See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350187663

What Informs Farmers’ Choice of Output Markets? The

Case of Maize, Cowpea and Livestock Production in
Northern Ghana

Article in International Journal of Rural Management · March 2021

DOI: 10.1177/0973005221994425

CITATIONS READS
5 165

3 authors:

Abdulai Adams Livingstone Caesar

S.D Dombo University of Business annd Integrated Develo… Texas A&M University - Galveston
27 PUBLICATIONS 146 CITATIONS 50 PUBLICATIONS 372 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nana Yamoah Asafu-Adjaye

CSIR-Science and Technology Policy Research Institute
4 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdulai Adams on 13 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Article

What Informs Farmers’ International Journal of

Rural Management
Choice of Output © 2021 Institute of Rural Management
1­–22

Markets? The Case of Reprints and permissions:

https://doi.org/10.1177/0973005221994425
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
Maize, Cowpea and DOI: 10.1177/0973005221994425
journals.sagepub.com/home/irm
Livestock Production in
Northern Ghana

Abdulai Adams1 , Livingstone Divine Caesar2

and Nana Yamoah Asafu-Adjaye2

Abstract
This study analyses the main determinants of output market choices by rural
farmers in northern Ghana amidst growing concerns of lack of lucrative markets
for smallholder farmers. Using recent survey data collected from 448 households,
the study applied the multinomial logistic regression (MLR) model with village
markets as the base outcome. The findings revealed that association membership,
access to storage facilities, openness to new production and marketing methods,
access to financial services, knowledge of sustainable intensification (SI) practices,
access to guaranteed market, availability of quality market services and distance
to output market would likely influence the choice of a farmer to sell at a farm
gate over village markets. Access to extension services was found significant in
influencing farmers’ decisions to sell by the roadside. Also, gender, association
membership, access to processing facilities, availability of quality market services
and distance to output market would likely influence the choice of a farmer
to do private sales. Furthermore, association membership, access to processing
facilities, access to extension services and market information significantly
influences the decision of farmers to use other market outlets (e.g., regional/
district markets). The study concludes that the choice of market outlet used
by farmers depends much on institutional and channel-specific characteristics.
These findings have policy implications for the development of market policies,

1 Department of Economics and Entrepreneurship Development, SD Dombo University of Business

and Integrated Development Studies, Upper West Region, Ghana.
2 CSIR-Science and Technology Policy Research Institute, Accra, Ghana.

Corresponding author:
Abdulai Adams, Department of Economics and Entrepreneurship Development, SD Dombo University
of Business and Integrated Development Studies, PO Box WA64, Upper West Region, Ghana.
E-mail: [email protected]
2 International Journal of Rural Management

providing rural market infrastructure services, promoting SI practices and

strengthening extension service delivery.

Keywords
Access, determinants, Northern Ghana, output markets, smallholder farmers

Introduction
Markets play an important role in the rural economy of farming households. In
sub-Saharan Africa, market access is a key determinant of economic development
and directly linked to increased farmer productivity and food security in most
countries (Corsi, Marchisio, and Orsi 2017; Garretsen and Bosker 2012; Obisesan
2018). For instance, a percentage increase in market access has been found to be
associated with a 0.03% increase in Gross Domestic Product growth per worker
(Garretsen and Bosker 2012). The importance of market access has increased in
the past two decades and efforts to improve farmers’ access to markets remain a
key feature in rural development strategies especially in agrarian economies. This
is evident in numerous collective actions such as institutional arrangements and
national level policy interventions aimed at improving smallholder access to
markets (Markelova et al. 2009).
In recent years, the policy focus in most developing countries is centred on
how to improve the efficient functioning of agricultural value chains for better
market access for nutritional and health outcomes (FAO 2013; GAIN 2013).
Recent evidence shows that access to rural markets is positively linked to farmers’
welfare through improved food security and household consumption (Stifel and
Minten 2017). However, improved diets resulting from market access appears to
be insignificant in delivering the needed nutritional outcomes.
Smallholder farmers are faced with multiple constraints in accessing both
input and output markets. These constraints are institutional, social and technical
in nature (Thindisa and Urban 2018). ILO (2017) in assessing market access for
smallholder farmers found that (a) the absence of lucrative markets with the
requisite support functions for smallholder farmers to access hampers efforts
aimed at moving them from subsistence to commercial production, (b) contract
farming is a useful approach to linking smallholder farmers to value chains as it
enhances access to improved inputs, technical assistance, secured markets and
stable prices and (c) large income gains and improvements in productivity are
associated with contract farming. However, sustainability of the impacts remains
a challenge due to high dropout rates in most contract farming schemes.
Furthermore, the marginalisation of farmer groups at the conceptual/formulation
stage of policy interventions aimed at improving market access often undermines
the impact they were originally intended to create.
In northern Ghana, most smallholder farmers prefer to use village markets over
the district and regional markets for the sale of their produce due to proximity and
lower transfer costs of market participation (Amikuzuno 2015). Empirical
Adams et al. 3

evidence of what drives farmers choice of output markets and the key constrain
that limit their participation in output markets, especially in northern Ghana is
limited. This study contributes to the output market access literature in two
important ways: (a) using the MLR modelling approach, we show that access to
essential marketing services (storage, cleaning, grading, standardisation, finance,
information), association membership, knowledge of sustainable intensification
(SI) practices and distance to input sources would likely dominate the decision of
a farmer to sell at the farm gate over the use of village markets and (b) the choice
of market outlet used by farmers is diverse and cannot be explained by a single
factor. The study, therefore, contributes to enhancing our understanding of the
factors that influence smallholder farmers’ access to output markets in northern
Ghana and the underlying patterns that inform their choice of market participation.
The rest of the article is structured as follows: The section ‘Output Market
Choices and Determinants: A Review’ reviews the related relevant literature on
farmers’ access to output markets and drivers. The section ‘Methodology’ presents
the data and methodology employed in the study. The results obtained from the
analysis and the discussions that ensued are captured in the section ‘Results and
Discussions’. The main conclusions and policy relevance are detailed in the
section ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’.

Output Market Choices and Determinants: A Review

Several studies have analysed the constraints and determinants of farmers’ access
to output markets in both rural and urban markets (Fikadu, Duguma, and Mitiku
2019; Musemwa et al. 2008; Panda and Sreekumar 2012). Jari and Fraser (2009)
analysed the technical and institutional factors that affect smallholder agricultural
marketing in South Africa and revealed that tradition, group participation, market
infrastructure, social capital, contractual arrangements, expertise in grades and
standards and market information influence households marketing behaviour.
Amankwah et al. (2012) and Binge, Mshenga, and Kgosikome (2019) reported
that institutional constraints (high mortality, dry season water shortages, poor
interaction among stakeholder institutions and communities, lack of proper
markets, pasture scarcity, theft) affects the market participation of livestock
farmers. Low prices for livestock, poor roads and lack of market information
constitutes marketing constraints (Binge, Mshenga, and Kgosikome 2019). Panda
and Sreekumar (2012) reported that institutional, economic and technical factors
influence vegetable farmers’ market choices. Technical factors that contribute to
good quality products for consumers include storage facilities, physical
infrastructure, transport ownership, good road network and adding value to
produce. Institutional and economic factors likely to influence farmer participation
in formal markets are access to market information, guaranteed markets, grading
of produce, training and education. However, the study did not consider other
economic and political factors such as risk management strategy which influences
market participation. Previously, Musemwa et al. (2008) analysed the marketing
constraints and opportunities associated with Nguni cattle based on its social and
4 International Journal of Rural Management

economic importance to resource-poor farmers. The main marketing constraints

identified were distance to formal markets, poor infrastructure, high transaction
costs, poor road network and limited information. Existing market opportunities
revealed which actors in the livestock value chain could take advantage of includes
private sales/informal markets, auctions, butcheries and abattoirs. The study
emphasised the need to promote locally adopted breeds and work towards
addressing the constraints identified for the sustainability of the livestock industry.
Kihoro et al. (2016) analysed the market channels (retailers, wholesalers,
assemblers) used by farmers in Ethiopia. The results show that the age of farmer,
price of green grams, access to credit and selling as individuals positively
influences the choice of rural assemblers marketing channel. Gender of household
head, cost of production and use of mobile phones for market information,
positively influences the probability of using rural retailers over wholesale
marketing channels. The study concluded that marketing channels with low
production and transport costs and higher prices are preferred by farmers.
Identification and prioritisation of farmer–trader relationships that are unique and
promote more market options for farmers are desirable.
The role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in enabling
farmers’ access to output markets through market information dissemination is
highlighted by various studies (Akar 2008; Amaya and Alwang 2011; Dagne and
Oguamanam 2018; Goyal 2010; Overa 2006). The use of cell phones and networks
is affecting traditional means of getting information especially with the heavy
involvement of women in markets (Amaya and Alwang 2011). Market information
has entered the digital age and is crucial in improving the incomes and wellbeing
of farmers. Cellular technology is reported to broadened access to information,
quickened the flow of information among actors and reduced search costs (Akar
2008; Amaya and Alwang 2011; Overa 2006). The low information costs have the
potential to change market choices, the role of gender and influence output prices
received by farmers. For instance, in India, the provision of price information by
Kiosks to farmers in rural villages led to an increase in output price received by
farmers from 1% to 5% (Goyal 2010). This does not only impact on the income
level of farmers but also helps to link farmers to other market actors. Expanding
the information content of existing networks and providing efficient technical
support for the functioning of markets is, therefore, advocated for improved
access to output markets (Amaya and Alwang 2011). However, it is worth noting
that, despite the apparent high penetration of mobile technologies, the limited ICT
knowledge among farmers, especially those in developing countries may
undermine the capacity to improve access to market information (Dagne and
Oguamanam 2018; Ogbeide and Ele 2015). Limited access to reliable internet
services and the apparent lack of money to hook on to data services provided by
telecom companies and other internet service providers constitute yet another
market access constraint (Mwombe et al. 2014).
Recent studies have focused on collective action as an enabler to increasing
farmers’ access to markets (Fikadu, Duguma, and Mitiku 2019; Fischer and Qaim
2012; Gyau et al. 2014; Markelova et al. 2009). Collective marketing is
underpinned by two key motives: reductions in transaction costs and countering
the market power of opportunistic buyers (Fischer and Qaim 2012). Gyau et al.
Adams et al. 5

(2014) synthesised the key lessons learned in using collective action to improve
market access for agroforestry products in Cameroon. The authors noted that
improvements in market access led to increased incomes and improved food
security for smallholder farmers. However, market failures impact negatively the
potential of linking farmers to output markets. Distance has also been shown to
discourage dairy farmers from joining cooperatives for collective marketing
(Fikadu, Duguma, and Mitiku 2019). The success of collective action, therefore,
depends on the motivation of farmers, the design of group activities to include
social activities and the environment (Gyau et al. 2014). Previously, Markelova et
al. (2009) provided evidence on how the poor could benefit from improved market
access through institutions engaged in collective action. The findings revealed
that (a) collective action overcomes market failures, facilitates information access
and enables large scale production and marketing (resource pooling), (b) group
characteristics affect performance, (c) government and the private sector play
complementary roles in overcoming the marketing constraints faced by producer
groups and (d) better output prices and adoption to the changing global supply
chains can result from collective action. However, to make collective marketing
effective, it must be profitable and sustainable. Furthermore, Fischer and Qaim
(2012) found positive income effects of collective marketing on banana farmers
in Kenya. Collective marketing serves as a catalyst for adopting innovations due
to better information flows and inclusiveness. Land ownership, access to a mobile
phone, distance to paved roads and access to credit were found to significantly
increase the likelihood of farmers’ seeking to join a collective marketing group.
However, the price gains arising from collective marketing was very marginal.
Markets also have spillover effects on general wellbeing. The positive effects
of market access on nutritional outcomes have been well documented (Koppmair,
Kassie, and Qaim 2016; Stifel and Minten 2017). Koppmair, Kassie, and Qaim
(2016) analysed the link between farm production and dietary diversity in rural
Malawi and reported a positive significant relationship. Access to output markets
is an important factor for dietary diversity, hence, the need for improvements in
market access. Furthermore, Stifel and Minten (2017) analysed the link between
individual/household wellbeing, nutrition and market access in Ethiopia and
reported that distance affects food security and educational outcomes. Households
residing in distant and remote areas were found to be more food insecure with
lower rates of school enrolments than those closer to markets. These differences
have been attributed to low production activities of households and unfavourable
terms of trade which adversely reduce the size of the marketable surplus. Thus,
market access is positively associated with household production and marketing
activities, and the need for increased investments in agriculture exists. However,
greater market access was insufficient in triggering improved nutritional outcomes.
Ma and Abdulai (2016) analysed the link between farmers’ access to markets
and its determinants in China using the multinomial logit approach with two-stage
selection criteria. The study revealed that access to credit, timely repayment,
output price, extension contact and the volume of transactions positively and
significantly influence farmer choice for written contracts, which increased their
net returns. Cooperative sales and distance to markets were found to positively
6 International Journal of Rural Management

drive farmers’ choice for oral contracts. Thus, farmers who utilise written
marketing contracts tend to benefit more compared to those using oral contracts.
In analysing the dimensions of market access following the post-liberalisation
period (1997–2010) in Kenya, Chamberlin and Jayne (2013) found low
correlations between indicators of market access with rural people experiencing a
high degree of variations over space and time. Thus, changes in market access
conditions are directly linked to the behaviour of market agents. Market access
has multiple dimensions and hence difficult to be measured with a single index
(Chamberlin and Jayne 2013). Previously, Zeller, Diagne, and Mataya (1997)
reported that the transaction cost incurred by households’ in accessing the nearest
input and output market outlet is negatively related to the share of the area cropped
to hybrid maize. The authors concluded that improving rural infrastructure and
facilitating access to markets is essential in transforming subsistence agriculture
and enhancing the adoption of new technologies. Amrouk et al. (2013) showed
that extension access, training and demonstration activities and building
productive assets of private agricultural sector agencies impact significantly on
market access and participation. Social and human capital factors also impact
positively on the market participation of agro-processors (Thindisa and Urban
2018). Nonetheless, the main barriers to expanding farmers’ access to markets
that require urgent address are related to quality, standards and export markets.
In summary, the review showed that farmer’s market choices are influenced by
various factors: technological, institutional and socio-economic in nature. Key
factors that limit farmer’s participation in markets are limited access to market
information, poor roads, absence of guaranteed markets, limited access to extension
services and credit. The use of mobile phones and existing networks have positive
impacts on market information access likely to change the market choices and
output prices received by farmers and other value chain actors. Collective marketing
has positive income effects with spillover effects on food security, nutritional
outcomes and market access for smallholder farmers. However, the profitability
and sustainability of collective actions hinge on farmers’ motivation, the
environment, design of group activities and distance. Hence, dealing with issues of
market failures remains unresolved in the literature. The use of written contracts
through beneficial to farmers is less used and the role of political factors in
marketing is less explored in the literature. Finally, the use of various market
channels (private sales, farm gate, village markets and regional markets) which
serve as marketing opportunities for farmers has not been analysed in the literature
and it is unclear what factors will influence a farmer to choose one market outlet
over another. This remains a major gap which the current study seeks to address.

Methodology

Sampling Design and Data

The data used for this study was collected from a household survey conducted
between February and May 2019 which covered six districts across northern
Adams et al. 7

Ghana. Two districts each were purposively selected from the Northern, Upper
East, Upper West Regions of Ghana to analyse the determinants of farmers’ access
to output markets. A total of 13 rural communities and 448 households were
covered based on a programme intervention that seeks to promote SI practices
among farming households for increased incomes and food security. The regions
and communities were purposively selected whilst the households which were
interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire were randomly selected.

Variable Definitions and Measurement

Table 1 presents the variables used in the study, their measurements and descriptive
statistics. The choice of these variables was informed by literature drawn from
previous works that analysed farmers’ access to markets. This is followed by a
discussion on the variables and their justification.

Table 1. Variable Definitions and Measurement.

Variable Description/Measurement Obs. Mean SD
Sex of respondent 1 if a respondent is male, 0 445 1.202 0.40
(SEX) otherwise
Association 1 if a farmer belongs to any 448 1.410 0.49
membership (ASM) producer/marketing/processing
group, 0 otherwise
Processing facilities 1 if a farmer has access to process- 447 1.348 0.47
(PRF) ing facilities in the community, 0
otherwise
Extension Services 1 if a farmer has access to 448 1.379 0.48
(EXT) extension services, 0 otherwise
Storage facilities (STF) 1 if a farmer has access to storage 445 1.337 0.47
facilities in the household/
community, 0 otherwise
New practices (NEP) 1 if a farmer is opened to new 447 1.277 0.44
farming/marketing methods, 0
otherwise
Market quality (MKQ) 1 if cleaning, grading and drying 443 1.724 0.44
services exists in the market, 0
otherwise
Access to financial 1 if a farmer has access to savings 445 1.485 0.50
services (AFS) and loans locally, 0 otherwise
Sustainable 1 if a farmer has knowledge of 448 1.292 0.45
intensification (SIT) sustainable intensification practices,
0 otherwise
Type of farming (TPF) 1 if a farmer is engaged in crop 441 0.954 0.20
production, 0 otherwise
(Table 1 Continued)
8 International Journal of Rural Management

(Table 1 Continued)

Variable Description/Measurement Obs. Mean SD

Type of farming (TPF) 1 if a farmer is engaged in livestock 441 0.43
production, 0 otherwise 0.258
Guaranteed 1 if there is guaranteed market for 446 1.820 0.38
markets (GMK) a farmer produce, 0 otherwise
Distance to Average distance to the nearest 444 18.31 16.84
market (DIM) input/output market in kilometres
Access to market 1 if a farmer has access to market 448 1.238 0.42
information (AMI) information, 0 otherwise
Bargaining skills (BAS) 1 if a household has sufficient 443 1.613 0.48
bargaining skills to secure good
prices, 0 otherwise
Source: Various literature and field survey, 2019.

The sex of the farmer influences marketing activities, and females are mostly
engaged in the sale and marketing of farm produce. The heavy involvement of
women in markets constitutes a potential force that could alter market choices
with a greater impact on gender (Amaya and Alwang 2011). The expectation is
that women’s involvement will positively influence the choice of market channel
to use in output markets.
Socially, association membership by smallholder farmers results in better
advocacy and collective marketing (Fikadu, Duguma, and Mitiku 2019; Fisher
and Qaim 2012; Gyau et al. 2014). Farmers belonging to production, processing,
or marketing group often have better access to resources (inputs, finance,
information), price advantages and markets with positive income effects.
However, managing members’ expectations, enforcing rules and norms and
addressing governance issues remain critical concerns in the proper functioning
of such associations. Positive effects on output market choices are anticipated.
Access to processing facilities can impact significantly on output market
decisions due to the potential for value addition. Processing improves the form of
the commodity and makes it more attractive to consumers as they meet their
needs. Investing in processing facilities, however, can be capital intensive which
mostly falls outside what individual farmers can afford (Baloyi 2010). The weak
nature of most farmer groups is also a disincentive for joint ownership and
management of infrastructure facilities or services. Nonetheless, positive effects
on marketing channel choices can be expected.
Access to extension services influence farmers’ production and marketing
decisions through information sharing. Constraints in accessing efficient extension
services affect knowledge of appropriate technologies and reduce productivity
(Stifel and Minten 2017). Extension access impacts significantly on market
participation (Amrouk et al. 2013) and positive effects are anticipated. Access to
storage facilities prolongs the shelve lives of produce and therefore impact
significantly on farmers’ access to output markets. Where appropriate storage
facilities exist, farmers are able to store their produce especially during periods of
Adams et al. 9

glut and take advantage of higher prices during the lean season. Storage facilities
also serve as a buffer in improving the local food security situation (Tefera 2012).
The type of storage or facility, and safe storage practices adopted had significant
effects on the marketing behaviour and participation of farmers (Chuma, Mudhara,
and Govereh 2020).
Knowledge of new farming and marketing methods increases the participation
of farmers in markets. The adoption of improved farming technologies/practices
often leads to yield increases and increased marketing activity among farmers
(Kassie et al. 2013). Positive effects on farmers’ market access channel choices
are anticipated. The quality of markets (grading, drying and cleaning services) is
expected to impact positively on output market decisions of farmers in different
locations. For instance, in markets where cleaning services exist, farmers can
secure good prices due to improved quality of produce.
Access to financial services can have a tremendous effect on farmers’ access to
output markets. Stock acquisition and meeting marketing costs make financial
services integral to reaching output markets. Access to credit significantly
influences farmers’ access to markets (Amrouk et al. 2013), increased the chance
of farmers’ membership to a group (Fischer and Quim 2012) and influences the
choice of marketing channel used by rural assemblers positively (Kihoro et al.
2016). The positive effects of savings and loan services on farmers’ choice of
market channels are anticipated. Farmers’ knowledge of SI practices would likely
influence their market participation decisions especially with climate change
impacts on production and rising soil infertility. SI practices (crop rotation,
composting and maize stripping) improves soil fertility, increase yields and
incomes of farmers. Positive effects are expected from farmers who adopt SI
practices on their marketing decisions.
The type of farming activity engaged by a farmer influences their access to
output markets. The type of crop/livestock, variety/breed and kind of value
addition influences demand and supply patterns as well as market decisions.
Farmers engaged in the production of commodities demanded by consumers are
better placed to have access to lucrative output markets. The presence of
guaranteed markets can serve as a catalyst for farmers to access output markets
due to economies of scale. Through guaranteed markets, farmers are able to shift
from non-market to formal market participation (Panda and Sreekumar 2012).
Written contracts which are an element of guaranteed markets have also been
shown to increase the farmers’ net profits (Ma and Abdulai 2016).
Distance impacts significantly on farmers’ access to output markets especially
those residing in remote and distant locations (Stifel and Minten 2017). Distance
to paved roads influences the decision of farmers to join a marketing group
(Fischer and Qaim 2012) and travelling over a long distance to reach buyers
impact significantly on farmers’ choice of market contracts (Ma and Abdulai
2016). However, Chamberlin and Jayne (2013) argue that distance is not a good
measure of farmers’ access to markets but rather the behaviour of marketing
agents reflects improvements in market access. Mixed effects are anticipated.
Access to market information impact on farmers’ choice of market outlets to
use. Market information influences the marketing behaviour of households (Jari
10 International Journal of Rural Management

and Fraser 2009), the prices received (Goyal 2010), a variety of crops grown
(Deressa et al. 2009) and the extent of market participation (Maponya et al. 2018;
Obisesan[CE]:Author: The citations ‘Obisesan 2018’ and ‘Ma and Abdulai 2016’
are not present in the reference list. Please include them in the list with complete
bibliographic details (article/chapter title, journal/book title, issue/volume
number, page numbers, publisher’s information, whichever is applicable) or else
allow us to delete them from the text. 2018). A direct relationship between farmers’
access to information and choice of output market is expected.
The level of bargaining skills of farmers influence their market participation and
prices received. Farmers’ market participation and terms of trade impact negatively
on the size of agricultural surplus marketed and the number of food items purchased
(Stifel and Minten 2017). This suggests that bargaining skills matter for farmers as
it impacts on their incomes. This study hypothesised that farmers have weak
bargaining skills and therefore are unable to secure good output prices.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Model

The multinomial logit framework was developed mainly for modelling discrete
choice or market shares (McFadden 1974). However, its application now extends
to analysing budget share (Theil 1969), cost-shares (Considine and Mount 1984)
and land shares. The approach is useful in examining strategic choices with
multiple outcomes.
This study utilised the MLR in line with recent studies (Kihoro et al. 2016; Ma
and Abdulai 2016; Panda and Sreekumar 2012). The model is an extension of the
binary logistic regression and allows for more than two categories of the outcome
variable. Independent variables can be binary, interval/ratio in scale, or continuous.
The probability of categorical membership is evaluated following the maximum
likelihood estimation procedure and care is needed in determining the sample size
and estimation for outlying cases (Bayaga 2010).
The model assumes independence among the dependent variable choices
rather than linearity, normality or homoscedasticity. Thus, the choice of one
category is unrelated to the choice of any other category (El-Habil 2012).
The general form of the MLR is given as:
exp( B j Xt
  Prob Yi  j   , J = 0,…, J(1)
 m 1 exp( Bm Xt
J

where,
Prob [Yi = j] = the probability of choosing the market outlet (farm gate, village
market, private sales, regional/district market)
Xi = a vector of the predictor variables (see Table 1)
Bj = vector of the parameters to be estimated; and
J = the number of market outlet in the choice set.
Thorough initial data analysis was conducted including bivariate, multivariate
and univariate assessment. Specifically, multicollinearity was checked with
simple correlations among the independent variables. Multicollinearity can occur
Adams et al. 11

in logistic regressions leading to inflated standard errors of the logit parameters.

Where multicollinearity exists, the reliability of the estimated parameters is
affected (Garson 2011). The absence of multicollinearity paved the way for the
model estimation to be done. Interpretation of the logistic coefficients is based on
the idea that a unit change in the predictor will result in some amount of expected
change in the logit. The closer the value of the coefficient to zero, the less the
predictive power of the logit.

Results and Discussions

Descriptive Statistics
The main market outlets used by farmers were village markets (59.75%), private
sales (20.4%), regional/district markets (11.5%), farm gate (6.45%) and roadside
(1.9%). Improving market infrastructure especially of village markets will greatly
enhance farmers’ access to input and output markets. In-depth interviews
conducted with various District Assemblies showed that efforts were underway in
developing the rural market infrastructure. However, the unwillingness of traders
to relocate to some new market sites constructed is a major challenge due to
cultural beliefs and the fear of losing their customers. This suggests the need for
proper participatory consultations in the sitting of new markets in communities.
Access to extension services by farmers was low (61.5%). Public extension
agents typically provide information to farmers on good agricultural practices,
output prices, certified seeds and fertilizers. Most farmers (76.55%) have access
to inputs due to the government subsidy programme on seeds and fertilizers
coupled with interventions by private agricultural companies and NGOs in the
area. There are no gender barriers in access to inputs. Most farmers (75.35%)
were using planting seeds obtained from their own farms with only a few (14.55%)
relying on Agro-input dealers for planting materials. Some communities indicated
that they do not have input dealers. The quality and availability of inputs were
found not to be an issue, but the price of fertilizers was reported to be high despite
the government subsidy programme. About half (51.05%) of the farmers had
access to savings and loan services from group-based associations (such as Village
Savings and Loan Association) but access to formal finance was non-existent.
From the viewpoint of farmers, most financial institutions are not willing to
provide credit to farm-based enterprises due to the high rates of default (bad credit
history) and the inability of most farmers to provide collateral demanded by these
financial institutions.
Farmers’ access to guarantee market was low (18.3%) with a likely impact on
their market participation decisions. These were mainly farmers with verbal
contract agreements with either input dealers or traders who pre-finance their
production activities and in return receive grains after harvest. About 59.45% of
the households belong to one form of association or the other. The social groups/
associations are useful in providing communal farm labour and savings
mobilisation that support members. Food processing dominates in value-added
12 International Journal of Rural Management

activities in the area (61.7%) but the absence of processing equipment remains a
major hindrance to most farmers.
Most livestock farmers covered in the study owned poultry (34.03%), goats
(29.87%) and sheep (20.79%) with less than 10% keeping pigs and cattle. Poultry
and livestock play important social, economic and cultural roles in the lives of
households in northern Ghana. Access to credit for livestock production and
marketing is limited and the majority (80.2%) of livestock farmers were dependent
on their own finances. Only about 8.6% of farmers had access to formal credit and
only 10% of farmers could self-finance their operations (mostly dependent on
friends and relatives). Theft, high mortality rates and limited availability of
veterinary drugs and services are the main constraints hampering the development
of the livestock sector.
Specific livestock markets exist within most (70%) districts and prices of
livestock were mainly determined through bargaining (69.3%) and farmers with
good bargaining skills are better placed in securing good prices. The main factors
that limit the efficient participation of farmers in livestock markets include pests
and diseases outbreak and limited access to finance (see Figure 1). This is in line
with Amankwah et al. (2012) empirical finding that weak support systems for
animal health service delivery and production are a key structural constraint
hindering small ruminant farmers’ participation in markets. Major players in the
livestock market were individual traders/buyers (52%), farmers (18%), assemblers
(12%) and food sellers (17%).

Factors Influencing Farmers’ Choice of Output Market Outlets

Table 2 presents the results obtained from the MLR using Village Market as the
base outcome. The probability chi-square value as well as the pseudo R2 statistic
shows that the model is well fitted to the data with a high predictive power (57%).

Others (specify) 2.85

Pest and disease outbreaks 30.01

Lack of transport facilities 13.97

Seasonality 10.74

Limited access to finance 28.07

Poor market infrastructure 14.36

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Figure 1. Factors Limiting the Efficient Participation of Households in Livestock Markets.

Source: Field survey, 2019.
Table 2. Multinomial Logistic Regression of Farmers’ Choice of Output Market Outlet.
Farm Gate Private Sales District/Regional Markets
Coeff./Std. Coeff./Std. Coeff./Std.
Variables Err z P>|z| Err z P>|z| Err z P>|z|
Sex of respondent (SEX) −0.587 −0.27 0.785 1.335** 2.07 0.038 0.487 0.64 0.523
(2.152) (0.643) (0.764)
Association membership (ASM) −5.755* −1.80 0.072 1.952*** 3.31 0.001 1.852*** 2.48 0.013
(3.197) (0.590) (0.748)
Processing facilities (PRF) 13.005** 2.53 0.011 0.352 0.56 0.575 1.863*** 3.07 0.002
(5.135) (0.628) (0.606)
Extension services (EXT) 13.483* 1.96 0.051 −2.848*** −2.70 0.007 −0.844 −0.94 0.350
(6.896) (1.056) (0.903)
Storage facilities (STF) 10.068** 2.11 0.035 −0.681 −1.05 0.291 −1.314** −1.97 0.052
(4.765) (0.646) (0.677)
New practices (NEP) −9.804** −2.14 0.032 0.011 0.02 0.986 0.440 0.59 0.553
(4.576) (0.666) (0.742)
Market quality (MKQ) −12.786** −2.26 0.024 1.065 1.47 0.141 −0.525 −0.57 0.567
(5.648) (0.724) (0.918)
Access to financial services (AFS) −3.018 −1.19 0.234 −3.069*** −5.63 0.000 −0.267 −0.36 0.722
(2.253) (0.545) (0.752)
Sustainable intensification (SIT) −12.940** −2.28 0.023 −0.611 −1.17 0.244 0.8987 1.50 0.133
(5.687) (0.524) (0.5984)
Crop production (TYP) 1.424 0.48 0.632 −0.931 −0.91 0.360 0.492 0.29 0.771
(2.970) (1.018) (1.694)
Livestock production (TYP) −7.828* −1.91 0.056 −0.242 −0.35 0.729 −17.69 −0.00 0.997
(4.099) (0.700) (4210.4)
Guaranteed markets (GMK) −16.974** −2.26 0.024 −0.9489 −1.26 0.206 18.385 0.00 0.998
(7.524) (0.750) (7145.6)
(Table 2 Continued)
(Table 2 Continued)

Farm Gate Private Sales District/Regional Markets

Coeff./Std. Coeff./Std. Coeff./Std.
Variables Err z P>|z| Err z P>|z| Err z P>|z|
Distance to market (DIM) −0.076 −0.99 0.323 0.009*** 3.51 0.000 −0.001 −0.57 0.572
(0.077) (0.002) (0.003)
Access to market information −1.457 −0.62 0.538 −0.905 −0.94 0.346 −4.174*** −3.07 0.002
(AMI) (2.367) (0.960) (1.359)
Bargaining skills (BAS) −5.380* −1.99 0.047 1.432* 1.86 0.062 19.418 0.01 0.996
(2.708) (0.768) (3517.3)
Constant 11.138* 1.99 0.046 0.270 0.21 0.837 −39.911 −0.01 0.996
(5.593) (1.316) (7964.4)
Source: Estimation from field data, 2019.
Note: *, **, *** represent 10%, 5% and 1% level of significance, respectively.
Also, standard errors are in parenthesis. Number of observations = 448; LR Chi2 ( 64 ) = 398.03; Prob > Chi2 = 0.000; Pseudo R2 = 0.5779; Log Likelihood = −145.36556
Adams et al. 15

The results in Table 2 are discussed under three main sub-headings by

comparing each market outlet (farm gate, private sales and regional/district
markets) with the base outcome. The interpretations are based on the fact that a
negative coefficient (less than one) signifies a choice of the base outcome over the
comparison group and vice versa.

1. Farm gate versus village market

The results show that access to processing and storage facilities, belonging to
an association, extension service access, exposure to improved farming and
marketing methods, access to finance, guaranteed markets, knowledge of SI
practices, livestock production and bargaining skills are significant factors that
influence farmers choice of using farm gate over village markets in selling their
produce. A farmer not belonging to a production/processing/marketing group in
the community is associated with a 5.755 decrease in the relative log odds of
using farm gate as their main market outlet. Thus, farmers who do not belong to a
producer or marketing group are more likely to sell at the village market over the
farm gate.
Farmers’ access to processing services is posited to have positive effects on
their access to output markets. The results obtained here are in line with this
theoretical expectation and a farmer not having access to processing facilities is
associated with a 13.005 increase in the relative log odds of using farm gate as the
main market outlet. This means that farmers without access to processing facilities
are more likely to sell at the farm gate. This is intuitive since in the absence of
value addition the drive to sell in village markets diminishes due to additional
handling costs likely to be borne by the farmer. As noted by Musah, Bonsu, and
Seini (2014), smallholder farmers often prefer to sell at the farm gate for reasons
of convenience despite the fact that better prices are offered in distant and well-
developed markets.
Access to extension services has a positive significant effect on market access.
A farmer without access to extension services is associated with a 10.069 increase
in the relative log odds of using farm gate as the main market outlet. Thus, the
likelihood of farmers to market their products through the farm gate channel are
higher where they lack access to extension services. Weak animal health extension
delivery has been reported as a structural limitation to livestock farmers’
participation in markets (Amankwah et al. 2012). As such, only a few farmers
engaged in market-oriented livestock production. Access to storage facilities is
associated with a 9.804 decrease in the relative log odds of using farm gate as the
main market outlet. Thus, the absence of storage facilities in a household or
community levels is associated with a greater likelihood of farmers to sell at the
village market over the farm gate.
A farmer not having access to new farming and marketing methods is shown to
result in a 12.786 decrease in the choice of using the farm gate as the main market
outlet. Thus, farmers’ access to new marketing and farming methods is associated
with an increased likelihood of selling at the village market. This is supported by
Achandi and Mujawamariya (2016) observation that the existence of a market
locally impacts on the quantity of products marketed. Access to quality marketing
16 International Journal of Rural Management

services (cleaning, grading and standardisation) can impact farmers’ market

access. Access to quality marketing services is shown to be associated with a
12.786 decrease in using village markets. Farmers with limited access to quality
marketing services are more likely to sell at the farm gate. This outcome is in line
with the findings of a recent study by Anthony and Lenah (2020) that tarpaulin
ownership and sorting of produce positively influence smallholder maize farmers
participation in formal markets.
A farmer not having knowledge in SI practices is associated with a 9.045
decrease in the relative log odds of using farm gate as the main market outlet.
Thus, a farmer with knowledge in SI is more likely to use the village market
over the farm gate in marketing their produce. SI practices such as organic
farming increase the incomes of farmers and also create new market
opportunities especially in urban areas. Mpombo (2018) found that the use of
inorganic fertilizers and animal traction negatively influences the market
orientation of farmers.
The rearing of livestock is shown to decrease the likelihood of using farm gate
as the main market outlet by 7.828. Thus, livestock farmers are more likely to sell
at the village market over the farm gate. This is explained by the relatively large
number of buyers in the village markets which makes it more competitive as
compared with the farm gate. Dlamini and Huang (2019) found that herd size,
type of cattle breed and experience in production significantly affects the sales
and market participation of smallholder beef farmers.
Access to guaranteed markets is associated with 16.975 decreases in the
relative log odds of using farm gate as the main market outlet. Thus, farmers
without access to guaranteed markets will prefer to sell at the village market than
at the farm gate. Where there are guaranteed markets, farmers will like to keep
their profit levels by curtailing transport and other costs involved in moving the
product from the farm gate to the village market. They will, therefore, prefer to
sell at the farm gate.
Farmers without sufficient bargaining skills to secure good prices are associated
with a 1.458 decrease in the relative log odds of using farm gate as the main market
outlet. Thus, farmers without sufficient bargaining skills are more likely to use
village markets over the farm gate to sell their outputs. Groups can, however,
influence market prices through collective bargaining (Musah, Bonsu, and Seini
2014) irrespective of the market channel.
2. Private sales versus village markets
The results of Table 2 further indicated that gender, association membership,
distance to output market and bargaining skills of the farmer are significant factors
that influence the choice of farmers to do private sales over village markets.
However, access to extension services and finance will likely influence the choice
of farmers to use village markets over private sales.
Females are associated with a 1.335 increase in the relative log odds of using
private sales as the main market outlet. Thus, female farmers are more likely to
utilise private sale outlets than village markets to sell their produce. A farmer not
belonging to a producer, processing or marketing group in a community is
Adams et al. 17

associated with a 1.952 increase in the relative log odds of using private sales as
the main market outlet. Thus, farmers who are not members of these associations
or groups would prefer private sales to the use of village markets. This could be
attributed to the level of trust that is built between farmers and individual off-
takers over time.
Access to extension and financial services decreases the odds of using private
sales as the main market outlet by 2.848 and 3.009, respectively. Farmers
without access to the extension or financial services would likely choose to sell
their output in village markets over private sales. Access to credit influenced
market participation positively (Anthony and Lenah 2020; Musah, Bonsu, and
Seini 2014). Also, access to extension services has been reported to impact
positively on farmers’ market participation (Aliyi, Tadesse and Demise 2018;
Mpombo 2018).
The average distance to the nearest output market covered by a farmer is
associated with a 0.009 increase in the relative log odds of using private sales as
the main market outlet. Thus, a unit increase in the farmer’s average distance to
the nearest output market would more likely influence their choice for private
sales over village markets. Fisher and Qaim (2012) showed that distance to
paved roads increases the likelihood of farmers seeking to join collective
marketing groups. Also, the bargaining skills of a farmer is related to a 1.432
increase in the log odds of using private sales as the main market outlet. This
means that without sufficient bargaining skills farmers are more likely to use
private sales over village markets.
3. District/regional markets versus village markets
Table 2 revealed that access to processing facilities and belonging to an
association are significant factors that influence farmers’ choice of using district
and regional markets for the sale of their produce. Similarly, farmers access to
storage facilities and access to marketing information decreases the likelihood of
using village markets over district/regional markets.
Association membership by farmers is characterised by with 1.852 decrease in
the log odds of using district and regional markets as the main market outlet. Thus,
farmers who do not belong to any group are more likely to use village markets over
the district and regional markets. This could be explained by the lower transaction
costs associated with selling through the village market though price disadvantages
exist. Cooperative membership positively influences market participation (Aliyi,
Tadesse, and Demise 2018) and groups enable collective bargaining which results
in higher prices for members (Musah, Bonsu, and Seini 2014).
A farmer not having access to processing facilities (either personally or in the
community) increases the likelihood of using district/regional markets as the main
market outlet by 1.863. Thus, farmers without access to processing facilities
would prefer to sell in the district and regional markets to village markets. Aliyi,
Tadesse, and Demise (2018) found that value-added activity has a positive
influence on the intensity of market participation. Farmers having access to
storage facilities is associated with 1.314 decreases in the log odds of using district
and regional markets as the main market outlet. This suggests that households
without access to storage facilities are more likely to sell their outputs in the
18 International Journal of Rural Management

village market over the district and regional markets. This is partly attributed as
distance and the associated high transaction costs that come with selling in
regional markets. Though output prices have been found to influence selling via
formal markets (Anthony and Lenah 2020), the absence of storage facilities
remains a hindrance in the development of rural markets.
A farmer’s access to market information in the locality is linked to a 4.174
decrease in the relative log odds of using district and regional markets as the main
market outlet. Thus, a farmer without access to market information would more
likely sell at the village market rather than use district and regional markets.
Market information is, therefore, crucial to farmers as it is able to direct their
activities to lucrative markets for participation. This finding lends support to
previous studies that analysed the role of market information on market
participation and reported positive influence (Aliyi, Tadesse, and Demise 2018;
Musah, Bonus, and Seini 2014). However, it contradicts that of Anthony and
Lenah (2020) who reported that the source of market information negatively
influences formal market participation. District and Metropolitan Assemblies
need to pay more attention to providing the needed storage facilities in markets
for increased patronage by farmers.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study contributes to the agricultural marketing literature by analysing the
factors that influence farmers’ choices for various market outlets (private sale,
farm gate, village market and regional markets) using the MLR. End markets are
critical for smallholder farmers and other value chain actors as they impact on
their profit margins, incomes, crop choice and production decisions. Yet, studies
that focus on analysing and identifying the main factors that influence farmers’
choice of markets has remained very limited. By using village markets as the base
category, various factors were found to influence farmers’ choices for the market
outlets considered. The main significant factors that influence farmers’ choice to
sell output at the farm gate was access to inputs, access to processing facilities,
inputs and extension services. Effective extension service delivery is critical in
influencing farmers’ decisions to invest in sustainable agricultural practices for
increased yields (Kassie et al. 2013). Also, access to storage facilities, association
membership (production, processing, or marketing), openness to new production
and marketing methods, knowledge of SI practices, access to financial services,
availability of quality market services (cleaning, grading and drying), access to
guaranteed market and distance to output market would likely influence the
choice of farmers to sell in village markets. As noted by Dalton et al. (2014) and
Tappan and McGahuey (2005), the adoption of SI practices decreases farmers’
cost of production, improves productivity and reshapes natural resources.
Additionally, the sex of the farmer, association membership, access to processing
facilities, availability of quality market services and distance to output market
would likely dominate the choice of a farmer to do private sales. These findings
Adams et al. 19

are relevant for farmers, marketers, input dealers and policymakers, especially
those at the local level interested in promoting farmer participation in output
markets. One area in which this work could be extended is to analyse the gender
aspect with a focus on livestock markets.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the support received from the Africa RISING project team
members both in STEPRI and IITA Tamale offices during data collection. Special thanks
to Dr Fred Kizito and Dr Hoeschle-Zeldon Irmgard of IITA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
This research work is an output of the Africa RISING Project supported by the United
States Agency for International Development under the Feed-the-Future initiative
[AID-BFS-G-11-00002].

ORCID iD
Abdulai Adams https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8820-0925

References
Achandi, E. L., and Mujawamariya, G. 2016. ‘Market Participation by Smallholder Rice
Farmers in Tanzania: A Double Hurdle Analysis.’ Studies in Agricultural Economics
118: 112–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.7896/j.1528.
Aker, J. C. 2008. ‘Does Digital Divide or Provide? Information Technology, Search
Costs and Cereal Market Performance in Niger.’ Bureau for Research and Economic
Analysis of Development (BREAD), Working Paper No. 177 Duke University,
Durham, NC.
Aliyi, I., Tadesse, B., and Demise, T. 2018. ‘Determinants of Intensity of Market Participation
of Smallholder Rice Producers: The Case of Shebe Sombo District, Southwest Ethiopia’.
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 7(3) : 13–22.
Amankwah, K., Klerkx, L., Oosting, J. S., Sakyi-Dawson, O., Van der Zijpp, A. J.,
Millar, D. 2012. ‘Diagnosing Constraints to Market Participation of Small Ruminant
Producers in Northern Ghana: An Innovation Systems Analysis.’ NJAS—Wageningen
Journal of Life Sciences 60–63: 37–47.
Amaya, N., and Alwang, J. 2011. ‘Access to Information and Farmers Market Choices:
The Case of Potato in Highland Bolivia.’ Journal of Agricultural Food System and
Commodity Development 1 (4): 35–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.014.003.
Amikuzuno, J. 2015. ‘An Analysis of Pro-poor, Gender-sensitive Market Access
Opportunities and Initiatives for Smallholder Farmers in the Upper East and West
Regions of Ghana.’ Market Survey Report of the RESULTS Project , pp. 1–81.
Amrouk, M., Poole, N., Mudungwe, N., and Muzvondiwa, E. 2013. ‘The Impact of
Commodity Development Projects on Smallholders’ Market Access in Developing
Countries: Case Studies of FAO/CFC Projects.’ FAO Commodity and Trade Research
Working Paper No 35, FAO.
20 International Journal of Rural Management

Anthony, M., and Lenah, M. 2020. ‘Determinants of Smallholder Maize Farmers’ Choice
of Selling Point: A Case of Kwanza District, Trans-Nzoia County, Kenya.’ Journal of
Economics and Sustainable Development 11 (10): 147–51.
Baloyi, J. K. 2010. ‘An Analysis of Constraints Facing Smallholder Farmers in the
Agribusiness Value Chain: A Case Study of Farmers in the Limpopo Province.’
Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria.
Bayaga, A. 2010. ‘Multinomial Logistic Regression: Usage and Application in Risk
Analysis.’ Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 5(2): 288–297.
Binge, A., Mshenga, P., and Kgosikome, K. 2019. ‘Production and Marketing Constraints of
Small Stock Farming: Evidence from Limited and Non-Limited Farmers in Boteti Sub-
District, Botswana.’ Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 3(53): 195–201.
Chamberlin, J., and Jayne, T. S. 2013. ‘Unpacking the Meaning of “Market Access”:
Evidence from Rural Kenya.’ World Development 41: 245–64. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/worlddev.2012.06.004.
Considine, T. J., and Mount, T. D. 1984. ‘The Use of Linear Logit Models for Dynamic
Input Demand Systems.’ Review of Economics and Statistics 66 (3): 434–43.
Corsi, S., Marchisio, L. V., and Orsi, L. 2017. ‘Connecting Smallholder Farmers to Local
Markets: Drivers of Collective Action, Land Tenure and Food Security in East Chad.’
Land Use Policy 68: 39–47.
Chuma, T., Mudhara, M., and Govereh, J. 2020. ‘The Effects of Grain Storage Technologies
on Maize Marketing Behavior of Smallholder Farmers in Zimbabwe.’ Journal of
Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropic and Subtropics 121 (1): 1–12.
Dagne, T. W., and Oguamanam, C. 2018. ‘ICTs in Agricultural Production and Potential
Deployment in Operationalizing Geographical Indications in Uganda.’ Ottawa Faculty
of Law Working Paper No. 2018-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3241169.
Dalton, T. J., Yahaya, I., and Naab, J. 2014. ‘Perceptions and Performance of Conservation
Agriculture Practices in Northwestern Ghana.’ Agricultural Ecosystem and
Environment 187: 65–71.
Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., and Yesuf, M. 2009. ‘Determinants
of Farmers’ Choice of Adaptation Methods to Climate Change in the Nile Basin of
Ethiopia.’ Global Environmental Change 19 (2): 248–55.
Dlamini, S. I., and Huang, W. 2019. ‘A Double Hurdle Estimation of Sales Decisions by
Smallholder Beef Cattle Farmers in Eswatini.’ Sustainability 11: 15158. http://doi.
org/10.3390/su11195185.
El-Habil, A. M. 2012. ‘An Application on Multinomial Logistic Regression Model.’
Pakistani Journal of Statistics and Operations Research 8 (2): 271–91.
FAO. 2013. Synthesis of Guiding Principles on Agricultural Programming for Nutrition.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Fikadu, L., Duguma, G., and Mitiku, F. 2019. ‘Pull and Push Factors for Producers’
Membership in Dairy Marketing Cooperatives in Jimma Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia.’
Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 1 (51): 21–34. http://dx.doi.
org/10.17306/J.JARD.2019.01162.
Fischer, E., and Qaim, M. 2012. ‘Linking Smallholders to Markets: Determinants and
Impacts of Farmer Collective Action in Kenya.’ World Development 40(6): 1255–68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/worlddev.2011.11.018.
GAIN. 2013. Routes for Nutrition Secure Cash Crop Value Chains. Amsterdam: Global
Alliance for Improved Nutrition.
Garretsen, H., and Bosker, M. 2012. ‘Market Access: A Key Determinant of Economic
Development in Sub-Saharan Africa.’ The World Bank. Available at: https://blogs.
Adams et al. 21

worldbank.org/developmenttalk/market-access-a-key-determinant-of-economic-
development-in-sub-saharan-africa (Accessed on 07 May 2019).
Garson, G. D. 2011. Logistic regression. Available at: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/gar-
son/PA765/logistics.htm#sigtets (Accessed on 12 February 2019).
Goyal, A. 2010. ‘Information, Direct Access to Farmers, and Rural Market Performance
in Central India.’ American Economic Journal of Applied Economics 2 (3): 22–45.
Gyau, A., Franzel, S., Chiatoh, M., Nimino, G., and Owusu, K. 2014. ‘Collective Action
to Improve Market Access for Smallholder Producers of Agroforestry Products: Key
Lessons Learned with Insights from Cameroon’s Experience.’ Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 6: 68–72.
ILO. 2017. ‘Improving Market Access for Smallholder Farmers: What Works in Out-
Grower Schemes – Evidence from Timor-Lester.’ Issue Brief No. 1.
Jari, B., and Fraser, G. C. G. 2009. ‘An Analysis of Institutional and Technical Factors
Influencing Agricultural Marketing amongst Smallholder Farmers in the Kat River
Valley, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.’ African Journal of Agricultural
Research 4 (11): 1129–37.
Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., Shiferaw, B., Mmbando, F., and Mekuria, M. 2013. ‘Adoption
of Interrelated Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Smallholder Systems: Evidence
from Rural Tanzania.’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80(3) : 525–40.
Kihoro, E. M., Irungu, P., Nyikal, R., and Maina, I. N. 2016. ‘An Analysis of Factors
Influencing Farmers’ Choice of Green Gram Marketing Channel in Mbeere South
Sub-Country, Kenya.’ Poster Presented at the 5th International Conference of AAAE,
September 23–26. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: AAAE.
Koppmair, S., Kassie, M., and Qaim, M. 2016. ‘Farm Production, Market Access and
Dietary Diversity in Malawi.’ Public Health Nutrition 20(2): 325–35.
Ma, W., and Abdulai, A. 2016. ‘Linking Apple Farmers to Markets: Determinants and
Impacts of Marketing Contracts in China.’ China Agricultural Economic Review 8(1):
2–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CAER-04-2015-0035.
Maponya, P., Kekana, V., Senolo, G. M., and Venter, S. L. 2018. ‘Socio-Economic
Factors Influencing Market Participation of Horticultural Smallholder Farmers in the
Alfred Nzo District, Eastern Cape, South Africa.’ Journal of Agribusiness and Rural
Development 4 (50): 421–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.17306/J.JARD.2018.00421.
Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., and Dohrn, S. 2009. ‘Collective Action for
Smallholder Market Access.’ Food Policy 34: 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-
pol.2008.10.001.
McFadden, D. 1974. ‘Conditional Logit Analysis of Quantitative Choice Behavior.’ In
Frontiers of Econometrics , edited by P. Zarembka. New York: Academic Press.
Musah, A. B., Bonsu, O. A. Y., and Seini, W. 2014. ‘Market Participation of Smallholder
Farmers in the Upper West Region of Ghana.’ African Journal of Agricultural
Research 9(31): 2427–35.
Musemwa, L., Mushunje, A., Chimonyo, M., Fraser, G., Mapiye, C., and Muchenje, V.
(2008). ‘Nguni Cattle Marketing Constraints and Opportunities in the Communal Areas
of South Africa: Review.’ African Journal of Agricultural Research 3(4): 239–45.
Mpombo, L. B. 2018. ‘Determinants of Market Participation among Smallholder Farmers
in Tanzania.’ M.A dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam.
Mwombe, S. O., Mugivane, F. I., Adolwa, I. S., and Nderitu, J. H. 2014. ‘Evaluation of
Information and Communication Technology Utilization by Smallholder Banana
Farmers in Gatanga District, Kenya.’ The Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension 20(2): 247–61.
 22 International Journal of Rural Management

Obisesam, A. A. 2018. ‘Market Participation and Food Security of Cassava Farmers in

Rural South West Nigeria’. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 1(47):
57–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.17306/J.JARD.2018.010399.
Ogbeide, O. A., and Ele, I. 2015. ‘Smallholder Farmers and Mobile Phone Technology in
sub-Sahara Agriculture.’ Mayfair Journal of Information and Technology Management
in Agriculture 1(1): 1–19.
Overa, R. 2006. ‘Networks, Distance and Trust: Telecommunications Development and
Changing Trading Practices in Ghana.’ World Development 34 (7): 1301–15.
Panda, R. K., and Sreekumar, M. 2012. ‘Marketing Channel Choice and Marketing Efficiency
Assessment in Agribusinesses.’ Journal of International Food and Agribusiness
Marketing 24(3): 213–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2012.691812.
Stifel, D., and Minten, B. 2017. ‘Market Access, Well-Being, and Nutrition: Evidence
from Ethiopia.’ World Development 90: 229–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/world-
dev.2016.09.009.
Tappan, G., and McGahuey, M. 2005. ‘Tracking Environmental Dynamics and Agricultural
Intensification in Southern Mali.’ Agricultural Systems 94: 38–51.
Tefera, T. 2012. ‘Post-Harvest Losses in African Maize in the Face of Increasing Food
Shortage.’ Food Security 4(2): 267–77.
Theil, H. 1969. ‘A Multinomial Extension of the Binary Logit Model.’ International
Economic Review 10 (3): 251–59.
Thindisa, L. M. V., and Urban, B. 2018. ‘Human-Social Capital and Market Access
Factors Influencing Agro-Processing Participation by Small-Scale Agripreneurs: The
Moderating Effects of Transaction Costs.’ Acta Commercii 18(1): a500. http://doi.
org/10.4102/ac.v18i1.500.
Zeller, M., Diagne, A., and Mataya, C. 1997. ‘Market Access by Small Smallholder
Farmers in Malawi: Implications for Technology Adoption, Agricultural Productivity and
Crop Income.’ IFPRI FCND Discussion Paper No. 35. Washington DC.

View publication stats