Agricultural Producer Groups in Poland
– Empirical Survey Results
by:
Ilona Banaszak
Humboldt University of Berlin
Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences
Chair of Resource Economics
Integrated Development of Rural Institutions and Agriculture in CEECs
contact: [email protected]
The Research Funded within the 5th Framework Program of the European Commission
IDARI Working Paper
Berlin, November, 2005
Abstract:
This paper presents basic results from an empirical survey carried out in Poland with
leaders of farmer organizations called producer groups. Producer groups are akin to
marketing cooperatives and in the Polish law are defined as organizations whose main
aim is to introduce agricultural output produced by individual farmers to the market.
The main objective of the research I carried out was to understand the process of
formation and the mechanism of functioning of the groups as well as to identify problems
and critical points during the groups’ running.
The data suggest that the core element to understand the phenomena of producer groups
in Poland is not only to analyze the economic and market situation of the groups, but also
to investigate the nature of collective actions in their governance dimension. For the
associated farmers the critical problem appears as not to produce or to find purchasers,
but to come together, to understand and to trust each other, and to avoid self profit
maximization behavior.*
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to present the main empirical results from a survey carried out in
Poland with leaders of organisations called producer groups. Producer groups are akin to
marketing cooperatives and in the Polish law are defined as organisations whose main
aim is to introduce agricultural output produced by individual farmers to the market.
These groups can be established only by producers (Dz.U. 2000).
There are several possible legal forms of producer groups. First of all, they can function
as a purely oral agreement among farmers and have an informal character. Second,
groups can have formal, legal character. Such groups have to be officially registered in
court, as a co-operative, association, union or commercial company. Groups registered in
court can apply for subsidies paid within EU programmes as if they were individual
farmers. Additionally, groups which fulfil certain conditions can be registered in the
province office and apply for financial support offered to them from state and EU
resources.
*
The author is very grateful for the supervision of the research and for all the comments and remarks on the
research and the paper given by Dr. Volker Beckamann, and also for the comments on the paper given by
Dr. Catherine Murray and Dr. Annette Hurrlemann
2
Different literature encouraging farmers to associate in producer groups suggests that the
main benefits which can be potentially reaped by their members include gaining better
market position and higher prices of output, reducing costs of output distribution,
building a stable network of purchasers, negotiating lower prices for the means of
production, obtaining easier and cheaper access to information about the market, higher
efficiency – in terms of more efficient use of knowledge and skills of associated farmers and avoiding unnecessary competition among farmers (e.g. Zarudzki et all. 2000; Boguta
2002).
A few years ago both the Polish government and the EU authorities foresaw that due to
the above potential benefits, Polish farmers would be very eager to associate themselves
in groups. Producer groups were perceived as a chance for small Polish farms to
concentrate their production, to increase income of the farm holders and in more general
terms to regulate the Polish agricultural market, which is highly unpredictable and still
suffers from both over- and underproduction. In the years 2000, 2003 and 2004 a few
bills were worked out and passed by the Polish Parliament in order to provide a legal
framework for the establishment and functioning of producer groups in the country, and
also to offer financial subsidies to encourage farmers to associate (Dz.U. 2000, 2003).
Producer groups in Poland nonetheless, contrary to those predictions, still have a very
marginal share in terms of both the volume of the goods marketed and the number of
associated farmers.
In July 2003 an interview with a civil servant from the Extension Service for
Wielkopolska Province was carried out in order to find out basic facts and problems
related to the topic. According to the interview, in 2003 producer groups included only
about 2% of farmers in the province. What is more, over time there were fewer and fewer
groups, and their interest in the subsidies offered to them by the government was quite
low. In 2003 there were 25 groups fewer in the province than in 2001, and only 2 of 65
groups operating at that time applied for the subsidies.
3
Furthermore, at that time producer groups in Poland appeared to malfunction. Neither the
bills and subsidies offered for the groups, nor the efforts of the extension service and
other State agencies to promote this type of rural cooperation had much success.
A few groups nonetheless were identified which were functioning quite well. At least one
group marketing fruits, one marketing oil seed rape and about 6 groups in pork could be
classified as successful in terms of their time of functioning, volume of goods marketed,
and general profitability.
My central research question posed was: what are the determinants of success or failure
of producer groups in Poland. Why do some groups split up and some grow and bring
profits over time? I wanted to find out which factors determine these “selection”
processes.
This article, however, is the first outcome of the empirical investigation carried out
within the study. It aims to present the overall, general situation of producer groups in
Poland and contains the main descriptive results of the survey. This article fills a void,
since no other comprehensive literature about producer groups in Poland was available at
the time of writing.
My research is embodied in the Integrated Development of Agriculture and Rural
Institutions in Central and Eastern European Countries Project, which focuses on the role
of social capital, trust and innovations in rural development. The project is supported by
the European Commission.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research cluster
Producer groups in one province were selected as the object of the research. The chosen
province of Wielkopolska is one of the 16 provinces in Poland and is located in the
western part of the country. The total area of the Province is 29,826 sq kilometres, which
covers 9.53% area of the country. Wielkopolska is inhabited by 3,350 thousands of
people, which comprise 8.66% of the total number of people in Poland. The province is
the third most densely populated, the average density of population is 113 people per
4
square kilometre (GUS 2004:1). Poznan – the capital of Wielkopolska is the biggest and
the most economically advanced city within the region.
Map 1: Poland and the Wielkopolska Province
A few factors contributed to the selection of this Province as the research cluster. The
most important ones were availability of basic data about all producer groups in this
region, good knowledge of the province and local circumstances by the author, and the
fact that the agriculture sector in Wielkopolska is on average better developed and more
advanced than in other parts of the country.
Agriculture has traditionally been a very important sector of the Province’s economy and
is generally characterized by high effectiveness and efficiency, particularly considering
production of cereals, sugar beats, pork and poultry.
Regarding basic agricultural indicators 78% of the agricultural land is owned by private,
individual farmers, and agriculture occupies 64.5% of the land in the Province, from
5
which 51% is cultivated land, 25.4% forest, 6.8% as meadows, 1.6% grass land, 0.5%
orchards, and 14.5% other crops.
Over 13% of all domestic grains is produced in Wielkopolska, 19.2% of all potatoes, and
13.7 of all production of rape and bird rape (Wielkopolska 2003).
The average size of agricultural holdings in the Province is relatively small at about 10ha,
however, this is 2.8ha more than average size of holdings in Poland. Ten percent of farms
do not produce crops at all or produce only for their own needs; 64.7% of farms produce
output mainly to be sold on the market. The existing relatively-well-developed road
network facilitates transport opportunities (ibid.).
GDP in current prices was 18,900 PLN per capita in 2000, what was about 1000 PLN
higher that GDP per capita for the whole country. Agriculture together with hunting,
fishing and forestry contributed 4.3% of the GDP of the province (GUS 2004: LXVII,
LXXXV).
The choice of one of the best developed provinces, particularly regarding agriculture, as
the research cluster was motivated by the suggestion that producer groups could fail due
to a maldeveloped structure of agriculture or due to a maldeveloped structure of the
market. One could argue that in some regions producer groups do not occur since the
majority of agricultural holdings are small and do not produce goods to be sold on the
market. Others could argue that producer groups will flourish in circumstances where
agriculture is ineffective and inefficient and the goods sold by the groups are
uncompetitive on the market.
By selecting a province which is characterized by better economic and agricultural
indicators than the average for the country, we can to a certain degree avoid these
suggestions.
2.2. Methods and techniques of the research
The cross-sectional research design, sometimes also called social survey, was selected as
a research method for this investigation. This method involves the collection of data on
6
more than one case of variation in respect to people, families, organisations or other
subjects, and collection of data at the same time in order to obtain an aggregation of
quantitative and quantifiable data in connection with two or more variables, which are
then examined to identify patterns of association. This design entails employing such
research techniques as social surveys, structured observations, content analysis, and
analysis of official statistics and diaries (Bryman 2001: 41).
For this piece of research the technique of social survey was selected, within which the
structured interview with producer group leaders was the data collection strategy. The
structured interview consists of giving all interviewers exactly the same context of
questioning. Each respondent is asked by the interviewer exactly the same questions, in
the same order and under the same circumstances. Questions are often specific and have a
fixed range of answers. The above conditions enable aggregation and statistical
comparison of the answers (Bryman 2001: 107).
Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with civil servants dealing with
producer groups on the country and the Province level. The semi- structured interview is
one type of qualitative research interview. These techniques are usually much less
structured, and the interview process is flexible. The emphasis is more on the
interviewee’s point of view, on what the interviewee sees as relevant and important. The
interviewer has therefore a list of topics that must be covered rather than specific
questions, and it depends on him or her in which order they will appear and whether this
can be achieved in one or more meetings. The interviewer must collect as detailed and
rich answers as possible. Semi-structured interviews differ in that the interviewer has a
list of questions or fairly specific topics to be covered, however the interviewer decides
about the order of questions, and whether or not to ask some extra questions. All the
listed questions will be asked and a similar wording will be used in each interview (ibid:
311).
The table below give an outline of sampling procedures and techniques. Numbers in
brackets are numbers of associated farmers. According to the interview carried out with
7
the extension service official in July 2003, there were that time 61 groups which
associated 3,934 farmers to producer groups and 9 groups associating 261 farmers which
split up.
These numbers changed slightly by early 2005, the time when I completed my research.
At that time 55 functioning groups and 19 groups which stopped their activity were
identified.
I was going to interview the whole population of the recognized groups, however, due to
a few refusals and problems with finding current contact numbers of some other groups,
this was not possible. The majority of groups excluded from the research were those
groups which split up. For these, it was often difficult to find the former leaders or, due to
the failure of the group, the former leaders were reluctant to meet for an interview. A few
other refusals were due to health or family problems of the leader, or his lack of time.
Due to the above-mentioned problems 50 functioning groups and 12 groups which split
up were eventually subjected to the research. These 50 functioning groups associated
4.056 farmers, and the 12 which stopped their activity associated 394 farmers.
Table 1: Sampling procedure, techniques of the research (PG: producer group):
Provinces
Population
Producer groups
Sample
Population
Targeted
Sampling
Full
Selection
17
provinces
Wielkopolska
2003
± 700 PGs
61 +9 PGs
2005
± 700 PGs
55 +19 PGs
Technique
semi-structured interviews with civil
servants dealing with PGs on the
country and province level
61 functioning PGs
(3934 members)
+9 split up PGs
(261 members)
55 functioning PGs
(±4462 members)
+19 split up PGs
(±624 members)
50 functioning PGs
(4056 members)
+12 split up PGs
(394 members)
structured interviews with group leaders
8
2.2. Organisation of the questionnaire and timing
The structured interview with producer group leaders was organised into a questionnaire
composed of 5 parts. The first part comprised 12 general questions such as the group’s
address, legal status, number of members, and activities performed. The further 5 parts
regarded the process of formation of the group, functioning of the group (divided into 3
sections: management and decision making, production and marketing, and membership),
costs and benefits of cooperation, the role of the institutional environment, and
leadership. These 5 parts comprised 120 questions in total. Two types of questions were
asked in the questionnaire. The first type of questions was related to facts such as
numbers or descriptions of processes; the second type was related to subjective
evaluation of these facts.
Each interview was preceded by a phone call arranging the appointment with leaders
either in their houses or in the group’s office. Each interview on average took about 2
hours, the shortest one took about one hour, the longest about 4 hours. The time of the
interview depended on the complexity of the group’s history, situation and actions
performed, availability of the leader, and also willingness of the leader to talk.
All interviews were carried out between the end of December 2004 and May 2005. Due
to heavy snow the research had to be stopped for a few weeks during the winter time.
Within this time 61 group leaders were interviewed; two leaders of groups which split up
refused to meet (in one case the questionnaire was carried out with one of the former
management members), leaders of 5 groups were willing to meet, but due to different
reasons the appointments didn’t take place. Interviews with 6 other groups which had
split up did not take place, due to having no current contact information for people who
were involved in the group activity.
9
3. Empirical Results
3.1. General information about producer groups in Wielkopolska
In total 62 producer groups from Wielkopolska Province were subjected to the research.
By the time when the interview was carried out 50 groups were still operating, 12 groups
stopped activity.
The groups were not equally geographically distributed. Most of them were located in the
area of Kalisz (19 groups), Poznań (17 groups) and Leszno (13 groups).
Region
Poznan-17
groups
Kalisz-19
groups
Pila-7 groups
Konin-6
groups
Leszno-13
groups
Also some poviats (the polish equivalent of a county; on average they cover 850 sq
kilometres, there are in total over 200 poviats in Wielkopolska), tend to have more groups
than other poviats. There were 6 groups in the poviat of Gostyn, and 5 groups in the
county of Jarocin and poviat of Kalisz.
The average number of members per group was 71, the smallest group, in fresh tomatoes,
had only 5 members, the biggest, in potatoes, associated 700 farmers
10
Regarding the start up year, most of the groups were established in and around 1999,
though interestingly the earliest group initiated cooperation in 1992. The chart below
presents the start up time distribution.
Chart 1: Start up year of the groups (N=62)
20
Frequency
15
10
5
0
1992
1993
1995
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003
2004
Start up year
Of the 12 groups which split up, most of them stopped activity about the year of 2002.
11
Chart 2: Split up year of the groups (N=62)
4
Frequency
3
2
1
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
EndYear
The most common legal forms of the groups were ‘associations’ and ‘unions’. Twentythree groups were functioning as associations, 18 as unions, 14 as limited liability
companies, 5 as informal groups, and only 2 as cooperatives.
Over half the groups (55%) introduced an entrance fee as a source of their group income,
31% appropriated a percentage from joint sales or purchases, 29% sold shares, and 24%
used membership fees. Besides, about 16% of groups had other sources of income such
as subsidies, profits from slaughtering, transportation, organising training for nonassociated farmers, etc.
Considering the main output produced by the members, the prevailing number of them
were dealing with pork (35), 13 groups were in different kinds of vegetables, 4 in fruits,
and 3 in grains. There was only one group involved in each of potatoes, pork and cattle,
hops, mushrooms, poultry, and rape, and one group of described as of ‘general’ character.
Joint sales of the output produced by the members were conducted by two thirds of the
groups (66% of the groups). 64% of the groups organised different kinds of trainings and
educational trips for their members, 55% of groups organised joint purchases of the
12
means of production, 45% integration events, and 22.6% joint transportation of the
output.
A few groups were also performing some other, less common kinds of activities. For
instance four groups organised insurance for the members, three other groups were
sorting, packing and storing the products together, two groups were preliminarily
processing the output (one group was slaughtering pigs, and one was drying and
purifying rape). Another interesting finding was that members of one group in tomatoes
were producing the good together, jointly owning the land and the means of production
(like in an old style cooperative). A few other groups also reported organising self-credits
for members (self-credits are member contributions to a common fund from which
members can obtain emergency interest-free loans).
3.2. The Process of Formation of Producer Groups
The interviewers reported 7 different direct types of actions which resulted in establishing
the group. For 40% of groups it was one of farmers who started to organise the group.
These initial organizers were usually local community leaders, and often were members
of other agricultural non-governmental organisations such as trade unions and
associations of pork or fruit producers.
A further 24% of groups were formed as a result of a meeting for farmers organised by
the agricultural extension service or the municipality office. 17% of groups, particularly
these in pork, were formed as a result of farmers’ strikes which took place at the end of
1999 and beginning of 2000. Farmers were protesting against a dramatic decrease in the
price if pork and in most cases they were blocking the roads. As the interviewees
reported, the strikes created for the farmers an opportunity to meet and discuss their
situation together, and also it was for them often the first time when they undertook joint
actions. The meetings and discussions brought the farmers to the conclusion that only if
they were united and associated in some kind of organisation, would they be strong
enough to impact on the government and to influence the agricultural market.
13
Among other direct actions which resulted in the formation of groups were initiation
resulting from a local processing plant (10% of groups), by an outside businessman
(3.2%), by a former socialistic municipality cooperative (3.2%), and in one case (1.6%)
the cooperation was initiated by a wholesale market.
The stage of planning and organising the group took usually about 5 months, and on
average 6.5 people were involved in the planning stage.
The majority of interviewees reported that most of the farmers who formed the groups
knew each other before. The acquaintance resulted mainly from ordinary neighbourhood
relationships (89.8%), social relationships (50%, such as from membership in the same
cooperative, organising the strikes together, membership in other organisations), business
relationships (24.2%), supplying the same plant (13%), and family relationships (6.5%).
Only in the case of 3 groups (4.8%) did most of members not know each other before.
During the formation, most groups were open to all farmers who wanted to join them
(69.4%), only 30.6% of groups applied some selection criteria to the members, such as
minimum volume of production, or character of the farmer (whether they were open to
new things, and not quarrelsome).
Regarding external factors which led to formation of the groups, the respondents pointed
too low prices as the most significant (2.48 on a 1 to 3 scale, where: 1-not a factor, 2minor factor, and 3-major factor), lack of bargaining power by individual farmers (2.39),
too high variability or uncertainty of prices (2.32), and ineffectively performed marketing
services (2.02).
14
Chart 3: External factors leading to the formation of producer groups (N=62)
(1 to 3 scale, where: 1-not a factor, 2-minor factor, and 3-major factor)
Evaluation (1-3)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Prices were
too low
Marketing
services were
not performed
effectively
Prices were
subjected to
too much
variability or
uncertainity
Marketing
Individual
Campaign in Possibility of
outlet did not farmers lacked
the mass
obtaining
exist or was
barganinig
media
subsidies
undepedable
power
promoting PGs
The interviewees were also asked about the initial aims that the group was supposed to
achieve. On a 1-4 scale (where: 1-not important aim, 2-rather not important, 3-rather
important, and 4-very important aim), the highest score achieved aims which expressed a
general desire to gain more control over the market, to sell at higher prices and to buy
means of production cheaper. The aim of earning higher profits for farmers was evaluated
at 3.79, gaining more bargaining power at 3.76, gaining higher prices at 3.71, and to buy
the means of production cheaper at 3.68.
Other, also important aims of establishment of the groups were such as obtaining easier
and cheaper information about the market (3.55), to provide higher security for
transactions (3.50), building a stable network of purchasers (3.48), saving time spent for
supplies and sales, and reaching higher efficiency of agricultural production (both 3.44).
The lowest score received such aims as obtaining different kinds of subsidies for
production available only for members of producer groups (1.74), obtaining support
offered for producer groups (2.50), and not competing with one another (2.58).
15
The average starting up capital varied quite much amongst the groups. The mean equalled
6,137 EUR, allocating 347 EUR per member. The standard deviation from the mean,
however, was quite high. 5 groups did not have any starting up capital, and one group in
fresh tomatoes had a starting up capital amount as high as 113 925 EUR.
Tab. 2: Starting up capital and starting up capital per member (in EUR)
N
Minimum
Start up capital
62
0
Start up capital per
member
62
0
Maximum
113 925
Mean
6 137
Standard
Deviation
16 102
6 400
347
1 055
Only 3 groups used debt as a source of the initial capital. In one case the money was
borrowed from a commercial bank, in the 2 other cases from earlier unions of producers
on which bases the producer groups were formed.
The most commonly used source of advice during the process of formation was the
extension service (with a result of 1.92 on a 1-3 scale, where: 1-was not source of advice,
2-minor source of advice, 3-major source of advice), advisors from the municipality
office (1.74), private consultants, like e.g. lawyers (1.63), and other groups (1.47). The
advice was mainly regarding the choice of the legal structure, registration in court, and
writing a statute and a business plan.
Considering the choice of the marketed output by the groups, in most of cases it was in
accordance with the previous production of farmers who joined the group (about 89%), in
only 8% of cases the product was chosen due to anticipation of high profitability, in one
case due to availability of drying equipment, and in one other the choice was made by an
extension civil servant.
The respondents were also asked to state the biggest problems to be overcome at the
formation stage. What is very interesting, is the two major problems related to
membership issues; members commitment (with the value of 2.05 on a 1-3 scale where 1not a problem, 2-minor problem, 3-major problem), and to trust each other (1.95). Other
reported problems were problems sourcing buyers for the products (1.90), problems
16
associated with leadership (1.48), difficulties associated with obtaining advice on how to
form a producer group (1.47), problems in agreeing upon the legal form of the group
(1.42), problems with finance some necessary investments, and bookkeeping (both 1.39).
These results suggest that regarding critical factors of success or failure of these forms of
rural cooperation, such governance issues as to agree with one another and to trust each
other appear to be more crucial than pure market and economic factors.
3.3. Functioning
As it was already mentioned among 62 groups investigated in this piece of research 50
were still functioning while 12 groups have split up. In this section only the groups which
were functioning when the interview was carried out will be taken into account.
Questions within this section were organised around 3 topics; management and decision
making issues; production and marketing; and membership issues.
3.3.1. Section 1: Management and decision making
Considering the 50 functioning groups, the average number of managers in the group
management team was 4.22. The maximum number of managers was 12 persons, 3
groups did not have a management team at all, and 2 groups had 1 person management
(the function was exercised by the leader).
The average number of meetings of the management team per year was 32, what gives
about 2.5 meeting per month; the average number of meetings of the all members per
year was nearly 10, which implies 1 meeting every 5 weeks.
Nine groups reported having an ‘outsider’ in their management team - usually it was an
extension service official.
For half of the groups the most important executive (taking most of decisions) was the
management, for 27.4% the leader, for 13% all groups members, and in case of 9 groups
(14.5%) there were no decisions taken that time at all (due to experiencing crisis).
Considering decisions taken by the general assembly, or all members of the producer
group, the prevailing structure adopted was one member one vote principle (for 88% of
the producer groups), which is one of the basic rule of the cooperative movement. It is
17
also interesting to note that this also occurs in groups which function as commercial
companies, where members own different number of shares in the company. Only 4
groups (8%) imposed member decision making power equal to patronage.
Regarding group revenues and expenditures, 8% of groups reported not having any group
income at all, 30% of groups spent all the revenues on operational activity, 14%
accumulated all revenues and did not spend anything for the operational activity, 26%
spent some revenues on operational activity and saved some, and 18% spent on the latter
purposes and also invested some of the revenues.
Additionally one group spent the group money for operational activity, capital
accumulation, investments, and also paid dividends from equity capital to its members,
and one other group spent revenues on operational activity and charity (funding
scholarships for talented children from the local community).
Chart 4. Expenditures of producer groups (N=50)
Expenditures of prodcuer groups
16
14
9
7
4
1
some spent on opeartional
activity, some on charity
some spent on operational
activity, some acumulated, some
invested, and some on dividents
some spent on operational
activity, some accumulated,
some invested
some spent on operational
activity, some accumulated
everything acculmulated
all revenues spent on
operational activity
1
no group money
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
The respondents were also asked how they would describe members’ participation in the
decision making process, specifically whether the members are passive and do not
suggest/propose anything to the management, or from time to time they propose to do
18
something, or they are very active and often propose the management or leader to do
something. The results are in accordance with normal distribution, 26% of leaders
described their members as very passive, 46% as proposing something from time to time,
and 28% as very active.
In most of groups, members were rather acquiescent, only 36% of groups have reported
experiencing any member conflicts. Similarly with respect to expressing complaints by
members, only 24% of groups have reported the articulation of complaints by the
members against the management or leader’s performance.
The conflicts were mainly related to commitment issues, such as selling products outside
the agreed boundaries set by the group, and lack of a common vision for the group (8
groups). Other areas of conflicts cited were due to financial problems and lack of
transparency (4 groups), bad management, some failed decisions taken by the
management (3 groups), and due to the leader’s performance (1 group).
The most common area of members’ complaints was that the management negotiates too
low prices or there were delays of payments (7 groups). Other complaints regarded the
plant’s policy, performance of the management, performance of the leader, and
organisation of the transportation (in each case 1 group).
3.3.1. Section 2: Production and marketing
The majority of interviewers (64%) declared that the volume of goods marketed by the
group grows over time. Most of the groups sell the products directly to processors.
Processors are the main source of sales for 79.5% of groups. 25% of groups indicated
wholesalers as both the main and minor source of sells. Only one group (2%) indicated
these source of sales as ‘other’, mainly retail stores and restaurants.
Generally speaking, the position of the groups within the retail chain is quite good, half
of the groups pointed to processors producing final goods as the most important
purchasers of groups’ output, 37% of them pointed processors producing half-processed
products, and only 12% of groups pointed middlemen as the main source of sales. Also
the contracting position seems to be quite good for the producer groups in this study. 61%
of groups reported having long-term contracts with the purchasers, with different levels
of formalisation but with the price not stated in the contract. 12% of groups used shot-
19
term contracts. 22% did not have any agreement, although the purchasers were the same
each time they sold. Only 2 groups (4%) were selling their products each time to different
purchasers.
The data shows a relatively high interdependence of the groups to the purchasers.
On average each group performing joint sales of the products produced by their members
was selling the output to 1.7 processors and 1.5 middlemen. Nonetheless, due to the high
fluctuation of the prices, the groups did not perceive themselves as independent nor as
having a good position on the market.
Nonetheless, regarding effectiveness of the groups in terms of obtaining higher prices for
output for the group members, the producer groups of the study appear to be quite
successful. 76% of interviewees (leaders of groups which negotiate prices for their
members, there were 46 such cases) declared that on average their group members
obtained higher prices than non-member farmers. For 24% the price for members and
non-members was the same, and there were so cases where members obtained lower
prices than non-members. The price for members was on average 8.7% higher than for
non-members.
What is also interesting, many of the interviewees did not see the competition on the
market as a threat for their groups. For those who did, the most frequent source of threat
on the market was private companies such as middlemen (about 50% of the interviewees
pointed them as both main and minor competitors). Other individual farmers were seen as
competitors only for 19% of respondents, and other producer groups for 15% of
respondents. Cooperatives were perceived as competitors for none of the interviewees.
Besides, 3 leaders (2 of groups in vegetables and one in hop) pointed the international
competition with countries as Hungary, Serbia, Germany, China and America as a threat
for their businesses.
Many of interviewees complained about price instability and fluctuations. They were
often arguing that a single group is too small to change something on the market in
favour of farmers. Therefore, a question about cooperation with other groups and
20
coordination of some group actions on the broader level was incorporated in the
questionnaire.
60% of functioning groups cooperated with some other producer groups, though on
average each of these groups cooperated only with 2 other groups. In half of the cases the
cooperation consisted just in exchange of experience and sharing problems. 17% of
groups planned coordination of some actions in the future, and 33% actually were
coordinating some actions. The actions were not very advanced, in most of cases it was
no more than informing each other about retail possibilities and prices offered by their
purchasers.
3.3.3: Section 3: Membership issues
As was already mentioned, the most frequent problem for the producer groups was to
overcome commitment and problems with selling outside agreed boundaries. What is
remarkable in light of this, is that only half of the existing groups used some kind of
marketing agreement between the group and its members, and only 36% of these groups
have imposed any sanctions for not fulfilling the agreements.
This low rate of formalisation and rigorousness of the performance must nonetheless be
considered in terms of embeddness of the groups in their local institutional environment.
Many of the leaders pointed out that it is difficult for them to apply formal rules and
sanctions towards the group members, who are often their close neighbours and friends.
It could be observed therefore that the degree of formalisation of the members is
dependent on the size and geographical dispersion of the group.
The majority of groups (60%) which used marketing agreements between associated
members were more geographically dispersed, and associated members who lived in one
or more poviat (the polish equivalent of a county; on average they cover 850 sq
kilometres).
In total, considering the geographical dispersion of the groups, 6% of groups associated
members who lived within the same village, 30% associated members who lived mostly
within one municipality, 24% of groups associated members who lived mostly within one
poviat, and 40% of the groups associated members who lived within more than one
poviat.
21
In terms of volume of production most of members associated non-homogonous
members, who had very differentiated economic potential. 86% of the leaders declared
that their groups unite members who produce dissimilar quantities of the product. In 74%
of groups most of the members participated with their main crop.
About half of the groups experienced some fluctuations of the quantity of members. The
tendency was towards the increase of the number of members. On average each group
gained 11.5 new members, and lost 5.6 members. The biggest flow of new members
equalled 156; the biggest lost of members equalled 131.
The average period of
membership came to 4.3 years.
Most of the leaders would like their groups to grow in terms of the number of members.
The mean number of optimal number of members quoted by them equalled to 138 (the
actual mean number of members for the functioning groups was 81).
3.4. Benefits and Costs of Cooperation
On this point I would like to discuss what kind of benefits the group provides for its
members. The data will come from all the groups I have interviewed, also from these
which split up, since during the interview the former leader quite often said that although
the group did not exist any more, former member farmers were still gaining some
benefits of the collective actions. Nevertheless, the data will be split into two categories the results for the functioning groups and for the split up groups.
In this part of the questionnaire the initial motives of establishing the group were
transformed into affirmative sentences about outcomes of the activity, with which the
interviewees could strongly disagree (coded as 1), rather disagree (2), rather agree (3),
and fully agree (4).
As the below table presents, most of members of the functioning groups benefit from
obtaining easier and cheaper information about the market (question 12, mean answer =
3.60), using in the group knowledge and skills of the associated farmers in a more
efficient way (question 15, mean answer = 3.52), and gaining more bargaining power in
the group in the relations with purchasers (question 3, mean answer = 3.38).
22
Considering members of the groups that stopped their activity, the results show that
although the groups split up, their members in many cases are still in touch and some of
them benefit from the previous contacts. Thus there is a continued value to the existence
of the group in the past, measured through the networks which were formed and endure,
even after the group formally disbanded. Many of the former group members still inform
each other about different market opportunities (question 12, mean answer = 2.17), they
do not compete unnecessary with one another (question 16, mean answer = 1.92), they
offer one another some kind of mutual help, and probably due to the diffusion of the
knowledge are reaching higher efficiency of production (questions 7 and 14, both mean
answers = 1.75).
Tab. 3: Benefits of the cooperation
Mean of the answers
(1-strongly disagree, 2-rather
disagree,
Question
3-rather agree, 4-fully agree)
Functioning
Split up groups
groups (N=50)
(N=12)
1. Our farmers are gaining higher prices for their output
3.12
1.17
2. Our farmers are earning higher profits
3.20
1.42
3. Our farmers gained more bargaining power, are able to set higher
3.38
1.25
4. We obtained access to some additional markets
2.88
1.25
5. We excluded middlemen
2.56
1.33
6. Our farmers gained more investment power
2.52
1.25
7. Our farmers are offering one another certain services
2.94
1.75
8. Our farmers are buying means of production cheaper
3.38
1.50
9. Our farmers reduced their costs of output distribution
2.96
1.00
10. Our group built a stable network of purchasers
2.68
1.00
11. Our group negotiated long term contracts
2.48
1.00
12. Our farmers are obtaining easier and cheaper information about
3.60
2.17
13. Our farmers are saving time spent for supplies and sales
3.24
1.67
14. Our farmers are reaching higher efficiency of production
3.10
1.75
prices
the market (they inform one another about different possibilities)
23
15. Our farmers use in the group their knowledge and skills in a
3.52
1.67
3.12
1.92
3.12
1.00
1.62
1.17
1.48
1.00
more efficient way
16. Our farmers stopped unnecessary competition between
themselves
17. Our group managed to provide higher security for the
transactions
18. Our farmers are maintaining the profitability of their production
by obtaining subsidies for production
19. Our group obtained some kind of external support from the
EU/central/regional/local authorities
The majority of the leaders had some knowledge of the subsidies offered for agricultural
producer groups paid from the EU and the country budget (92% of the functioning
groups’ leaders, 75% of the split up groups’ leaders). Some of the leaders pointed also to
other sources of support available for producer groups (such as local governments,
NGOs, and banks), although there were several leaders who did not know anything about
any sources of financial assistance.
56% of the functioning groups and 25% of the split up groups have already applied for
some kind of support. 32% of the functioning groups have received the subsidies, and
18% were expecting to get it soon. Considering the groups which split up, all of those
who applied for the support received it.
The leaders of the functioning groups were also asked about the costs of functioning as a
producer group.
Administration costs such as costs of running the office and bookkeeping were perceived
as the highest costs by the leaders (1.92 on a 3 to 1 scale, where: 3 is a major costs, 2 is a
minor costs and 1 is not a costs). Enforcing what was agreed by the group was perceived
as the second highest costs (1.74), obtaining member commitment as the third (1.65).
What is also interesting the fourth highest costs was not initially listed in the
questionnaire – the time of the leader - which was also ranked high (1.61). This result
was not surprising, given that most of leaders did not receive any financial reward for
their work and time spent for the group. It was documented that they actually were
spending their private money for the group activity. Often they used their private phone
24
or car and other members were not very willing to reimburse their expenses. Many of the
leaders pointed out that the member farmers are not willing either to employ a group
manager or to pay a salary for the leader, and did the members did not want to understand
that working full-time for the group means neglecting the leaders’ own farms.
Another highly ranked cost of running a producer group was paying membership fees
(1.48 on the 3 to 1 scale).
Despite the costs overall over half the leaders of the functioning groups (62%) thought
that benefits from their group’s functioning were higher than the running costs. 30%
thought that the benefits equal the costs, and only 8% declared that cost are higher than
benefits of the group’s functioning.
Also over half of the leader of the functioning groups (64%) thought that their group
achieved success. 28% described it as a major success, 2% as a middle success, 34%
called it a minor success. For 10% of he groups it was too early to say. Nonetheless, for
26% of the leaders their groups did not achieve success. Considering the groups which
split up, it was obvious that all of the leaders said that their groups were not successful.
Considering the issue of how the leader understood their success, most of them
interpreted success either in economic or in collective action terms. It was described
using such expressions as: they managed to organise joint sales, they managed to
organise a joint purchaser, they negotiated better prices, the farmers gained a better
position on the market, the group is well known on the market. The later, collective
action success was described by such phrases as: the farmers managed to build something
together, the farmers are still together, the group consolidate or integrated the members,
and the farmers manage to build something.
A few other leaders perceived the group success also in term of obtaining subsidies, and a
few others in terms of fulfilling EU regulations or achieving better quality products.
3.5. The Role of the Institutional Environment
In this section the respondents first were asked to evaluate the local climate for doing
business. They were asked 7 different questions concerning their opinion about the public
25
administration, cooperation with civil servants, law, finding trustworthy partners for
doing business, obtaining capital, interests of the people in doing business and
competition with big industry. They could disagree with these sentences (ranked as 1),
rather disagree (2), rather agree (3), and agree (4).
As the table below shows the leaders had on average a rather positive opinion about the
local public institutions, law and local civil servants. However, they were more sceptical
about possibilities of obtaining capital for doing business, finding trustworthy partners,
and about competition with the big industry.
Tab. 4: Evaluation of local climate for doing business (N=62)
How do you evaluate local climate for doing business?
Disagree-1, rather disagree-2, rather agree-3, agree-4
1. It is easy to do all the administration job required by the law
2. It is easy to cooperate with local civil servants
3. The local law acts in favour of businessmen
4. It is easy to find trustworthy partners
5. It is easy to obtain capital
6. People here are interested in doing business
7. There is too high competition with big industry on the local market
Mean
2.10
2.84
2.42
1.89
1.54
2.95
2.84
The group leaders were also asked about the number of producer groups and cooperatives
which function in their group’s neighbourhood (understood as a range about 20 km). On
average the interviewees knew about 1.3 producer groups and 1.1 cooperatives operating
near their group. About 40% of groups did not have either other groups or cooperatives in
the neighbourhood at all, however, there were some cases were there was very high
density of collective enterprises and the groups bordered with 5 or 6 other groups or
cooperatives.
Taking into consideration contacts of producer groups with public institutions, the most
frequent contact the groups had was dealing with municipality officials (1.97 on the 3-1
scale, where: 3-frequent contacts, 2-from time to time, 1-no contacts), with the
agricultural extension service officials (1.94), with poviat officials (county) and with the
Agency of Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (both institutions 1.58). The
leaders on average evaluated this cooperation with civil servants positively (all about
26
3.65, on a 5-1 scale, where: 5-very helpful, 4-rather helpful, 3-neutral, 2-rather not
helpful, 1-not helpful).
Tab. 5: Cooperation of groups with public institutions (N=62)
With which public institutions does the group cooperate?
1. Voivodhip (province) officials
2. Poviat (county) officials
3. Municipality officials
4. Agricultural extension service
5. Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation
of Agriculture
6. Other institutions
Frequency of contacts
(mean)
3-frequent contacts, 2from time to time, 1-no
contacts
1.53
1.58
1.97
1.94
1.58
1.56
Evaluation of the
cooperation (mean)
5-very helpful, 4-rather
helpful, 3-neutral, 2-rather
not helpful, 1-not helpful
4.00
3.48
3.67
3.61
3.62
3.68
Over half of the group leaders (53%) declared good knowledge of the law and regulations
pertaining to producer groups, 27.5% knew the law partially and only 19.5% did not have
any knowledge of it. Nevertheless, overall the leaders evaluated the law disapprovingly.
The mean evaluation equalled to 2.47 (on a 5 to 1 scale, where: 5-positive, 4-rather
positive, 3-difficult to say, 2-rather negative, 1-negative). The most frequent reason of
complaining about the legal regulations was that the law does not offer any tax
preferences for producer groups, and the groups have to pay the same taxes as other
business entities, and that the law requires too much bureaucracy and administration
work in order to receive the subsidies, which seriously increases costs of functioning and
is difficult to fulfil by small groups. Other reasons for the disapproving attitude to
legislations were that the law is not clear and not precise and there is confusion about it
even among civil servants. The leaders were also not happy about the stated purpose of
spending the subsidies (only for administration purposes), and that there is a time-lag (the
groups can receive the subsidies only after one year of functioning). Some leaders
thought that it would be better if the support could be offered at the beginning of
functioning, as it would allow the groups to expand their activity already at the start up.
27
The last question in this section regarded attitudes of the local community towards the
cooperation of farmers. The leaders could evaluate the attitudes of their neighbourhood
community towards different forms of farmer cooperation as positive (5), positive (4),
neutral (3), rather negative (2), and negative (jealousy, low trust, scepticism, coded as 1).
11.3% of the leaders described the local environment as positive, 30.6% as rather
positive, and 22.6% as neutral. 30.6% of the leaders thought their local community had
rather negative attitudes towards farmer cooperation, and 4.8% ranked it as entirely
negative. What is interesting, is that the mean for all groups was slightly lower than the
mean for existing groups (3.13 for all groups to 3.18 for still operating groups), which
indicates a slightly more unfriendly local environment in the places where producer
groups split up.
3.6. The profile of the group leaders
The majority of the leaders were leading their groups since the beginning of their
establishment. Only 24% were second or third group chiefs. The average period of
leadership was about 4.5 years.
The most frequent reason of the leader’s change was that the previous one was too busy
with other things, and didn’t have enough time to devote for the group (5 such cases), in
two cases the previous leader appeared to be dishonest, and in other single cases the
change resulted from: the previous leader not selling his products with the group;
passivity and lack of managerial skills; due to death of the leader; due to a change of the
vision of the group and new elections; and in the last case the group had a rule that the
whole management team and the leader must change every four years in order to give a
chance new people and that the managers will not get accustomed to their positions.
In the next part of the questionnaire the leaders were asked 25 different questions which
described their relationship with the group, other groups, and with the local community,
with which they could agree (4), rather agree (3), rather disagree (2), and fully disagree
(1).
Most of the leaders reported to know personally most of the group members before
establishing of the producer group (80% for both answers agree and rather agree). About
28
35% of the leaders had previous friendship relationship with most of the group members,
however, only 19% reported to have some family relationship with some of the group
members. Also about 35% of the leaders reported to have some previous business
relationship with some of the group members, and what is interesting 96% of them were
satisfied with doing that business.
The leaders generally speaking see their own role in the group as quite principal. About
60% of them agreed with such sentences as: “It was I who had the biggest impact on this
how the group looks like today”, “I convinced most of the members to join the group”, “I
found most of purchasers of our output”, and “I take most of decisions regarding the
group”.
Nonetheless, almost all the leaders (97%) appeared to be fairly democratic and admitted
that they always ask other members for advice before taking the most important
decisions.
Quite many leaders (about 75%) also reported having good knowledge of the local
people, the local environment, and the local decisions makers, which means overall they
have good positions within the local networks.
A positive result to emerge, despite all the problems producer groups facing, was that
most of the interviewees (about 60%) were satisfied (to some degree) the leadership of
their groups. However, only 36% of them wanted to lead the group if it were possible.
These findings as well as the other not mentioned are presented in the table below.
29
Tab. 6: The leaders’ profile (N=62)
Do you agree with:
Agree:4, rather agree: 3, rather disagree:2, disagree:1
1. I knew personally most of members of the Producer Group (PG) before
2. I had friendship relationship with most of the members before establishing the
PG
3. I had family relationship with some of the members before establishing the PG
4. I had business relationship with some of the members before establishing the
PG
5. If yes, I was satisfied with doing that business with that people
6. It was I who had the biggest impact on this how the group looks like today
7. I convinced most of the members to join the group
8. I found most of the purchasers of our output
9. I had previous business relationship with the purchasers
10. I take most of decisions regrinding the group
11. I always ask other members for advice before taking the most important
decisions
12. I have a good knowledge of local people, local environment
13. I grew up in this village/municipality
14. I know personally most of the local decision makers (members of the local
government, officials, priest, etc.)
15. I have friendship relationship with most of them
16. I have family relationship with most of them
17. I know leaders of other Pgs
18. I often meet other leaders
19. We discuss and exchange experience with the other leaders
20. A good leader should always listen to the people he/she is governing
21. I am always ready to listen to advices of other people
22. I often follow advices of other people
23. I am satisfied with my membership in the group
24. I am satisfied with my leadership in the group
25. I would like to lead the group as long as it will be possible
Mean:
3.48
2.87
1.54
2.05
3.76
3.72
2.77
2.61
2.18
2.82
3.85
3.72
3.20
3.77
2.56
1.18
3.39
2.38
2.52
3.69
3.82
2.52
3.07
2.72
2.18
Regarding personal characteristic of the leaders the mean age of them was 46 years, the
youngest leader was 25, the oldest 62. Only one leader was female.
95.2% of the leaders were married, the rest (3 respondents) were single. On average each
of them had 2.74 children, six of them did not have any children, and six had 5 children,
which was the highest number.
Most of the interviewees declared to have secondary education (58%), 22.6% declared a
vocational education and slightly less (21.3%) higher education. The average education
30
of the producer group leaders appeared to be much higher than the average education of
Polish farmers. By comparison, only 15.5% of polish farmers completed either secondary
or high education (GUS 2004).
Tab. 7: Leaders’ education (N=62)
Leaders’ education:
Vocational non agricultural
Vocational agricultural
Secondary non agricultural
Secondary agricultural
Higher non agricultural
Higher agricultural
Frequency
4
10
5
31
1
11
Percent
6.5
16.1
8.1
50.0
1.6
17.7
Considering membership of the respondents in different non-governmental organisations,
on average each of them belonged to two organisations. The most frequent was
membership in some agricultural associations and on the second position local division of
the fire brigade, and further local government. There were 15 leaders who did not belong
to any organisation and one leader who belong to as many as 7 different bodies.
Almost half of the interviewees (48.4%) did not have any other professional experience
other than working on the farm, 35.5% worked outside the farm, and 16% worked in the
agricultural sector but not as farmers (most of them were employed by agricultural
cooperatives). 6.5% besides declared having experience working abroad.
When the interview was carried out for over half of the leaders (51.6%) farming was the
only one source of the income, for 27.4% farming was the main source of income, for
14.5% farming was just additional source of income, and 6.5% reported to have only
other than farming source of income (these were usually professional managers, or
worked in some kind of other agricultural business).
43.5% of the respondents had some previous experience in managing other groups,
cooperative or other management experience, and 34% of them finished management
training.
31
Considering the time the leaders devoted for managing the group, majority of them
(61%), spent for the group less than 10 hours per week, 13% spent 10-20 hrs per week,
8% spent 20-35 hours, and 18% of the leaders spent for the group more than 35 hours per
week.
Most of the leaders worked voluntarily for the group. Only 12 of the interviewees
(19.4%) received salary from the group for their work.
3.7 Critical points during the groups’ functioning
At the end let me quote answers which the interviewed producer group leaders gave to
the question of which problem during running the group was for them the most difficult
to overcome. They could rank the listed problems as major problem (3), minor problem
(2) or not a problem (1), and also give other not listed problems.
What is remarkable, among the first five major problems, only two are related to the
economic issues, and the three other are related to governance and collective action
issues.
As the most frequent problem to overcome the leaders saw members’ commitment and
loyalty of the members (mean rank 2.13). Finding purchasers for the output was ranked
as the second most frequent problem (mean 1.87), to obtain financial support available
for producer groups was seen as the third one (1.84), to build trust among members as the
fourth one (1.82) and leadership was seen as the fifth most frequent problem to overcome
(1.76).
Also among other, not listed problems such institutional components as individuality of
farmers, to encourage other farmers to joint the group, lack of knowledge about market
mechanism among members, mentality of the people and willingness to have immediate
profits, and pessimism of the members were quoted as the major problems for the group
to overcome. In the total among quoted by the respondents other problems 15 are related
to such as the mentioned above governance factors and 13 to economic issues (such as
difficulties to obtain a credit for the group, to find capital, or to deal with price
fluctuations).
32
Tab. 8: Biggest problems to overcome during running of the groups (N=62)
What do you see as the biggest problem to overcome during running
of the producer group?
Major problem (3), minor (2),
not a problem (1)
1. Group decision making
2. Leadership
3. Finding purchasers for the output
4. Tax requirements
5. To cope with/follow the legal acts
about Pgs
6. To obtain support and advice about
Pgs
7. Cooperation and contacts with public
institutions
8. Bookkeeping
9. To obtain financial support offered for
the PGs
10. To find money for necessary
expenditure
11. To build trust among members
12. To build trust to the leader and
management
13. Members’ commitment, loyalty
14. Other
Mean
1.58
1.76
1.87
1.48
1.68
Percent of respondents who
saw this problem as the
biggest one
Percent
1.8
7.0
17.5
3.5
3.5
1.39
0
1.32
3.5
1.29
1.84
0
1.8
1.53
3.5
1.82
1.40
12.3
0
2.13
19.3
21.1
4. Conclusions
This article presented the main empirical results from a survey carried out in Poland with
leaders of farmer marketing organisations called producer groups. The main aim of
producer groups is to organise joint sales of goods produced by individual farmers. The
survey was conducted within one province from which 50 representatives of functioning
groups and 12 representatives of groups which split up were interviewed.
33
The aim of the survey was to understand the process of formation of the groups, their
functioning, and the influence of the institutional environment, as well as to identify
problems and critical points during the groups’ functioning.
The majority of the groups subjected to the researched associated farmers producing
hogs, vegetables and fruits. The average number of members per group was 71. The main
“official” task of producer groups, which is marketing of the output produced by
individual farmers, was performed only by 66% of the groups.
Most of the groups started up around 1999, just before introduction of the legal bills
about producer groups. Usually the cooperation was initiated by one of the farmers,
usually the community leader. Some groups were formed in cooperation with a former
socialistic municipal cooperative. The groups were regularly formed among people who
knew each other; the acquaintance resulted mainly from ordinary neighbourhood
relationships.
Although the groups appeared to fulfil many social and educational functions too, the
most important motives and aims of establishing the groups were usually of an economic
character, such as earning higher profits and gaining higher prices.
The average start-up capital equalled 347 EUR per members, however, the amount of the
start-up capital varied very highly, some groups reported not having any at all. Only 3
groups used debt as a source of the initial capital.
Considering groups which split up, most of them stopped their activity around 2002. The
most frequent reasons for breaking up were trust and members’ commitment problems.
The functioning groups usually were characterised by strong leadership (the leader
together with a few management members). Regarding decisions taken by the general
assembly, the majority of the groups adopted the “one member one vote” principle.
Overall the market position of the groups which performed joint sales looked quite good
in the data; nonetheless, due to the high fluctuation of prices, the groups perceived
themselves as dependent on their buyers and the whims of the market.
34
The majority of the groups associated members whose economic potential was very
different. Furthermore, larger groups whose members were more geographically
dispersed tended to develop a more advanced governance structure, characterised for
instance by employing formal marketing agreements between members and the group.
Most of the leaders of the functioning groups reported than benefits from their groups’
activity exceeded the costs, and they perceived their groups as successful enterprises. The
most frequent benefits were lowering the information costs, diffusion of knowledge and
learning, and gaining more bargaining power. Administrative costs and the costs of
enforcement were perceived as the highest costs of running the groups.
Among formal institutional factors, which influence the process of formation and
functioning of the producer groups, the availability of subsidies appeared to be the
strongest incentive. About 40% of the functioning groups either had already received a
portion of the subsidies or were expected to receive it soon. Nonetheless, the leaders
perceived the legal bills regulating the conditions of receiving the support as well as the
procedure itself as too complex and too bureaucratic.
The interviewees saw commitment and loyalty of the members as the most frequent
problem during the groups’ functioning.
The above findings suggest that the core element to understand the phenomena of
producer groups in Poland is not only to analyse the economic and market situation of the
groups, but also to investigate the nature of collective actions in their governance
dimensions. For the associated farmers the critical problem appears not to be production
or finding purchasers but to come together, understand each other, trust each other and
avoid of free riding and self profit maximisation behaviour. The forthcoming pieces of
work will therefore further explore these findings in the light of theories of collective
action and cooperation.
35
REFERENCES
Boguta, W., 2002, Organizowanie I działanie grupy producentów rolnych, Fundacja
Społdzielczości Wiejskiej, Inowrocław.
Bryman, 2003, Research Methods in Social Sciences; Oxford University Press.
GUS – Cenral Statistical Office, 2002, Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland, GUS,
Warszawa.
Legislation:
Dziennik Ustaw Nr 88 poz.983, 15 września 2000, z póź. zm.
Dziennik Ustaw Nr 229, poz.2273, z późn. zm. 28 listopada 2003.
Wielkopolska, 12.12.2003, information about the Province inserted on the official web-siate of
the Voivodship: http//:www.wielkopolska.pl.
Zarudzki, R., Przepióra, A., Futymski, A., 2000, Poradnik lidera grupy producentów rolnych,
Agrolinia, Poznań.
36