EFFECTS OF COLLECTIVE FARMING ON COTTON PRODUCTION IN KENYA
A CASE STUDY: KITUI DISTRICT
BY
KARUGIA ESTHER WANJERI
KCA-07/03333
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Business Administration (Corporate Management) of the School of
Business KCA University
NOVEMBER 2011
DECLARATION
This Research Thesis is my original work and has not been submitted for a degree in any
other university or Institution
Karugia, Esther Wanjeri Sign: ………………………… Date……………………
This Research Thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as
university Supervisor.
Prof. Alfred Osiemo Sign: ………………………… Date……………………
School of Business
KCA University
ii
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to all those people who have made this course a success both
directly and indirectly. Special thanks to my Husband, Son Family and Friends for standing
with me throughout the entire course as a sign of appreciation.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to acknowledge the professional efforts of my supervisor Pro; Alfred Osiemo who
guided me tirelessly in writing this project.
I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts my family members especially my
husband and son for their moral support and encouragement throughout the entire research
period.
Finally I owe very special thanks to all my friends for their constant and unfailing support
during this period.
iv
ABSTRACT
Collective farming was implemented in order to solve problems of small farmers after the
2nd world war in many underdeveloped countries (Sherief, 1991). It is characterized by
jointly using agricultural scarce resources which might be land, labours and capital more
efficiently. Cotton production was introduced in Kenya in the 1900s by the colonial
administration. It is therefore the focus of this research to evaluate the effect of collective
farming on cotton production in Kitui as The Market-Led Integration developmental
hypothesis states that “improved profitability and access to market motivates farmers to
invest in new technology. The Overall objective of the study was to evaluate the influence of
collective farming on cotton production in Kitui-Kenya.
Descriptive research was used to obtain information concerning the current status of the
phenomena to describe "what exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation.
The population of the study was Kitui (North) District homesteads however, the target
groups was Kakeani sub location in Mutonguni location with an estimate of 900
homesteads. The researcher used simple stratified sampling procedure to select a sample that
represents the entire population. The Primary data was collected using Questionnaires and
interviews. Pre-testing of the data collection instruments was done. This study employed
descriptive statistics to analyse the data obtained. Quantitative data was analysed using excel
for descriptive statistics.
From the findings it was found that collective farming has effects on the pooling of
Resources especially funding of cotton production in Kitui-Kenya, pooling of resources to
invest in farmers‟ operations which helps farmers‟ groups become more active market
participants, allows ease of acceding credit facilities, from funding institutions (the funds for
Small Medium Enterprises (SME) The study further found that diversity of individuals
working together allows sharing of ideas resulting in higher levels output and of learning
from each other, collective farming option in agriculture and even in the other sectors offers
learning opportunities and innovation helps to avoid undue influence from the government,
members also enjoy associated social benefits through sharing with peers the emotional
highs and lows associated with successes and failures.
v
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ...................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. ivv
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENT ....................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATION ................................................................................................. x
DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT TERMS ....................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: ................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................................. 5
1.3.1 General objective ..................................................................................................... 5
1.3.2 Specific objectives ................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 5
1.5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 6
1.6 Scope of the Study .......................................................................................................... 7
1.7 Assumptions of the study ............................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................... 8
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 8
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 The Development of Collective Farming ....................................................................... 8
2.3 Benefits and Problems of Collective Farming ............................................................. 12
2.4 Empirical Review of Literature .................................................................................... 13
2.5 Theoretical Review of literature ................................................................................... 15
2.5.1 Social Capital among Farmers ............................................................................... 17
2.6 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 17
2.7 Summary and Research Gaps ....................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................. 20
3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 20
vi
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Research design ............................................................................................................ 20
3.3 Location of the Study ................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Population ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.5 Sample and Sampling Procedure .................................................................................. 21
3.5.1 Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................... 21
3.5.2 Sample Size ............................................................................................................ 21
3.6 Data Collection Procedure and Instruments ................................................................. 21
3.6.1 Data Collection Instruments................................................................................... 21
3.6.2 Data Collection Procedure ..................................................................................... 23
3.7 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER FOUR: .............................................................................................................. 24
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .......................................................... 24
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 24
4.2 General Information ..................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Effects of Marketing Advantage on Cotton Production ............................................... 26
4.4 Effects of Pooling of Resources on Cotton Production ................................................ 31
4.5 Effects of Social Benefits on Cotton Production.......................................................... 38
CHAPTER FIVE: ................................................................................................................ 45
5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 45
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 45
5.2 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................... 45
5.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 47
5.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 48
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 49
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix I:Questionaire ................................................................................................. 56
Appendix II: Kenya Cotton Production by Year .......................................................... 61
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Gender of the respondent.......................................................................................24
Table 4.2: Age of the of the respondent ..................................................................................24
Table 4.3: Distribution of respondent by highest level of education .......................................25
Table 4.4: Length of time in cotton production .......................................................................25
Table 4.5: Collective farming is effective in increasing production .......................................26
Table 4.6: Collective farming helps in exploring the market advantage .................................27
Table 4.7: Collective farming helps in creating potential to supply large quantities ..............27
Table 4.8: Collective action by cotton farmers helps in creating consistent quality and
quantity ....................................................................................................................................28
Table 4.9: Collective farming helps farmers to provide the huge supplies .............................29
Table 4.10: Collective farming enhances adequate monitoring of the implementation ..........29
Table 4.11: Collective farming creating the necessary leadership ..........................................30
Table 4.12: Collective farming helping farmers in pooling resources ....................................31
Table 4.13: Collective farming allowing pooling of resources to invest in farmers ...............32
Table 4.14: Collective farming helps government and NGOs to distribute resources ............32
Table 4.15: Collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a single farming
operation ..................................................................................................................................33
Table 416: Pooling of land helps to produce at large scale with productivity gains ...............34
Table 4.17: Collective farming allowing ease of accessing credit facilities............................35
Table 4.18: Potential for coordinating individuals‟ work ........................................................35
Table 4.19: Specialization of labour in collective farming motivates members .....................36
Table 4.20: Differences in skills and levels of knowledge between members ........................37
Table 4.21: Collective action giving opportunity for smallholders to pool their resources ....37
Table 4.22: Attaining market advantages collective farming is associated social benefits .....38
Table 4.23: Collective farming option in agriculture ..............................................................39
Table 4.24: Collective action environment increases opportunities ........................................40
Table 4.25: Organizations making prompt decisions that will enable it achieve its targets ....40
Table 4.26: Diversity of individuals working together allowing sharing of ideas ..................41
Table 4.27:Greater teamwork offer important psychological and social benefits ...................42
Table 4.28: Rewards of the group are shared amongst the members and the same applies to
failures .....................................................................................................................................42
Table 4.29: Social element cannot be taken for granted when exploring elements ................43
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework ..........................................................................................18
Figure 4.2 : Collective farming is effective in increasing production .....................................26
Figure 4.3: Collective farming helps in exploring the market advantage ................................27
Figure 4.4: Collective farming helps in creating potential to supply large quantities .............28
Figure 4.5: Collective action by cotton farmers helps in creating consistent quality and
quantity ....................................................................................................................................28
Figure 4.6: Collective farming helps farmers to provide the huge supplies ............................29
Figure 4.7: Collective farming enhances adequate monitoring of the implementation ...........30
Figure 4.8: Collective farming creating the necessary leadership ...........................................30
Figure 4.9: Collective farming helping farmers in pooling resources .....................................31
Figure 4.10: Collective farming allowing pooling of resources to invest in farmers ..............32
Figure 4.11: Collective farming helps government and NGOs to distribute resources ...........33
Figure 4.12: Collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a single farming
operation ..................................................................................................................................34
Figure 4.13: Pooling of land helps to produce at large scale with productivity gains .............34
Figure 4.14: Collective farming allowing ease of accessing credit facilities ..........................35
Figure 4.15: Potential for coordinating individuals‟ work ......................................................36
Figure 4.16: Specialization of labour in collective farming motivates members ....................36
Figure 4.17: Differences in skills and levels of knowledge between members.......................37
Figure 4.18: Collective action giving opportunity for smallholders to pool their resources ...38
Figure 4.19: Attaining market advantages collective farming is associated social benefits ...39
Figure 4.20: Collective farming option in agriculture .............................................................39
Figure 4.21: Collective action environment increases opportunities.......................................40
Figure 4.22: Organizations making prompt decisions that will enable it achieve its targets ..41
Figure 4.23: Diversity of individuals working together allowing sharing of ideas .................41
Figure4. 24: Greater teamwork offer important psychological and social benefits ................42
Figure 4.25: Rewards of the group are shared amongst the members and the same applies to
failures .....................................................................................................................................43
Figure 4.26: Social element cannot be taken for granted when exploring elements ...............43
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
AGOA
:
African Growth and Opportunity Act
APO
:
Asian Productivity Organization
CEE
:
Central and East European
EC
:
East African Community
SPSS
:
Statistical Programme for Social Sciences
x
DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT TERMS
Collective farm size; A farm in which a group of farmers pool their land, domestic animals,
and agricultural implements and retaining as private property enough only for
the members' own requirements (Eicher, 1999).
Collective farming production; to produce together to have some advantages of economy on
scale (Dinler, 1993). Collective farming is defined as voluntary action taken
by a group of individuals, who invest time and energy to pursue shared
objectives (Markelova et al. 2009).
Communal farming; a type of agricultural production in which the holdings of several
farmers are run as a joint enterprise. This type of collective is essentially an
agricultural production cooperative in which member-owners engage jointly in
farming activities (Fujisaka, 19930.
Member commitment; Acting towards fulfilling mutual, self-imposed or explicitly stated
obligations. It has received much attention in the social sciences, particularly
in the literature strands of organizational behavior and rational choice
(Robertson and Tang 1995).
Smallholder organization; A possible institutional solution to overcome high transaction
costs and other market failures in developing countries (Markelova et al.,
2009).
Social capital; Grootaert (1998) referred to social capital as “the internal social and cultural
coherence of society, the norms and values that govern interactions among
people and the institutions in which they are embedded. It is the glue that
holds societies together and without which there can be no economic growth
or human well-being.”
Social control; A collection of resources which a society has at its dis-posal to secure the
xi
behaviour conformity of its members to a set of rules and principles, which
constitutes the external stimuli (Mukhwana, 2000).
xii
CHAPTER ONE:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
A collective farm is a farm in which a group of farmers pool their land, domestic animals,
and agricultural implements, retaining as private property enough only for the members' own
requirements. The profits of the farm are divided among its members. In cooperative
farming, farmers retain private ownership of the land. Collective farming was first
developed in the USSR in 1917, where it became general after 1930 (Englewood,
1989).Collective farming is practiced in other countries especially China and Israel. It was
adopted from 1953 in China, and Israel has a largest number of collective farms. Collective
farming and communal farming are types of agricultural production in which the holdings of
several farmers are run as a joint enterprise. This type of collective is essentially an
agricultural production cooperative in which member-owners engage jointly in farming
activities. Agricultural production cooperatives are relatively rare in the world, and known
examples are limited to collective farms in former socialist countries and the kibbutzim in
Israel (Englewood, 1989).
Collective farming was implemented in order to solve problems of small farmers after the
2nd world war in many underdeveloped countries (Sherief, 1991). The collective farming is
characterized by jointly using land and agricultural inputs. Furthermore, the collective
farming is a production unit which is voluntarily formed by the farmers in order to get more
benefit than individual farming (Inan, 1984). The aim of collective farming is to use more
efficiently the scarce resources which might be land, labours and capital, etc. Group
farming‟s might be called as a special kind of cooperative or a collective farming in
literature.
Cotton production was introduced in Kenya in the 1900s by the colonial administration.
However, it was not until the early 1960s that the crop was introduced in many parts of the
country mainly Nyanza, Lower Tana River, Machakos, Kitui and Meru districts. Kenya‟s
cotton sector was still dominated by private colonial ginners till independence in 1963.
1
Immediately after independence Kenya adopted an import substitution policy that ensured a
backward integration of textile mills. Between that time and the end of 1990 the
Government systematically introduced controls into the sector which did not last for long as
the textile industries collapsed and as such small scale farmers were left helpless as they
could not continue with cotton production the only cash crop in the region. This left the
regions poorer than before as unemployment bites and low standards of living that resulted
to low educational levels. Kenya's cotton industry once the country's main foreign exchange
earners declined substantially following liberalization of the sector in 1991 (Joyce, 2007).
Kenya cotton production was emphasized when it was endorsed on the back of the Kshs 200
note with Men and Women gathering cotton at the center and as such was used (Matthew,
2006). Cotton has not achieved much success due to lack of finances and mainly the cotton
grown in Kenya is for the local market since its introduction. With the statistics reflecting
the lows and the highs of cotton production the demand has increased with time leading to
importation of the same from our neighbor Uganda to meet the local demand
(Rawlings, 2011).
As Kenya strives to achieve Vision 2030 and AGOA agreements cotton production is seen
as one of the Major drivers to achieve this and as such must increase its production at
whatever cost. Related industries have yarning for an increase in locally produced high
quality and quantity cotton raw materials in order to operate at full capacity while at the
same time steering the Vision 2030 industrialized country as well as being in line with
achievement of the AGOA 2012 deadline to be self sufficient in raw material production. As
Kenya focuses to be an industrialized country by Vision 2030 and meet its commitment to
the 2012 AGOA agreement to be self-sufficient in raw materials it is still a challenge to
meet the demand of cotton raw materials locally. Despite this force issues affecting cotton
production have not been adequately addressed as most of the cotton production regions
have not yet embarked on its production despite the local markets available for the same.
It is generally accepted that collective farming increases productivity. Collective farming is
not a common production system, even though there are plenty of small holdings in Turkish
agriculture. Thus, collective farming should be introduced to the farmers to get more
2
benefits from it. Collective farming can promote more efficient use of resources in terms of
greater farmer participation, more effective delivery of inputs and other support services
such as extension of credit, better utilization of farm machinery and agricultural facilities,
and improved marketing of farm products (APO, 1994). Another project was implemented
in the province of Gujarat in India. The Gambhira Society is a unique successful experiment
in collective farming (Mohanan, 1992). Another example shows a 24 % increase of annual
income by using the collective farming approach in the area of Jind of India (Joginder et
al., 1989). A successful sample for collective farming was implemented in the north of
Masvingo province of Zimbabwe. It was a 500 ha farm with 36 members. The land is owned
by the government. Members worked on the farm and shared the profit they made
collectively (Charlton, 1995).
With the pressure to increase cotton production so as to minimize if not eliminates imports
from the neighbouring countries, there is need for long term strategies to increase production
and arrest declining production. It is therefore the focus of this research to evaluate the
effect of collective farming on cotton production in Kitui as The Market-Led Integration
developmental hypothesis states that “improved profitability and access to market will
motivate farmers to invest in new technology, particularly the integration of new varieties
with improved soil management options”. It is based in part upon the disappointing past
experiences of developing and promoting seemingly appropriate cotton production, only to
have them rejected by poor, risk-averse farmers unable or unwilling to invest in additional
inputs (Fujisaka, 1993; Eicher, 1999). Basically, most farmers are aware of the technologies
that raise production levels but are reluctant to invest in them unless they are assured that the
resultant crop can be readily marketed (Mukhwana, 2000). These difficulties may only be
overcome through farmers‟ collective action.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
As Kenya strives to achieve Vision 2030 and AGOA agreements cotton production is seen
as one of the Major drivers to achieve this and as such must increase its production at
whatever cost. Related industries have yarning for an increase in locally produced high
quality and quantity cotton raw materials in order to operate at full capacity while at the
3
same time steering the Vision 2030 industrialized country as well as being in line with
achievement of the AGOA 2012 deadline to be self sufficient in raw material production. As
Kenya focuses to be an industrialized country by Vision 2030 and meet its commitment to
the 2012 AGOA agreement to be self-sufficient in raw materials it is still a challenge to
meet the demand of cotton raw materials locally. Despite this force issues affecting cotton
production have not been adequately addressed as most of the cotton production regions
have not yet embarked on its production despite the local markets available for the same.
It is generally accepted that collective farming increases productivity. Collective farming is
not a common production system, even though there are plenty of small holdings in Turkish
agriculture. Thus, collective farming should be introduced to the farmers to get more
benefits from it. Collective farming can promote more efficient use of resources in terms of
greater farmer participation, more effective delivery of inputs and other support services
such as extension of credit, better utilization of farm machinery and agricultural facilities,
and improved marketing of farm products (APO, 1994). Another project was implemented
in the province of Gujarat in India. The Gambhira Society is a unique successful experiment
in collective farming (Mohanan, 1992). Another example shows a 24 % increase of annual
income by using the collective farming approach in the area of Jind of India (Joginder et
al., 1989). A successful sample for collective farming was implemented in the north of
Masvingo province of Zimbabwe. It was a 500 ha farm with 36 members. The land is owned
by the government. Members worked on the farm and shared the profit they made
collectively (Charlton, 1995).
With the pressure to increase cotton production so as to minimize if not eliminates imports
from the neighbouring countries, there is need for long term strategies to increase production
and arrest declining production. It is therefore the focus of this research to evaluate the
effect of collective farming on cotton production in Kitui as The Market-Led Integration
developmental hypothesis states that “improved profitability and access to market will
motivate farmers to invest in new technology, particularly the integration of new varieties
with improved soil management options”. It is based in part upon the disappointing past
experiences of developing and promoting seemingly appropriate cotton production, only to
4
have them rejected by poor, risk-averse farmers unable or unwilling to invest in additional
inputs (Fujisaka, 1993; Eicher, 1999). Basically, most farmers are aware of the technologies
that raise production levels but are reluctant to invest in them unless they are assured that the
resultant crop can be readily marketed (Mukhwana, 2000). These difficulties may only be
overcome through farmers‟ collective action.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1) To establish the effect of collective farming on marketing advantages on cotton
production in Kitui-Kenya.
2) To evaluate the effect of collective farming on pooling of Resources especially
funding of cotton production in Kitui-Kenya
3) To determine the effect of collective farming on Social Benefits on cotton production
in Kitui-Kenya
1.3.1 General objective
The Overall objective of the study was to evaluate the influence of collective farming on
cotton production in Kitui-Kenya.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
The specific objective of the study were
1. To determine the effects of collective farming on marketing of cotton produced in
Kitui-Kenya.
2. To establish the effects of collective farming on Pooling of Resources especially
funding, influence cotton production in Kitui-Kenya.
3. To determine the effect of collective farming on Social Benefits on cotton production
in Kitui-Kenya.
1.4 Research Questions
The study sought to answer the following research question;
1. What are the effects of collective farming on marketing of cotton produced in KituiKenya?
5
2. How does collective farming affect the Pooling of Resources especially funding,
influence cotton production in Kitui-Kenya?
3. What is the effect of collective farming on Social Benefits on cotton production in
Kitui-Kenya?
1.5 Significance of the Study
Farmers
The study will be significant to farmers as it will be able to bring out solutions to the high
cost of producing agricultural products like Cotton while at the same time improving quality
and quantity outputs as well as improving the standards of living through both direct and
indirect employment creation.
Government
Agriculture is a major economic drive for sub Saharan industries and Kenya in particular
and as such the research will give an insight into recovery strategies that can be
implemented to give this sector the long term solution needed to address the agricultural
sector cost of quality products.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry collaborated in the project in the recognition of the fact
that the industry is a chain starting with cotton production and ending with sale of
manufactured garments both in local markets as well as for export in which both ministries
are key players.
The study helps the ministry of planning and development in relation to its focus on
improving the standards of living of its citizens and in resource allocation especially for
infrastructure improvement and to strengthen their performance.
The study is significant to economists as it carries out its research on strategies for economic
turn around and how to address the hurdles to an industrialized country by the year 2030.
The study will provide reliable information in relation to key factors that can lead to
successful revival of the textile industries while at the same time solving the unemployment
6
problem whilst improving the standards of living of its citizens
Scholars and future researchers
The study is to provide the background information to research organizations and scholars
who would want to carry out further research in this area. The study will also facilitate
individual researchers to identify gaps in the current research
1.6 Scope of the Study
The study examined the influence of collective farming on cotton production in KituiKenya. The study covered Kitui region (Kakeani Sub Location) in Eastern Kenya, the target
population was Kakeani sub location in Mutonguni location with an estimate of 900
homesteads (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics). The study looked at how various
determinants of collective farming influence cotton production; these are social benefits;
pooling of resources and marketing advantages.
1.7 Assumptions of the study
Collective farming created conducive environment for funding since a group of farmers are
better positioned to access funding facilities compared to individual farmers. Collective
farming created larger cotton production farms that utilized economies of scale thus reduce
the cost of production while at the same time creating better market opportunities Collective
farming grouped farmers together, enables putting up bigger farms and thus afford use of
technology and use of technological advancement in relation to marketing and risk
reduction.
7
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The problems of agriculture affect mostly the small scale farmers who have small fields in
different places. Moreover, the farmers usually hire the land or cooperate with the land
owner in each crop season. The owners do not live on the land, but lease it out setting
difficult conditions for tenant. The other production factors such as modern technology,
credit possibility and cooperation mentality do not exist.
Collective farming was implemented in order to solve problems of small farmers after the
2nd world war in many underdeveloped countries (Sherief, 1991). The collective farming is
characterized by jointly using land and agricultural inputs. Furthermore, the collective
farming is a production unit which is voluntarily formed by the farmers in order to get more
benefit than individual farming (Inan, 1984). The aim of collective farming is to use more
efficiently the scarce resources which might be land, labours and capital, etc. Group
farming‟s might be called as a special kind of cooperative or a collective farming in
literature.
It is generally accepted that the collective farming increases productivity. Collective farming
is not a common production system, even though there are plenty of small holdings in
Turkish agriculture. Thus, collective farming should be introduced to the farmers to get
more benefits from it. Collective farming can promote more efficient use of resources in
terms of greater farmer participation, more effective delivery of inputs and other support
services such as extension of credit, better utilization of farm machinery and agricultural
facilities, and improved marketing of farm products (APO, 1994).
2.2 The Development of Collective Farming
Collective farming means to produce together to have some advantages of economy of scale
(Dinler, 1993). Collective farming was first time implemented post 2nd world war in France.
Collective farming in France consisted of two or three families. It did so in response to rural
unrest and to the need for agricultural modernization created by the involvement of France
in the EC.
8
In India collective farming is implemented as it overcomes the resource constraints faced by
individual households. There is a clear indication that modern techniques relating to
irrigation, plant protection and credit utilization are being employed. It is recommended,
however, that greater efforts should be made to reduce the cost of cultivation and raise
profitability (Venkiteswaran and Kunju, 1991). In the Kerala-India groups are formed to
enable small farmers to adopt productivity increasing technologies, including power
cultivation on very small plots by supporting from the group (Sherief, 1991). Another
project was implemented in the province of Gujarat in India. The Gambhira Society is a
unique successful experimentation of collective farming (Mohanan, 1992). Another example
shows a 24 % increase of annual income by using the collective farming approach in the
area of Jind of India (Joginder et al., 1989).
Since the mid-1950s small farm development in Taiwan has lagged behind overall
development. Land holdings have become increasingly fragmented and production
increasingly capital intensive; this has resulted in rising production costs, low return on
investment and low farmers income. Collective farming in Taiwan has caused an increase in
farmer‟s income and has led to reduced marketing cost and increased the scope for progress
of the small scale farmers (Chen, 1992).
Total factor productivity in communal agriculture in Zimbabwe grew at 1.73 % per annum
from 1975 to 1990. Growth was negative before indepence in 1980 and then reached over 8
% a year, but turned negative again after 1985. The success following indepence can be
explained by the widespread adoption of modern technology, especially in maize
production. Adoption was driven by the reorientation of government policy towards the
communal sector, which led to improved price incentives and public provision of essential
infrastructure investments, such as marketing depots and farm credit facilities. However, the
high costs of support proved to be unsustainable and productivity declined from 1985
(Atkins and Thirtle, 1995). A successful sample for collective farming was implemented in
the north of Masvingo province of Zimbabwe. It was a 500 ha farm with 36 members. The
land is owned by the government. Members worked on the farm and shared the profit they
made collectively (Charlton, 1995).
9
The formation of agricultural production cooperatives in Cuba is discussed as a solution to
mechanization of small farms. Production cooperatives allow land to be exploited rationally,
crop and livestock production can benefit from the economies of scale and modern inputs
including tractors, agricultural machinery irrigation can be justified and used efficiently
(Sims et al., 1993). The group ranch concept was implemented in various districts in Kenya
in the mid1960s and early 1970s and aimed at overcoming some of the problems related to
sharing land resources. The sharing was based on a defined live- stock quota system which
was not implemented. Individual member‟s benefits depended on herd size, especially the
size of the breeding herd which determined herd growth. The group ranch approach
advocated a policy of destocking through periodic livestock sales aimed at achieving proper
carrying capacity but this was viewed negatively by most pastoralists (Ngethe, 1993).
Acceptance of the need for complementary services, when agrarian reform is introduced,
such as credit and technical assistance, has led many countries in Latin America to organize
land reform projects into collective or production cooperatives. But the disincentives
inherent in collective farming have been a continual source of underproduction and
disappointment with cooperative farming experiments (Meyer, 1990). Japanese agriculture
is facing a critical situation with high production costs and a decrease in number of farm
successors. There is a need for extending the scale of farming organized on a collective
farming basis. A computer simulation is conducted to evaluate machine cost and working
hours of farm machinery for group farming. This enables the most suitable combination for
the farming system to be determined (Miyasaka et al., 1994).
In Czechoslovakia an offer of legistion was discussed in the parliament in 1987. In this
offer, the role of agriculture on the socio-economic development was explained by using the
group farming. Furthermore, it pursues a fundamental improvement in the management of
the essential part of the agricultural food complex, cooperative farming. The extent and
development of the state and cooperative farming sectors in Czechoslavakia in the 1980s is
considered. Cooperative farms and joint farming enterprises represent the most important
part of Czechoslovakian socialist agriculture (Matousek, 1988).
10
Consolidation to regulate ownership and land use to create viable production units was
carried out in Hungary over the period 1959-62 while large socialist farms were being
created. The introduction of industrial production methods and concentration and
specialization of production led to the need for further modifications in farm structures.
Current adjustments also have to take account of landscape, nature and environment
conservation. Thus, the organization of state and collective farms and other cooperative
farming groups as well as regional and local development planning arrangements have been
closely followed in Hungary (Szabo et al., 1992).
Various types of inter-farm cooperation have been characteristic of Polish farming for many
generations and institutionalized forms of cooperation date from the early 19th century.
Post-1945, the government tried unsuccessfully to use this experience as a basis for
complete collectivization. By the late 1950s it dropped this goal, encouraging simpler forms
of cooperation between groups of family farms. By the 1970s it was subsidizing these farm
groups heavily in an attempt to accelerate socialization. This policy also failed and, when
the subsidies were removed in the 1980s, nearly all groups disappeared. Under current
conditions Poland urgently needs to modernize farming and discussions are proceeding on
types of inter-farm cooperation which will allow the economic adoption of modern farming
technology (Poczta, 1992).
Privatization and structural changes in Central and East European (CEE) agriculture has
proved to be more complex than was initially expected. Changes in structure and type of
organization were slower and less straightforward than was hoped. While CEE industry has
been able to adopt the West‟s successful structures and forms without too much difficulty,
agriculture has had much more difficulties in finding a suitable model to copy. While there
are a variety of types of organization which forms cooperative agricultural enterprises in the
CEE, collective farming has been the most specific form of agriculture transformation
cooperative. Both production and service cooperatives are being developed in this process
with experts seeing service cooperatives as having greater long term viability (Janda and
Lutteken, 1995).
11
2.3 Benefits and Problems of Collective Farming
Collective farming is defined as voluntary action taken by a group of individuals, who invest
time and energy to pursue shared objectives (Markelova et al. 2009). It plays an important
role in the context of family farms and agricultural production. For example, cooperative
organization has helped to maintain the dominance of family farms in developed countries
by offsetting some of their disadvantages related to size and bargaining power (Valentinov
2007). In developing countries, the disadvantages of family farms are further exacerbated by
various forms of market failure, which are particularly severe in areas with poor
infrastructure and communication networks. As a result, smallholders face high transaction
costs that significantly reduce their incentives for market participation (Poulton et al. 2010).
Through achieving economies of scale, farmer groups can countervail some of these
disadvantages, particularly those related to high external transaction costs and market power.
But the success depends on member commitment. Commitment can be described as acting
towards fulfilling mutual, self-imposed or explicitly stated obligations. It has received much
attention in the social sciences, particularly in the literature strands of organizational
behavior and rational choice (Robertson and Tang 1995). Organizational behavior focuses
on the factors influencing the quality of an individual‟s involvement and performance in
organizations. It includes attitudes, identification with the group, its objectives and values,
as well as loyalty and affection. Rational choice theory focuses on how an individual‟s
decision to engage in collective farming depends on a comparison of the expected benefits
and costs. Rational, self-interested individuals will act to achieve their personal rather than
group interests, and have an incentive to free-ride if they can (Olson 1971). Therefore,
groups have to implement mechanisms that punish opportunistic behavior; otherwise they
will cease to exist if enough members are disloyal (Fulton and Adamowicz 1993). The
success of collective farming depends on the ability of individuals to make credible
commitments. Therefore, rational choice theory also acknowledges the presence of informal
social mechanisms, such as norms, shared values, and conventions, which make individuals,
not renege on a commitment. Underlying both strands of literature is the notion that
individuals with higher levels of commitment to collective farming are more likely to
contribute towards the achievement of shared goals.
12
Olson (1971) provides important insights into the dilemma of collective farming from a
rational choice perspective, particularly about the relationship between group size and the
behavior of individual members. The main function of organizations is the provision of
collective goods for their members. A collective good is defined as any good in which a
group of individuals is interested and the consumption of which is non-excludable. Olson
proposes a formal model, in which individual group members produce a certain amount of a
collective good. The total amount is the sum of all individual contributions. While
individuals derive utility from the collective good, they also bear costs from its production.
Individuals will only participate if their gain in utility exceeds the costs of participation.
Based on utility maximization, the individual will produce the collective good up to the
point where the marginal utility gain equals the marginal cost.
As individuals maximize their own net utility without taking into account utility gains of
other group members, the model implies that the collective good is undersupplied. The
problem of undersupply increases with group size. Moreover, the problem of free-riding is
more pervasive in larger groups, where individuals have a higher incentive to shirk. The
free-rider does not bear the full cost of reducing his or her contributions, which leads to
collective good provision below the optimal level. However, the negative relationship
between group size and effectiveness in collective good provision depends on the
assumption that the good has to be divided between group members, or that the private cost
of collective good provision increases with group size. Other researchers have pointed out
that the relationship between group size and effectiveness is reversed when the collective
good produced is public; in other words the individual‟s payoff is unaffected by the number
of group members (Esteban and Ray, 2001). Then, a larger group is able to produce higher
levels of the collective good. Hence, the intensity of member participation in group activities
is likely to depend on both individual and group characteristics, which we will take into
account in our empirical analysis.
2.4 Empirical Review of Literature
According to Peacock and Jowett (2006), improvement in infrastructure is critical for
growth of smallholder collective or individual producers in the context of America and Asia.
13
Due to improved infrastructure, a range of market opportunities for smallholder producers
are open and the linkages between producers and potential buyers have been improved. Such
improvement has resulted in the ease of access to farmers by buyers and vice versa as a
result of roads that are in good conditions and improved access to telecommunications. A
study conducted by Prakash,2004 in the Asian Pacific Region concluded that success of
agricultural co-operatives is enhanced by internal and external factors. The internal factors
included having trained professional and motivated management and members,
comprehensive programmes for members‟ education and information and value-added
activities through the use of advanced technologies. External factors included positive
support and helpful role of the government, market reforms, availability of basic
infrastructure and healthy linkages with regulatory and developmental agencies and
institutions.
A study conducted in Mexico, investigated smallholder market participation in maize
markets (Key et al. 2000). Selling to formal markets tended to significantly increase
production than selling by smallholder farmers (Key et al. 2000). Results of the study
further showed that ownership of certain assets, such as vehicles, assisted farmers reach
potential buyers. In the Ethiopian highlands, a study conducted by Holloway et al. (2000)
sought to identify alternative techniques affecting participation among peri-urban milk
producers. One of the findings was that by locating producers closer to markets, travel costs
to the markets could be minimized (Holloway et al. 2000).
Smallholder organization in farmer groups is seen as a possible institutional solution to
overcome high transaction costs and other market failures in developing countries
(Markelova et al. 2009). In addition, farmer organizations can provide important platforms
for capacity building, information exchange, and innovation in rural settings (Bingen et al.
2003). Recently, the promotion of farmer collective farming has gained high popularity in
the context of the agri-food system transformation, as a response to stringent quality and
food safety standards and new procurement systems (Narrod et al. 2009). For example,
group contract arrangements can improve smallholder market power and ensure a more
equitable distribution of benefits (Key and Runsten, 1999). Moreover, peer pressure through
14
farmer groups may reduce the likelihood of opportunistic behavior in contracting, such as
side-selling (Fafchamps, 2004). However, farmer groups are not always successful, and
there is a need to better understand under what conditions collective farming is useful and
viable (Markelova et al., 2009; Poulton et al., 2010).
Several recent studies have analyzed related issues. One literature strand has examined
determinants of group membership, focusing on farm and household characteristics, such as
farm size, wealth, education, or gender (La Ferrara 2002; Wollni and Zeller 2007; Bernard
and Spielman 2009). This partly overlaps with studies on the impacts of group membership
in terms of market access, prices, and income (Wollni and Zeller 2007; Bernard et al. 2008;
Roy and Thorat 2008). Another literature strand has scrutinized structural and institutional
aspects of farmer groups, such as group size, stringency of rules, commodity focus, and
market conditions (Hellin et al., 2009; Barham and Chitemi, 2009; Narrod et al, 2009). Yet,
one aspect that has hardly been analyzed empirically is the intensity of participation of
individual members in different group activities. This is considered a research gap, which
we address in the present article. Since active members contribute much more too shared
goals than passive members, the intensity of participation may crucially affect group
success.
Costs and benefits of collective farming may be perceived very differently by farmers, so
that varying intensities of participation are observed, even among those who have decided to
formally join a group. In addition, without adequate sanction mechanisms, group members
may have an incentive to free-ride on the efforts of others. For example, a group may
provide certain services to its members, which are financed through a tax on collective sales.
When members do not honor this reciprocal agreement, the viability of collective farming
may be seriously threatened.
2.5 Theoretical Review of literature
Social scientists contend that control is achieved through a combination of authority,
compliance and commitment to social values. Durkheim (1951) emphasized that pure
economic regulation is not sufficient, but should be accompanied by moral regulation.
15
Parsons (1951) makes the issues of moral conformity and the control of deviant behavior a
central theme of his functionalist approach. Janowitz (1978) views social control as the
ability of a group or a society to regulate itself and to pursue a set of higher moral principles.
More recent studies focus on issues of power by analyzing social control through the visible
hand of organizations and groups rather than· "naturally" produced through the invisible
hand of society. Such studies emphasize governmental social control, and the ways in which
modem control systems are both controlling and controlled by those they try to manage
(Scull 1988).
Social control is the collection of resources which a society has at its disposal to secure the
behavior conformity of its members to a set of rules and principles, which constitutes the
external stimuli. Just as the invisible hand of the market acts to restore economic activity to
a state of equilibrium, the forces of social control act to secure the social equilibrium on a
new and stable basis. The government, through the authority mechanism, provides a means
for coordinating behavior by promulgating procedures and rules, thus allowing actors to
build more stable expectations about the behavior of the environment, including the
behavior of other actors. The mechanism of control is coordinated by top-level leaders
(Allison 1971). Governmental actions and decisions represent a combination of the
preferences and relative power of central leaders. Central players set the agenda for
decisions, create new policies, coordinate and bargain with other actors. What happens is not
selected as a solution to a problem but results from compromise, conflict and confusion of
officials with diverse preferences and unequal power.
The control exercised on individuals by the society is not purely external. Individual
preferences and interactions with others bargaining and other forms of ''mutual adjustment
(Lindblom 1959) may cause individuals to modify their preferences and accommodate some
of the alternatives which initially were unacceptable. Therefore, a society can be analyzed as
a collection of control mechanisms, stimulating and inhibiting, which bring into play the
resources of individuals (be they government officials or farmers) and collective constraints.
However, the control that individuals have over society and the control society has over the
individuals is both mutually constrained.
16
2.5.1 Social Capital among Farmers
Social capital is defined in a number of ways. The lack of a single definition is derived from
diversified application of the social capital concept in different types of social research.
Grootaert (1998) referred to social capital as “the internal social and cultural coherence of
society, the norms and values that govern interactions among people and the institutions in
which they are embedded. It is the glue that holds societies together and without which there
can be no economic growth or human well-being.” It is useful to describe the circumstances
in which individuals can use membership in groups and networks to secure benefits (Sobel ,
2002), and to explain how problems of selfish incentives can be overcome, to achieve a
mutually beneficial cooperative way of getting things done (Ostrom and Ahn 2003).
According to Krishna and Uphoff (2002), social capital could be categorized in two forms.
The first is a structural form, which facilitates collective action for mutual benefits based on
roles and social networks that already exist, enhanced by rules, procedures, and precedents.
The second is a cognitive form, which is manifested by norms, values, attitudes, and beliefs,
or the sense of obligation and reciprocity by which people move towards collective action
for mutual benefits. These two forms of social capital complement each other. Structural
social capital exists in the way people are connected through their social networks (to
support a particular purpose). Therefore, it is observable and modifiable in some way.
Cognitive social capital is not easily visible because it is indicated through people‟s attitudes
and beliefs, and is difficult to change. It is important to note that social capital is an
intangible construct (Uphoff 1999). Empirical manifestations of social capital vary between
cultures resulting in considerable implications for the ways in which social capital is
measured (Krishna 2002). The difficulties in measurement of social capital are furthered by
the lack of consensus on how social capital can be measured (Fukuyama 2001).
2.6 Conceptual Framework
In this section the conceptual framework is presented in a schematic interpretation as shown
in the figure below. It identifies the variables that when put together explain the issue of
concern. It is formulated from the reflection of the ideas/concepts. The conceptual
17
framework is therefore the set of broad ideas used to explain the relationship between the
independent variables (factors) and the dependent variables (outcomes). Conceptual frame
work provides the link between the research title, the objectives, the study methodology and
the literature review.
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework
Collective Farming
Marketing Advantage- Group
Individual
Cotton production
Funding Advantage - Group
Individual
Technological
UsageGroup
Independent
variable
(factors)
Individual
Dependent variable (outcome)
From figure 2.1, it can be noted that funding the cotton production, improving the ,level of
technology employed on the farms ,creating bigger farms via collective farming will lead to
effective marketing strategies whose overall effect will result to improved quantity and
quality of cotton produced in Kitui Kenya. The major benefits of the Clusters are innovation,
reduced cost of production, increased volume of output, increase in employment and
improved standards of living.
2.7 Summary and Research Gaps
Studies analyzed in the cotton production by small scale farmer‟s lacks synergy and as such
the cost of production, quality and quantity of product still remain lows as well as poor
marketing. This has caused small scale farmers to abandon production amid high demand
18
for the commodity. Implementing cluster farming via Collective farming is expected to
improve the cotton value chain as well as help the small scale farmers realize the benefits
that accrue from teamwork and mobilizing group resources this has worked in other
countries China in particular. This has the potential to improve productivity, training,
funding, marketing, employment, standards of living, reduce poor harvests and increase
efficiency. These studies also suggest that the type of farming carried out by small scale
farmers have different challenges and training problems and affect the output per acreage of
different farmers.
New strategies, funding, marketing, technologies and innovations need to be evaluated and,
where they clearly demonstrate their value and effect, be introduced into the cotton sector.
In particular, the use of cluster farming should be encouraged since it has been demonstrated
that they are beneficial in terms of quality of production and result in significant
productivity gains. Policies and memorandum of association are needed to share investment
benefits in this area between Farmers, financiers, state and private sector. Cost-benefit issues
relating to tax, research, provision of quality seeds, marketing as well latest farming
technology are key, a supply driven system has emerged for technology acquisition and use
in farming. There is overuse of the old indigenous method of production as well as low
quality seeds by small scale farmers. There is no doubt in the mind s of those who produce
on small scale in the countries around the world about the importance of embracing cluster
farming in the achievement of efficiency and effectiveness in cotton production and
marketing. Indeed cotton production is a fast growing sector since the market is permanent
and expanding as the world population grows hence there is need to undertake further
research in this emerging field particularly as it relates to its effect on the various regions of
the country (the Arid and Semi-Arid Land) in the country which forms most of the masses
of idle land in the country.
19
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter involves the methods the researcher will use to collect the data for the study.
These include research design, target population, sampling design, data collection
instruments, data collection procedure and Data analysis procedures that will be used to
review the results as a representation of the study.
3.2 Research design
Descriptive research was used to obtain information concerning the current status of the
phenomena to describe "what exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation.
Descriptive research design is a scientific method which involves observing and describing
the behavior of a subject without influencing it in any way. The methods involved a range
from the survey which describes the status quo, the correlation study which investigates the
relationship between variables, to developmental studies which seek to determine changes
over time. (Martyn Shuttleworth, 2008). The study utilized the descriptive research design
because of its qualitative and quantitative nature.
3.3 Location of the Study
According to Stake (1998), the most unique aspect of the case study methodology is the
selection of the cases to study. It was recognized that understanding of the phenomena
depends on the appropriate choice of the cases. In alignment with the research design advice
of Yin (1994) Merriam (1988), Kitui District was chosen due to its unique land productivity,
poverty levels as Kitui is one of the least developed areas in Kenya and the existence of a
ginnery and convenience to the researcher (KITUI District Strategic Plan 2005-2010).
According to Taylor and Bogdan (1998), an ideal research setting is one where the observer
has easy access, is able to establish immediate rapport with participants, and can gather data
that is directly related to the research interests.
20
3.4 Population
Target population is a set of elements that the researcher focuses on (Orodho and Okombo,
2002). The population of the study was Kitui (North) District however, the target groups
was Kakeani sub location in Mutonguni location with an estimated 900 homesteads (Kenya,
Central Bureau of Statistics (web).
3.5 Sample and Sampling Procedure
3.5.1 Sampling Procedure
According to Trochim (2005), Sampling is the process of selecting units (e.g., people,
organizations) from a population of interest so that by studying the sample we may fairly
generalize our results back to the population from which they were chosen. The researcher
used simple stratified sampling procedure to select a sample that represents the entire
population. According to Kothari (2000), a stratified random sample is used when a
population is not homogeneous making it the most appropriate sample to come up with the
target sample
3.5.2 Sample Size
According to Cooper and Schindler (2003) a sample size of more than 5% is acceptable.
From the target population of about 900 farmers, a sample size of about 9% will be taken.
3.6 Data Collection Procedure and Instruments
3.6.1 Data Collection Instruments
Primary data was collected using Questionnaires. Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) observed
that, the pre-requisite to questionnaire design is definition of the problem and the specific
study objectives. Questionnaires items may be closed ended or open ended type. As regards
the former, the questions may only allow specific types of responses (such as Yes or No)
21
while with respect to the open ended type, the respondents may state responses as they wish.
The author observed that questionnaires are very economical in terms of time, energy and
finances. Similarly, it yields, quantitative data which is easy to collect and analyze.. The
researcher chose the self-administered questionnaire method for all correspondents as it is
inexpensive and allows the respondents to complete the questionnaire at a convenient time
(Kuter and Yilmaz, 2001). Further, Kothari (2003) argues that questionnaires generate data
in a very systematic and ordered fashion.
A semi-structured interview refers to a context in which the interviewer has a series of
questions that are in the general form of an interview schedule but where one is able to vary
the sequence of questions. Also, the interviewer usually has some latitude to ask further
questions in response to what is seen as significant replies (Bryman, 2004: 113). This
method was used to ensure the flow of interview so that they could be used for comparison
during the data analysis process. This technique was considered appropriate for this study
because it increases the likelihood that respondents in the sample would agree to respond by
the interviewer explaining to them the importance of the interview and assuring them of its
confidentiality.
Pre-testing of the data collection instruments was done. Pre-testing of the instrument enables
the researcher to access the clarity of the instrument and its ease of use Mugenda and
Mugenda (2003) suggests that pre-testing allows errors to be discovered as well as acting as
a tool for training a research team before the actual collection of data begins. They further
argue that effective revision is the result of determining participant interest, discovering if
the questions have meaning for the participant, checking for participant modification of a
question‟s intent, examining question continuity and flow, experimenting with questionsequencing patterns, collecting early warning data on item variability and fixing the length,
and timing of the instrument.
Validity and reliability of the data collected is to ensure good quality research. According to
Trochim (2005) Reliability has to do with the quality of measurement. In its everyday sense,
reliability is the “consistency” or “repeatability of your measures. Validity concerns that
22
whether the concept really measures the aimed concept (Bryman, 2004).
3.6.2 Data Collection Procedure
Data was collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data was used
due to its nearness to the truth and ease for control over errors (Copper and Schindler, 2003).
Questionnaires were administered containing mainly closed ended questions to the sample
respondents. Hence each respondent receives the same set of questions in exactly the same
way. The assumption taken by the researcher is that all respondents are literate and thus able
to read and write. Face-face interviews was conducted with a number of respondents at a
convenient time and place which gives the respondent and interviewer the opportunity to
create rapport and facilitate the process of interviewing in a relaxed atmosphere. During the
interview the purpose of the research was made clear. By clarifying the academic purpose
the experience of negative affects when contributing to the research was eliminated.
Secondary data was sourced to supplement the primary data. This was collected from the
relevant sources which include reports, newsletter and unpublished data on Governance.
3.7 Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of bringing orderly structures and meaning to the mass of
information collected. It involves examining what has been done collected and making
deductions and inferences (Kombo and Tromp: 2006, Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999). This
study employed descriptive statistics to analyse the data obtained. According to Gay (1992),
descriptive survey is commonly represented by use of frequency charts, polygons, graphs,
pie charts, mean calculations or percentages and tabulating them appropriately. Thus,
descriptive statistics involves the collection, organization and analysis of all data relating to
some population or sample under study data collected from the field was be coded and
presented in graphic and tabular forms. The coding process involved corroborating the
findings from the questionnaire with that from the interviews. The analysis of the findings
was done immediately after the presentation of data followed by the discussion of those
findings. Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS for descriptive statistics.
23
CHAPTER FOUR:
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the research findings to evaluate the influence of collective farming on
cotton production in Kitui-Kenya. The study was conducted on 90 farmers in Kitui who
were involved in cotton farming through collective farming, were served with
questionnaires; out of the 90 targeted respondents, 83 filled and returned their questionnaire
which makes a 92.2% response rate. The commendable response rate was achievable after
the researcher administered the questionnaires personally and made personal visits.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. In the descriptive statistics, relative
frequencies were used in some questions.
4.2 General Information
Table 4.1: Gender of the respondent
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Frequency
61
22
83
Percent
73.5
26.5
100.0
On the respondent gender ,the researcher requested the respondent to indicate their gender ,
from the findings the study found that majority of the respondent as shown by 73.5% were
males , whereas 26.5% of the respondent were females , this shows that both male and
females were involved in cotton farming in the region .
Table 4.2: Age of the of the respondent
Age of the respondent
Frequency
Percent
20 to 30 years
17
20.5
31 to 40 years
34
41.0
41 to 50 years
23
27.7
Above 51 years
9
10.8
Total
83
100.0
From the findings on the respondent age, the study found that 41% of the respondent were
aged between 31 to 4o years, 27.7% of the respondent were aged between 41 to 50 years,
20.5 of the respondent were aged between 20 to 30 years whereas 10.8% of the respondent
indicated that they were aged above 51 years, this shows that people involved in cotton
24
farming were well distributed in terms of their age.
Table 4.3: Distribution of respondent by highest level of education
High academic qualification
Frequency
Primary education
32
Secondary education
39
Diploma
9
Other
3
Total
83
Percent
38.6
47.0
10.8
3.6
100.0
From the findings on the respondent highest level of education, the study found that most of
the respondent as shown by 47% indicated that they had attained secondary education,
38.6% of the respondent indicated that they had attained primary education, 10.8% of the
respondent indicated that they had attained diploma level of education whereas 3.6% of the
respondent indicated that they had certificate level of education and above. On the size of
the farm that was used for collective cotton farming the study revealed that this ranged
between 1acrea to 13 acres of land.
Table 4.4: Length of time in cotton production
Length of time
Frequency
Below 1 years
10
1 year to 3 years
15
3 years to 5 years
21
5 years to 10 years
16
Above 10 years
21
Total
83
Percent
12.0
18.1
25.3
19.3
25.3
From the findings on how long have the respondent had been involved in cotton production,
the study found that those who had been involved in cotton production for 3 to 5 years and
above 10 years were shown by 25.3% in each case , 19.3% of the respondent indicated that
they had been involved in cotton production for 5 to 10 years , 18.1% of the respondent
indicated that they had been involved in cotton production for 1 to 3 years whereas 12% of
the respondent indicated that they had been involved in cotton production for less than one
year .
25
4.3 Effects of Marketing Advantage on Cotton Production
This part covers the respondent level of agreement on various statements relating to effect of
collective farming as a marketing advantage on cotton production in Kitui Kenya .The
results are presented in the section below.
Table 4.5: Collective farming is effective in increasing production
Level of agreement
Frequency
Strongly agree
26
Agree
46
Neutral
11
Total
83
Percent
31.3
55.4
13.3
100.0
Figure 4.2 : Collective farming is effective in increasing production
13.3
31.3
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
55.4
From the respondent on whether collective farming is effective in increasing production
when elements constituting effectiveness are clear and strengthened by members for
common goal, the study found that 55.4% of the respondent agreed, 31.3% of the respondent
strongly agreed whereas 13.3% of the respondents were neutral.
26
Table 4.6: Collective farming helps in exploring the market advantage
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
60
17
6
83
72.3
20.5
7.2
100.0
Figure 4.3: Collective farming helps in exploring the market advantage
7.2
Strongly agree
20.5
Agree
Neutral
72.3
On the respondent level of agreement on whether collective farming helps in exploring the
market advantage of collective action in smallholder agriculture, the study found that 72.3%
strongly agreed, 20.5% of the respondent agreed whereas 7.2% of the respondents were
neutral.
Table 4.7: Collective farming helps in creating potential to supply large quantities
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
29
43
11
Total
83
34.9
51.8
13.3
100.0
27
Figure 4.4: Collective farming helps in creating potential to supply large quantities
13.3
Strongly agree
34.9
Agree
Neutral
51.8
On whether collective farming helps in creating potential to supply large quantities of cotton
with uniform quality year-round, the study found that 51.8% of the respondent agreed ,
34.9% of the respondent strongly agreed whereas 13.3% were neutral on whether collective
farming helps in creating potential to supply large quantities of cotton with uniform quality
year-round.
Table 4.8: Collective action by cotton farmers helps in creating consistent quality and
quantity
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
36
28
19
Total
83
43.4
33.7
22.9
100.0
Figure 4.5: Collective action by cotton farmers helps in creating consistent quality and
quantity
22.9
43.4
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
33.7
On the findings on whether collective action by cotton farmers helps in creating consistent
quality and quantity, the study revealed that 43.4% of the respondent strongly agreed, 33.7%
28
of the respondent agreed whereas 22.9% of the respondents were neutral on whether
collective action by cotton farmers helps in creating consistent quality and quantity
Table 4.9: Collective farming helps farmers to provide the huge supplies
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
45
23
15
83
54.2
27.7
18.1
100.0
Figure 4.6: Collective farming helps farmers to provide the huge supplies
18.1
Strongly agree
Agree
54.2
Neutral
27.7
From the findings on the respondent level of agreement on the ability of farmers through
collective farming to provide the huge supplies at all times is a privilege and enhances the
power of smallholders yield when negotiating with large-scale retailers, the study found that
54.2% of respondent strongly agreed, 27.7% of the respondent agreed whereas 18.1% of the
respondent were neutral.
Table 4.10: Collective farming enhances adequate monitoring of the implementation
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
42
28
13
83
29
50.6
33.7
15.7
100.0
Figure 4.7: Collective farming enhances adequate monitoring of the implementation
15.7
Strongly agree
Agree
50.6
33.7
Neutral
From the findings on whether the collective farming enhances adequate monitoring of the
implementation of the performance contract internally, the study found that 50.6% of the
respondent strongly agreed, 33.7% of the respondent agreed whereas 15.7% of the
respondent remained neutral on collective farming enhances adequate monitoring of the
implementation of the performance contract internally
Table 4.11: Collective farming creating the necessary leadership
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
44
28
53.0
33.7
Neutral
Total
11
83
13.3
100.0
Figure 4.8: Collective farming creating the necessary leadership
13.3
Strongly agree
33.7
Agree
53.0
Neutral
From the findings on whether collective farming creates the necessary leadership for the
implementation of the performance contract, the study established that 53% strongly agreed,
33.7% of the respondent agreed whereas 13.3% of the respondent were neutral on collective
30
farming creates the necessary leadership for the implementation of the performance contract
4.4 Effects of Pooling of Resources on Cotton Production
This part covers the respondent level of agreement on various statements relating to effects
of pooling of resources on cotton production in Kitui Kenya .the results are presented in the
section below.
Table 4.12: Collective farming helping farmers in pooling resources
Level of agreement
Frequency
Strongly agree
21
Percent
25.3
Agree
49
59.0
Neutral
13
Total
83
15.7
100.0
Figure 4.9: Collective farming helping farmers in pooling resources
15.7
25.3
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
59.0
From the findings on whether collective farming helps farmers in pooling resources such as
land, transport, labour and machinery that are important for farmer effectiveness in the
market, the study established that 59% of the respondent agreed, 25.3% of the respondent
strongly agreed whereas 15.7% of the respondents were neutral.
31
Table 4.13: Collective farming allowing pooling of resources to invest in farmers
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
43
51.8
Agree
24
28.9
Neutral
16
Total
83
19.3
100.0
Figure 4.10: Collective farming allowing pooling of resources to invest in farmers
19.3
Strongly agree
Agree
51.8
Neutral
28.9
On whether collective farming allows pooling of resources to invest in farmers‟ operations
which help farmers‟ co-operatives become more active market participants, the study found
that 51.8% strongly agreed, 28.9% of the respondent agreed whereas 19.3% of the
respondent were neutral on whether collective farming allows pooling of resources to invest
in farmers‟ operations which help farmers‟ co-operatives become more active market
participants.
Table 4.14: Collective farming helps government and NGOs to distribute resources
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
18
21.7
Agree
Neutral
Total
46
19
83
55.4
22.9
100.0
32
Figure 4.11: Collective farming helps government and NGOs to distribute resources
21.7
22.9
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
55.4
From the findings on whether through collective farming it easier for government and NGOs
to distribute resources to a group rather than individuals, the study found that 55.4% of the
respondent agreed, 22.9% of the respondents were neutral on whether through collective
farming it easier for government and NGOs to distribute resources to a group rather than
individuals whereas 21.7% of the respondent strongly agreed that through collective farming
it easier for government and NGOs to distribute resources to a group rather than individuals.
Table 4.15: Collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a single farming
operation
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
39
33
11
83
33
47.0
39.8
13.3
100.0
Figure 4.12: Collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a single
farming operation
13.3
Strongly agree
47.0
Agree
Neutral
39.8
The study revealed that through collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a
single farming operation as it was found that 47% of the respondent strongly agreed, 39.8%
agreed whereas 13.3% of the respondents were neutral. This clearly shows that through
collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a single farming operation.
Table 416: Pooling of land helps to produce at large scale with productivity gains
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
31
37.3
Agree
Neutral
Total
31
21
83
37.3
25.3
100.0
Figure 4.13: Pooling of land helps to produce at large scale with productivity gains
25.3
37.3
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
37.3
34
On whether pooling of land helps to produce at large scale with productivity gains and
marketing advantage, the study found that those who strongly agreed and those who agreed
were shown by 37.3% in each whereas 25.3% remained neutral .
Table 4.17: Collective farming allowing ease of accessing credit facilities
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
37
29
17
83
44.6
34.9
20.5
100.0
Figure 4.14: Collective farming allows ease of accessing credit facilities
20.5
44.6
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
34.9
From the findings on the respondent level of agreement on whether collective farming
allows ease of accessing credit facilities, from funding institutions since, the potential of a
group is far beyond the potential of any single farm business, the study found that 44.6% of
the respondent strongly agreed , 34.9% of the respondent agreed whereas 20.5% of the
respondent were neutral .
Table 4.18: Potential for coordinating individuals’ work
Level of agreement
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
40
34
9
83
35
Percent
48.2
41.0
10.8
100.0
Figure 4.15: Potential for coordinating individuals’ work
10.8
Strongly agree
48.2
Agree
41.0
Neutral
On whether the potential for coordinating individuals‟ work and establishing rotas over the
week and year is possible in a collective action, the advantage is that the absence of one
member does not stop progress of any activities, the study found that 48.2% strongly agreed,
41% of the respondent agreed whereas 10.8% of the respondent were neutral
Table 4.19: Specialization of labour in collective farming motivates members
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
26
31.3
Agree
46
55.4
Neutral
11
13.3
Total
83
100.0
Figure 4.16: Specialization of labour in collective farming motivates members
13.3
31.3
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
55.4
From the findings on the respondent level of agreement on whether specialization of labour
in collective farming motivates members and motivates effective performance, the study
36
found that 55.4% of the respondent agreed, 31.3% strongly agreed whereas 13.3% of the
respondents were neutral.
Table 4.20: Differences in skills and levels of knowledge between members
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
45
54.2
Agree
23
27.7
Neutral
15
18.1
Total
83
100.0
Figure 4.17: Differences in skills and levels of knowledge between members
18.1
Strongly agree
27.7
Agree
54.2
Neutral
From the findings on whether the differences in skills and levels of knowledge between
members of an collective action allow specialization of labour, the study found that 54.2%
of the respondent strongly agreed, 27.7% of the respondent agreed whereas 18.1% of the
respondent were neutral on whether the differences in skills and levels of knowledge
between members of an collective action allow specialization of labour
Table 4.21: Collective action giving opportunity for smallholders to pool their
resources
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
29
34.9
Agree
Neutral
Total
43
11
83
51.8
13.3
100.0
37
Figure 4.18: Collective action giving opportunity for smallholders to pool their
resources
13.3
34.9
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
51.8
From the findings on whether collective action by farmers allows an opportunity for
smallholders to pool their resources and rent the under-utilised fertile land and market the
produce collectively, the study found that majority of the respondent as shown by 51.8%
agreed, 34.9% of the respondent strongly agreed whereas 13.3% of the respondent were
neutral .
4.5 Effects of Social Benefits on Cotton Production
This part covers the respondent level of agreement on various statements relating to effects
the social benefits of collective farming in cotton production in Kitui Kenya .The results are
presented in the section below.
Table 4.22: Attaining market advantages collective farming is associated social benefits
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
31
44
37.3
53.0
Neutral
Total
8
83
9.6
100.0
38
Figure 4.19: Attaining market advantages collective farming is associated social
benefits
9.6
37.3
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
53.0
From the respondent findings on whether apart from attaining market advantages collective
farming is associated social benefits, the study found that 53% of the respondent agreed,
37.3% of the respondent strongly agreed whereas 9.6% of the respondent remained neutral.
Table 4.23: Collective farming option in agriculture
Level of agreement
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
40
31
Neutral
Total
12
83
Percent
48.2
37.3
14.5
100.0
Figure 4.20: Collective farming option in agriculture
14.5
Strongly agree
48.2
Agree
Neutral
37.3
On the respondent level of agreement on whether collective farming option in agriculture
and even in the other sectors offers learning opportunities and innovation, the study found
that 48.2% of the respondent strongly agreed, 37.3% of the respondent agreed whereas
39
14.5% of the respondent were neutral on whether collective farming option in agriculture
and even in the other sectors offers learning opportunities and innovation
Table 4.24: Collective action environment increases opportunities
Level of agreement
Frequency
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
Percent
31
39
13
83
37.3
47.0
15.7
100.0
Figure 4.21: Collective action environment increases opportunities
15.7
37.3
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
47.0
From the findings on whether collective action environment increases opportunities for
„bouncing ideas around and allows brainstorming, the study found that 47% of the
respondent agreed, 37.3% of the respondent strongly agreed whereas 15.7% of the
respondent remained neutral.
Table 4.25: Organizations making prompt decisions that will enable it achieve its
targets
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
36
38
43.4
45.8
Neutral
Total
9
83
10.8
100.0
40
Figure 4.22: Organizations making prompt decisions that will enable it achieve its
targets
10.8
43.4
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
45.8
On whether the organization can make prompt decisions that will enable it achieve its
targets without undue influence from the government or fear of victimisation, the study
found that 45.8% of the respondent agreed, 43.4% of the respondent strongly agreed
whereas 10.8% of the respondent remained neutral.
Table 4.26: Diversity of individuals working together allowing sharing of ideas
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
36
43.4
Agree
Neutral
Total
40
7
83
48.2
8.4
100.0
Figure 4.23: Diversity of individuals working together allowing sharing of ideas
8.4
Strongly agree
43.4
Agree
Neutral
48.2
From the findings on diversity of individuals working together allows sharing of ideas
41
resulting in higher levels of output and of learning from each other, the study found that
48.2% of the respondent agreed, 43.4% of the respondent strongly agreed whereas 8.4% of
the respondents were neutral.
Table 4.27:Greater teamwork offer important psychological and social benefits
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
31
37
14
Total
83
37.3
44.6
16.9
100.0
Figure4. 24: Greater teamwork offer important psychological and social benefits
16.9
37.3
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
44.6
On whether greater teamwork can also offer important psychological and social benefits
through increasing the possibilities for sharing with peers the emotional highs and lows
associated with successes and failures, from the findings the study found that 44.6%, 37.3%
of the respondent strongly agreed whereas 16.9% of the respondents were neutral.
Table 4.28: Rewards of the group are shared amongst the members and the same
applies to failures
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
30
38
15
83
42
36.1
45.8
18.1
100.0
Figure 4.25: Rewards of the group are shared amongst the members and the same
applies to failures
18.1
36.1
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
45.8
From the findings on whether the rewards of the group are shared amongst the members and
the same applies to failures; it is highly unlikely for farmers in a group to give up
simultaneously, the study found that 45.8% of the respondent agreed, 36.1% of the
respondent strongly agreed whereas 18.1% of the respondent remained neutral.
Table 4.29: Social element cannot be taken for granted when exploring elements
Level of agreement
Frequency
Percent
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Total
33
32
18
83
39.8
38.6
21.7
100.0
Figure 4.26: Social element cannot be taken for granted when exploring elements
21.7
39.8
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
38.6
On whether the social element cannot be taken for granted when exploring elements that are
43
of benefit to members both at individual and group level that contribute to the success and
sustainability of the group, the study found that 39.8% of the respondent strongly agreed ,
38.6% of the respondent agreed whereas 21.7% of the respondent were neutral . The study
further revealed that the challenges faced by individual farmers in cotton production are lack
of enough capital, quality seeds, lack of ready market for cotton, lack of government support
in cotton production, high use of outdated technology ,lack of timely market performance
information,
mismanagement of cotton proceeds such that by the time it reaches the
producer as negligible amounts from cotton production, small track of land in the region,
lack of co-operation among members, insufficient inputs in the production of cotton, lack of
policy guiding the members and increased cost of production.
44
CHAPTER FIVE:
5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
From the analysis and data collected, the following summary findings, conclusion and
recommendations were made. The responses were based on the objectives of the study. The
researcher had intended to establish the effect collective farming on marketing advantages
on cotton production in Kitui-Kenya, to evaluate the effect collective farming on pooling of
Resources especially funding of cotton production in Kitui-Kenya and to determine the
effect of collective farming on Social Benefits on cotton production in Kitui-Kenya.
5.2 Summary of Findings
From the findings on the effect of collective farming as a marketing advantage on cotton
production, the study found that majority of the respondent agreed that collective farming
helps in exploring the market advantage of collective action in smallholder agriculture,
collective farming creates the necessary leadership for the implementation of the
performance contract, the ability of farmers through collective farming to provide the huge
supplies at all times is a privilege and enhances the power of smallholders yield when
negotiating with large-scale retailers (supplier power), collective farming
enhances
adequate monitoring of the implementation of the performance contract internally, collective
farming helps in creating potential to supply large quantities of cotton with uniform quality
year-round, collective action by cotton farmers helps in creating consistent quality and
quantity and collective farming is effective in increasing production when elements
constituting effectiveness are clear and strengthened by members for common goal.
On the effects of pooling of resources and ease of collective farming in accessing funds
(Credit facilities) to influence cotton production in Kitui-Kenya, the study found that
majority of the respondent agreed that potential for coordinating individuals‟ work and
establishing rotas over the week and year is possible in a collective action the advantage is
that the absence of one member does not stop progress of any activities, differences in skills
45
and levels of knowledge between members of an collective action allow specialization of
labour, collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a single farming
operation, collective farming allow pooling of resources to invest in farmers‟ operations
which helps farmers‟ collective groups become more active market participants, collective
farming allows ease of accessing credit facilities from funding institutions since , the
potential of pooling of resources is normally far beyond the potential of any single small
farm business, collective action by farmers allows an opportunity for smallholders to pool
their resources and rent the under-utilised fertile land and market the produce collectively,
specialization of labour in collective farming motivates members and motivates effective
performance, pooling of land helps to produce at large scale with productivity gains and
marketing advantage, collective farming help farmers in pooling resources such as land,
transport, labour and machinery that are important for farmer effectiveness in the market
reduced cost of production through economies of scale and through collective farming it
easier for government and NGOs to distribute resources to a group rather than individuals.
From the findings on the effects of social benefits on cotton production , the study found that
majority of the respondent agreed that diversity of individuals working together allows
sharing of ideas resulting in higher levels output and of learning from each other , collective
farming option in agriculture and even in the other sectors offers learning opportunities and
innovation, the organization can make prompt decisions that will enable it achieve its
targets without undue influence from the government, apart from attaining market
advantages collective farming is associated with social benefits, collective action
environment increases opportunities for „bouncing ideas around, rewards of the group are
shared amongst the members and the same applies for the failures; it is highly unlikely for
farmers in a co-operative to give up simultaneously and Social element cannot be taken for
granted when exploring elements that are of benefit to members and that contribute to the
success and sustainability of the group and greater teamwork can also offer important
psychological and social benefits and healing
through increasing the possibilities for
sharing with peers the emotional highs and lows associated with successes and failures.
The study further revealed that the challenges faced by individual farmers in cotton
46
production are, lack of quality inputs, small track of land in the region, lack of co-operation
among individual producers, insufficient inputs in the production of cotton, limited credit
facilities for individual farmers, lack of policy guiding the individuals producers and
increased cost of production, lack of ready market for cotton, lack of government support in
cotton production, mismanagement of proceeds from cotton production
5.3 Conclusion
From the findings the study found that collective farming helps in exploring the market
advantage of collective action in smallholder agriculture, collective farming create the
necessary leadership for the implementation of the performance contract, production of huge
supplies at all times is a privilege that can give rise to backward integration by cotton
consumers and enhances the power of smallholders yield when negotiating with large-scale
retailers and enhance adequate monitoring of the implementation of the performance
contract internally. The study thus concludes that collective farming has effects on
marketing advantages on cotton production in Kitui-Kenya.
The study also concludes that collective farming has effects on the pooling of Resources
especially funding of cotton production in Kitui-Kenya as it was found that, differences in
skills and levels of knowledge between members of an collective action allow specialization
of labour, collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a single farming
operation and collective farming allow pooling of resources to invest in farmers‟ operations
which helps farmers‟ groups become more active market participants, collective farming
allows ease of acceding credit facilities, from funding institutions (the funds for Small
Medium Enterprises(SME)
The study further found that diversity of individuals working together allows sharing of
ideas resulting in higher levels output and of learning from each other , collective farming
option in agriculture and even in the other sectors offers learning opportunities and
innovation, the organization can make prompt decisions that will enable it achieve its
targets without undue influence from the government, apart from attaining market
47
advantages collective farming is associated social benefits through the possibilities for
sharing with peers the emotional highs and lows associated with successes and failures.
Thus the study concludes that collective farming had effects on Social Benefits on cotton
production in Kitui-Kenya.
5.4 Recommendations
From the findings and conclusion the study recommends that there is need to address the
challenges faced by cotton farmers involved in collective farming in order to increase their
production , these challenges are lack of ready market for cotton, lack of government
support in cotton production, mismanagement of proceeds from cotton production, small
track of land in the region, lack of co-operation among members, insufficient inputs in the
production of cotton, lack of policy guiding the members and increased cost of production.
48
REFERENCES
Aliber M (2005). Trends and Policy Challenges in Rural Economy. Human Science
Research Council. Working Paper No. 3. Pretoria.
Aliber M, Kirsten M, Maharaj R, Nhlapo-Hlope J & Nkoane O (2006). Overcoming
Underdevelopment In South Africa‟s Second Economy. Development
Southern Africa 23(1): 40-61.
Arias, P., Dankers, C., Liu, P., & Pilkauskas, P., 2003. The World Banana Economy, 19852002. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Barham, J., Chitemi, C., 2009. Collective farming initiatives to improve marketing
performance: lessons from farmer groups in Tanzania. Food Policy 34(1), 5359.
Bellemare, M., Barrett, C., 2006. An ordered Tobit model of market participation: Evidence
from Kenya and Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
88(2), 324– 337.
Bembridge Tj (1997). Agricultural Publications In Smallholder Farmer Extension. South
African Journal of Agricultural Extension 26:1-10.
Bernard, T., Spielman, D., 2009. Reaching the rural poor through rural producer
organizations? A study of agricultural marketing cooperatives in Ethiopia.
Food Policy 34(1), 60-69.
Bingen, J., Serrano, A., Howard, J., 2003. Linking farmers to markets: different approaches
to human capital development. Food Policy 28(4), 405-419.
Burke, W., 2009. Fitting and interpreting Cragg‟s tobit alternative using Stata. The STATA
Journal 9(4),584-592.
Camp K (1999). The Database of Bioresource Units Of Kwazulu-Natal: Kwazulu- Natal
Department Of Agriculture And Environmental Affairs, Pietermaritzburg.
Coase R (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4(16):386-405. Cook Ml & Illiopoulos
C (2000). Ill-Defined Property Rights In Collective Action: The Case Of
United States Agricultural Co-Operatives. Economica 4(16): 300-305.
Cook Lc (1995). The Future of United States Agricultural Cooperatives: A Neo-Classical
Approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(5):1153-1159.77
49
Cragg, J.G., 1971. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application
to the
Delgado C (1999). Sources Of Growth in Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-Saharan. Africa:
The Role of Vertical Integration of Smallholders With Processors And
Marketers Of High Value-Added Items. Agrekon 38 :165-189.
demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39(5), 829-844.
Department Of Trade and Industry (2005). A Co-Operative Development Policy For South
Africa. [Www Document]. Url Http//:Www.Dti.Gov.Za/Co-Operative/CoOperativespolicy.Pdf (Accessed 2007, July 13).
Esteban, J., Ray, D., 2001. Collective farming and the group size paradox. American
Political Science Review 95(3), 663-672.
Etzel Mj (1997). Marketing. 3rd Edition. Mcgraw Hill Companies Inc, Washington Dc. Pg
45-50.
Fafchamps, M., 2004. Market institutions in sub-Saharan Africa: theory and evidence. MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ferris Se, Kaganzi R, Best R, Ostertag C, Lundy M & Wandschneider T (2006). A Market
Facilitator’s Guide To Participatory Agri-Enterprise Development, 1st Ed.
Colombia: Cali. Pg 71-82.
Food and Agricultural Organisation (Fao) (1997). The Co-Operative Advantage: Fao’s
Perspective.
Food and Agricultural Organisation (Fao) (2003). Role of Government Institutions for
Promotion of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Food and Agricultural Organisation (Fao) (2007). New Strategies for Mobilizing Capital in
Agricultural Co-Operatives.
Foxall G (1982). Co-Operative Marketing In European Agriculture. Gower Publishing
Company Limited, United Kingdom. Pg 42-47.
Fulton, J.R., Adamowicz, W.L., 1993. Factors that influence the commitment of members to
their cooperative organization. Journal of Agricultural Cooperation 8, 39-53.
Hawkins Hs & Van Den Ban Aw (1996). Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Science Ltd,
London. Pg 33-37.79
Hedden B & Mollel Nm (2001). Small-Scale Farming and Extension in South Africa‟s
50
Northern Province. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 4(1): 520.
Hellin, J., Lundy, M., Meijer, M., 2009. Farmer organization, collective farming and market
access in Meso-America. Food Policy 34(1), 16-22.
Hendriks Sl & Msaki Mm (2006). The Influence of Smallholder Commercialization on
Dietary Diversity and Consumption Patterns in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa.
Contributed Poster Paper Presented At The International Agricultural
Economics Association Meeting, 12–18 August. Gold Coast. Austria.
Key N, Sadoulet E & De Janvry A (2000). Transactions Costs And Agriculture Household
Supply Response. American Journal Of Agricultural Economics 82(9): 245259.
Key, N., Runsten, D., 1999. Contract farming, smallholders and rural development in Latin
America: the organization of agro processing firms and the scale of
outgrower production. World Development27 (2), 381-401.
Kherallah M & Kirsten J (2001). Application For Agricultural Policy Research In
Developing Countries. Discussion Paper No. 41. International Food Policy
Research Institute. Washington Dc.
Kibua, T.N and Nzioki, B.K (2004): “Are Export Processing Zones Relevant in a
Liberalized Environment?: The Kenyan Case”, Discussion Paper No.
045/2004, IPAR, Nairobi.
Kim J & Mahoney Jt (2005). Property Rights Theory, Transaction Costs Theory, and
Agency Theory: An Organizational Economics Approach To Strategic
Management. Managerial And Decision Economics 26(1): 223–242.
Kirsten J & Mylene K (2001). The New Institutional Economics: Applications for
Agricultural Policy Research in Developing Countries. Discussion Paper No.
41. Food Policy Research Institute: Washington Dc.
Kirsten J, Gouse M & Jenkins L (2002). Cotton in South Africa: Adoption and the Impact
On Farm Incomes Amongst Small-Scale Farmers. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Consortium On Agricultural Biotechnology Research, 11-14
July. Italy.80
Kirsten Jf & Roets M (2005). Commercialisation of Goat Production in South Africa. Small
51
Ruminant Research 60(2): 187-196.
La Ferrara, E., 2002. Inequality and group participation: theory and evidence from rural
Tanzania. Journal of Public Economics 85(2), 235-273.
Langyintuo, A.S., Mungoma, C., 2008. The effect of household wealth on the adoption of
improved maize varieties in Zambia. Food Policy 33(6), 550-559.
Lyne M.C (1996). Transforming Developing Agriculture: Establishing a Basis for Growth.
Agrekon 35(4):188-192.
Lyne Mc & Ferrer Srd (2006). A Focus on Land Redistribution Including Restitution.
Development Southern Africa 5(2): 116-122.
Machethe Cl (2004). Agriculture And Poverty In South Africa: Can Agriculture Reduce
Poverty? Paper Delivered At The United Nations Development Programme,
Human Science Research Council And Development Bank Of Southern
Africa Conference On Overcoming Under-Development In South Africa‟s
Second Economy, 22-26 October. University Of Pretoria. Pretoria.
Makongoso P (2009). The Kissi District Co-Operative Officer. Personal Communication. 24
February.
Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., Dohrn, S., 2009. Collective farmingfor
smallholder market access. Food Policy 34(1), 1–7.
Marshal G, R (2005). Catalysing Common Property Farming For Rural Sustainability.
Agribusiness Review 13(17): 144-158.
Mohamed Fa (2004). Role Of Agricultural Co-Operatives In Agricultural Development:
The Case Of Menofiya Governorate, Egypt. Unpublished Phd Thesis, Faculty
Of
Land
Development.
Rheinischen
Friedrich-Wilhelms
University:
Mansoura.
Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and
qualitative approaches. Nairobi: Acts Press.
Narrod, C., Roy, D., Okello, J., Avendaño, B., Rich, K., Thorat, A. 2009. Public-private
partnerships and collective farmingin high value fruit and vegetable supply
chains. Food Policy 34(1), 8–15.
Nillson J (2001). Organizational Principles for Cooperative Firms. Scandinavian Journal of
Management 17(3):329–356.
Olson M (1975). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods And The Theory Of Groups.
52
2nd Edition. Harvard University Press, Pg 23-29. Washington Dc.
Olson, M., 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ortman Gf & King Rp (2007). Agricultural Co-Operatives: Can They Facilitate Access Of
Small-Scale Farmers In South Africa To Input And Product Markets.
Agrekon 46(2): 52- 60.
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J., 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Ouma, E., Abdulai, A., 2009. Contributions of social capital theory in predicting collective
farmingbehavior
among
livestock
keeping
communities
in
Kenya.
International Association of Agricultural Economists 2009 Conference,
August 16-22. 26
Ouma, E., Jagwe, J., Obare, G.A., Abele, S., 2010. Determinants of smallholder farmers„
participation inbanana markets in central Africa: the role of transaction costs.
Agricultural Economics 41(2), 111-122.
Pandolfelli, L., Meinzen-Dick, R., Dohrn, S., 2007. Gender and collective action: A
conceptual framework for analysis. CAPRi Working Papers 64, Washington
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Place F, Kaikuri G, Wangila J, Kristjanson P, Makauki A & Ndubi J (2002). Assessing the
Factors Underlying Differences In Group Performance: Methodological
Issues And Empirical Findings From Highlands Of Central Kenya. Working
Porter P & Scully G (1987). Economic Efficiency and Cooperatives. Journal of Law and
Economics 30(2): 489–512.
Poulton, C., Dorward, A., and Kydd, J., 2010. The future of small farms: New directions for
Services, institutions, and intermediation. World Development 38(10), 14131428.
Prakash D (2004). Capacity Building of Agricultural Co-Operatives To Meet The Market
And Human Resources Development Demands: A Step-By-Step Approach.
Republic of Kenya (2003): Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and EmploymentCreation, 2003-2007, Government Printer, Nairobi
Republic of Kenya (Various): Economic Survey, Government Printer, Nairobi World Bank
53
(2004): Growth and Competitiveness in Kenya, World Bank, Africa Region
(Private Sector Development Division).
Robertson, P.J., Tang, S., 1995. The role of commitment in collective action: comparing the
organizational
behavior
and
rational
choice
perspectives.
Public
Administration Review 55(1), 67- 80.
Roy Ep (1994). Co-Operatives: Today and Tomorrow. The Interstate Printers and Publishers
Inc, Usa. Pg 14-20
Roy, D., Thorat, A., 2008. Success in high value horticultural export markets for the small
farmers: The case of Mahagrapes in India. World Development 36(10),
1874–1890.
Sandler T (1992). Collective Action: Theory and Applications. The University Of Michigan
Press: Washington Dc.
Schultz, T.W. (1982). Investing in People: The Economics of Population Quality. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Sharp K (2007). Commercialisation Of Smallholder Agriculture In Selected Areas Of
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal Of Economics 16(1): 57-58.
Shiferaw, B.A., Obare, G., Muricho, G., Silim, S., 2009. Leveraging institutions for
collective farmingto improve markets for smallholder producers in lessfavored areas. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 3(1),
1-18.
Stringfellow R (1997). Improving The Access Of Smallholders To Agricultural Services In
Sub Saharan Africa. Small Enterprise Development 8(3):3-20. 84
Valentinov, V., 2007. Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational
economics perspective. Journal of Institutional Economics 3(1), 55–69.
Vitaliano P (1983). Cooperative Enterprise: An Alternative Conceptual Basis for Analyzing
a Complex Institution. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
65:1078–1083.
Wambugu, F., Kiome, R.M., 2001. The benefits of biotechnology for small-scale banana
producers in Kenya. ISAAA Briefs 22. Ithaca, NY: International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
Weinberger, K., 2001. What role does bargaining power play in participation of women? A
54
case study of rural Pakistan. Journal of Entrepreneurship 10(2), 209-221.
Wollni, M., Zeller, M., 2007. Do farmers benefit from participating in specialty markets and
cooperatives? The case of coffee marketing in Costa Rica. Agricultural
Economics 37(2-3), 243–248.
Yen, S.T., Jones, A.M. 1997. Household consumption of cheese: an inverse hyperbolic sine
double hurdle model with dependent errors. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 79(1), 246-251.
Zeuli Ka & Cropp R (1980). Co-Operative Leaders Focus On Strategies For Success. Rural
Cooperatives 71(2):21-2.
Zeuli Ka (2004). Co-Operatives Leaders Focus on Strategies For Success. Rural
Cooperatives 71(1): 21-22.
55
APPENDICES
Appendix I:Questionaire
Section A: General Information
1. Name of the respondent (Optional)?.............................................................
2. Gender :
Male
Female
3. Age:
 20-30 yrs
 31-40 yrs
 41-50 yrs
 Above 51 yrs
4. Highest level of academic qualification
 Primary education
 Secondary education
 Diploma
 Graduate
 Other (Specify)………………………………………….
5. What is the size of the farm you use for farming cotton?
_______________________________________________________________
6. How long have you been involved in cotton production?
 Below 1 Year
 1 Year – 3 Months
 3 Years – 5 Years
 5 Years – 10 years
 Above 10 Years
7. How many years have you been in of cotton production? _______Years
56
SECTION B: EFFECTS OF MARKETING ADVANTAGE ON COTTON
PRODUCTION
8. To what extent do you agree on the following statement relating to effect of collective
farming as a marketing advantage on cotton production?
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)
Statement
Scale of 1 to 5
1
1 Collective farming is effective in increasing production when
elements constituting effectiveness are clear and strengthened by
members for common goal
2 Collective farming will help in exploring the market advantage of
collective action in smallholder agriculture
3 Collective farming will help in creating potential to supply large
quantities of cotton with uniform quality year-round
4 Collective action by cotton farmers will help
in creating
consistent quality and quantity
5 The ability of farmers through collective farming to provide the
huge supplies at all times is a privilege and enhances the power of
smallholders yield when negotiating with large-scale retailers.
6 Collective farming will enhance is adequate monitoring of the
implementation of the performance contract internally
7 Collective farming will create the necessary leadership for the
implementation of the performance contract
57
2
3
4
5
SECTION C: EFFECTS OF POOLING OF RESOURCES ON COTTON
PRODUCTION
9. To what extent do you agree on the following statement relating to Pooling of
Resources and ease of collective farming in accessing funds (Credit facilities) to
influence cotton production in Kitui-Kenya?
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree)
Statement
Scale of 1 to 5
1
1
Collective farming help farmers in pooling resources such as land,
transport, labour and machinery that are important for farmer
effectiveness in the market
2
Collective farming allow pooling of resources to invest in
farmers‟ operations which helps farmers‟ co-operatives become
more active market participants
3
Through collective farming it easier for government and NGOs to
distribute resources to a group rather than individuals
4
Collective farming allow farmers to pool plots of land into a
single farming operation
5
Pooling of land helps to produce at large scale with productivity
gains and marketing advantage
6
Collective farming allows ease of acceding credit facilities, from
funding institutions since , the potential of pooled land is far
beyond the potential of any single farm business
7
The potential for coordinating individuals‟ work and establishing
rotas over the week and year is possible in a collective action the
advantage is that the absence of one member does not stop
progress of any activities.
8
Specialization of labour in collective farming motivates members
and motivates effective performance
9
The differences in skills and levels of knowledge between
58
2
3
4 5
members of an collective action allow specialization of labour
10
Collective action by farmers allows an opportunity for
smallholders to pool their resources and rent the under-utilised
fertile land and market the produce collectively
SECTION D: EFFECTS OF SOCIAL BENEFITS ON COTTON PRODUCTION
10. To what extent do you agree on the following statement relating to the social benefits
of collective farming in cotton production?
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree)
Statement
Scale of 1 to 5
1
1 Apart from attaining market advantages collective farming is
associated social benefits
2 Collective farming option in agriculture and even in the other
sectors offers learning opportunities and innovation
3 Collective action environment increases opportunities for
„bouncing ideas around
4 The organization can make prompt decisions that will enable it
achieve its targets without undue influence from the government
5 Diversity of individuals working together allows sharing of ideas
resulting in higher levels output and of learning from each other
6 Greater teamwork can also offer important psychological and
social benefits through increasing the possibilities for sharing with
peers the emotional highs and lows associated with successes and
failures
7 The rewards of a co-operative are shared amongst the members
and the same applies for the failures; it is highly unlikely for
farmers in a co-operative to give up simultaneously
8 Social element cannot be taken for granted when exploring
elements that are of benefit to members and that contribute to the
59
2
3
4
5
success and sustainability of the group
11. Give a general observation on the challenges faced by individual farmers in cotton
production?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………...………….………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for taking your time to fill this questionnaire.
60
Appendix II: Kenya Cotton Production by Year
Market Year Production Unit of Measure
1960
1961
13 1000 480 lb. Bales
change
NA
8 1000 480 lb. Bales -38.46 %
1962
14 1000 480 lb. Bales
75.00 %
1963
14 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
1964
15 1000 480 lb. Bales
7.14 %
1965
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
33.33 %
1966
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
1967
18 1000 480 lb. Bales -10.00 %
1968
19 1000 480 lb. Bales
5.56 %
1969
23 1000 480 lb. Bales
21.05 %
1970
25 1000 480 lb. Bales
8.70 %
1971
24 1000 480 lb. Bales
-4.00 %
1972
25 1000 480 lb. Bales
4.17 %
1973
24 1000 480 lb. Bales
-4.00 %
1974
25 1000 480 lb. Bales
4.17 %
1975
25 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
1976
25 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
1977
35 1000 480 lb. Bales
40.00 %
1978
47 1000 480 lb. Bales
34.29 %
1979
62 1000 480 lb. Bales
31.91 %
1980
40 1000 480 lb. Bales -35.48 %
1981
36 1000 480 lb. Bales -10.00 %
1982
36 1000 480 lb. Bales
1983
25 1000 480 lb. Bales -30.56 %
1984
60 1000 480 lb. Bales 140.00 %
1985
42 1000 480 lb. Bales -30.00 %
1986
29 1000 480 lb. Bales -30.95 %
1987
28 1000 480 lb. Bales
-3.45 %
1988
27 1000 480 lb. Bales
-3.57 %
61
0.00 %
1989
27 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
1990
26 1000 480 lb. Bales
-3.70 %
1991
24 1000 480 lb. Bales
-7.69 %
1992
20 1000 480 lb. Bales -16.67 %
1993
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
1994
15 1000 480 lb. Bales -25.00 %
1995
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
33.33 %
1996
25 1000 480 lb. Bales
25.00 %
1997
30 1000 480 lb. Bales
20.00 %
1998
30 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
1999
30 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
2000
20 1000 480 lb. Bales -33.33 %
2001
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
2002
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
2003
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
2004
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
2005
20 1000 480 lb. Bales
0.00 %
2006
46 1000 480 lb. Bales 130.00 %
2007
38 1000 480 lb. Bales -17.39 %
2008
46 1000 480 lb. Bales
2009
23 1000 480 lb. Bales -50.00 %
2010
49 1000 480 lb. Bales 113.04 %
Source: United States Department of Agriculture
62
0.00 %
21.05 %