This document discusses the impact of organized retail chains on farmer revenue in India. It notes that while rising demand and incomes have increased vegetable prices, supply has not kept pace due to low growth in area and yields. Farmers face high price risks in local markets. Organized retail chains could offer farmers more stable prices, knowledge, credit access and technology through direct procurement. However, the impacts on small farmers and whether supply chains will be inclusive require further study. Contract farming models have shown mixed results in including small farmers and balancing risks and profits. The document aims to examine procurement contracts of retail chains and their impact on farmer revenues compared to traditional markets.

1. IMPACT OF ORGANIZED RETAIL CHAINS ON REVENUE OF
FARMER (A CASE STUDY OF MOTHER DAIRY CENTRE S IN
HARYANA)
JITENDER SINGH
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
RESEARCH STUDIES
OFFICE OF THE ECONOMIC ADVISER
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
INDIA
2011
Views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and may not be attributed
to the Government of India.

2. 2 | P a g e
Acknowledgement
This acad em ic endeavor w ould not have been pos s ible w ithout the
help of a number of people w ho w ith there k ind cooperation, active
supervision and steadfast support have made this research work reality.
I am extremely grateful to Prof. R. K. Sharm a, w hose k een
continuous encouragement and suggestions helped to complete this work.
I am thankful to Shri M.C. Singhi, Senior Econom ic Advis er, for his
valuable com m ents and encouragem ent to com plete this w ork . I also
extend m y s incere gratitude to Shri S aju K. Surendran, Deputy Director
and Shri Ashwani Kumar, Deputy Director for their precious comments.
I w ould lik e to m ention appreciation es pecially to villagers/ farm ers
w ho helped me to their m axim um throughout the field w ork . I am also
thank ful to m y colleagues in the Office for ins piring m e and actively
participating in the debate and discus s ions on related is sues.
Palace:
Date: Jitender Singh

3. 3 | P a g e
CONTENTS
SN Subject Pg. No.
1 Introduction 5
2 Rise of Organized Retail Chains 6
3 Studies of Marketing Efficiency 10
4 Objectives of the Study 11
5 Data & Methodology 11
6
Comparison of the Alternative Models of the Direct
Procurement of Vegetables
12
7
Market Integration and Uncertainty in the Prices of
Alternative Marketing Channels
15
8 Impact on Revenue 17
9 Conclusion 23
10 Bibliography 24
11 Annexure 32
Table Title Pg.
No.
1 Vegetable Production & Inflation in India 5
2 Augmented Dickey Fuller Unit Root Results 15
3 Co integration Results 16
4 Variability of Prices 17
5 Th e h ypoth etical valu es to sh ow im pact of price an d
quantity changes on revenue of the farmer
18
6 Average Net Reven u e of Tradition al Market an d MD
Channel
20
7 Results of the above equation 21
8 Elasticity of Prices w.r.t. Arrivals (Arr) an d procured
quantity (PR).
22

4. 4 | P a g e
Abstract
The objective of the s tudy is to exam ine the terms and conditions of the
procurement contracts of Mother Dairy and Reliance Fresh and also comparing revenue
impacts of Mother Dairy and Traditional Marketing Channel on farmer. It is found that the
by law s of the Reliance Fresh is much better than the Mother Dairy procurement contract
in terms of price information, quality monitoring, mode of pay ments etc. The relatively
simple contract of Reliance Fresh provides an edge to the Company to attract better
quality of the product. How ever it does not mean that the Mother Dairy does not put up an
incentive to grow more and better quality to the farmer. Despite the complexity of the
contract of Mother Dairy (MD), it provides a relatively better deal to the farmer as compare
to the traditional m ark et chain. This m ay be the reason that it has been successful for
such a long tim e in m any areas. On the practical s ide of the impacts of MD it is found that
except Green Chilli Onion, and Musk Melon the prices of local m ark et are co-integrated
w ith Mother Dairy prices. How ever, the net revenue of the MD is es tim ated more volatile
then TM for all the vegetables except Bhindi and Tomato. This is quite oppos ite to the
notion that the organized retail chains w ill s tabilize the prices for the farmer and
consequent the returns w ould be s tabilized. How ever, the higher ins tability of revenue
does not mean that it affect farmers income alw ay s negatively, rather the effect m ay be
pos itive if the prices are fluctuating upw ard. The net revenue of the farmer for selected
vegetables is found on an average 17 per cent higher for carrot, 134 per cent for Lauki, 17
per cent for Green Chilli, 45 per cent for Onion, 50 per cent for Bhindi, and 57 percent
higher for Musk Melon, in the MD as compare to TM except Cauliflow er. Bes ides, direct
revenue impact, there are indirect impact on the revenue of the farmers of the direct
procurement of MD. And it is not only confined to those supply ing to MD rather extended
to all those farmers s upply ing to the TM. The indirect impact als o seems to be
considerable given the fact of low derived dem and elas ticity of the local m ark ets . In short
the direct procurement of the MD has enhanced the farmer s revenue.

5. 5 | P a g e
I INTRODUCTION
Why low grow th of area under vegetable and high rate of inflation and
perhaps profitability in vegetable coexis t? Is it because the price
advantages do not accrue to the farm ers or producing vegetables is a risky
business?
1.2 The widening gap between dem an d an d produ ction of the
vegetables h as been eviden t in risin g prices of vegetables in recen t past.
The average increase in the prices of vegetables at wholesale markets was
9.5 per cen t du rin g 2006-2010. The contributory factors for this increase
have been an in crease in dem an d an d sticky su pplies. On th e dem an d
side, th e per capita in com e of th e cou n try is risin g an d th e con su m ption
pattern is getting diversified towards vegetables.
Table: 1. Vegetable Production & Inflation in India
Year Production
(T)
Production
Growth
(%)
Yield
(Tone/hec.)
Area
('000'
Hec.)
Area
Growth
(%)
Yield
Growth
Inflation
in
Vegetable
(%)
2006-07 114993 3 15 7581 5 -2 0.5
2007-08 128449 12 16 7848 4 8 19.9
2008-09 129077 0 16 7981 2 -1 3.5
2009-10 133738 4 17 7985 0 4 14.0
Source: National Horticulture Board, and the Office of the Economic Adviser.
1.3 On th e su pply side th e produ ction of vegetables is n ot keepin g th e
pace with dem an d. Th e low growth of th e vegetables produ ction du rin g
2008-09 an d 2009-10 h as been n ot on ly becau se low yield bu t also
becau se of low growth in th e area u n der vegetables. Th is in dicates th at
th e in cen tives for th e crop diversification perh aps were not sufficient
en ou gh to in du ce allocation of area to vegetables. Wh y th e farm er is n ot
diversifying area towards vegetable wh en prices of vegetables h ave been
very h igh ? Th e m ain reason for slow crop diversification toward
vegetables is the h igh risk-h igh retu rn pattern of th e vegetables. Th e
high risk is due to fluctuating prices in the local markets and a low share
in a u n it of con su m er price. Th e farm er m ay n ot n ecessarily be a risk
averse bu t h as a low risk appetite. Lack of credible in stitu tion al
m ech an ism wh ich cou ld resu lt in an in crease in h is sh are in each ru pee
a consumer spends on vegetables is further reinforcing this risk aversion.

6. 6 | P a g e
1.4 Th e sm all size of th e local m arket an d its disin tegration , h ave
m ade th e prices su pply sen sitive. Bu t wh ile farm ers are n ot able to
ben efit from th e in crease in prices, a fall h its th em im m ediately. Dem an d
for vegetables, in so far as th e farm ers are con cern ed is a derived
dem an d, th e dem an d of th e in term ediaries. Th e existen ce of perfect
com petition am on g th e farm ers as sellers of vegetables an d a few
oligopolistic bu yers or m iddlem en , th erefore, resu lts in distortion of the
in cen tive stru ctu re. Flu ctu atin g prices of th e vegetable, wh ich are kept
low by th e in term ediaries; do n ot provide en ou gh in cen tives to th e
farmers to produce more vegetables. Prevalence of high prices and higher
in flation are also du e to th e h igh tran saction cost of vegetables tran sfer
an d h igh m argin s of th e m iddlem an . Besides, th e perish able n atu re of
th e vegetable togeth er with in adequ ate storage facility, im proper dem an d
m an agem en t an d in efficien cy in su pply chains create h u ge wastes in
transit. In this situation, while increased supplies results in a price crash
for farm ers, lower su pplies does n ot provide th em an y econ om ic ren t.
Th is fu rth er rein forces th e risk aversion of th e farm ers. On e option for
th e efficien cy in th e su pply ch ain s is to encourage organ ized retail
chains.
2. RISE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL CHAINS
2.1 The evolu tion an d pattern s of th e diffu sion process of m odern food
retail in du stry h as varied worldwide, bu t its en try an d con sisten t
in crease in m arket pen etration h ave had sign ifican t im plication s across
all countries including US, European Union and the developing countries
of Latin Am erica an d East Asia in clu din g Ch in a1. For In dia, th e size of
food retail in 2008-09 was estim ated at abou t Rs.10,700 billion, wh ich is
61 per cen t of th e total retail in du stry. Wh en 95 per cen t retail is in
unorganized sector, th e organ ized retail (only 5 per cen t) is likely to grow
at an an n u al rate of arou n d 11 per cen t an d is projected to tou ch
bu sin ess levels of Rs 53,000 billion by 2020. The Agri-food retailin g
accounts for 18 per cent of the organized retail today and is likely to have
a lower share (12 per cent) by 20202. According to ICREAR report annual
growth rate of organ ized retail in food an d grocery is estim ated at 16
percen t du rin g 2004 20073. Oth er estim ates pu t th e growth rate of
1
The IFPRI Discussion Paper (2008).
2
NABARD study on Organised Agri-Food Retailing in India(2011)
3 Impact of Organized Retail Chains on Income & Employment, ICREAR(2009).

7. 7 | P a g e
organ ized food an d grocery at h igh er level of 42 percen t in 2006 over
20054.
2.2 The sh are of expen ditu re towards food an d beverage in total
con su m ption expen ditu re of th e h ou seh olds is expected to declin e. Su ch
a declin e, as per th e En gle Law, is a n orm al h appen in g as part of th e
process of developm en t. Th e organ ized retail m ay also, th erefore,
experien ce a declin e in ratio of th eir bu sin ess tu rn over derived from th e
sale of food related produ cts. Th ere wou ld, h owever, be two positive
factors. Th e risin g in com es an d stan dards of livin g are expected to pu sh
u p th e dem an d for h igh valu e foods. Th e ch an ges in con su m er beh avior
an d preferen ces in favou r of processed foods as a resu lt of an in creasin g
participation of wom en in labou r force cou ld h elp in su stain in g th e
organ ized retail s sh are in food an d related produ cts. Moreover,
in creasin g u rban ization is also associated with a ch an ge in th e sh oppin g
beh avior of th e m iddle class du e to h igh er in com es an d increasing
opportu n ity cost of tim e for th e con su m ers (bu yers), particu larly th e
women. Im provem en t in processin g tech n ology, progress on accou n t of
road con n ectivity, in vestm en t in storage facilities, fast an d safe tran sport
an d in form ation tech n ology revolu tion is likely to solve m an y of th e
problem s of m arketin g system an d provide opportu n ities to private
traders.
2.3 In creased in vestm en t in organ ized retail by dom estic an d foreign
players brin gs abou t u pstream ch an ges in su pply ch ain an d an
in creased cen tralized procu rem en t of agri produ cts from farm ers as th e
experien ce of th e East Asian cou n tries su ggest. Th e rapid rise of
su perm arkets in differen t cou n tries h as tran sform ed th eir agri-food
system, though the speed of transformation has been different. In case of
In dia th e tran sform ation as of n ow h as been slow both at u pstream an d
at downstream. In the downstream changes; the retail sector is now open
for th e corporate to develop su perm arket in frastru ctu re, th e foreign
investment is likely to flow in near future.
2.4 The direct procu rem en t in fresh fru its an d vegetables may offer
better price, provide kn owledge of market demand, tech n ological in pu ts
an d access to credit on accou n t of assu red m arket to th e farm ers. While
it is estim ated th at direct procurement of fresh fru its an d vegetables
4 The India Retail Report, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 2007.

8. 8 | P a g e
could redu ce wastage by abou t 7 per cen t an d can im prove th e ch ain
efficien cy by as m u ch as 17 per cen t, th ere is n o con sen su s wh eth er th e
upstream operation of supply chain would be inclusive and cover farmers
of all sizes of lan d h oldin gs. Th e tradition al ch an n el where h u ge wastage
of com m odities, lack of in frastru ctu re, m issin g in stitu tion , lack of
stan dardization an d m oreover lack of in cen tives to in vest in storage
facilities, standardization, packaging etc are very much evident.
Experiences of other institutional innovation in agri-marketing
2.5 The experien ces of th e con tract farm in g, particu larly regarding th e
in clu sion of sm all farm er under con tract farm in g, th e distribu tion of
profits between farm ers an d the con tractor, sh arin g risk by agribu sin ess
firm s, an d m in im ization of th e adverse im pacts on en viron m en t an d
society h ave led to m ixed resu lts. Th ere are variou s price an d n on -price
effects on agricu ltu re. Some positive im pacts of con tract farm in g in clu de
th e crop diversification , in crease in produ ctivity, im provem en t in th e
profitability of farm ers, improved decision m akin g, increase in wages an d
em ploym en t of agricu ltu ral labor an d tech n ology tran sm ission . Th e issu e
of in clu sion is m ore im portan t becau se of em ergin g tren ds of large
n u m ber of sm all farm er in In dia an d decreasing size of lan d h oldin gs. A
sm all farm er operatin g predom in an tly with fam ily labor h as m an y
advantages which reduce th e cost of labor su pervision , cost of
monitoring, screen in g of h ired labou r, cost of con tract en forcem en t an d
cost of n egotiation 5. Collectively, it is easier to deal with sm all farm ers by
the contracting firms which reduce th e possibility to get involved in to a
con flict. On th e oth er h and, th ere are disadvantages du e to high
dependency on farm in com e wh ich redu ces h is bargain in g power, low
capacity to invest restricts (prohibits) implementation of new technology
and to experiment with new farming practice and crops etc..
2.6 Th e sm all farm er is in terested in takin g u p con tract farm in g
becau se it facilitates availability of m odern in pu t, wh ich are eith er
u n available or cou ld be obtain ed th rou gh other sources at a very h igh
cost6. Con tract farm in g also redu ces his price risk and eventually
stabilizes in com e. Th e firm s, h owever, prefer large growers to avoid
dealin g with large n u m ber of sm all farm ers. It is n ot on ly easy to bargain
5
Key, Nigel and Runsten, D. 1999
6
Porter Gina and Howard Phillip K., 1997

9. 9 | P a g e
with sm all n u m ber of large farm er, it is also advan tageou s to th e firm to
redu ce th e in pu t su pply cost, cost of su pplyin g exten sion services. Large
farm s h ave a h igh er risk takin g ability, can pu t in larger in vestm en ts in
lan d. Th ey h ave relatively better qu ality lan d m ore u n iform an d
consolidated. Man y stu dies7 reveal th at th e system of con tract farm in g
is skewed towards m ediu m an d large farm ers, th ou gh there were n o
sign ifican t differen ces in produ ctivity between sm all, m ediu m an d large
farms. Th ere was n o discrim in ation in procu rem en t by agribu sin ess
firms as well as price obtained by small and large farmers.
2.7 Th e exclu sion of th e sm all farm er eviden t in th e con tract farm in g,
m ay h ave severe con sequ en ces for ru ral econ om y. If firm ch oose to
con tract prim arily with large com m ercial farm s, then small farm er of th e
ru ral popu lation may fail to ben efit directly from con tract arran gem en ts.
In th e con text of liberalized m arkets, con tract farm in g th at exclu des
sm all farm er can lead to m ore con cen trated lan d own ersh ip an d
displacem en t of ru ral poor8. Th e way con tracts an d th e in com e earn ed
from con tractin g is distribu ted with in a ru ral com m u n ity can h ave
important implication for economic and social differentiations within that
community9. Th ese issu es are particu larly im portan t in th e con text of
In dia wh ere 85 percen t of lan d h oldin g are sm all an d m argin al h oldings
an d m ore th an 40 percen t of ru ral popu lation is lan d less. Addition ally,
th ere is a social stratification with h igh -in com e in equ alities in ru ral
areas.
2.8 Even if small farmers are incorporated in contract farming, there is
n o gu aran tee th at th e contracting firm wou ld n ot exploit or at least
provide som e ben efits to th e sm all farm er. In th e absence of
representative farmer s organ ization s, th e con tract-farm in g sch em e may
have a limited regional/ local impact.10 Large number of small farmer are
more pron e to rem ain u n organ ized du e to m issin g n etworkin g, lack of
information an d lim ited awaren ess of organ ization ben efits. In th e lon ger
run, h owever, if th e con tractin g firm becom es pervasive, th e farm er m ay
n ot h ave any option but to sell th eir produ ce through th ese ch an n els,
but if these channel become nonoperational, farmers may need to reverse
their con tract an d switch over to oth er firm . Th ere are oth er possibilities
7
Kumar Promod (2006)
8
Key, Nigel and Runsten, D. 1999
9
Korovkin, 1992
10
Porter Gina and Howard Phillip K., 1997

10. 10 | P a g e
also; th e firm can m axim ize its sh ort ru n profits with ou t con cern in g
abou t su stain ability of the farm an d the farm er an d by exh au stin g th e
potential of the region it may switch over to other relatively regions.
2.9 Th is easy switch over by firm to oth er region to con tract or to
procu re th e produ ce an d any lim its on th e exit of th e farm er from
con tract m ay distort th e bargain in g power equ ation in th e lon g ru n in
favors of th e firm . Som e altern atives, h owever, h ave em erged. The
sch em es to prom ote direct m arketin g ch an n els are Apn i Man di, Ryth u
Bazars, Hadspar, Uzh avar San dies etc. in variou s States. Th e prom otion
of in vestm en t in su perm arkets an d retail ch ain s also is th e step in th is
direction.
Studies of Marketing Efficiency
2.10 Th ere are m an y stu dies on estim ation of operation al m arketin g
efficien cy of tradition al m arketin g ch ain s, m ostly u sin g th e farm er s
sh are in th e con su m er price. Th e stu dy of Th aku r, (1994) h as observed
that in case of Tom ato, Cau liflower, Capsicum, an d Peas in Him ach al
Pardesh du rin g 1991-92, m arket efficien cy was between 46-52 %. In
an oth er stu dy of Karnataka state, du rin g 1985-86, by Kiresu r et al,
(1989) also revealed th e low m arketin g efficien cy (36 to 51 %) in
perish able com m odities like Tom ato, Brin jal, wh ile in case of potato an d
on ion , wh ich are relatively du rable vegetables with a lon ger sh elf life, th e
m arketin g efficien cy was between 60 to 67 %. In a stu dy of wholesale
market in Bangalore by Chengappa and Nagaraj (2005), it was found that
retail ch ain s h ad en h an ced th e farm ers profitability by 10-15% as
com pared to th e tradition al ch an n el an d redu ced the m arketin g cost by
about 4.25% to 8%..
2.10 Despite, th e claim s th at organ ized retail ch ain s wou ld im pact
farm ers in a better way in term s of en h an cem en t of in com e, farm
efficiency an d, u pdatin g farm ers with m arket related in form ation etc,
these positive im pacts on farm ers are depen den t on th e term s an d
con dition of th e procu rem en t con tract. These term s an d con dition s
defin e th e legality an d en forceability of th e con tract. Th e design of th e
procurement contract also provides for some obligations on company and
the farm er, wh ich once in stitu tion alized cou ld serve as a m odel con tract,
beneficial to both the contracting firm and the farmers.

11. 11 | P a g e
2.11 The direct procu rem en t con tracts, with bin din g or flexible su pply
option s, n eed to design an in cen tive m ech an ism wh ich ben efits farm ers.
The focu s of th is paper is, th erefore, also on th e an alysis of th e
altern ative m odels of direct procu rem en t of fresh vegetables. Th ere are
m an y con tracts with differen t term s an d con dition s operating
simultaneously based on th e varyin g bargain in g powers of th e
con tractin g parties. However, n ot all th ese con tracts are su stain able in
th e fu tu re. It m ay, th erefore, be n ecessary to stu dy of th e n atu re of
contracts closely to assess th eir efficien cy an d su stain ability an d their
impact on parties. This study examines the relative efficiency of vegetable
procu rem en t con tracts of Moth er Dairy an d Relian ce Fresh an d the
tradition al ch an n els of m arketin g of th ese produ cts an d validates th e
impact through field observation.
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
I. Exam in ation of th e design of th e altern ate Models of direct
procurement.
II. Testin g co-m ovem en t an d u n certain ty of th e prices of altern ate
channels.
III. Estim ation of In com e effect of th e altern ative m arketin g ch an n els
on the farmers.
4. DATA & METHODOLOGY
4.1 Th e stu dy is based on prim ary data on prices an d qu an tity,
collected from growers payment sheets su pplied by Mother Dairy centers
from 2005-2007. Procurement cen tres selected for th e stu dy in clu ded
Pu th i, Moi, Rabh ra, Balyan a an d Kh an drai in Son epat district in
Haryana. Th e wh olesale prices for respective vegetables were collected
from th e records of th e Marketin g Com m ittee of th e n earest m arket. Th e
m arketin g cost data was collected from farm ers du rin g th e prim ary
survey. A set of ran dom ly selected farm ers are in terviewed. Th e
vegetables covered u n der stu dy were selected on th e basis of data
availability from th e Moth er Dairy cen tres, wh ich are also largest grown
vegetables in the sample villages. The vegetables e.g. bottle gourd, carrot,
on ion , green ch illi, tom ato, lady fin ger, cau liflower, and m u sk m elon are
included in this study.

12. 12 | P a g e
5. COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF THE
DIRECT PROCUREMENT OF VEGETABLES
Model: Mother Dairy
5.1 Moth er dairy (MD) u n der th e Nation al Dairy Developm en t Board
(NDDB) started in 1985 as an organ ized retail ch ain of fru its an d
vegetables in In dia. The procurement in 1985 was just 250 kg of
vegetables wh ich in creased over th ou san d folds to reach 250,000 kg in
recen t years. In th is sh ort span of tim e it h as becom e largest retail ch ain
in Asia an d th e secon d largest in the World. Th e popu lar Bran d u n der
which MD is doin g bu sin ess is Safal . It procu res 40-45 season al item s
of fru its an d vegetable from over 17 states in In dia. Arou n d 22,000 sm all
and big farmers are su pplyin g th eir produ ce to MD wh ich are directly
lin ked to it at u pstream of th e ch ain . At down stream , th ere are arou n d
350 outlets spread across the National Capital Region (NCR) Delhi selling
th e procu red fru its & vegetables. Th e distribu tion centres at
Pallabakh tavarpu r an d Man golpu ri in Delh i lin k th e farm ers an d the
consumers. At distribution centre huge storage and logistic facilities have
been put in palace.
5.2 At u pstream MD operates th rou gh procu rem en t cen ters spread
across th e cou n try to procu re fresh an d qu ality vegetable from growers.
Th e locally produ ced top qu ality vegetables an d fru its are procu red at
remunerative prices from th e farm ers. Farm ers Association s also exists
wh ere farm ers elects on e Presiden t from among themselves. The
Secretary, wh o is also respon sible for th e en tire arran gem en t of
procu rem en t an d record m ain ten an ce, is appoin ted by MD. Secretary is
en titled to get salary for h is services at procu rem en t cen tre. Major costs
incurred during procu rem en t su ch as paym en t of salaries to secretary,
helper, safai karam ch ari an d ren t paym en t for th e lan d an d sh ed of th e
centre are paid from th e Association s fu n ds. Th ese fu n ds are gen erated
from th e con tribu tion of th e 1.75 per cen t of th e total valu e of procured
qu an tity from th e cen tre. All th ese costs in clu din g the transportation
an d h an dlin g ch arges in clu din g th e m arket fee are dedu cted from th e
growers price. The price paid to th e farm er is net of all th e ch arges an d
costs incurred until the produce reaches the distribution centre.
5.3 Farmers brin g th eir vegetables to th e procu rem en t cen tre on daily
basis an d after packagin g an d weigh tin g, th ese are tran sported to th e

13. 13 | P a g e
distribution centre of MD every evening. During procurement special care
is taken by th e staff at procu rem en t cen tre to en su re th at th e
procu rem en t m eets th e qu ality n orm s of MD. Rest of produ ct is retu rn ed
to th e farm ers to be disposed of by th em at th e n earest Man di. Mandi,
th erefore, faces an adverse selection as th e produ cts brou gh t are in a
way rejects of MD. Besides a loss in term s of th e prices, farm ers are
requ ired to in cu r expen ditu re on tran sportation an d m arketin g. It also
in volves spen din g a m in im u m of th ree to fou r h ou rs an d h ave an
opportu n ity cost.11. MD does n ot lift th e en tire qu an tity produ ced. The
secretary at th e procurement centre, as th e key agen t of th e MD
coordinates th e procu rem en t. MD in form s th e secretary of its
requ irem en ts on a daily basis an d th ese are com m u n icated to th e
farm ers. Total qu an tity procu red by MD on daily basis, particularly
during th e peak tim e of season in term s of th e produ ce, is less th an th e
total produce of the day. Consequently only a part of the farmers produce
is procu red and n ot th e wh ole produ ce, in depen den t of its qu ality. Bein g
in th e n atu re of perish ables, th e vegetable can n ot be h old, th e excess
produce, therefore, after su pply to MD, is sold in th e local Man di,
(Annexure 2).
5.4 MD does n ot provide th e farm ers an y credit or in pu t su pport.
Vegetable growers, wh o do n ot h ave m arket su rplu s of food grain s,
depen d on com m ission agen ts for m eetin g th eir credit an d in pu t n eeds.
Since these farmers bring relatively poor quality of vegetables (as the first
grade h as already been offered to MD), its affects th eir credit ratin g. The
farmers visited du rin g th e survey were requ ested to give th eir opin ion on
th e issu e of difficu lties faced by th em in gettin g credit. It was observed
th at th e sm all farm ers wh o m ostly grow vegetables h ave a relatively
greater depen den cy on com m ission agen ts for credit an d in pu ts an d they
are the worst affected.
5.5 The famers also m en tion ed th at th e qu oted price of th e su pply is
n ot kn own at th e tim e of su pply. It is on ly on th e n ext day wh en th e
ten tative prices are informed. Th e actu al price is delivered to th e farm ers
after ten days when their payment sheet is received by the secretary from
MD. Th e actu al weigh ts an d qu an tity th at h as fin ally been accepted is
indicated on ly in th e grower paym en t sh eet, though ten tative qu an tity
an d percen tage of rejection is in form ed to th e farm er on th e n ext day of
11
IFPRI 2010

14. 14 | P a g e
th e su pply. Th e paym en t made after ten days of th e su pply th rou gh a
bearer cheque.
5.6 Th e prices are a little m ore u n certain in MD th an in Man di, in th e
sen se th at in Man di th e prices are kn own to th e farm er on th e spot.
Wh ile in MD, first th e produ cts are su pplied an d on n ext day prices are
told to farmers. Comparing with contract farming, in MD there is no price
or qu an tity con tract form alized with farm er. Th e MD is n ot bou n d to
procu re th e qu an tity offered by th e farm ers. On th e other hand MD gives
freedom to th e farm ers to n ot to su pply to th em , or sell an ywh ere else.
Com pared to formal con tract farm in g, th e flexibility wh ich MD offers to
farm ers is often is risky, particu larly to a sm all farm er, becau se th e
prices and quantities procured are determined on daily basis.
5.7 Man y of th e farm ers m en tion ed du rin g th e su rvey th at if th ey are
in form ed of th e prices at th e tim e of su pply of th eir produ ce, th eir
decision to sell to MD or in a Man di cou ld be based on better
information. Th e qu ality con trol of MD was also reported to be of a
sign ifican tly h igh er level an d strin gen t wh ich leaves a sizable portion of
produ ce to be m arketed th rou gh th e Man di. Som e of th e farm ers also
informed th at th e price told at th e tim e of procu rem en t were h igh er th an
th e actu al prices fin ally paid. Th ere was also a gen eral observation th at
MD s procu rem en t was related to th e prevailin g prices, declin in g du rin g
th e period wh en prices were depressed an d th at accen tu ated th e risk of
the farmers.
Model of Reliance Fresh:
5.8 Reliance Fresh (RF) operates through a procurement centre at each
selected village. Th ere is n o form al written con tract between the farmers
and RF they are free to sell to MD or an y oth er ch an n el. However RF
centre is m ore soph isticated and uses better tech n ology in clu din g a
com pu ter to con solidate procu rem en t in form ation . Th e m an power at RF
is better train ed an d qu alified u n like MD wh ere secretary m ay n ot h ave
an y tech n ical qu alification . Th e procu rem en t term s and conditions of RF
are simple and th ey give th e price in form ation an d accept or reject the
qu ality an d qu an tity at th e spot. Both , MD an d RF procu re on ly best
qu ality produ cts from th e farm ers an d th e rest is left with th e farm ers to
be sold by them. Th ere is n o farm ers association like in MD. The mode of
payment in RF is both cash and cheque.

15. 15 | P a g e
5.9 In th is con text of th e above an alysis of th e procu rem en t con tracts
of th e MD an d RF it seem s th at th e Relian ce Fresh con tract is relatively
better th an th e Moth er Dairy procu rem en t con tract in term s of price
in form ation , qu ality m on itorin g, m ode of paym en ts etc. Despite th e
com plexity of th e con tract of Moth er Dairy, it provides a relatively better
deal to the farmer as compare to the traditional marketing channels.
6. MARKET INTEGRATION AND UNCERTAINITY IN THE PRICES OF
ALTERNATIVE MARKETING CHENNELS
Market Integration
6.1 Th e MD pricin g policy is n ot based on th e local m arket prices. The
prices given to th e farm ers are determ in ed on th e basis price qu otation
of good qu ality vegetable from Ajadpu r m arket (term in al m arket or TM),
Delhi. Th e tran sportation cost, h an dlin g ch arges an d oth er fees su ch as
salary to th e secretary, ren t of th e lan d etc are also n etted from qu oted
price. Therefore the price paid by MD to a farmer excludes these charges.
However, it m ay n ot m ake sign ifican t differen ce to th e test of co-
in tegration becau se th ese ch arges are alm ost a fixed am ou n t dedu cted
from price qu otation . Th e disin tegration , if an y, between th e MD an d TM
prices sim ply in dicate th at th e well con n ected m arkets of Son epat an d
Delh i are n ot sh arin g price sign als. To test m arket in tegration th e
respective price series are tested for station ary. It is fou n d th at all series
are n on -stationary at level bu t in tegrated at first differen ce (ADF results
may be seen in table 2).
Table: 2. Augmented Dickey Fuller Unit Root Results
Traditional Market Price Mother Dairy Price
Vegetables At Level Critical Value At First Difference Critical Value At Level Critical Value At First Difference Critica
Carrot -2.57 -3.51 -5.1 -3.5 -2.23 -4.07 -7.45 -4
Lauki -2.63 -4.23 -5.14 -4.25 -2.62 -4.23 -4.43 -4
Green Chilli -2.35 -4.73 -3.99 -3.76 -0.7 -4.73 -1.52 -4
Onion -2.47 -4.39 -4.97 -3.62 -1.79 -4.39 -4.05 -3
Bhindi -2.9 -4.05 -7.29 -3.45 -3.31 -4.05 -5.65 -3
Tomato -2.57 -4.37 -3.98 -3.61 -2.74 -4.35 -5.52 -4
Musk Melon -2.61 -4.32 -3.63 -4.33 -2.01 -4.32 -3.15 -2
Cauliflower -3.3 -4.35 -3.66 -3.6 -1.7 -4.33 -3.74 -3
6.2 Th e secon d step towards testin g co-in tegration is to ru n bivariate
co-in tegration test of En gle-Granger. It is fou n d th at except Green Ch illi

16. 16 | P a g e
Onion, and Musk Melon, the prices of local market are co-integrated with
MD prices. Th e n on existen ce of price in tegration for th e green ch illi m ay
be becau se it is n ot produ ced in large volu m e in th e villages of th e stu dy
areas. Non-in tegration of Onion prices m ay be becau se of th e n earby
Pan ipat m arket, wh ich is th e m ajor m arket for on ion in th is region an d
ju st 32 km from th e stu dy area. Th is n earn ess m ay be exerting more
in flu en ce on local m arkets th an th e TM. Lon ger sh elf life of on ion cou ld
be oth er reason . Mu sk Melon s TM prices are also weakly co-integrated
with MD, though th e region produ ces it in good qu an tity. TM prices of
Carrot, Lauki, Bhindi, Tomato and Cauliflower are co integrated with MD
(results are Table.3.).
Table:3. Co integration Results
Vegetables Eigen Value Likelihood Ratio Leg Co-integration
Carrot 0.06 5.66* 2 Yes
Lauki 0.15 5.99* 2 Yes
Green Chilli 0.23 3.68 2 No
Onion 0.04 0.99 2 No
Bhindi 0.106 11.29* 2 Yes
Tomato 0.15 4.32* 2 Yes
Musk Melon 0.11 3.43 2 Weak
Cauliflower 0.15 4.33* 2 Yes
* Significant at 5% level, Critical value is 3.76.
Variation of Prices
6.3 Th e Stan dard Deviation (SD) an d Coefficien t of Variation (CV) is
u sed as a m easu re of th e prices variation . Th e n et reven u e of th e MD is
observed to be m ore volatile for all th e vegetables except Bh in di an d
Tom ato wh ere as the CV is estim ated to be less in MD th an TM. Th is is
qu ite opposite to th e n otion th at th e organ ized retail ch ain s will redu ce
th e volatility of prices for th e farm ers an d con sequ en tly stabilize th e
returns. (Table 4)
Table: 4. Variability of Prices
Vegetables TM MD

17. 17 | P a g e
SD CV (%) SD CV (%)
Carrot 114 62 143 63
Lauki 24 111 44 120
Green Chilli 18 76 35 104
Onion 197 50 375 62
Bhindi 38 129# 53 125
Tomato 76 0.86# 80 0.71
Musk Melon 43 0.67 90 0.81
Cauliflower 47 94 51 146
*SD is Standard Deviation, CV is coefficient of Variation
Impact on Revenue
Theoretical relation between elasticity of demand and total revenue:
6.4 Assu m in g th at th ere are h omogeneous goods an d m an y sm all
seller an d bu yers, objective of a seller is to m axim ize his profits; with an
au ction in g system to determ in e th e price in the market through
com petitive biddin g, th e m arket equ ilibriu m is determ in ed by equality of
demand and supply and prices are market clearing. The demand curve is
assu m ed to be a n egatively sloped an d th e su pply fixed in a day. In th e
dynamic equilibrium if there are change in the demand and supply in the
m arket th is wou ld im pact on th e farm er trou gh respective ch an ges in
total reven u e. Th e qu estion is h ow it is goin g to im pact an d to wh at
extent?
Suppose
p = is net price (netted by marketing cost) received by farmer
q = quantity sold in the market by a farmer
R = revenue
So, a profit maximizing farmer will calculate its R as
R = p .q
Taking first derivative of R w.r.t. p
or
..(1)
where
(2)
Taking first derivative of R w.r.t. q

18. 18 | P a g e
..(4)
In the situation of profit m axim izing the change in total revenue of the
farm er w ould be either because of change in the price or change in the
quantity or both. Therefore the total change in the revenue of the farmer is:-
(5)
1+ ) dp + p (1+ ) dq .. (6)
Table: 5. The hypothetical values to show impact of price and quantity changes on revenue of the farmer
Elasticity of demand 100% increase in price 100% increase in quantity
0.5 66 33
1 50 50
2 33 66
6.5 Th e equ ation (6) explain s th e relation sh ip between th e ch an ges in
th e reven u e of th e farm er with respect to th e ch an ges in th e price an d
quantity. The ch an ges in total reven u e con sequ en t u p on th e ch an ges in
price an d qu an tity are in opposite direction for a given elasticity of
demand. The higher the elas ticity of dem and the lower w ould be the
increase in the revenue w ith an increas e in the price. There is, therefore, a
negative relation betw een price changes and revenue changes at high
elas ticity of dem and vice vers a. At h igh elasticity of dem an d, a declin e in
price is more effective to increase revenue and at low elasticity of demand
th e price in crease wou ld be a good strategy for h avin g a increase in total
reven u e. For th e qu an tity changes, th ere are positive relation s between
increase in revenue and the elasticity of demand. The increase in quantity
in the m ark et at high elas ticity of the dem and w ould als o increase the
revenue of the farm er w hile at low er elas ticity of dem and, any increase in
quantity w ould als o decreas e the revenue of the farm er. This explains the
paradox of the agriculture w here good crop season m ay not be
remunerative for the farm er because of low elas ticity of dem and of the
products. In a situ ation of bu m per crop th e in crease in th e reven u e
would be less not only due to the depression in the prices but also due to
the low elasticity of demand in the market.
6.6 The revenue impact on the farmer generally gets aggravated in case
of th e vegetable m arkets becau se of the n atu re of com m odity an d their

19. 19 | P a g e
yield pattern . Vegetables bein g th e perish ables in th e n atu re requ ire
storage facilities to redu ce th e exten t of a fall in price. Also th e season
plays an im portan t role in th e yield pattern of th e vegetable. Besides, th e
sm all size of th e m arket an d disin tegration in th e local m arkets lead to
overreaction of th e su pply ch an ges on th e reven u e an d th rou gh price
depression s. Given th is inverse relation between qu an tity in crease an d
the low in crease in reven u e at low elasticity of dem an d th ere are m oral
h azard for th e produ cers. Th ere is n o in cen tive for th e farm ers to
in crease th e produ ction wh en th e m arket dem an d cu rve is inelastic,
becau se th e in crease in th e qu an tity will add less to th eir reven u e. This
is all th e m ore tru e in case of vegetables wh ere th e dem an d is very
inelastic. The low elasticity of dem an d in th e local m arket is th e gen eral
ph en om en on in In dia. Th is m ay be du e to th e sm all size of th e m arkets,
low integration with other markets or isolated markets.
Empirical estimation of revenue effect:
6.7 The estimation of remunerability of the prices of MD to the farmers
is estim ated in th e followin g way. Let Pij price of i vegetable for j
m arketin g ch an n el an d Qij is u n it of qu an tity su pplied of i vegetable to j
m arketin g ch an n el. MCij is th e per u n it m arketin g cost of th e i vegetable
for j m arketin g ch an n el an d Rij is th e rate of rejection for i vegetable
under j marketing channel.
NPij = Pij *(Qij* Rij) MCij
i = vegetable, j = marketing channel
Th e rejection rate is calcu lated from th e farm er grower sh eets an d th e
m arketin g cost is calcu lated from th e prim ary data of field su rvey.
Applying rejection rate, Rij, to the quantity supplied we can get the actual
quantity for which the price, Pij , is received by the farmer.
6.8 Table: 6 sh ows th at if th e farm er sells th e sam e am ou n t of
vegetable to eith er of m arketin g ch an n els h ow m u ch average n et reven u e
will accru e to h im . For exam ple, for carrot in Novem ber 2005, if th e Q1
qu an tity is sold to MD th e average n et reven u e received by farm er is
h igh er at Rs. 221 as com pare in Tradition al Market on ly Rs. 192 for th e
sam e qu an tity of carrot. Th erefore MD is addin g 16 per cen t m ore to th e
reven u e of th e farm er for th e carrot in Novem ber 2005. Except 2007, in
2005 an d 2006 th e MD h as been a m ore rem u n erative ch an n el for carrot
as compared to traditional market.

20. 20 | P a g e
Table: 6. Average Net Revenue of Traditional Market and MD Channel
Vegetables Year Month Average Net
Revenue MD
(Rs.)
Average Net
Revenue TM Price
(Rs.)
MD
Premium
(%)
Nov 221.2 192.4 16.4
2005
Dec 312.0 263.4 15.3
Nov 251.3 161.7 54.1
2006
Dec 135.5 113.2 10.6
Carrot
2007 Jan 77.9 85.8 -10.7
2005 Jun 15.8 6.5 189.4
Jul 87.4 43.8 179.0
Aug 19.4 6.2 223.0
Sep 28.3 26.7 47.1
Lauki
Oct 13.5 11.1 33.8
2005 May 8.0 7.7 14.5
Jun 22.4 17.6 17.3
Jul 65.5 42.9 43.9
Green
Chilli
Aug 29.3 31.7 -7.6
2005 Jun 581.7 372.7 50.7
Aug 611.3 390.0 70.0
Onion
2006 Jun 510.7 435.6 16.1
2005 May 65.2 47.1 46.4
Jun 45.0 29.1 75.1
Jul 22.9 16.1 42.5
Aug 23.9 19.1 21.7
Sept 55.4 33.7 66.8
Oct 26.9 22.8 14.1
2006 May 26.1 19.8 33.1
Bhindi
Jun 20.1 10.4 103.4
Tomato 2005 May 7.8 24.7 7.8
2005 May 83.8 41.3 104.4
Jun 114.4 72.1 59.6
Musk
Melon
Jul 51.6 40.2 7.1
2005 Nov 16.3 34.6 -51.7
Dec 53.4 47.7 -5.3
Cauliflower
2006 Jan 42.8 88.6 -47.2
Difference between Prices
6.9 A regression equ ation is u sed to ch eck wh eth er th e differen ce
between th e MD an d tradition al m arket prices is sign ifican t or n ot. First
th e differen ce between th e prices Din = Pi1-Pi2 of altern ative m arketin g

21. 21 | P a g e
channels is calculated an d th en to test th e sign ifican ce of th e differen ce
between prices the following equation is specified:
Din = ain + bint + uin
n = number of observations.
Hypothesis tested are
H: ain = 0
Ha: ain 0
Th e in tercept term (aij) in th e fu n ction will give th e differen ce in n et
m arketin g prices. If th e prices are sign ifican tly differen t th en th e
in tercept wou ld be sign ifican t. Th e resu lts given in table-7 sh ow th at th e
MD prices are sign ifican tly h igh er th an th e tradition al m arket prices for
the vegetables except Cauliflower.
Table: 7. Results of the above equation
Vegetables ain bint
Carrot 93.7* 0.09
Lauki 270* -2.7*
Chilli 111* -0.15
Onion 131* -0.47
Bhindi 222* -0.01
Tomato 86* 1.77*
Musk Melon 198* 0.26
Cauliflower -83* 4.02*
Indirect Impact of the MD on Prices:
6.10 Th e direct procu rem en t of th e retail ch ain s also im pacts th e
reven u e of th e farm ers in directly. Bein g a credible option for th e farm er
to sell its produ cts oth er th an local m arket, it redu ces th e depen den cy
from th e tradition al m arketin g ch ain s. Th e local m arkets are relatively
small in size and may not necessarily be integrated, and even if these are
integrated, it m ay n ot n ecessarily resu lt in transfer of th e su pplies
quickly, an d also m ay n ot add ben efits to th e farm ers. Th erefore an y
extra arrivals m ay cau se su bstan tial depression in th e prices of th e local
m arket. Su ppose th e MD wou ld n ot h ave been th ere for direct
procu rem en t th e qu an tity wh ich is n ow procu red by it, th e en tire
produce wou ld h ave been sold in to th e n earest m arket. The im pact of

22. 22 | P a g e
th is extra arrival on th e price cou ld h ave h ad m oderatin g im pact on
prices. To calcu late th e in direct im pact of th e direct procu rem en t on th e
local m arket prices th e elasticity of th e price w.r.t. arrivals is calcu lated
(see table). Usin g th is elasticity of price th e n et price im pact is calcu lated
for different vegetables.
Table:8 Elasticity of Prices w.r.t. Arrivals (Arr) and procured quantity (PR).
Vegetables
Carrot -0.10 -0.16
Lauki -0.016 0.11
Green Cilli -0.03 0.11
Onion -0.048 0.25
Bhindi -0.097 0.03
Tomato -0.163 -0.22
Musk Melon -0.15 -0.15
Cauliflower -0.118 -0.46
6.11 Usin g th e estim ated elasticity of prices of respective i, it is easy to
calcu late th e n ew price wh ich wou ld h ave been New Pi1 if all th e produ ce
of i vegetable (i.e. local m arket arrival plu s direct procu rem en t) wou ld
h ave been sold in n earest m arket. The New P1 is calcu lated with th e
followin g form u la an d basis of th e assu m ption s th at th e New Pi1 cannot
be negative and more than Pi1, as long as dInArr is positive:
New Pi1 = Pi1 (1- e* dInArr)
Wh ere Pi1 is th e price in Rs. Per Qtls. of a vegetable in th e local m arket,
e , wh ich is elasticity of local m arket price w.r.t. Arrivals and
dInArr is th e per cen t ch an ge in th e Arrivals. Th ere is sign ifican t in direct
impact of the direct procurement on the local market prices. Interestingly
th is ben efit is prim arily accru ed to th ose wh o are sellin g in th e local
m arkets. Th is states th at th e reven u e effect is n ot on ly con fin ed to th e
farm ers directly lin ked to th e MD ch ain but also to oth er farm ers wh o
sells in th e local n earest m arket. Th e graphs as per Annexure 1 clearly
indicates that the New P1 would have been much lower than P1.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Th e su pply ch ain efficien cy an d in efficien cy im pacts wh ole
agricu ltu re system . Th e tradition al m arketin g ch ain s are ch aracterized
by high margins of the middlemen, low prices to the farmer, low elasticity

23. 23 | P a g e
of derived dem an d, h u ge wastage of agricu ltu re produ ce, etc. Th e n ew
m arketin g arran gem en ts su ch as farmers m arket e.g. Apan i Man di etc,
con tract farm in g, an d em ergen ce of direct procu rem en t by organ ized
retail ch ain s are h opes for em ergen ce of efficien t agricu ltu re m arketin g.
However, th ere cou ld be problem s of exclu sion of sm all farm ers, sh ort
term view bein g taken by th e con tractin g com pan y etc., in stitu tion al
reform s n eed to redu ce th e m u ltiple layers of in term ediation . Th e direct
procu rem en t is still geograph ically restricted to th e h ot spots of th e
vegetable produ cin g region s, an d n ot for all, and th eir im pact on farm ers
depen ds on th e term s an d con dition of th e procu rem en t con tract.
Procu rem en t system adopted by th e two agen cies, MD an d RF, suggest
th at th e approach adopted by RF is m ore in form ative in term s of price
information, quality monitoring, mode of payments etc.
7.2 Th is sim plicity of th e con tract of RF cou ld be con sidered to provide
an edge to it, bu t m u ltiple agen cies an d a variety of con tractin g
arran gem en ts cou ld co-exist. Becau se despite th e com plexity of th e
contract, MD still provides a relatively better deal to th e farm er as
compared to th e tradition al m arketing ch ain s. Th is m ay be th e reason
that it h as been su ccessfu l for su ch a lon g tim e in m an y areas. On th e
practical side of th e im pacts of MD it is observed th at except Green
Chilli, On ion an d Mu sk Melon , th e prices of local m arket are co-
integrated with MD prices. Th e n et reven u e of th e farm ers for selected
vegetables is fou n d on an average 17 per cen t h igh er for carrot, 134 per
cent for Lauki, 17 per cent for Green Chilli, 45 per cent for Onion, 50 per
cent for Bhindi, and 57 percent for Musk Melon.
7.3 Th ere are positive spillovers an d oth er in direct im pacts on th e
reven u e of th e farm ers of th e direct procu rem en t by MD. Th e in direct
ben efits are n ot con fin ed only to th ose su pplyin g vegetables to MD, th ese
rath er get exten ded to all th ose farm ers su pplyin g to local Man di or TM.
In sh ort th e direct procu rem en t of th e MD h as en h an ced the farm ers
revenue.
***

24. 24 | P a g e
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Rao,C.H.Han u m an th a,(1971), Un certain ty, En trepren eu rsh ip, An d
Sh arecroppin g In In dia Journal Of Political Econom y ,Vol-79, No-3
,Pp-578-595.
2. Ch eu n g,S.N.S., Th e Th eory Of Sh are Ten an cy , Ch icago Un iversity
Press 1969.
3. Stiglitz,J .E., (1974), In cen tive An d Risk Sh arin g In Sh arecroppin g
Review Of Economic Studies, Vol- 41, Pp-219-56.
4. Bardh an , P.K.,(March 1980), In terlockin g Factor Market An d
Agrarian Developm en t: A Review Of Issu es , Oxfords Econom ic
Papers, Vol-32, Pp-82-98.
5. Bin swan ger, H. P. An d M.R. Rozen zweig (1984), Con tractu al
Arran gem en t S , Em ploym en t An d Wage In Ru ral Labor Markets : A
Critical Review H.P. Bin swan ger An ds M.R. Rosen zweig
(Eds)Con tractu al Arran gem en ts , Em ploym en t An d Wages In Ru ral
Labor Markets In Asia, Econ om ic Growth Cen ter, Yale Un iversity
Series New Haven And Landon Yele University Press.
6. Dileep, B. K. R.K. Grover An d K.N. Rai (2002) Con tract Farm in g In
Tom ato : An Econ om ic An alysis, Indian Journal Of Agriculture
Economics , 57(2), Pp- 197-200.
7. Eswaran , M. An d Kotwal, A. (1985), A Th eory Of Con tractu al
Structure In Agriculture, American Economic Review 75(3),Pp-352-67.
8. Rosen zeig An d Bin swan ger, H.P. (1993), Wealth , Weath er Risk An d
Th Ecom position Of Profitability In Agricu ltu ral In vestm en ts, The
Economic Journal, 103(416), Pp 56-78.
9. Th aku r, D.S., H. Lal, D.R. Th aku r, K..D. Sh arm a An d A.S. Sain i
(1997), Market Su pply Respon se An d Marketin g Problem s Of Farm er
In Th e Hills, In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, 52(1), Pp-
139-50.
10. Th aku r, D.S., S.K. Ch au h an An d K..D. Sh arm a (1988), Efficien cy
An d Weakn ess Of Regu lated Markets, In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral
Marketing,2(1).
11. Ach arya , S.S. (2001), Dom estic Agricu ltu ral Marketin g Policies,
In cen tives An d In tegration , In S.S. Ach arya An d D.P. Ch au dh ry
(Eds.) In dian Agricu ltu ral Policy At Cross Roads, New Delh i Ravat
Publications.

25. 25 | P a g e
12. Ach arya,S.S.(1994), Marketin g En viron m en t For Farm Produ cts
Em ergin g Issu e An d Ch allen ges, In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral
Marketing, 8(2)162-75, July- September.
13. Kerisu r,V.R.,K.C. Hirem ath Nad Sarad Kiresu r (1989), Econ om ics Of
Produ ction An d Marketin g Of Vegetables In Karn atka A Com parison
Of Organ ized An d Un organ ized Sector Of Marketin g, In dian J ou rn al
Of Agriculture Marketing , 3(3)98,Conference Special 98 Special.
14. Th aku r, D.S., Sn ajay, D.R. Th aku r An d K.D. Sh arm a (1994),
Econ om ics Of Off Season Vegetable Produ ction An d Marketin g In
Hills, Indian Journal Of Agricultural Marketing, 8(1), 77-8 January.
15. Kau l,(1997), Horticu ltu re In In dia- Produ ction Marketin g An d
Processing, Indian Journal Of Agricultural Economics, Vol-52(3), Pp.-
561-573.
16. Sin gh ,J .P.(2006), Ch an gin g Agrarian Relation sh ip In Ru ral In dia ,
Indian Journal Of Agriculturl Economics, Vol-16, No-1, Jan March.
17. Haque, T. (2000), Contractual Arrangements In Land Labor Market In
Ru ral Area , In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol-55(3).
July Sept.
18. Srivastava, Ravi,(2000), Ch an ges In Con tractu al Relation In Lan d
An d Labou r In In dia , In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics,
Vol-55(3), July Sept.
19. Sin gh , Su kh pal,(2000), Con tract Farm in g For Agricu ltu ral
Diversification In Th e In dian Pu n jab : A Case Stu dy Of Perform an ce
An d Problem s , In dian J ou rn al F Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol- 55(3),
July- Sept.
20. Sh arm a, H.R., (2000), Ten an cy Relation n Ru ral In dia: A Tem poral
An d Cross Section al An alysis , In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral
Economics, Vol-55(3), July Sept.
21. Swain , Mam ta(2000), Agricu ltu ral Developm en t An d In terlocked
Markets , In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol-55(3), J u ly
Sept.
22. San gwan S.S.(2000), Em ergin g Credit Dem an d Of Ten an t In
Haryan a , In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol-55(3), J u ly
Sept.

26. 26 | P a g e
23. Birth al, P.S.,J h a A.K.,J osh i P.K. An d Sin gh D.K. (2006),
Agricu ltu ral Diversification in North Eastern Region Of In dia:
Im plication s For Growth An d Equ ity , In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral
Economics, Vol-61(3), July-Sept.
24. Ach arya, S.S.(2004), Agricu ltu ral Marketin g State Of In dian Farm er
A Millen n iu m Stu dy Academ ic Fou n datiopn , New Delh i.
25. Gaikwad,V.R., Sam bran i,S., Parkash , V., Ku lkarn i,S.D. An d
Mu rari,P.,(2004), Post Harvest Man agem en t- State Of In dian
Farm er A Millen n iu m Stu dy Academ ic Fou n datiopn , New Delh i.
26. Desh pan de, R.S., Bh en de,M.J ., Th ippaiah ,P. An d Vivekan an da,
M.,(2004), Crops An d Cu ltivation - State Of In dian Farm er A
Millen n iu m Stu dy Academ ic Fou n dation , New Delh i.
27. Ram aswam y, B. Ravi,S.An d Ch opra, S.D. (2004), Risk Man agem en t-
State Of In dian Farm er A Millen n iu m Stu dy Academ ic Fou n dation ,
New Delhi.
28. Sh eph erd, A.W. (2007), Approach es To Lin kin g Produ cer To
Markets: A Review Of Experien ces To Date , Agricu ltu ral
Management, Marketing And Finance, Occasional Paper, Fao.
29. Balsevih , F. Berdegu e,J .A., Flores,L. Main ville,D. An d Readon ,T.
(2003), Su perm arket An d Produ ce Qu ality An d Safety Stan dards In
Latin Am erica , Am erican J ou rn al Of Agricau ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol-
85(5), Pp. 1147-57.
30. Boselie,D., Hen son , S. An d Weath erspoon ,D., (2003), Su perm arket
Procu rem en t Practices In Developin g Cou n tries: Redefin in g Th e Roles
Of Pu blic An d Private Sectors , Am erican J ou rn al Of Agricu ltural
Economics, Vol-85(5), Pp. 1155-61.
31. Carn ey, J .A., Stru ggeles Over Crop Righ ts An d Labou r With in
Con tract Farm in g Hou seh olds In A Gam bian Irrigated Rice Project ,
Journal Of Peasent Studies.
32. Glower, D., (1990), Con tract Farm in g An d Ou tgrover Sch em es In
East An d Sou th ern Africa , J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol-
41, No-3, Pp. 303-315.
33. Porter,G., Howard,K.P.,(1997), Com parin g Con tracts: An Evalu ation
Of Con tract Farm in g Sch em es In Africa , World Developm en t, Vol-
25,No-2, Pp.227-238.

27. 27 | P a g e
34. Glover,D.J .,(1984), Con tract Farm in g An d Sm allh older Ou tgrower
Sch em es In Less Developed Cou n tries , World Developm en t, Vol-
12,No-1, Pp1143-1157.
35. Warn in g, M. An d Key,N.,(2002), Th e Social Perform an ce An d
Distribu tion al Con sequ en ces Of Con tract Farm in g: An Equilibrium
An alysis Of Th e Arch ide De Bou ch e Program In Sen egal , Word
Development, Vol-30, No-2,Pp. 255-263.
36. Dey, J en n ie (1982), Developm en t Plan n in g In Th e Gam bia: Th e Gap
Between Plan n er An d Farm er Perception s, Expectation s An d
Objectives , World Development, Vol-10, No-5, Pp-377-396.
37. Porter,G. An d Howard, K.P.,(1995), Farm er, Laborers An d Th e
Com pan y: Explorin g Relation sh ips On A Tran skei Con tract Farm in g
Sch em e , J ou rn al Of Developm en t Stu dies , Vol-32,No-1, Pp.55-73.
38. Goldsm ith ,A.,(1985), Th e Private Sector An d Th e Ru ral
Developm en t: Can Agribu sin ess Help Th e Sm all Farm er , World
Development, Vol-13, No- 10/11, Pp. 1125-1138.
39. Sin gh , S., (2004), Crises An d Diversification In Pu n jab Agricu ltu re:
Role Of State An d Agribu sin ess , Econ om ic An d Political Weekly,
December,25. Pp.5583-5590.
40. Leath ers, H.D.,(1999), Wh at Is Farm in g ? In form ation , Con tract,
An d Th e Organ ization Of Agricu ltu ral Produ ction : Discu ssion ,
American Journal Of Agricultural Economics, Vol-81, Pp. 621-623.
41. Dileep, B.K.,Grover,R.K.., An d Rai, K.N., Con tract Farm in g In
Tom ato: An Econ om ic An alysis , In dian J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral
Economics, Vol-57,No-2, Pp-198-209.
42. Ku m ar, Parm od, (2006), Con tract Farm in g Th rou gh Agribu sin ess
Firm s An d State Corporation : A Case Stu dy In Pu n jab , Econ om ic
And Political Weekly, December, 30, Pp. 5367-5375.
43. Azzam , A.M., ( ), Testin g Th e Com petitiven ess Of Food Price
Spreads ,
44. Weldegebriel,H.T., (2004), Im perfect Price Tran sm ission : Is Market
Really To Blam e ? , J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol- 55, No-
1, Pp. 101-114.

28. 28 | P a g e
45. Mccorriston , S., An d Sh eldon , I.M.,(1996), Th e Effect Of Vertical
Markets On Trade Policy Reform , Oxford Econ om ic Paper, Vol-48,
Pp. 664-672.
46. Roger, R.T., An d Sexton ,R.J ., (1994), Assessin g Th e Im portan ce Of
Oligopson y Power In Agricu ltu ral Markets , Am erican J ou rn al Of
Agricultural Economics, Vol-76, 1143-1150.
47. Hyde, C.E., An d Perloff, J .M., (1994), Can Mon opson y Power Be
Estim ated ? , Am erican J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol-76,
Pp-1151-1155.
48. Love, H.A., An d Sh u m wy, C.R.,(1994), Non param etric Test For
Mon opson istic Market Power Exertion , Am erican J ou rn al Of
Agricultural Economics, Vol-76, 1156-1162.
49. Goodwin , B.K.,( 1994), Oligopson y Power: A Forgotten Diam en sion
Of Food Marketin g ? Discu ssion , Am erican J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral
Economics, Vol-76, Pp. 1163-1165.
50. Holloway, G. J ., (1991), Th e Farm - Retail Price Spread In An
Im perfectly Com petitive Food In du stry , Am erican J ou rn al Of
Agricultural Economics, November, Pp. 979-989.
51. Sch roeter, J . An d Azzam , A., (1991), Marketin g Margin s, Market
Power, An d Price Un certain ty , Am erican J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral
Economics, November, Pp.-990-999.
52. Gardn er, B. L.,(1975), Th e Farm Retail Price Spread In A
Com petitive Food In du stry , Am erican J ou rn al Of Agricu ltu ral
Economics, August, Pp 399-409.
53. Dries, L. An d Swin n en ,J .F.M., (2004), Foreign Direct In vestm en t,
Vertical In tegration , An d Local Su ppliers: Eviden ce From Th e Polish
Dairy Sector , World Developm en t, Vol-32, No-9, Pp.-1525-1544.
54. Viswanathan, K.U., An d Satsai K.J .S.,(1997), Fru its An d
Vegetables: Produ ction Tren s An d Lin kages , In dian J ou rn al Of
Agricultural Economics, Vol-52, No-3, 574-583.
55. Dh aese, M., Van Hu ylen broeck, G. (2005), Th e Rise Of Su perm arkets
An d Ch an gin g Expen ditu re Pattern s Of Poor Ru ral Hou seh olds: Case
Study In The Transkei Area, South Africa, Food Policy, 30, 97-113
56. Dolan , C., Hu m ph rey, J . (2000), Govern an ce An d Trade In Fresh
Vegetables: Th e Im pact Of Uk Su perm arkets On Th e African

29. 29 | P a g e
Horticu ltu re In du stry, J ou rn al Of Developm en t Stu dies, 37(2), Pp.
147-176
57. Fafch am ps, M., Gabre-Madh in , E., Min ten , B., In creasin g Retu rn s
An d Market Efficien cy In Agricu ltu ral Trade, J ou rn al Of Developm en t
Economics, Forthcoming
58. Gibbon , P. (2003), Valu e-Ch ain Govern an ce, Pu blic Regu lation An d
En try Barriers In Th e Global Fresh Fru it An d Vegetable Ch ain In Th e
EU, Development Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 5-6, Pp. 615-625
59. Gow, H., Streeter, D. An d J . Swin n en , 2000, "How Private Con tract
Enforcement
60. Mech an ism s Can Su cceed Wh ere Pu blic In stitu tion s Fail: Th e Case
Of Juhosucor A.S." Agricultural Economics, 23(3): 253-265.
61. Gow, H. An d J . Swin n en , 2001, Private En forcem en t Capital An d
Con tract En forcem en t In tran sition Cou n tries Am erican J ou rn al Of
Agricultural Economics, 83(3): 686-690
62. Humphrey, J ., Mccu lloch , N., Ota, M. (2004), Th e Im pact Of
Eu ropean Market Ch an ges On Em ploym en t In Th e Ken yan
Horticu ltu re Sector, J ou rn al Of In tern ation al Developm en t, Vol.
16(1), Pp. 63-80
63. J affee, S.M., Hen son , S. (2004), Stan dards An d Agro-Food Exports
From Developin g Cou n tries: Rebalan cin g Th e Debate, World Ban k
Policy Research Working Paper 3348
64. Key, N., Ru n sten , D. (1999), Con tract Farm in g, Sm allh olders, An d
Ru ral Developm en t In Latin Am erica: Th e Organ ization Of
Agroprocessing Firms And The Scale Of Outgrower Production, World
Development, 27(2), Pp. 381-401
65. Kh erralah , M. (2000), Access Of Sm allh older Farm ers To Th e Fru its
And Vegetables Market In Kenya, Ifpri, Mimeo
66. Kirsten , J ., Sartoriu s, K. (2002), Lin kin g Agribu sin ess An d Sm all-
Scale Farm ers In Developin g Cou n tries: Is Th ere A New Role For
Con tract Farm in g?, Developm en t Sou th ern Africa, Vol. 19, No. 4, Pp.
503-529
67. Min ot, N., Ngigi, M. (2004), Are Horticu ltu ral Exports A Replicable
Su ccess Story? Eviden ce From Ken ya An d Côte D ivoire, Eptd/ Mtid
Discussion Paper, International Food Policy Research Institute

30. 30 | P a g e
68. Reardon , T., Barrett, C.B. (2000), Agroin du strialisation , Globalization
An d In tern ation al Developm en t: An Overview Of Issu es, Pattern s An d
Determinants, Agricultural Economics, 23:195-205
69. Reardon , T., Berdegu é, J . (2002), Th e Rapid Rise Of Su perm arkets In
Latin Am erica: Ch allen ges An d Opportu n ities For Developm en t,
Development Policy Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, Pp.371-88.
70. Reardon , T., Tim m er, C.P., Barrett, C., Berdegu é, J . (2003), Th e Rise
Of Su perm arkets In Africa, Asia, An d Latin Am erica, Am erican
Journal Agricultural Economics, Vol. 85, No. 5, Pp. 1140-1146
71. Waltisberger, D., Can trelle, P., Ralijaon a, O. (1998), La Mortalité À
An tan an arivo De 1984 À 1995, Docu m en t Et Man u el Du Ceped No.
7, Paris
72. Weath erspoon , D., Cach o, J ., Ch risty, R. (2001), Lin kin g
Globalization , Econ om ic Growth an d Poverty: Im pacts Of
Agribu sin ess Strategies On Su b-Sah aran Africa, Am erican J ou rn al of
Agricultural Economics, 83(3), Pp. 722-729
73. Win ters, P., Sim m on s, P., Patrick, I. (2005), Evalu ation of A Hybrid
Seed Con tract Between Sm allh olders An d A Mu ltin ation al Com pan y
In East J ava, In don esia, Th e J ou rn al Of Developm en t Stu dies, Vol.
41, No. 1, Pp. 62-89
74. Dr. Rajiv Meh ta, (2005), An An alysis of Crop Diversification ,
Mem ber Secretary, CACP, Min istry Of Agricu ltu re, Govern m en t Of
India,
75. National Conference On Agriculture For Kharif Campaign-2005, 22nd
23rd (March), New Delhi..
76. Srivastava, Ravi,(1989), In terlin ked Modes of Exploitation In In dian
Agricu ltu re Du rin g Tran sition : A Case Stu dy , J ou rn al Of Peasan t
Studies, Pp. 493-522.
77. Taslim ,M.A., (1988), Ten an cy An d In terlockin g Markets: Issu es An d
Som e Eviden ce , World Developm en t, Vol-16, No-6, Pp-655-666.
78. Bardh an , Pran ab, (1989), In terlockin g Factor Markets an d Agrarian
Developm en t: A Review Of Issu es , Oxford Econ om ic Papers, Vol-32,
Pp.82-98.
79. Wh ite, Ben An d Dawson ,P.J .,(2005), Measu rin g Price Risk on Uk
Arable Farm s , J ou rn al of Agricu ltu ral Econ om ics, Vol-56, N0-2,
239-254.

31. 31 | P a g e
80. Min ten , B., Ran drian arison ,L. An d Swin n en ,J .F.M. (2006), Global
Retail Ch ain s An d Poor Farm ers Eviden ce From Madagascar ,
Discussion Paper 164/2006- Www.Econ.Kuleuven.Be/Licos.
81. Dolan , C.S.,(2002), Gen der An d Witch craft In Agrarian Tran sition :
Th e Case Of Ken an Horticu ltu re , Developm en t An d Ch an ge, 33(4),
Pp. 659-682.
82. Fao (2005), Faostat Data. Accessed Novem ber 2004,
Htttp//Www.Fao.Org.
83. Mccu lloch , N.An d Otta, M., (2002), Export Horticu ltu re An d Poverty
In Ken ya , Ids Workin g Paper174.Brighton, Sussex: Ids
84. Wein berger, K. An d Lu m pkin , T., (2005), High Valu e Agricu ltu ral
Produ cts In Asia An d Th e Pecific For Sm all Holder Farm ers: Tren ds,
Opportu n ities An d Research Priorities , Rom e,
Gfarhtpp://Www.Egfar.Org/Documents/02 Meetin g Workshop-On-
High Value Productsoct, 2005/Regionlap.Pdf.
85. Government of In dia (2007), Agricu ltu ral Marketin g In frastru ctu re
An d Policy Requ ired For In tern al An d Extern al Trade Report Of Th e
Working Group For The 11th Five Year Plan, Planning Commission.
86. Reardon, T & Gu lati, Ash ok, (2008), Rise Of Su per Market an d Th eir
Im plication s , Discu ssion Paper IFPRI,
87. NABARD Study, (2011), Organized Agri-Food Retailin g in In dia .
88. ICREAR Report, (2009), Im pact of Organ ized Retail Ch ain s on
In com e & Em ploym en t .

32. 32 | P a g e
Annexure-1

33. 1 | P a g e