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

net/publication/379663633

Collaboration in agricultural value chains: a scoping review of the evidence

from developing countries

Article in Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies · April 2024

DOI: 10.1108/JADEE-12-2023-0311

CITATIONS READS

2 149

4 authors, including:

Vikas Kumar Mishra Ariun Ishdorj

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University
4 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 345 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roger Norton
Texas A&M University
56 PUBLICATIONS 2,026 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vikas Kumar Mishra on 20 May 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2044-0839.htm

Collaboration in agricultural value Agricultural

value chains
chains: a scoping review
of the evidence from
developing countries
Vikas Mishra Received 16 December 2023
Revised 22 February 2024
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Accepted 28 February 2024
Texas, USA
Ariun Ishdorj
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas, USA and
Texas A&M AgriLife Research,
Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture, College Station, Texas, USA
Elizabeth Tabares Villarreal
Texas A&M AgriLife Research,
Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture, College Station,
Texas, USA, and
Roger Norton
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas, USA and
Texas A&M AgriLife Research,
Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture, College Station, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Collaboration in agricultural value chains (AVCs) has the potential to increase smallholders’
participation in international value chains and increase their benefits from participation. This scoping review
explores existing collaboration models among stakeholders of AVCs in developing countries, examines
enablers and constraints of collaboration and identifies policy gaps.
Design/methodology/approach – We systematically searched three databases, CAB Abstracts, Econlit
(EBSCO) and Agricola, for studies published between 2005 and 2023 and included 59 relevant studies on AVC
collaboration.
Findings – The primary motivations for collaboration are to enhance market access and improve product
quality. Key outcomes of collaboration include improvements in farmers’ welfare, market participation and
increased production; only a few studies consider improved risk management as an important outcome. Robust

© Vikas Mishra, Ariun Ishdorj, Elizabeth Tabares Villarreal and Roger Norton. Published by Emerald
Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0)
licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both
commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and
authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/
legalcode
The authors would like to thank Professor Margaret Foster, Anna Yeritsyan, Qinye Jiang, Mengqiao
Liu, Siwan Song, Yaqing Zheng and Thuy Nguyen for their help in this study in selecting and screening Journal of Agribusiness in
Developing and Emerging
the studies. Economies
Funding: This research was funded by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Emerald Publishing Limited
2044-0839
Department of Agriculture (No. FX18TA-10960R029). DOI 10.1108/JADEE-12-2023-0311
JADEE support from government and non-governmental entities is a primary enabler of collaboration. Conversely,
conflicts of interest among stakeholders and resource limitations constrain collaboration possibilities.
Collaboration involving high-value crops prioritizes income increases, whereas collaboration involving staple
crops focuses on improving household food security.
Research limitations/implications – This study may have publication bias as unsuccessful instances of
collaboration are less likely to be published.
Originality/value – This study is unique in highlighting collaboration models’ characteristics and identifying
AVC policy and programmatic areas where private firms, farmers’ groups, local governments and donor
agencies can contribute.
Keywords Agricultural value chains, Collaboration, Smallholders, Market access, Private food standards,
Vertical coordination
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Collaboration within agricultural value chains (AVCs) can play an important role in
increasing smallholders’ participation in global AVCs and transforming rural economies,
especially in developing countries that heavily depend on agriculture for economic growth.
Lim (2021) found that participation in global AVCs increases gross domestic product and
employment in agricultural sectors. The key stakeholders of AVCs are smallholders, private
firms, local governments, national governments (through incentives policies and
investments), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and donor agencies. Collaborative
efforts within AVCs, combined with technological advances, changing consumer tastes and
preferences and rising foreign direct investment, significantly influence the pace of
transformation in AVCs (G
omez et al., 2011; Reardon et al., 2003). A notable example is the
substantial transformation of Brazil’s pork industry due to efficient collaboration among
research institutions, small producers and private firms (Vilas-Boas et al., 2022). Such
collaboration within AVCs fosters innovations which can ignite new waves of global AVC
transformations, particularly in regard to developing countries’ participation.
AVCs are changing globally in scale, characteristics and priorities. In Asia and Latin
America, the share of high-value products in agricultural exports has increased from 20 to 40%
since the 1980s (Swinnen, 2015). A similar trend is occurring in Africa, albeit at a slower pace.
However, successful instances of AVC collaboration mostly involve perishable and high-value
horticultural products. Another trend, often referred as a “quiet revolution” involving staple
crops, is also emerging in Africa and Asia and is fueled by collaboration among intermediaries
and processors, including transporters, cold storage providers and millers (Reardon, 2015).
Collaboration networks in AVCs sometimes are inefficient and do not necessarily
contribute to competitiveness of the product involved (Benmehaia and Brabez, 2018;
Dannenberg and Nduru, 2013). These challenges arise from capacity constraints in human
and physical capital and inadequate agricultural policies (Protopop and Shanoyan, 2016).
Consequently, successful interventions for promoting collaboration among stakeholders
often require support in the form of public-private partnerships (Dahan et al., 2010). Despite
constraints that generate unproductive examples, collaboration among stakeholders often
enhances competitiveness, fosters sharing of goals and approaches to problem solving and
creates long-term relationships (Norton, 2017; Wu et al., 2014).
Some interventions emphasize the role of collaboration among stakeholders in AVCs as a
driver of progress for development. For instance, a World Bank project (World Bank, 2022) in
Indonesia and the AVC Cambodia competitiveness and safety project (Asian Development
Bank, 2024) aim to strengthen AVCs by creating sustainable and competitive agricultural
practices among smallholders. These trends reveal a shift toward greater developing
countries’ participation in global value chains (GVCs) and underscore the importance of
collaboration in AVCs.
 The objective of this scoping review is to systematically assess collaboration models among Agricultural
stakeholders of AVCs in developing countries, examine the factors that foster or impede value chains
collaboration (enablers and constraints) and identify gaps in research on collaboration in AVCs.
We believe this is the first scoping review on collaboration models in AVCs that offers insights
with evidence on AVC collaboration, for use by policymakers, governments, private
agricultural enterprises, donor agencies and field advisors in developing countries.

2. Conceptual model of collaboration in AVC

Collaboration is an approach to solving complex problems in which “diverse groups of
autonomous stakeholders deliberate to build consensus and develop networks for translating
consensus into results” (Margerum, 2011) [1]. The collaboration concept in AVCs is mostly
narrative-based and context specific (Saitone and Sexton, 2017; Tran et al., 2013), with no
established economic theory for it. However, competitiveness in agricultural markets has two
critical dimensions that apply to AVCs: the ability to produce at low cost and product
differentiation, mostly related to quality (Norton, 2017, p. 10). This can serve as the basis for
the conceptual framework of this scoping review.
In a competitive agricultural market, exercising asymmetric market power, whether by
small buyers or large private firms, often leads to declines in smallholders’ income
(Casaburi and Reed, 2022; Bergquist and Dinerstein, 2020) and creates a long-run detrimental
effect on the market as farmers exit (Sexton, 2012, p. 9). Therefore, forging sustainable
collaboration within the value chain, benefitting both buyers and farmers, is important for the
endurance of the market for those producers and locations. Such collaboration increases
productivity due to technology transfer, expanded market access and improved product
quality, and it provides incentives to farmers through price premiums (Abdul-Rahaman and
Abdulai, 2020; Larsen, 2016; Bellemare, 2012).
AVCs in developing countries have undergone significant transformation (G
omez et al.,
2011; Reardon et al., 2003). Traditional inefficient AVCs in developing countries are being
replaced by more efficient ones, and trades are increasingly regulated through stringent food
quality and safety standards (P
erez and G
omez, 2022; Henson and Reardon, 2005). In global
AVCs, it is common for private food standards to be more rigorous than those of the public
sector (Vandemoortele and Deconinck, 2014; Fulponi, 2007). Moreover, exporters in developing
countries are compelled to comply with GVC standards set by importing countries.
The influence of GVC standards extends to domestic markets as well (Henson and
Reardon, 2005). To effectively address GVC standards and achieve competitiveness, AVCs in
developing countries have undergone structural changes, including improved vertical and
horizontal coordination among stakeholders and an increased power of lead private firms in
AVCs (Widadie et al., 2022; McCullough et al., 2008; Swinnen and Maertens, 2007).
Figure 1 presents a conceptual model of collaboration among stakeholders by stages of an
AVC. Main descriptors of this model are collaborators, the nature of the collaboration and its
outcomes.

3. Study design and methodology

Our systematic approach (Levac et al., 2010; Arksey and O’Malley, 2005) explores the breadth
of existing evidence on collaboration models within AVCs and summarizes findings from
studies with diverse methodologies, while identifying gaps in the literature. We have adhered
to the guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018) from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and the Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Our approach
follows the recommended five-step process: defining the research question, identifying
relevant studies, selecting studies, extracting data, charting the data and summarizing and
reporting results.
JADEE

Figure 1.
Conceptual model of
collaboration in AVC,
its mechanism and
influencing factors

3.1 Eligibility criteria

The research question of this scoping review is: “What is the extent of existing evidence
regarding models of collaboration in AVCs and its characteristics, among local and
international actors, including donors, private partners, academic institutions, and NGOs and
governments that support AVC strengthening or policy changes?” To answer this question,
our systematic research protocol delineates eligibility criteria for selecting the studies and has
four key parameters: stakeholder population, type of collaboration, possible outcomes from
collaboration and collaboration study design.
The protocol focuses on both formal collaboration as contract farming and informal
collaboration like smallholders’ groups with verbal agreements to sell harvests jointly to a
buyer. We exclude studies on non-AVCs, urban agriculture and those focusing on
hypothetical experiments and lacking collaboration details. Collaboration outcomes
include input use and technology of production, production and processing levels, sales
and producer prices received. The study design encompasses quantitative and qualitative
evidence, mixed methods reports, systematic reviews and previous scoping reviews.
3.2 Search strategy and study selection Agricultural
The database search protocol was developed by the authors using the studies identified from value chains
the existing evidence gap maps (Yeritsyan, 2023). This approach facilitated identification and
retrieval of the most relevant studies. The search was carried out in CAB, EconLit (EBSCO)
and AGRICOLA databases. In addition, manual searches of websites of international
development organizations were conducted along with Google incognito searches to avoid
personalized selection of outcomes. All the retrieved records were uploaded into Covidence,
software for managing and streamlining literature reviews.
This scoping review includes published research papers, theses and dissertations and
reports from research institutions issued between January 2005 and May 2023 in English and
conducted in the low, middle and upper-middle income countries (World Bank’s classification,
2018). Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts of retrieved studies and
conducted full-text readings using the eligibility criteria. Any disagreements were resolved by a
third reviewer. Figure 2 shows the process for selecting studies for this review starting with
identifying 3,434 studies. After full-text reading of the most relevant 151 studies and application
of the eligibility criteria, 59 studies were selected to be included in this scoping review.

database searches through other sources

(n = 3431) (n = 3)
Identification

Duplicate references
removed (n = 104)
removed (n = 3330)
Screening

Records screened Not relevant (n = 3179)

(n = 3330)

Full- for Full-

reasons (n = 92)
Eligibility

eligibility (n = 151)

Wrong study design (4)

Not found (7)
Included

Studies included in evidence

synthesis (n = 59)
Figure 2.
PRISMA study
selection flow chart
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
JADEE 3.3 Data extraction and analysis
Dedoose software was used to organize the data extracted from the studies. It allows the
coding of both textual and graphical evidence from the included studies and categorizes them
into groups aligned with the review’s objectives. The coding structure was designed by the
lead author and discussed and approved by coauthors in consultation with an expert on
qualitative studies.
The data coding structure follows two major themes. The first theme places the general
information from included studies into four categories: outcomes, enabling factors,
constraints and reason for collaboration. Each category is then subcategorized into parent
codes and, when necessary, child codes. For example, in the category of collaboration
outcomes, there are five parent codes: farmers’ welfare, production outcomes, market
participation, product quality and logistical services and risk management.
The second theme places information from the studies in five categories regarding the
nature of the collaboration: value chain stage of the collaboration, primary collaborators, food
groups, governance structure of collaboration and markets. Regarding food groups, parent
codes are “high-value crop” and “staple crop.” The “high-value crop” parent code was
subdivided into four child codes: fruits and vegetables, meat, dairy products and other high-
value crops such as coffee, cocoa, cotton and turmeric.

4. Results
4.1 Included studies
The 59 studies on collaboration in AVCs analyze experiences in 32 countries: 33 from Africa,
20 from Asia, 6 from South America and 4 from North America (Figure 3a and Table 1). The
studies were journal publications (51), theses (3), published reports (2), a book chapter (1) and
discussion papers (2). Around 44 studies were published after 2012, averaging four studies
per year, indicating an increased research focus on collaboration within AVCs (Figure 3b).
Maryono et al. (2024), while looking at multistakeholder partnership in AVCs, found a similar
pattern of increase in number of studies after 2012.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of collaboration studies by four characteristics: primary
collaborators, food groups, outcomes and governance structures. Primary collaborators
include three subgroups (Figure 4a): (1) private firms including lead firms, retailers,
processors, traders and exporters; (2) local and national governments, research institutions,

12
Numbers of collaboraƟon studies

10

0
Figure 3.
2006
2005

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2020
2021
2022
2023

Included study
characteristics (a) Year
geographical
representation and (b) (a) (b)
distribution by year of Note(s): Some studies cover multiple countries
publication
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
No. Author and year Country Nature of collaboration Market served Stage of AVC Commodity type Reported outcomes

1 Ad
ekambi (2015) Benin Quality and market International Markets High-value crops Income
access (animal produce)
2 Ahmed et al. Bangladesh Market access and International Markets, High-value crops Market participation,
(2016) technology transfer production (animal produce) quality, logistics
3 Alemu et al. (2016) Ethiopia Market access International, Markets, inputs High-value crop (honey) Production, income
domestic (equipment
services)
4 Ao et al. (2021) China Market access Domestic Markets Mostly staple crops Income
5 Arbel
aez et al. Columbia Domestic market Domestic Markets High-value crops (coffee, Domestic market
(2018) development sugar), staple crop (rice) participation
6 Bayiyana et al. Tanzania Market access and credit Domestic Inputs, markets High-value output (milk) Production, income
(2018)
7 Vilas-Boas et al. Brazil Quality and market International, Production, post- High-value outputs Production, market
(2022) development domestic harvest (pork) participation, logistics
8 Booker et al. India Market access and International, Processing, High-value crop Production, logistics,
(2016) quality domestic logistics (turmeric) income
9 Benmehaia and Algeria Market access Domestic Markets High-value crop (tomato) Income
Brabez (2018)
10 Choudhary et al. India Market access Local Markets High-value crops Market participation
(2022) (ginger, vegetables, hay,
straw, manures, cashew)
11 D’hotel and Bosc Costa Rica Domestic market Local Markets High-value crops (milk, Market participation
(2011) development coffee), staple crop with tariff barriers
(black bean)
12 Dannenberg and Kenya Quality and market International Production, post- High-value crop Quality, logistics
Nduru (2013) access harvest,
governance
13 Doherty and Ghana Market access International Markets High-value crop (cacao) Income, market
Tranchell (2005) participation
14 Doyer et al. (2008) South Africa Market access Domestic Markets High-value crop Market participation
(tobacco)

(continued )
Agricultural
value chains

scoping review
Studies included in the
Table 1.
 Table 1.
JADEE
No. Author and year Country Nature of collaboration Market served Stage of AVC Commodity type Reported outcomes

15 Esther. (2018) Ghana Technology transfer Local Production, post- Staple crops Risk: pests, diseases
harvest
16 Figueiredo et al. Brazil Quality International Production, post- High-value crop (honey) Production, quality,
(2016) harvest logistics
17 Guei et al. (2011) Cameroon Technology transfer and Domestic Inputs, Staple crops (rice, maize, Production, market
market development production, post- sorghum, millets) participation
harvest
18 Gyau and Spiller Ghana Market access International Markets High-value crops (fruits, Income, market
(2008) vegetables) participation
19 Hern
andez et al. Guatemala Market access and Domestic Markets High-value crop (tomato) Income, quality,
(2006) quality logistics, market
participation
20 Hulke and Diez Namibia Domestic market Domestic Markets High-value crops Market participation
(2022) development (horticulture)
21 Ib
an
~ez (2015) Dominican Market development Domestic Processing, High-value output (milk) Market participation
Republic (quantity and quality) logistics
22 Jaffee and Kenya Quality International Markets, High-value crops Quality, logistics
Masakure (2005) production, post- (vegetables)
harvest
23 Kamara et al. Sierra Leone Technology transfer Domestic Inputs Staple crop (rice) Production, income,
(2023) costs
24 Kar et al. (2020) India Market access and inputs Domestic Markets, inputs Staple crop (rice) Income
25 Khondker et al. Nepal and Market access, quality Domestic Markets, High-value crops Production, market
(2018) Bangladesh and productivity governance (seafood) participation, income
26 Kumar et al. India Market access and Domestic, Inputs, markets High-value crops (onion, Income
(2019) technology transfer international okra, pomegranate)
27 Larsen (2016) India Market access and International Processing, High-value crop (tea) Income, quality
quality logistics
28 Liang et al. (2023) China Market access and inputs – Markets, inputs High-value output (meat) Income by type of
contract

(continued )
No. Author and year Country Nature of collaboration Market served Stage of AVC Commodity type Reported outcomes

29 Lu HuaLiang et al. China Quality and market Domestic Markets High-value crops Quality, logistics
(2010) access (including animal
production)
30 Masuka (2013) Zimbabwe Quality Domestic, Inputs, markets High-value crop (cotton) Quality
international
31 Melese and Ethiopia Market access and International Markets High-value crops Production, market
Helmsing (2010) market development (flowers) participation, quality
32 Minten et al. Madagascar Market access and International Markets High-value crops Income, risk
(2009) quality (vegetables)
33 Muyombano, Rwanda Technology transfer Policy on land Inputs Staple crops Production
Espling (2020) consolidation
34 Mwambi et al. Kenya Market access International Markets High-value crop Income
(2016) (avocado)
35 Ng’asike et al. Kenya Domestic market Domestic, Markets High-value output Market participation
(2020) development, market international (animal produce)
infrastructure and
quality
36 Oberholster et al. South Africa Access to finance Domestic Inputs Agricultural finance Risk, competitiveness,
(2015) (smallholders) agricultural finance
37 Ogutu et al. (2020) Kenya Market access Domestic Market High-value crops Income, poverty
(vegetables) reduction
38 Okry et al. (2011) Guinea Technology transfer Domestic Inputs Staple crops Production, inputs
39 Ortiz et al. (2013) Bolivia, Technology transfer Domestic Production and High-value crops Production and
Ethiopia, Peru, post-harvest (vegetables) technology
Uganda
40 Ouma et al. (2017) Uganda Market access Domestic Processing and High-value crops Market participation
logistics (animal produce) and risk
41 Padron et al. Mexico Domestic market International Markets High-value crops (coffee) Income, market
(2012) development participation and risk

(continued )
Agricultural
value chains

Table 1.
 Table 1.
JADEE
No. Author and year Country Nature of collaboration Market served Stage of AVC Commodity type Reported outcomes

42 Quarmine (2013) Ghana Quality through International Markets High-value crops (cocoa) Income and market
certification and market participation
access
43 Gonz
alez- Mexico Market access International Markets High-value crops Production and
Ram
ırez et al. (berries) governance
(2020)
44 Rao et al. (2017) India Infrastructure and Local Markets High-value crop Income, production
domestic market and market
development participation
45 Ravikumar and India Technology transfer Domestic, Market and High-value crops Income, production
Rajesh (2015) international inputs (flower) and market
participation
46 Romero Granja Ecuador Market access International Market High-value crops Income
and Wollni (2018) (broccoli)
47 Sulistyowati et al. Indonesia Market access International Market and High-value crop (mango) Partnership between
(2016) inputs wholesalers and
farmers
48 Swinnen et al. India Market access Domestic Market High-value output (milk) Income, production
(2011)
49 Th
eriault et al. Mali Technology transfer Local Inputs High-value crops and Production
(2018) (fertilizer) staple crop
50 Totin et al. (2015) Benin Technology transfer Local Inputs Staple crops Production, income
51 Tran et al. (2013) Vietnam Quality and market International Markets High-value crops Quality
access (shrimp)
52 Tru et al. (2012) Vietnam Market access International Production and High-value crop Market participation
post-harvest
53 Tschirley and Zambia Inputs Domestic Inputs, High-value crop (cotton) Production
Kabwe (2009) production and
post-harvest

(continued )
No. Author and year Country Nature of collaboration Market served Stage of AVC Commodity type Reported outcomes

54 Uddin et al. (2022) Bangladesh Market access Domestic Market, High-value output (milk) Production and income
production and
post-harvest
55 Venkatesh et al. India Market access Domestic, Market, High-value crop (mango) Income
(2017) international processing,
logistics
56 Van Campenhout Uganda Quality and market International Markets High-value crop (milk) Production, quality
et al. (2021) development and logistics
57 Weyori et al. Ghana Technology transfer Domestic Input, production High-value crops Technology adoption
(2018) and post-harvest (plantain)
58 Yaseen et al. Kenya Market access (market – Market High-value crops Market participation
(2018) information) (vegetable)
59 Zhu et al. (2018) China (Inner Market access, inputs Domestic, Input, High-value crops Production, market
Mongolia) and costs International production, and (including animal participation and,
post-harvest production) income
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
Agricultural
value chains

Table 1.
JADEE
Fruits and Vegetables (n = 20)
Private firms (n = 43) 73
Other high-value crops (n = 14)
Governments, NGOs, and
54 Meat (n = 8)
donor agencies (n = 32)
Dairy (n = 6)
Small holders (n = 18) 31 Staple Crops (n = 13)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40
Percentage of studies Percentage of studies

(a) (b)

Welfare (n = 25)

ProducƟon (n = 25) Horizontal

coordinaƟon(n = 16)
Market parƟcipaƟon (n = 24)

Quality and logisƟcs (n = 16)

VerƟcal coordinaƟon(n = 34)
Risk management (n = 9)

Figure 4. 0 20 40
Included studies by (a) 0 50 100
primary collaborators Percentage of Studies Percentage of Studies
in AVCs, (b) food
groups involved, (c)
(c) (d)
collaboration outcomes Note(s): The percentages do not sum to 100 as studies often report more than one primary
and (d) governance
structure of AVCs
collaborator, food group and/or outcome
Source(s): Authors’ own creation

local and international NGOs, donor agencies; (3) smallholders and cooperatives. They are
vital for the success of collaboration. For instance, local governments and NGOs were
primary collaborators for technology transfer for rice crop intensification in Sierra Leone
(Kamara et al., 2023). In India, private firms were primary collaborators in contract farming
for onion, okra and pomegranate crops (Kumar et al., 2019). About 73% of the studies report
private firms as primary collaborators; 54% report governments, NGOs and donor agencies
in that role; and 31% report smallholders and cooperatives. The majority of studies
conducted in non-African countries report private firms as collaborators (60%), while studies
in African countries report private firms (40%) along with governments, NGOs and donor
agencies (38%) as collaborators.
The categories of food groups reported in the literature are high-value crops and staple
crops (Figure 4b). AVC operations depend on the commodity. Perishable foods such as fruit
and vegetables, dairy and meat products need a fast and efficient AVC to meet global food
safety and quality standards. Forty-eight studies report collaboration involving high-value
crops: 20 for fruit and vegetables; 14 for other high-value crops including tea, cotton,
medicinal plants, coffee and cocoa; 6 for dairy; and 8 for meat. Staple crops usually are grains
like rice and corn. Over 55% of studies report collaboration involving high-value crops.
Studies conducted in African countries frequently report collaboration involving staple crops
more often (30%) than those conducted in non-African countries (10%). The concentration on
high-value crops is not surprising; Norton (2017) points out that those value chains are more
likely to be sustainable than ones for staple crops.
The markets for AVCs vary by primary collaborator and output. Most studies of
smallholder farmers in Africa analyze high-value crops such as fruit, vegetables, coffee and
cocoa for Europe. However, AVCs in Asian countries serve both domestic and international
markets. Among the studies, 38 reported serving domestic markets and 32 international Agricultural
markets. value chains
Twenty-five studies focused on welfare-related outcomes; 25 on market participation
outcomes; 24 on production outcomes; 16 on quality and trading services; and 9 on risk
management (Figure 4c). Studies consistently report farmers’ welfare as an important
collaboration outcome, with production outcomes emphasized in African countries and
market participation and quality related outcomes emphasized in non-African studies.
Vertical coordination is preferred in collaboration rather than horizontal coordination. More
than 57% of the studies reported vertical coordination (Figure 4d).

4.2 Nature of and motivations for collaboration

Studies report collaboration for market development, technology transfer, market and input
access, quality improvement and cost reduction. Figure 5 presents the reasons for
collaboration by value chain stage, primary collaborator and governance structure of
an AVC.
Thirty studies (50%) report market access, 12 (20%) market development, 22 (37%)
quality and 18 (30%) technology transfer as main reasons for collaboration. One study
reports multiple reasons: in Kenya fruit and vegetable producers collaborated in AVCs to
secure access to European markets while also meeting stringent private quality standards
(Dannenberg and Nduru, 2013; Jaffee and Masakure, 2005).
Market access and product quality are reported as two main collaboration reasons across
all stages of AVC, with technology transfer being important for input supply, production and
post-harvest stages of AVC in African countries (Figure 5). Studies involving small farmers
report all four main reasons, while studies involving private firms frequently report market
access and quality as motivations. In vertical coordination cases, market access and quality
are two main reasons for collaboration, while studies involving horizontal coordination report
all four reasons.

4.3 Collaboration results

Figure 6 shows collaboration patterns organized by major themes aligned with our
conceptual framework: collaboration stages, outcomes, enablers and constraints.
4.3.1 Stages of collaboration. Collaboration stages include input supply, production and
post-harvest, processing and the market (Figure 6a). Several studies revealed collaboration
spanning multiple stages. In contract farming, lead firms collaborated both at the market

60
Percentage of studies

50
40
30
20
10
0
Input supply Processing and ProducƟon and Market stage small holders Governements, Private firms Horizontal VerƟcal
(n = 29) logisƟcs (n = 21) post harvest (n = 28) (n = 59) (n = 29) NGOs and donors (n = 57) coordinaƟon(n = 24) coordinaƟon(n = 43) Figure 5.
(n = 44)
Reasons for
(a) (b) (c) collaboration by (a)
collaboration stage, (b)
Market development (n = 12) Quality improvement (n = 22) Technology transfer (n = 18) Market access (n = 30)
primary collaborator
Note(s): one study may report multiple reasons of collaboration and (c) governance
structure
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
JADEE 60

Percentage of studies
40

20

0
Small holders (n = 33) Governments, NGOs Private firms (n = 79) High-value crops (n = 81) Staple crops (n = 24)
and donors (n = 53)

Input supply(n = 21) Market stage(n = 43) Processing and logisƟcs (n = 12) ProducƟon and post-harvest(n = 16)

(a)

60
Percentage of studies

40

20

0
Small holders (n = 29) Governments, NGOs Private firms (n = 78) High-value crops (n = 81) Staple crops (n = 17)
and donors (n = 50)
Quality and logisƟcs improvement(n = 16) ProducƟon (n = 25)
Risk management (n = 9) Welfare (n = 25)
Market ParƟcipaƟon (n = 24)

(b)
40
Percentage of studies

20

0
Small holders (n = 21) Governments, NGOs Private firms (n = 57) High-value crops (n = 63) Staple crops (n = 16)
and donors (n = 43)
Inadequate infrastructure (n = 12) Conflicts of interest (n = 22) Quality controls (n = 16)
Social barriers (n = 10) Resource limitaƟons (n = 20)

(c)
60
Percentage of studies

40

20

Figure 6. 0
Collaboration results Small holders (n = 24) Governments, NGOs and Private firms (n = 58) High-value crops (n = 62) Staple crops (n = 19)
by primary donors (n = 44)
collaborator and food External demand (n = 15) Overall growth of sector (n = 10) Government support (n = 26) Expected profit (n = 30)
group for: (a) stages, (b) (d)
outcomes, (c)
constraints and (d) Note(s): Total outcomes per subgroup is over 59, as some studies report multiple outcomes
drivers of collaboration
Source(s): Authors’ own creation

stage, purchasing outputs, and at the input stage, supplying inputs and technology to
farmers. A significant proportion of studies (72%) report collaboration taking place at the
market stage. For staple crops, collaboration is reported at the input supply stage,
particularly in African countries. Private firms and smallholders primarily collaborate for
markets. Governments, NGOs and donors tend to collaborate at both market and input
stages.
 4.3.2 Outcomes of collaboration. Among outcomes of collaboration (Figure 6b), farmer’s Agricultural
welfare, market participation and production are the most commonly reported, whereas risk value chains
management is mentioned less often. Analyses of collaboration for high-value crops
frequently report outcomes such as welfare of producer households, market participation,
quality improvement and production; for staple crops chief outcomes are production and
income (Muyombano and Espling, 2020; Totin et al., 2015). This difference may be
attributable to prioritizing food security and livelihoods through subsidized seeds, fertilizers
and technology transfer in actions of governments, NGOs and donor agencies. Overall,
studies of smallholders frequently report market outcomes, including market access, updated
market information, better prices and higher incomes.
4.3.3 Constraints on collaboration. Resource limitations and conflicts of interest emerge as
major constraints to collaboration in 22 and 20 studies, respectively; other constraints include
inadequate infrastructure, quality challenges and societal barriers in 12, 16 and 10 studies,
respectively (Figure 6c). In collaboration involving staple crops, private firms and
governments, NGOs and donors, resource limitation is a major and frequently reported
constraint (Mwambi et al., 2016; Muyombano and Espling, 2020). In collaboration for high-
value crops, conflicts of interest are reported more frequently than for staple crops. This
discrepancy may be attributed to higher input and labor costs and high margins associated
with high-value crops, prompting stakeholders to seek higher returns by exercising market
power. While conflicts of interest are a major challenge, quality constraints are also
frequently mentioned in many studies conducted in African countries.
Here are examples of conflict of interest that can emerge in AVCs. In Ecuador’s broccoli
value chain, payment delays from private firms diminished farmer interest in collaboration,
as the spot market offered immediate payment (Romero Granja and Wollni, 2018).
Collaboration between the Danish government and the Bangladesh government, for
enhancing prawn marketing and quality through community-level collection centers led to
conflicts, due to influential local intermediaries losing their livelihoods (Ahmed et al., 2016).
Rwanda’s government policy on land use consolidation required farmers to grow only one
specific grain, which led to food insecurity for some families that couldn’t grow other crops
like vegetables and other grains (Muyombano and Espling, 2020). Such issues underscore the
need for planning attuned to local traditions and preferences when formulating collaboration
policies.
Quality control constraints like strict private food standards under global AVCs,
sometimes cause smallholders’ exclusion from AVCs in developing countries. Broccoli
farmers in Ecuador were excluded from collaboration due to high transaction costs and
perceived risks of non-compliance with export quality standards. Studies from Nepal and
India report social constraints like gender disparities and food adulteration malpractices by
stakeholders. In Nepal, the gender disparity in participation was a constraint in fish
farming collaboration. Adulteration of turmeric by stakeholders was a constraint in an
AVC in India.
4.3.4 Enablers of collaboration. On factors enabling AVC collaboration, 30 studies report
expected higher profits, 26 report government support, 15 report external factors like
increase in demand and 10 report overall agricultural growth (Figure 6d). Studies involving
smallholders and private firms report expected higher profits as an important enabler. This
may be due to the more focused approach of stakeholders in collaboration involving vertical
coordination and high-value crops. Studies involving high-value crops and private firms
often report external demand as a driver of collaboration. Examples include African nations
supplying vegetables to Europe (Minten et al., 2009) and Mexico supplying fruit such as
berries to the United States (Gonz
alez-Ram
ırez et al., 2020).
Studies consistently report support from governments, NGOs and donor agencies as a
significant driver of collaboration. Such support includes subsidies, technology transfers and
JADEE training. Examples of government assistance are evident, particularly in Africa nations, with
subsidies given for staple crop cultivation (Muyombano and Espling, 2020; Th
eriault et al.,
2018). For high-value crops governments provide training, information and extension
services to collaborating small farmers (Choudhary et al., 2022). Additionally, these
supporting institutions regulate collaboration policies, as in the cases of the milk industry in
Dominican Republic and the flower industry in India. Policies can contribute to effective
functioning of AVCs and safeguard smallholders’ interests.

4.4 Governance structures in AVC collaboration

Governance in AVCs shapes the nature of collaboration. In this review, 34 studies report
vertical coordination and 16 studies report horizontal coordination. Figure 7 presents
collaboration results by the governance structure in collaboration.
As shown in Figure 7a, the market stage is the stage in which governance is most present.
This may be due to lead firms, which often exercise their market power at the market stage to
influence prices. Additionally, governance at the input supply stage in vertical coordination
and at the production and post-harvest stages in horizontal coordination is also important.

60
Percentage of studies

40
50
30
40
30 20
20
10
10
0 0
Horizontal coordinaƟon (n = 24) VerƟcal coordinaƟon (n = 54) Horizontal coordinaƟon VerƟcal coordinaƟon(n = 63)
(n = 23)
Input supply (n = 16)
Quality and logisƟc improvement (n = 13)
Market (n = 36) ProducƟon (n = 19)
Processing and logisƟcs (n = 12) Risk management (n = 8)
Welfare (n = 26)
ProducƟon and post harvest (n = 14)
Market parƟcipaƟon (n = 20)

(a) (b)

35 50
Percentage of studies

30
40
25
20 30
15 20
10
10
5
0 0
Horizontal coordinaƟon(n = 22) VerƟcal coordinaƟon (n = 45) Horizontal coordinaƟon (n = 21) VerƟcal coordinaƟon (n = 48)

Inadequate infrastructure (n = 9) External demand (n = 13)

Conflicts of interest(n = 19)
Overall growth of sector (n = 10)
Quality controls (n = 12)
Figure 7. Social barriers (n = 10)
Government support (n = 20)
Collaboration results Profits (n = 26)
Resource limitaƟons (n = 17)
by governance
structure for: (a) stages,
(b) outcomes, (c)
(c) (d)
constraints and (d) Note(s): A study may report multiple outcomes, constraints, and drivers of collaboration
drivers of collaboration
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
We observe a consistent pattern of preferred collaboration outcomes in both vertical and Agricultural
horizontal coordination, in regard to household welfare, production, quality improvement value chains
and market participation (Figure 7b). Vertical coordination also is more likely to incorporate
risk management outcomes as drivers to the collaboration. Furthermore, in vertical
coordination, resource limitations, quality control and conflicts of interest are three major
constraints. However, in horizontal coordination, the major perceived constraint is conflicts of
interest (Figure 7c).
Referring to Figure 7d, in collaboration involving vertical coordination, the primary
driving factor is expectations of higher profits, followed by government support. In
collaboration involving horizontal coordination, the priority is reversed, with government
support as the main driver of collaboration, followed by higher profit expectations.

5. Discussion and policy implications

The collaboration models within AVCs depend on the type of interaction among stakeholders
and factors that affect the success of such collaboration. Using evidence from literature, we
discuss several interaction types, their related outcomes and identify gaps in AVC
collaboration policy.

5.1 Market participation

In general, AVC collaboration improves market participation, facilitates access to potential
markets, generates higher prices and provides market information for better decision-
making. Collaboration of small farmers with supermarkets leads to improved market access,
higher prices and adoption of innovative and more efficient production practices (Uddin et al.,
2022; Van Campenhout et al., 2021). Implementing policies that lead to improved market
participation not only increases incomes but also enhances producers’ bargaining power and
promotes a more equitable distribution of benefits.
Collaboration that enhances market participation mostly involves high-value crops,
governed by private firms and supported by local institutions. Such a pattern may arise
because private firms mainly focus on high-value crops and participate in international
markets, while local institutions assist the small farmers involved in collaboration with
private firms. For instance, farmers from African nations, geographically positioned near
European markets, were involved in collaboration for crops like fruits, vegetables and cocoa.
The success of such collaboration is strengthened by low-cost labor and the availability of
required natural resources (Minten et al., 2009; Benmehaia and Brabez, 2018). Conversely,
collaboration involving staple crops experiences more limited market participation since
staple crops are mostly meant for household consumption and food security. Hence,
experiences of government-assisted collaboration for staple crops show low market
participation.
Enhanced market participation in both vertical and horizontal coordination reduces
costs and generates higher prices (Ahmed et al., 2016; Guei et al., 2011). Furthermore,
enhancing market participation is also associated with the use of innovative production
practices and the adoption of more efficient technologies of production and distribution,
such as the establishment of collection points for dairy produce by farmers’ groups (Uddin
et al., 2022; Van Campenhout et al., 2021; Doherty and Tranchell, 2005). Use of such
technologies fosters long-term market linkages among stakeholders and connects the local
AVCs to the global markets as witnessed in the case of African nations. Additionally, better
market participation keeps stakeholders informed about the market dynamics and changes
in demand, tastes and preferences, information that helps them to adjust production
quantities and quality.
JADEE 5.2 Product quality
Collaboration that focuses on product quality improvement generates higher prices and
facilitates access to high-paying markets (Booker et al., 2016; Larsen, 2016; Melese and
Helmsing, 2010). This is because collaboration models that emphasize product differentiation,
food safety and quality improvement (Van Campenhout et al., 2021; Tran et al., 2013) are more
likely to be competitive in the marketplace. Additionally, a functioning governance structure
(vertical or horizontal) among the stakeholders also helps improved quality. Collaboration for
product quality improvement often takes place at the production, processing and market
stages. However, a policy gap often exists for collaboration at the input stage, where it is
needed to promote use of good quality seeds, fertilizers and improved technologies that may
further help in quality improvement.
Private firms act as dominant actors in collaboration for quality improvement, an effect
that is particularly evident in horticulture, dairy and the meat industry (Vilas-Boas et al., 2022;
Jaffee and Masakure, 2005). However, challenges arise that may exclude small farmers due to
stringent standards, necessitating some flexibility in collaboration (Dannenberg and Nduru,
2013). In such cases, the involvement of local institutions becomes crucial to safeguard the
interests of smallholders (Tru et al., 2012). These local institutions provide necessary training
and establish essential infrastructure, enabling small farmers and their groups to meet
quality standards and reduce production costs.
In collaboration involving staple crops, the primary goals have been food security and
sustainable livelihoods with less emphasis on product quality (Totin et al., 2015; Ao et al.,
2021). However, in evolving global AVCs, the focus on staple crops like wheat, rice and millet
has increased. Therefore, policy interventions can be required for quality and product
differentiation in staple crops as well.

5.3 Trust among stakeholders and role of government, NGOs and donor agencies
Trust among the stakeholders is important for effective collaboration. Lack of trust results in
issues like side-selling, low product quality from unidentified suppliers, domestic protection
measures and unequal distribution of benefits among stakeholders (Hulke and Diez, 2022;
Romero Granja and Wollni, 2018). Addressing these challenges requires innovative and
context-specific solutions, such as allowing flexibility in contract prices and streamlining
payment systems to make them more efficient (Tru et al., 2012).
Trust in collaboration yields positive outcomes, as seen in Guanxi network in China in
the vegetable value chain (Lu HuaLiang et al., 2010). Supporting institutions like
governments, NGOs and donor agencies can play an important role in building trust
among stakeholders in collaboration. They can help farmers understand contractual
agreements, mitigate miscommunication on private food standards, upgrade production
practices and facilitate necessary changes in trade-related protection policies (Larsen,
2016; Ib
an~ez, 2015).
Most successful collaboration models involve participation of support institutions
(Ortiz et al., 2013; Ravikumar and Rajesh, 2015). Increased participation of support
institutions can help address challenges of inadequate infrastructure, transportation
logistics, conflict resolution and of the need for innovative technology. A compelling case
was seen in Kenya, where inadequate meat processing facilities were a hindrance in utilizing
the increased livestock supply from Somalia and resulted in potential losses of revenue for
producers (Ng’asike et al., 2020). In such cases, support institutions can hold the potential for
creating the necessary infrastructure facilities in developing countries. Additional avenues
for donor agencies to support collaboration models include market and weather information
services, training and extension services, capital investments in collection centers and
introducing innovative technologies like block chains to curb malpractices.
5.4 Other provisions in collaboration contracts Agricultural
The types of contracts in collaboration significantly affect outcomes. Some studies report that value chains
private firms, in addition to buying produce at agreed-upon prices (market contracts), also
provide input and technological support to small farmers. While reaching agreement on prices
requires dealing with inherently opposed interests, this kind of support generates shared
interests and thus contributes to the sustainability of the value chains as well as their greater
efficiency (Kar et al., 2020; Norton, 2017). Less developed production technologies also make
farmers susceptible to production-related risk. In such cases, a lead firm’s intervention with the
support of local institutions is crucial in providing production-related support facilities.
Additionally, AVC collaboration in developing countries often neglects the risk involved in
agriculture production. Market-related risk due to price fluctuations in international markets
is only acknowledged in a few collaboration studies (Padron et al., 2012). Production risk,
financial risk and institutional risk, which are inherent in agricultural production, have not
been addressed adequately either. Incorporating risk-related provisions in collaboration could
enhance the outcomes. Adding mechanisms such as crop insurance and financial services for
distressed circumstances can fortify collaboration. Additionally, entrepreneurship
development for small farmers can help manage the risks associated with agriculture. Lead
firms and support institutions can support risk management practices in collaboration.

6. Conclusions and limitations

This scoping review presents evidence on existing collaboration models in AVCs, their
outcomes, enablers and constraints and pinpoints research gaps. Our findings reveal that the
primary reasons for collaboration in AVCs are to enhance market access and improve
product quality. Key outcomes of collaboration include farmers’ welfare, market participation
and production outcomes. The expected higher profits and support from government and
non-governmental entities motivate and facilitate collaboration. Conversely, conflicts of
interest among stakeholders and resource limitations constrain the possibilities of
collaboration. Notably, collaboration models frequently neglect risk management, conflict
resolution and the provision of necessary infrastructure and resources. Results from this
review can help policymakers and support institutions design effective, flexible and
sustainable policy interventions tailored to the unique characteristics of AVCs, including
geographical locations, the products involved and cultural and social practices of farmers.
It is important to note that although this scoping review provides a comprehensive
overview of collaboration models in AVCs, it does not provide empirical evidence on these
models’ success or failure. The existing literature on collaboration models predominantly
uses case studies and lacks strong empirical results. The evidence here is derived from
qualitative assessments of static collaboration models from the included studies.
Additionally, we suspect this study may have publication bias, as unsuccessful instances
of collaboration are less likely to be published. Although our database search has been robust,
we cannot neglect the possibility of publication bias. Despite these limitations, this study
synthesizes the prevalent themes and patterns of existing collaboration models. It identifies
AVC policy areas where private firms, farmers’ groups, local and national governments and
donor agencies can contribute to successful collaboration.

Note
1. Here the approach signifies a long-term collaboration among stakeholders within AVCs.
Stakeholders include smallholders, processors, large and small intermediaries, large lead firms
and government agencies, private donors and NGOs. Consensus involves agreements or contracts,
written or verbal, guided by common goals and objectives. Collaboration relies on either vertical
coordination or a network to effectively translate a consensus into tangible outcomes.
JADEE References
Abdul-Rahaman, A. and Abdulai, A. (2020), “Farmer groups, collective marketing and smallholder
farm performance in rural Ghana”, Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging
Economies, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 511-527, doi: 10.1108/jadee-07-2019-0095.
Ad
ekambi, S.A. (2015), The Roles of Exploration and Exploitation in the Export Market Integration of
Beninese Producers at the Base of the Pyramid, Wageningen University and Research.
Ahmed, M.K., Sultana, S., Halim, S. and Islam, M.M. (2016), “Marketing systems of freshwater prawns
in three coastal districts of Bangladesh”, Aquaculture Economics and Management, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 272-282, doi: 10.1080/13657305.2016.1177858.
Alemu, A.E., Maertens, M., Deckers, J., Bauer, H. and Mathijs, E. (2016), “Impact of supply chain
coordination on honey farmers’ income in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia”, Agricultural and Food
Economics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1186/s40100-016-0053-x.
Ao, G., Liu, Q., Qin, L., Chen, M., Liu, S. and Wu, W. (2021), “Organization model, vertical integration,
and farmers’ income growth: empirical evidence from large-scale farmers in Lin’an, China”, Plos
One, Vol. 16 No. 6, e0252482, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252482.
Arbel
aez, M.A., Higuera, S., Steiner, R. and Zuluaga, S. (2018), “Protecting ‘sensitive’ agricultural
products in Colombia: a political economy approach”, Coyuntura Econ
omica, Vol. 48 Nos 1-2,
pp. 153-205.
Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L. (2005), “Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework”,
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 19-32, doi: 10.1080/
1364557032000119616.
Asian Development Bank, A.D.B. (2024), “Cambodia: agriculture value chain competitiveness and
safety enhancement project (2021-2025)”, available at: https://www.adb.org/projects/50264-
002/main
Bayiyana, I., Hepelwa, A., Rao, E.J. and Mdadila, K. (2018), “Do Dairy Market Hubs improve
smallholder farmers’ income? The case of dairy farmers in the Tanga and Morogoro
regions of Tanzania”, Agrekon, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 121-136, doi: 10.1080/03031853.2018.
1481758.
Bellemare, M.F. (2012), “As you sow, so shall you reap: the welfare impacts of contract farming”,
World Development, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1418-1434, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.12.008.
Benmehaia, M.A. and Brabez, F. (2018), “Vertical relationships and food supply chain coordination:
the case of processing tomato sector in Algeria”, New Medit, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 3-14, doi: 10.
30682/nm1802a.
Bergquist, L.F. and Dinerstein, M. (2020), “Competition and entry in agricultural markets:
experimental evidence from Kenya”, American Economic Review, Vol. 110 No. 12,
pp. 3705-3747, doi: 10.1257/aer.20171397.
Booker, A., Johnston, D. and Heinrich, M. (2016), “The welfare effects of trade in phytomedicines: a
multi-disciplinary analysis of turmeric production”, World Development, Vol. 77, pp. 221-230,
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.024.
Casaburi, L. and Reed, T. (2022), “Using individual-level randomized treatment to learn about market
structure”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 58-90, doi: 10.
1257/app.20200306.
Choudhary, A., Ph, A. and Lakiang, I. (2022), “iTEAMS – an agri-business model for enhancing
farmers’ income in Meghalaya”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 77 No. 3,
pp. 480-490.
D’Hotel, E.M. and Bosc, P.M. (2011), “Neither state nor market: the influence of farmers’ organizations
on agricultural policies in Costa Rica”, Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 469-485,
doi: 10.1080/13600818.2011.620086.
Dahan, N.M., Doh, J.P., Oetzel, J. and Yaziji, M. (2010), “Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new Agricultural
business models for developing markets”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2-3, pp. 326-342,
doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.11.003. value chains
Dannenberg, P. and Nduru, G.M. (2013), “Practices in international value chains: the case of the
Kenyan fruit and vegetable chain beyond the exclusion debate”, Tijdschrift Voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 41-56, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2012.00719.x.
Doherty, B. and Tranchell, S. (2005), “New thinking in international trade? A case study of The Day
Chocolate Company”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 166-176, doi: 10.1002/sd.273.
Doyer, O.T., d’Haese, M.F.C., Van Rooyen, C.J., Kirsten, J.F. and D’Haese, L. (2008), “Changing
governance structures in South African agribusiness”, Outlook on Agriculture, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 269-275, doi: 10.5367/000000008787167736.
Esther, W. (2018), “Innovation development and transfer by agricultural development agencies: a case
study of cowpea IPM in northern Ghana”, Agro-Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 7-19, doi: 10.4314/as.
v17i1.2.
Figueiredo, H.S.D. J., Meuwissen, M.P. and Oude Lansink, A.G. (2016), “Evaluating strategies for
honey value chains in Brazil using a value chain structure-conduct-performance (SCP)
framework”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 19, (1030-2016-
83129), pp. 225-250.
Fulponi, L. (2007), “The globalization of private standards and the agri-food system”, in Swinnen,
J.F.M. (Ed.), Global Supply Chains, Standards and the Poor: How the Globalization of Food
Systems and Standards Affects Rural Development and Poverty, CABI, Oxon, pp. 5-18.
G
omez, M.I., Barrett, C.B., Buck, L.E., De Groote, H., Ferris, S., Gao, H.O., Yang, R.Y., Miller, D.D.,
Outhred, H., Pell, A.N., Reardon, T., Retnanestri, M., Ruben, R., Struebi, P., Swinnen, J.,
Touesnard, M.A., Weinberger, K., Keatinge, J.D.H. and Milstein, M.B. (2011), “Research
principles for developing country food value chains”, Science, Vol. 332 No. 6034, pp. 1154-1155,
doi: 10.1126/science.1202543.
Gonz
alez-Ram
ırez, M.G., Santoyo-Cort
es, V.H., Arana-Coronado, J.J. and Mu~
noz-Rodr
ıguez, M. (2020),
“The insertion of Mexico into the global value chain of berries”, World Development
Perspectives, Vol. 20, 100240, doi: 10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100240.
Guei, R.G., Barra, A. and Silue, D. (2011), “Promoting smallholder seed enterprises: quality seed
production of rice, maize, sorghum, and millet in northern Cameroon”, Sustainable
Intensification, Routledge, pp. 91-99.
Gyau, A. and Spiller, A. (2008), “The impact of supply chain governance structures on the inter-firm
relationship performance in agribusiness”, Agricultural Economics-Czech, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 176-185, doi: 10.17221/292-agricecon.
Henson, S. and Reardon, T. (2005), “Private agri-food standards: implications for food policy and the
agri-food system”, Food Policy, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 241-253, doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.05.002.
Hern
andez, R., Reardon, T. and Berdegue, J.A. (2006), “Tomato farmer participation in supermarket
market channels in Guatemala: determinants and technology and income effects”, Staff Paper
Series 11771, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource
Economics.
Hulke, C. and Diez, J.R. (2022), “Understanding regional value chain evolution in peripheral areas
through governance interactions–An institutional layering approach”, Applied Geography,
Vol. 139, 102640, doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102640.
~ez, L. (2015), “Beyond inclusiveness: institutions, cooperation and rural development”, Canadian
Ib
an
Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 499-515, doi: 10.1080/02255189.2015.
1098592.
Jaffee, S. and Masakure, O. (2005), “Strategic use of private standards to enhance international
competitiveness: vegetable exports from Kenya and elsewhere”, Food Policy, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 316-333, doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.05.009.
JADEE Kamara, L.I., Lalani, B. and Dorward, P. (2023), “Towards agricultural innovation systems: actors,
roles, linkages, and constraints in the system of rice intensification (SRI) in Sierra Leone”,
Scientific African, Vol. 19, e01576, doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01576.
Kar, A., Shegiwal, E.M.A.L., Kumar, P. and Prakash, P. (2020), “Impact of contract farming on basmati
rice (Oryza sativa) in India”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 90 No. 7, pp. 1282-1285,
doi: 10.56093/ijas.v90i7.105581.
Khondker, M., Ali, H., Upraity, V., Gurung, S., Dhar, G.C. and Belton, B. (2018), “Making sense of the
market: assessing the participatory market chain approach to aquaculture value chain
development in Nepal and Bangladesh”, Aquaculture, Vol. 493, pp. 395-405, doi: 10.1016/j.
aquaculture.2017.06.003.
Kumar, A., Tripathi, G., Joshi, D.R.P.K. and Karandikar, B., (2019), “Impact of contract farming on
profits of smallholder’s evidence from cultivation of onion, okra, and pomegranate in India”,
IFPRI-Discussion Papers, 1787, vii þ 37.pp.ref.46.
Larsen, M.N. (2016), “Sustaining upgrading in agricultural value chains? State-led value chain
interventions and emerging bifurcation of the south Indian smallholder tea sector”,
Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 11, p. 1102, doi: 10.3390/su8111102.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. and O’Brien, K.K. (2010), “Scoping studies: advancing the methodology”,
Implementation Science, Vol. 5, pp. 1-9.
Liang, Y., Bi, W. and Zhang, Y. (2023), “Can contract farming improve farmers’ technical efficiency
and income? Evidence from beef cattle farmers in China”, Frontiers in Sustainable Food
Systems, Vol. 7, 1179423, doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1179423.
Lim, S. (2021), “Global agricultural value chains and structural transformation”, Working Paper No.
w29194, NBER, SSRN, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract53913837
Lu HuaLiang, L.H., Trienekens, J., Omta, O. and Feng ShuYi, F.S. (2010), “Guanxi and contracts in
Chinese vegetable supply chains: an empirical investigation”, in Agri-food Chain Relationships,
CABI, Wallingford, pp. 191-205.
Margerum, R.D. (2011), Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management, Mit
Press, Cambridge, MA, London.
Maryono, M., Killoes, A.M., Adhikari, R. and Aziz, A.A. (2024), “Agriculture development through
multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: a systematic literature review”,
Agricultural Systems, Vol. 213, 103792, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103792.
Masuka, G. (2013), “Agricultural liberalization, cotton markets and buyers’ relations in Z Zimbabwe,
2001-2008”, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 103-119, doi: 10.1111/
sjtg.12016.
McCullough, E.B., Pingali, P. and Stamoulis, K. (Eds) (2008), The Transformation of Agri-Food
Systems: Globalization, Supply Chains and Smallholder Farmers, 1st ed., Routledge, doi: 10.4324/
9781849773331.
Melese, A.T. and Helmsing, A.B. (2010), “Endogenisation or enclave formation? The development of
the Ethiopian cut flower industry”, The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 35-66, doi: 10.1017/s0022278x09990218.
Minten, B., Randrianarison, L. and Swinnen, J.F. (2009), “Global retail chains and poor farmers:
evidence from Madagascar”, World Development, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 1728-1741, doi: 10.1016/j.
worlddev.2008.08.024.
Muyombano, E. and Espling, M. (2020), “Land use consolidation in Rwanda: the experiences of small-
scale farmers in Musanze District, Northern Province”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 99, 105060, doi: 10.
1016/j.landusepol.2020.105060.
Mwambi, M.M., Oduol, J., Mshenga, P. and Saidi, M. (2016), “Does contract farming improve
smallholder income? The case of avocado farmers in Kenya”, Journal of Agribusiness in
Developing and Emerging Economies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 2-20, doi: 10.1108/jadee-05-2013-0019.
Ng’asike, P.O.A., Stepputat, F. and Njoka, J.T. (2020), “Livestock trade and devolution in the Somali- Agricultural
Kenya transboundary corridor”, Pastoralism, Vol. 10, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1186/s13570-020-00185-y.
value chains
Norton, R.D. (2017), The Competitiveness of Tropical Agriculture: A Guide to Competitive Potential with
Case Studies, Academic Press, Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford,
Paris, San Diego, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo.
Oberholster, C., Adendorff, C. and Jonker, K. (2015), “Financing agricultural production from a value
chain perspective: recent evidence from South Africa”, Outlook on Agriculture, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 49-60, doi: 10.5367/oa.2015.0197.
Ogutu, S.O., Ochieng, D.O. and Qaim, M. (2020), “Supermarket contracts and smallholder farmers:
implications for income and multidimensional poverty”, Food Policy, Vol. 95, 101940, doi: 10.
1016/j.foodpol.2020.101940.
Okry, F., Van Mele, P., Nuijten, E., Struik, P.C. and Mongbo, R.L. (2011), “Organizational analysis of
the seed sector of rice in Guinea: stakeholders, perception and institutional linkages”,
Experimental Agriculture, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 137-157, doi: 10.1017/s001447971000089x.
Ortiz, O., Orrego, R., Pradel, W., Gildemacher, P., Castillo, R., Otiniano, R., Gabriel, J., Vallejo, J., Torres,
O., Woldegiorgis, G., Damene, B., Kakuhenzire, R., Kasahija, I. and Kahiu, I. (2013), “Insights
into potato innovation systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda”, Agricultural Systems,
Vol. 114, pp. 73-83, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.08.007.
Ouma, E., Ochieng, J., Dione, M. and Pezo, D. (2017), “Governance structures in smallholder pig value
chains in Uganda: constraints and opportunities for upgrading”, International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 307-319, doi: 10.22434/ifamr2014.0176.
Padron, B.R. (2012), “Institutions in the Mexican coffee sector: changes and responses”, (Order No.
28233755), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, available at: http://proxy.library.tamu.
edu/login?url5https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/institutions-mexican-coffee-
sector-changes/docview/2563680830/se-2
P
erez, L.F. and G
omez, M.I. (2022), “Public-private strategies to establish a successful avocado export
cycle: cases from Colombia”, Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 620-640, doi: 10.1108/jadee-11-2021-0275.
Protopop, I. and Shanoyan, A. (2016), “Big data and smallholder farmers: big data applications in the
agri-food supply chain in development countries”, International Food and Agribusiness
Management Association, Vol. 19 A, pp. 1-18.
Quarmine, W. (2013), Incentives for Smallholders to Enhance the Production of Quality Cocoa Beans in
Ghana: The Role of Institutions, Wageningen University and Research.
Rao, N.C., Sutradhar, R. and Reardon, T. (2017), “Disruptive innovations in food value chains and
small farmers in India”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 24-48.
Ravikumar, R. and Rajesh, A. (2015), “Success of marigold farming: an intervention by NAIP-value
chain on flowers for domestic and export markets”, International Journal of Commerce and
Business Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 112-116, doi: 10.15740/has/ijcbm/8.1/112-116.
Reardon, T. (2015), “The hidden middle: the quiet revolution in the midstream of agrifood value chains
in developing countries”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 45-63, doi: 10.
1093/oxrep/grv011.
Reardon, T., Timmer, P.C., Barrett, C. and Berdegu
e, J. (2003), “The rise of supermarkets in Africa,
Asia and Latin America”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 85 No. 5,
pp. 1140-1146, doi: 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00520.x.
Romero Granja, C. and Wollni, M. (2018), “Dynamics of smallholder participation in horticultural
export chains: evidence from Ecuador”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 225-235,
doi: 10.1111/agec.12411.
Saitone, T.L. and Sexton, R.J. (2017), “Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with
conflicting consumer and societal demands”, European Review of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 634-657, doi: 10.1093/erae/jbx003.
JADEE Sexton, R.J. (2012), “Market power, misconceptions, and modern agricultural markets”, American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 209-219, doi: 10.1093/ajae/aas102.
Sulistyowati, L., Andayani, S.A., Rasmikayati, E. and Syamsiah, N. (2016), “The development of
business partnership as an effort to increase the mango farmer’s income, a system dynamic
approach”, Development, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 331-340.
Swinnen, J. (2015), “Value chains, agricultural markets and food security”, available at: https://www.
fao.org/publications/card/en/c/ad2a1abd-5d0f-4141-92fa-1500e04e4fc7/
Swinnen, J.F. and Maertens, M. (2007), “Globalization, privatization, and vertical coordination in food
value chains in developing and transition countries”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 37 No. s1,
pp. 89-102, doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00237.x.
Swinnen, J., Vandeplas, A. and Maertens, M. (2011), “Liberalization, endogenous institutions, and
growth: a comparative analysis of agricultural reforms in Africa, Asia, and Europe”, The World
Bank Economic Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 412-445, doi: 10.1093/wber/lhq017.
Th
eriault, V., Smale, M. and Assima, A. (2018), “The Malian fertiliser value chain post-subsidy: an
analysis of its structure and performance”, Development in Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 242-256,
doi: 10.1080/09614524.2018.1421145.
Totin, E., van Mierlo, B., Mongbo, R. and Leeuwis, C. (2015), “Diversity in success: interaction between
external interventions and local actions in three rice farming areas in Benin”, Agricultural
Systems, Vol. 133, pp. 119-130, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.10.012.
Tran, N., Bailey, C., Wilson, N. and Phillips, M. (2013), “Governance of global value chains in response
to food safety and certification standards: the case of shrimp from Vietnam”, World
Development, Vol. 45, pp. 325-336, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.025.
Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Straus, S.E., Peters, M.D.,
Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E.A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L.,
Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M.G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C.M., Macdonald, M.T., Langlois,
€ (2018), “PRISMA extension for
E.V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T. and Tunçalp, O.
scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation”, Annals of Internal Medicine,
Vol. 169 No. 7, pp. 467-473, doi: 10.7326/m18-0850.
Tru, N.A., Do Thi My Hanh, D.T., Hoa, K., Van Phuong, N. and Cuong, T.H. (2012), “Linkages in
production and distribution of exported vegetables: perspectives of farmers and firms in Luc
Nam district, bac giang province, Vietnam”, Vietnam. J. ISSAAS, Vol. 18, pp. 113-130.
Tschirley, D. and Kabwe, S. (2009), “The cotton sector of Zambia”, Africa Region Working Paper
Series, Vol. 124.
Uddin, M.E., Pervez, A.K. and Gao, Q. (2022), “Effect of voluntary cooperativisation on livelihood
capital of smallholder dairy farmers in the southwest of Bangladesh”, GeoJournal, Vol. 87 No. 1,
pp. 111-130, doi: 10.1007/s10708-020-10218-z.
Van Campenhout, B., Minten, B. and Swinnen, J.F. (2021), “Leading the way–foreign direct investment
and dairy value chain upgrading in Uganda”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 607-631,
doi: 10.1111/agec.12638.
Vandemoortele, T. and Deconinck, K. (2014), “When are private standards more stringent than public
standards?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 154-171, doi: 10.
1093/ajae/aat064.
Venkatesh, P., Balasubramanian, M., Praveen, K.V., Aditya, K.S., Babu, D.V., Nithyashree, M.L. and
Kar, A. (2017), “Agro-processing industry and farmers’ linkages: pattern and impact on
enhancing farmers’ income in Tamil Nadu”, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 30
conf, pp. 13-25, doi: 10.5958/0974-0279.2017.00018.0.
Vilas-Boas, J., Klerkx, L. and Lie, R. (2022), “Connecting science, policy, and practice in agri-food
system transformation: the role of boundary infrastructures in the evolution of Brazilian pig
production”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 89, pp. 171-185, doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.025.
Weyori, A.E., Amare, M., Garming, H. and Waibel, H. (2018), “Agricultural innovation systems and farm Agricultural
technology adoption: findings from a study of the Ghanaian plantain sector”, The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 65-87, doi: 10.1080/1389224x.2017.1386115. value chains
Widadie, F., Bijman, J. and Trienekens, J. (2022), “Alignment between vertical and horizontal
coordination for food quality and safety in Indonesian vegetable chains”, Agricultural and Food
Economics, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 8, doi: 10.1186/s40100-022-00215-w.
World Bank (WB) (2022), “Indonesia – agriculture value chain development project (ICARE)”,
Washington, DC, available at: https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/690521654610832419/
Indonesia-agriculture-Value-Chain-Development-Project-ICARE
World Bank’s Classification: developing countries (2018), available at: https://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD?end52022andlocations5XM-XT-XNandstart52022andview5map
Wu, L., Chuang, C.H. and Hsu, C.H. (2014), “Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in
enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange perspective”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 148, pp. 122-132, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.09.016.
Yaseen, A., Bryceson, K. and Mungai, A.N. (2018), “Commercialization behaviour in production
agriculture: the overlooked role of market orientation”, Journal of Agribusiness in Developing
and Emerging Economies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 579-602, doi: 10.1108/jadee-07-2017-0072.
Yeritsyan, A. (2023), “Developing agricultural sector: from quality of agricultural education to
evaluation of policies enhancing agricultural value chains”, Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University, available at: https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/199996
Zhu, Q., Wachenheim, C.J., Ma, Z. and Zhu, C. (2018), “Supply chain re-engineering: a case study of the
Tonghui agricultural cooperative in inner Mongolia”, International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 133-160, doi: 10.22434/ifamr2016.0095.

Corresponding author
Vikas Mishra can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats