Social Desirability, Opportunism and Actual Support for Farmers’ Market Organisations in Ethiopia

Figures & data

Table 1. Full sample list experiment

Woreda	Kebele/FMO	Full sample size
		FMO members	Non-FMO members	Involved local NGO
Sinana	Kituma	37	6	HUNDEE
	Bikilitu	36	7	HUNDEE
Jeldu	Suqui Wageyo	31	8	HUNDEE
	Goda Racha	35	13	HUNDEE
Seddan Sodo	Siba Robe	34	9	FC
	Wuli Gotera	29	10	FC
Dewo	Feyine	31	16	FC
	Rimmessa	27	12	FC
Arsi-Negele	Abdi rabii	32	15	ADAA
	Hawi Gudina	34	14	ADAA
	Borata gaalo	25	21	ADAA
	Gadisa Dahmota	27	17	ADAA
Shashemene	Dolu Karsa	40	0	CDI
	Jalela	46	0	CDI
	Meda-Gudina	31	3	CDI
	Awara Badessa	36	1	CDI
Total		531	152

Table 2. Use of FMO services: buying, selling, and training

	Total		Members		Non-members		Balancing tests
	N	Mean	N1	Mean	N2	Mean	(4)-(6)
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Buying inputs from the FMO
Fertiliser (%)	683	0.23	531	0.25	152	0.14	−0.106***
							(−2.76)
Sales to the FMO
Have you sold to the FMO last year? (%)	683	0.40	531	0.44	152	0.23	−0.212***
							(−4.79)
Average quantity sold to FMO quintals/4 crops	199	7.46	174	7.31	25	8.56	1.254
							(0.38)
Average quantity sold to traders quintals/4 crops	477	14.00	359	15.67	118	8.90	−6.772
							(−1.26)
Average value sales to FMO/4/crops (Birr)	199	6,378	174	6,332	25	6,703	371.313
							(0.14)
Average value sales to private traders/4 crops	477	10,629	359	11,179	118	8,957	−2221.79
							(−0.72)
Use of services
Training on agricultural production (%, yes = 1)	683	0.43	531	0.53	152	0.08	−0.448***
							(−10.62)
Training on marketing and business (%, yes = 1)	683	0.43	531	0.53	152	0.08	−0.446***
							(−10.58)
Did you receive any price information? (%, yes = 1)	683	0.41	531	0.51	152	0.08	−0.430***
							(−10.16)

Notes: Columns 4 and 6 present the mean of the members and non-members, respectively. Column 7 shows the coefficient from a balancing test between the two groups. T-stats in parentheses ***Significant at the 1 per cent level. **Significant at the 5 per cent level. *Significant at the 10 per cent level. We counted the total average quantity and value for the four major crops, all cereals, together: maize, barley, teff, wheat.

Table 3. Perceptions regarding the FMO

	Total		Members		Non-members		Balancing tests
	N	Mean	N1	Mean	N2	Mean	(4)-(6)
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Perceptions (1 = totally disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = totally agree)
The FMO is the preferred buyer (end-line)	682	3.80	530	3.92	152	3.39	−0.527***
							(−4.17)
The FMO strengthens the position of farmers (end-line)	683	3.59	531	3.61	152	3.55	−0.054
							(−0.41)
Better prices are received through the FMO (end-line)	683	3.61	531	3.67	152	3.31	−0.252*
							(−1.90)
Perceptions (yes = 1)
The FMO is a weak organisation as important decisions are not made by its members	683	0.37	531	0.37	152	0.34	−0.03
							(−0.69)
Thanks to the FMO access to market information is easier	683	0.62	531	0.63	152	0.57	−0.062
							(−1.40)
Major purpose of the FMO is access to inputs/cons. goods	683	0.64	531	0.64	152	0.62	−0.022
							(−0.49)
Major purpose of FMO is providing good selling opportunities	683	0.79	531	0.79	152	0.76	−0.038
							(−1.01)

Notes:Column 4 and 6 present the mean of the members and non-members respectively. Column 7 displays the coefficient from a balancing test between the two groups. T-stats in parentheses. ***Significant at the 1 per cent level. **Significant at the 5 per cent level. *Significant at the 10 per cent level.

Table 4. Data for the list experiment

	Control group		Treatment group
Response value	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
0	34	9.47	13	4,01
1	139	38,72	83	25.62
2	125	34,82	122	37.65
3	61	16,99	82	25.31
4			24	7.41
Total	359		324

Note: This table presents the frequency and percentage of respondents for each response value.

Table 5. Bias observed through a list experiment

	Sub-group:	Whole population	Members only	Support (4–5)	Members only + support (4–5)
		(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Direct report:
-Proportion of people reporting that the FMO is weak		0.366	0.373	0.289	0.294
	SE	(0.018)	(0.021)	(0.021)	(0.024)
	N	683	531	446	354
List experiment:
-Mean of ‘yes’ responses for the short list		1.593	1.569	1.587	1.585
	SE	(0.046)	(0.055)	(0.058)	(0.067)
	N	359	274	223	177
-Mean of ‘yes’ responses for the long list		2.065	2.066	2.072	2.068
	SE	(0.055)	(0.062)	(0.067)	(0.077)
	N	324	257	223	177
Difference (proportion of people reporting FMO is weak)		0.472	0.497	0.484	0.480
-SE of difference		(0.071)	(0.083)	(0.089)	(0.102)
-p-value from t-test		0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	683	531	446	354
Comparison of direct question and list experiment. List experiment minus direct report		0.106***	0.124***	0.195***	0.186***
Z-test statistic for difference in proportions		3.951	4.002	4.501	5.093

Notes: Direct report is the answer (yes/no) to the direct question ‘The FMO is a weak organisation, as important decisions are not made by its members’. In order to be able to identify the sub-groups for column 3 and 4, each respondent was asked to rate the statement ‘The FMO strengthens the position of smallholders in the market’. By using a Likert scale the respondents expressed strong support (5), support (4) or no support (1,2 and 3) for the FMO. A z-test is applied to test the difference in proportions obtained through the direct report and through the list experiment. Applying a t-test to test the difference between the two groups would yield an incorrect answer, as a t-test would test for a difference in means rather than a difference in proportions. Standard errors in parentheses. * Significant at 10 per cent. ** Significant at 5 per cent. *** Significant at 1 per cent.

Figure 1. Estimated bias of respondents endorsing the sensitive item.

Notes: The estimates (solid circles = members, triangles = supporters, squares = members + supporters) are based on a logistic regression model for the direct measure and the proposed maximum likelihood regression model for the indirect measure from the list experiment. Both models contain the three variables member, support, member+support as well as a set of controls: gender, age, education, main occupation, land owned, and distance to the co-operative. The 95 per cent confidence intervals (vertical lines) are obtained via Monte Carlo simulations.

Table 6. Multivariate analysis of the list experiment and the direct question

	Sensitive item	Control items	Direct question
	Est. (SE)	Est. (SE)	Est. (SE)
VARIABLES	(1)	(2)	(3)
Sex household head (male = 1)	−2.250	−0.023	−0.267
	(1.156)	(0.190)	(0.314)
Age household head (years)	0.054	−0.013	0.001
	(0.030)	(0.005)	(0.007)
Education level (years finished)	0.088	0.013	−0.004
	(0.092)	(0.017)	(0.024)
Farming as main occupation	1.486	−0.087	0.712*
	(1.246)	(0.229)	(0.406)
Land owned (ha)	0.192	0.001	0.110***
	(0.173)	(0.008)	(0.039)
Distance to corporative (km)	0.184	0.006	−0.010
	(0.184)	(0.029)	(0.040)
Member	1.840	−0.202	0.457
	(1.532)	(0.216)	(0.313)
Support	3.101	−0.472	−0.621*
	(1.737)	(0.241)	(0.363)
Member*Support	−2.998	0.517	−0.430
	(1.935)	(0.288)	(0.413)
Constant	−5.152	1.105	−1.072*
	(2.831)	(0.190)	(0.593)

Notes: The key variables are: member, support, and the interaction of the two. Standard errors in in parentheses. P values in column 3 correspond to a t-test*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Table A1. Descriptive statistics: treatment versus control

	Whole sample		Treatment		Control		Balancing tests
	N	Mean	N1	Mean	N2	Mean	(3)-(5)
Dependent variable	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Sex household head (male = 1)	683	0.902	324	0.914	359	0.891	0.022
							(−0.974)
Age household head (years)	682	46.977	323	46.966	359	46.986	−0.020
							(0.020)
# Adults	683	3.523	324	3.577	359	3.474	0.104
							(−0.793)
Household size	683	7.331	324	7.475	359	7.201	0.275
							(−1.305)
Household Muslim (yes = 1)	683	0.539	324	0.528	359	0.549	−0.021
							(0.548)
Household Christian (yes = 1)	683	0.461	324	0.472	359	0.451	(0.021)
							(−0.548)
Education level (years completed)	683	4.477	324	4.63	359	4.34	−0.290
							(−0.953)
Household illiterate (yes = 1)	683	0.275	324	0.253	359	0.295	−0.042
							(1.232)
Household head with some elementary education	683	0.264	324	0.272	359	0.256	0.015
							(−0.454)
Household head with some secondary education	683	0.299	324	0.296	359	0.301	−0.005
							(0.129)
Farming as main occupation (1 = yes)	683	0.937	324	0.944	359	0.930	0.014
							(−0.756)
Land owned (ha)	683	3.041	324	2.899	359	3.169	−0.270
							(0.583)
Distance to woreda market (km)	683	10.021	324	9.853	359	10.172	−0.320
							(0.699)
Distance to all weather road	683	1.635	324	1.494	359	1.766	−0.269*
							(1.681)
Distance to co-operative (km)	683	2.084	324	2.127	359	2.046	0.081
							(−0.502)

Notes: Columns 3 and 5 present the mean of the control and treatment group, respectively. Column 6 shows the coefficient from a balancing test between the two groups. T-stats in parentheses. ***Significant at the 1 per cent level. **Significant at the 5 per cent level. *Significant at the 10 per cent level.