CHAPTER 2 THE AGRIBUSINESS ENTERPRISE The principal components of any marketing system are the institutions and enterprises

of which it is comprised. Three of the principal forms of agri-business enterprise to be found in developing countries are discussed in this section. These are: private companies, marketing boards and co-operatives. Private enterprise Private enterprise has much to commend it, including a much higher level of financial independence from government than public enterprises. Moreover, private enterprise is able to adapt, rapidly, to changing circumstances and opportunities and is usually able to provide what consumers want at a lower cost than public enterprises. Private enterprises can be in form of sole proprietorship or partnerships with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Abbott (1997) highlights several particular strengths of private enterprise in the agri-business market as follows: Low operating cost Nothing so concentrates the mind on cost control than ownership. The private entrepreneur has every motivation to contain costs since to do otherwise erodes his/her profit margin High level of Since private enterprise has as its prime objective, profit, everything is done to maximise the use of capital equipment, and thereby lower unit costs e.g. concern is shown to keep factories operating at high levels of capacity utilisation, attempts are made to ensure that the firms' vehicles have economic return loads as well as outward loads etc. Adaptability. Decision making within private enterprise tends to be quicker, because of the absence of a weighty bureaucracy, than in public enterprise equivalents. Personal initiative The entrepreneurial spirit is in evidence when an individual shows a willingness to accept calculated risks. Rapid making. decision Decision making within private enterprise tends to be quicker, because of the absence of a weighty bureaucracy, than in public

equipment utilisation.

enterprise equivalents. Independence of spirit Entrepreneurs need a good deal of self confidence i.e. they must be and persistence. prepared to back their own judgements rather than rely on the views and support of others. Moreover, it often takes a fair amount of time before market demand can be built up and new markets penetrated and hence the need for tenacity. Willingness to work There is a direct relationship between effort and the level of success hard, and for long in private enterprise. Rarely is the entrepreneur able to rely on others /irregular hours. covering for him/her and no-one pursues potential business or seeks to solve management problems with as much vigour as the owner. Relevance experience Most successful private entrepreneurs have experience and/or and /or expertise. expertise which others are willing and able to buy. This could be, for example, the ability to judge the quality and quantity of meat a live animal will yield when slaughtered Abbott claims to have identified several areas of marketing where private companies tend to perform better than other forms of marketing enterprise.

Perishable products: This class of product is subject to rapid and extreme fluctuations in supply and demand, and therefore price, as well as considerable variation in quality, both at harvest time and subsequently, due to mechanical, pathological and/or physiological damage. A private company, with its ability to make quick decisions, in response to an ever changing environment and set of market conditions, is in a better position to prosper in the perishable produce market.

Livestock and meat: Abbott claims that the marketing of livestock and meat is dominated by private enterprise. He says that this is explained by the fact that direct decision making gives private enterprise the edge because of the need for skilled judgement in appraising quality and value when the product is so variable.

Sales of farm inputs and consumer goods: Businesses serving rural customers often have to deal in small quantities of supplies and purchases and this requires a great deal of flexibility on the part of the enterprise. It is usually the smaller, private, enterprise which proves willing and able to conduct business in such a way.

Newly and highly specialised activity in agri-business marketing: The willingness to invest in new technologies, and therefore risky ventures or to invest in highly

specialised activities is usually the province of the private sector. The French economist J.B. Say (c.1800) is quoted as defining the entrepreneur as one who shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield. Committees and government bureaucracies are not especially fond of closing down existing economic activities. They are not much better equipped to generate new ideas or indeed to innovate. Marketing boards Marketing boards are, in most instances a government agency and/or statutory organisation having the function of intervening in the marketing process, with a view to serving the cause of efficient and orderly marketing. Less frequently they are voluntary organisations established by farmers/producers. Put another way, marketing boards tend to be born out of government policy rather than by consensus among commercial parties. This is especially true of marketing boards in the tropics where their chief objective is to improve the income of the smallholder, grower, and/or livestock farmer. Marketing boards do not normally provide marketing services to large estates or plantations. Prior to the adoption of structural adjustment and market liberalisation in most countries nearly all Marketing boards served as price stabilising boards. Another characteristic of marketing boards is their focus on durable products. Marketing boards are normally given authority for controlled or scheduled crops. In many countries fewer than 5 crops are controlled. These tend to be traditional crops like millet, sorghum, rice, maize, groundnuts and palm oil and colonial crops such as cocoa, cotton, coffee, tea, tobacco and rubber. Some governments have opted for boards that control more than one crop. In some cases, the marketing board performs all of the marketing functions itself but in others it cooperates with private enterprise by, for example, hiring storage facilities or appointing local buying agents. The effectiveness of a particular marketing board is often viewed in terms of three factors:

Its contribution to orderly and efficient marketing The reduction in the capacity of intermediaries to manipulate margins at the expense of producers and consumers

The generation of producer-oriented monopoly power

In many cases the establishment of a marketing board was a reaction to situations where middlemen and/or foreign buyers were perceived to hold monopsonistic power over producers. Hence the role of the marketing boards is frequently articulated as being one of organising producers into monopolistic agencies with real countervailing power; to reduce inefficiencies due to unwarranted competition, and duplication of effort between intermediaries. Figure 1.5 Main roles played by marketing boards

In theory at least, the marketing board contributes to orderly marketing by acting as an agent for improving marketing practices, as a market regulator and as a provider of facilitating services. For instance: Change agent: Marketing boards can establish marketing practices and procedures for raw and/or processed products. Regulatory role: Marketing boards may act as watch-dogs over agreed marketing practices and procedures e.g. credit arrangements, weights and measures, quality control etc. Facilitator: Marketing boards may provide all or some of the facilitating services e.g. credit, market intelligence and risk management. The last of these usually takes the form of the guaranteeing of prices. In the case of tree crops prices are announced in advance of harvest. Prices for annual crops are normally made known before planting or sowing.

Buying operations of marketing boards Marketing boards would normally buy at fixed prices. Each season or year, the government sets the price for scheduled crops. In the case of tree crops, this price is announced before harvest and before planting or sowing in the case of annual crops. It is subsequently kept at the same level for a period of time: typically about 6 months. These procedures give some security to producers. Buying takes place at official buying points where there are either appropriate storage facilities for the produce, or transportation so that it can be moved before any significant deterioration in quality occurs. Selling operations of marketing boards Some marketing boards, like grain boards, are concerned entirely with domestic consumer markets. These tend to be handling staple crops such as maize, millet and rice. Other boards are dealing exclusively with export markets and, therefore, industrial buyers. The two types of markets are quite different from one another and so therefore are the operations of the boards serving them. A distinction is sometimes drawn between these two types of board by referring to Food Marketing Boards (FMBs) and Export Marketing Boards (EMBs). Among the major differences is the position of governments with regard to them. First, governments have no control over demand in export markets whereas they can, and do, exert control over demand within the domestic market. Second, since governments have to take account of the interests of domestic consumers of staple crops, they sometimes instruct FMBs to adjust their marketing strategies to meet social and/or political rather than commercial objectives. The interests of consumers in export markets are of no direct concern to the government of the exporting nation. Selling operations of EMBs: Some export markets are governed by commodity agreements such as the Sugar, Cocoa and International Coffee Agreement, but in the majority of cases they must operate within free or open markets where vigorous competition exists. EMBs tend to favour early sales. That is, they try to minimise the time period between buying and exports. This is sometimes termed a rapid evacuation policy. It keeps storage and capital investment requirements to a minimum, since the burden of holding and financing stocks is carried by the recipient of the produce. Most EMBs practice forward selling which as the term itself suggests, means signing sales contracts well in advance of delivery. Sometimes it

means selling the crops well in advance of their being harvested, or sometimes even before they are planted. Selling operations of FMBs: In many developing countries the FMB's selling price is set by government. Concern for the welfare of consumers often encourages governments to set low prices. This means the gross trading margin of an FMB is often small. The margin is invariably a source of conflict between FMBs and the government. In its desire to please both consumers and farmers, government will often suppress the profit margin and insist upon the FMB reducing its outgoings. The government usually has the upper hand but since it has to bear any deficit it is a hollow victory. Consumers needs determine the timing of the release of stocks. Staple crops, usually have a fairly constant demand throughout the year, and FMBs have to bridge the usual, and considerable, interval between buying after harvest and staggered selling over the year. Stockholding is an important but expensive function of FMBs especially immediately after harvest when there is often insufficient storage space for the incoming produce. Conversely, as the stocks are slowly released FMB stores are under capacity for much of the year. A common objective of FMBs is basic food security in times of shortage. This policy makes a lot of political sense but commercially it presents difficulties. Working capital is required for a longer period, and, if after all there is no shortage, the FMB is left with decaying stocks. Nearly everywhere there is a dual marketing system, with a parallel market which allows farmers, traders and consumers to by-pass the FMB. In some countries the parallel market is permitted by the government. Where FMBs have been given a monopoly, parallel markets become black markets, suppression of which has proved impossible. Indeed whether the parallel market is permitted or forbidden, the FMBs have to reckon with its competition. Some boards do not fit easily into the two categories discussed so far. Produce such as groundnuts, sunflower seed oil and palm oil, have both domestic and export markets. Marketing boards handling these products have been mainly established in countries where a surplus for export exists. These boards are normally classified as export boards. However, there is always the possibility that domestic demand will increase to the point where it absorbs the export surplus, at which point the board becomes a domestic marketing board.

Cooperatives A cooperative is a corporation formed to provide goods and services to members either at cost or as near to cost as possible. Cooperatives are not formed to make profits, but to serve the people who own shares in the organisation. The co-operative enterprise has its origins in the 19th century and has become one of the most ubiquitous examples forms of business/economic enterprise. Co-operatives exist in all countries of the world and operate under diverse political systems: from communism to capitalism. The majority of these cooperatives are, through their national apex organisations, ultimately in membership of the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), the representative world body of co-operatives of all types. The motivation to form co-operatives has three particular aspects:

the need for protection against exploitation by economic forces too strong for the individual to withstand alone

the impulse for self-improvement by making the best use of often scarce resources The concern to secure the best possible return from whatever form of economic activity within which the individual engages whether as a producer, intermediary or consumer.

Kinds of cooperatives In the agriculture industry, there are three kinds of cooperatives: supply (purchasing) cooperatives, marketing cooperatives, and service cooperatives. Supply (purchasing) cooperatives: these associations buy supplies, such as feed, seed, fertilizer, and fuel, in quantity for resale to their members (many of whom may be production agriculturalists) the big advantage is that by buying in large quantities, cooperative members are usually able to save money over what they would have paid individually. In some cases, a supply cooperative manufactures its own supplies instead of buying from another company. Marketing cooperatives: for the most part, marketing cooperatives assist production agriculturalists in marketing their agricultural products by finding buyers who will pay the highest price. Some marketing cooperatives process agricultural products,

such as milk and vegetables, and sell them directly to consumers and retailers. Examples of marketing cooperatives are fruit growers cooperatives. Service cooperatives: service cooperatives provide their members with a specific service, rather than a product, that members probably could not afford to obtain individually. Service cooperatives are not as numerous as marketing and supply cooperatives, but they provide valuable services to many farmers. Specific examples of service-type cooperatives include farm credit services, banks, rural credit union, mutual irrigation cooperatives, and artificial breeding cooperatives. The Structure and organisation of co-operatives There are two principal forms of co-operative organisations: primary co-operatives and secondary co-operatives. The basic unit in the co-operative systems is the primary cooperative. Primary co-operatives: A primary co-operative is one in which the shareholder are individuals; each of them having an equal share in its control. In many cases, primary co-operatives will combine several functions e.g. an agricultural co-operative may provide consumer supplies to its members. Primary co-operatives may also own and run subsidiary enterprises related to their main functions, such as a consumer cooperative with its own manufacturing/processing or servicing business. Secondary co-operative: A secondary (or federal) co-operative is one in which other co-operatives are the members. Apart from this basic difference the structure and organisation of both types follow a very similar pattern. Selling arrangements between co-operatives and their members A principal policy question in co-operatives is the procedure to be used in selling members' produce. The alternatives are: outright purchase from members, or sale on commission. Outright purchase: In this case members are paid for their produce, at prices fixed by the co-operative, at the time of delivery, and the co-operative takes title to the produce. The cooperative then resells the produce at the most advantageous terms it can secure. Profits made on the transaction will be used first to meet the operating expenses, any surplus balance being used or distributed by decision of the General Meeting. This approach requires the co-

operative to have high levels of funds available. Since, in the case of seasonal crops, a lot of produce is being offered within the immediate post harvest period, a serious adverse cash flow situation can arise. This can be alleviated by a two-stage payment system whereby members are paid part of the sale price at the time of delivery, and the balance after the cooperative has resold the produce. The main objection to outright purchase is that the co-operative carries all of the post harvest risks including: fall-off in demand, price fluctuation, reduction of produce value due to downgrading, deterioration giving rise to loss of quality and so value, failure of transport arrangements, spoilage, fire and theft. Some of these can be covered by insurance but most cannot. Generally, this method is only acceptable where the risks incurred are limited and can be reasonably well assessed. For example, where forward contracts have been negotiated. These risks being taken into account, outright purchase has the advantage of permitting the co-operative to add value to the crop and thereby add to the profits of its members. There are three principal ways in which a co-operative might add value to the commodity.

Produce can be stored for sale at a later date when prices have improved Value can be added through primary processing of the crop. Cotton ginning is a good example of relatively simple and inexpensive process which is best done close to the fields. The value of baled ginned cotton is normally considerably more than the sum of the value of the raw cotton plus the cost of ginning. And there is the additional value of the cotton seed

Opportunity for adding value exists in the packing and presentation of the crop, or in the case of livestock, improvement in condition or quality before sale. Graded, washed and well packed fruits and vegetables can attract wider markets and premium prices.

There is a caveat which ought to be added. Whilst price advantages gained by adding value are of direct benefit both to the co-operative as a whole and to individual members, the additional investment needed to capture the additional return, can be prohibitive. Apart from the risks incurred, outright purchase, storage, packing, processing, transportation, marketing etc., require substantial financing. Moreover, these more complicated operations call for a high level of management skill and judgement, which is frequently a scarce resource.

Sale on commission: This far simpler, virtually risk-free, operation leaves the co-operative as the producers' agent with no legal title to the goods. All attendant risks therefore remain with the individual producers. The co-operative collects produce from members and sells in the most advantageous markets. It then deducts a commission at a previously agreed rate from the sale price. The co-operative meets the cost of its expenses from its commission income. With the sale-on-commission system the co-operative avoids the need to finance crop buying and it minimises its risks. In addition, much simpler operating procedures are required and expenditure can be more accurately matched to anticipated income. The main disadvantage of sale-on-commission is that neither the member nor the cooperative is able to exploit possible price improvement. Another is the possible delays in the producer receiving cash for his crop. No payment will be made by a co-operative until it has been paid by the customer. Apart from the time taken in an open market for crops to be sold, it is by no means unknown for parastatals agencies to be dilatory in paying-out for produce received from co-operatives. The weakness of co-operatives Unfortunately, the potential of co-operatives, and the extent of their development, has, in many cases, fallen far short of expectations. Low standards of performance, bad management, financial failure, corruption and misuse of funds, use of co-operatives for political ends, have been common features of co-operative enterprise in many countries. As a consequence, a great deal of understandable criticism has been levelled at the co-operative system, and many, including some members, have become cynical as to its ability to play an effective role in the development process. There are a number of problems which inhibit co-operative development and adversely affect performance, the more important of which are discussed below. Realism of objectives: Commitment and purpose are two important ingredients in motivation. Achievement of purpose is equally important. Objectives are expressions of purpose and expectation. To serve as motivators and guides to action they have to be attainable. The resources available have to be adequate to achievement of the objectives, and aspirations must be matched to ability. Neither members nor others should expect too much of co-operatives, including expecting them to expand too quickly.

Co-operatives ought to be allowed to develop at a pace commensurate with the ability of members to manage, control and finance the development. They should be permitted to expand steadily like any other successful business enterprise, finding the resources to do so largely from surpluses made in their own trading operations. Business capacity should not be strained, for example, to meet the objectives of a government development policy. Revolution rather than evolution will only prove detrimental to both the viability of the cooperative and to the attainment of the policy objectives. Conflict between economic and social purposes: Economic success is basic to the achievement of co-operative purpose for, in the long run, unprofitable enterprises cannot be sustained. However, co-operatives are constrained in the extent to which they can mimic the objectives and practices of capitalist enterprise without abandoning the fundamental values of co-operative movement. For example, in the pursuit of business growth there can be a strong temptation to weaken member control and concede greater control to professional management, to make the creation of profit a paramount consideration, and to ignore the concepts of equity and fair dealing. The creation of collectively-owned capital by reinvestment of profits (surplus) is a highly important and desirable practice, but has its disadvantages in that if the element of members' share capital as a proportion of the total capital structure becomes so insignificant that professional management can afford to ignore it and so ignore member control in making policy decisions. The outcome is an enterprise largely indistinguishable, except in name, from a capitalist enterprise. Misuse of co-operatives to pursue political objectives: Attempts to divert the purpose and resources of co-operatives to the support of particular political objectives adversely affects the co-operative movement. Factional dissension among the group distracts it from the achievement of its economic objectives. Members' meetings can become political forums devoted to the advocacy of opposing views. In these circumstances many members can become disenchanted and lose interest, making it easy for a minority group to take control and to attempt to run the co-operative to serve its own ends. Management: There has been a tendency to argue that a major cause of co-operative failure is the constraint imposed on the exercise of management skills and authority by the democratic nature of the enterprise. That being so, it is suggested that the authority of the General Meeting ought to be curtailed, leaving committees and managers to get on with the job of management. However, to do so would deny the purpose of the enterprise that being to

enable people to run their own business. The solution lies in increasing and improving the level of member participation, not restricting it. Moreover, the standard of management within co-operatives is often inherently poor. As has already been said, co-operatives often come into being in markets and geographical areas considered as marginal in terms of profit potential by most other forms of commercial business enterprise. This being the case, the salaries, working conditions and work location that they are able to offer fail to attract top quality managers.