3.4 Product
Figure 05. Cashew nut's farmgate price by quality
Source: Survey data in 2006
1 2 3 4 5
Cashew nut's quality
6500.00
7000.00
7500.00
8000.00
8500.00
Fa
rm
ga
te
p
ric
e
(V
ND
/k
g)
$
$
$
$
$
6462.50
3.01%
n=8
7272.73
12.41%
n=33
8020.41
18.42%
n=49
8242.27
41.35%
n=110
8657.58
24.81%
n=66
Figure 07. Farmgate price by rationale of selling time
Source: Survey data in 2006
No need of drying Indebtednes s High price
Rationale of selling time
8000.00
8100.00
8200.00
8300.00
8400.00
8500.00
Fa
rm
ga
te
p
ric
e
(V
ND
/k
g) $
$
$
8400.00
45.15%
n=121
8000.00
42.16%
n=113
8500.00
12.69%
n=34
As mentioned, there has been too few dried cashew nut transactions, ranking observations so as to
separately observe in the sample. None of package deal and selling short8 has appeared in the
8 Package deal is the case that farmer sells their cashew nut farm as a whole without any measurement;
selling short is the case of package deal before the harvest point of time.
28
survey. All transactions have conducted under careful measurement and qualitative evaluation. As
a result, the impacts on farmgate price induced by type of product and ranking have been omitted
under empirical consideration.
Cashew nut quality evaluation is practically conducted through its color, size and solid. To observe
its impact on price, questionnaire is designed to mark quality from 5 at the best quality to 1 at the
worst. Cashew nut quality obviously induced a positive impact on farmgate price as indicated in
Figure 05. None of farmers stated that they have sold their cashew nut short. However, there have
appeared circumstances of non-competitive relations owing to buyer’s previous financial support,
which is described in the next debate on household’s bargaining position.
4.3.5 Household’s bargaining position
A practical research of household’s bargaining position is viewed from 03 aspects namely, rationale
of selling time; type of buyers, rationale of choosing buyer. Concerning rationale of selling time, the
fact that farmers decide when to sell their cashew nut indicates their temporary inducements and
thus reveals their bargaining position. The survey indicated that over 45% of transactions have taken
place at harvest because households have been unavailable to fulfill storage and drying cashew nut.
42% of transactions have occurred since farmers are in debt/or in need of money for their production,
consumption and investment. Only 13% of transactions have been operated at favorable selling time
of high price. Figure 07 demonstrates that farmers receive the lowest farmgate price due to their
indebtedness circumstance. As for transactions occurring under high price condition, mean statistic
of farmgate price demonstrates the highest. Under reluctance of storage and drying of cashew nut,
farmgate price on average is between the former worst and the later highest.
Figure 06. Farmgate price by type of buyers
Source: Survey data in 2006
Dealer Purc hasing s tation Proc essing unit
Type of buyers
8500.00
9000.00
9500.00
Fa
rm
ga
te
p
ric
e
(V
ND
/k
g)
$
$
$
8200.00
38.43%
n=103
8300.00
61.19%
n=164
9500.00
0.37%
n=1
Figure 08. Farmgate price by rationale behind choice of buyers
Source: Survey data in 2006
Competi tive price Clos e re lationship Previous funding
Rationale behind choice of buyers
8000.00
8100.00
8200.00
Fa
rm
ga
te
p
ric
e
(V
N
D
/k
g)
$
$
$
8256.60
19.78%
n=53
8148.36
56.72%
n=152
7985.71
23.51%
n=63
Cashew nut traders are classified into 3 types namely, dealer (collector), purchasing station and
processing factory. The farmer’s buyer seeking also reflects their bargaining position. In search of
the rationale of choosing buyer, the survey has empirically found 3 main groups of reasons
including close relationship, buyer’s previous funding and competitive price. Farmers have
popularly made transactions with dealers and purchasing station, posting 38% and 61% of
transactions (see Figure 06). Farmgate price has in reality changed according to whom farmers
have dealt with. Only one case has directly taken place between farmer and processing
manufactory at the highest price among three types of buyers. Because dealers have collected
cashew nut from farmers to resell to purchasing station, their price has been the lowest. This
margin between two price levels is attributed to dealer’s collection, transportation and his earnings.
29
In search of rationale behind farmer’s choice of buyer, the empirical study has pointed that 23.5%
of farmers seem to have no or little choice of buyer under their indebtedness for their buyers’
previous funding and 56.7% for close relationship (see Figure 08). These high portions
demonstrate that there have still remained so many transactions under non-competitive
relationship. Thus, competitive price has obviously become unattainable in those transactions.
While transactions derived from close relationship have reached little lower farmgate prices than
price in those dealt in competitive way, those occurring as settlement of previous funding have
experienced 2 and 3 percent lower than two other cases, respectively. Some obscure expressions
have empirically revealed. Farmers themselves feel compelled to deal with the buyers who have
previously funded their necessities or working capital in production such as fertilizer, pesticide and
gasoline. In contrast, to the buyers who have maintained close relationship and acceptable price,
farmers willingly sell their cashew nut without strong enforcement.
4.3.6 Market price information
As for market price information, frequencies of each source that farmers have accessed to obtain
information and farmer’s assessment on each information source are investigated. The survey
shows the most popular sources of price information have currently been informal namely, dealers,
farmer’s relatives and neighbors with the highest mean values. There has somewhat appeared a
bias unfavorable to househo...