Determinants of market channel choice utilised by maize and sunflower farmers in the North West province, South Africa

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample size according to Raosoft calculator

Variables	Population	Sample size
Financially assisted	135	101
Not financially assisted	73	62
Total sample size	208	163

Source: field survey, 2016

Table 2. Definition and explanation variables used in the empirical multinomial logit regression model

Dependent variable		Choice(s) of market channels
Non-market participation (reference category)		Y = 0
Informal markets		Y = 1
Formal markets		Y = 2
Explanatory variables	Specifications	hypothesis
Access to extension services	Yes = 1, Otherwise = 0	+
Farming experience in years	Number of years in farming	+
Residing closer to farm	Residing closer or within the farm Yes = 1, Otherwise = 0	+
Training received	1 if received training, 0 if Otherwise	+
Have employees	1 if have employees, 0 if Otherwise	+
Involved in non-farm activities	1 if involved, 0 if Otherwise	-
Union member	1 if a member, 0 if not a member	+
Distance to output market	Distance to output market in KMs	-
Gender	1 if Male, 0 if Female	-
Marital status	1 if married, 0 if not	-
Age	Age at time if interview in years	+
Household size	Number of household members	+
Educational level	1 = Primary, 2 = Secondary, 3 = Tertiary	+

Source: Authors Computation (2016)

Table 3. Demographic profile of respondents

Characteristics	Financially assisted (n = 101)	Not financially assisted (n = 62)
Gender	N (%)	N (%)
Male	20 (20)	44 (72)
Female	81 (80)	17 (28)
Age	N (%)	N (%)
≤ 35	6 (5)	2 (3)
36 − 50	24 (24)	4 (17)
> 50	32 (71)	52 (80)
Population group	N (%)	N (%)
African black	96 (96)	52 (85)
Coloured	2 (2)	4 (7)
Indians	2 (2)	5 (8)
Educational level	N (%)	N (%)
No education	55 (54)	15 (25)
Primary level	20 (20)	14 (23)
Secondary level	16 (16)	32 (52)
Tertiary level	10 (10)	0 (0)
Training received	N (%)	N (%)
Yes	91 (90)	1 (2)
No	10 (10)	61 (98)
Farming experience	N (%)	N (%)
<5	4 (15)	4 (7)
≥5	53 (85)	58 (93)
Marital status	N (%)	N (%)
Married	71 (70)	39 (64)
Not married	30 (30)	22 (36)
Household size	N (%)	N (%)
≤ 3	25 (25)	7 (11)
> 3	76 (75)	54 (89)
Number of dependents	N (%)	N (%)
≤ 3	43 (69)	40 (85)
> 3	19 (31)	9 (15)

Source: field survey (2016)

Figure 1. Kernel density graph of age distribution among farmers.

Table 4. Market channel utilized by beneficiaries

Market channels	Financial assisted (N = 101 = 100%)	Not financial assisted (N = 62 = 100%)	Overall (N = 163 = 100%)
Informal market	65	65	65
Formal market	27	7	15
Non-market participation	8	28	20

Source: Field survey, 2016

Table 5. Result from the multinomial logit regression model

INFORMAL MARKETS VS. NON-MARKET (BASE OUTCOME)
Unadjusted Model				Adjusted Model
Variables	RRR	95% Cl		RRR	95% CI
		Lower Bound	Upper Bound		Lower Bound	Upper Bound
contacts with extension officers	2.734*	0.996	7.508	1.617	0.487	5.375
	0.119*	0.131	1.094	0.028**	0.002	0.367
Farm experience	0.939	0.869	1.014	0.778**	0.660	0.916
Residing closer or within	10.614*	0.684	164	15.514	0.826	291.441
Training received	0.429	0.071	2.597	0.565	0.086	3.717
Have employees	0.297	0.021	4.204	1.228	0.573	26.336
Non-farm activities	0.966	0.393	2.369	0.789	0.249	2.503
Union member	0.569	0.188	1.725	0.633	0.186	2.156
Distance to output market	0.987	0.970	1.003	0.992	0.972	1.012
Gender				0.152**	0.042	0.558
marital status				2.287**	1.337	3.914
Age				1.061**	1.015	1.108
Household size				0.992	0.746	1.319
Educational level				0.417**	0.219	0.792
FORMAL MARKETS VS. NON-MARKET (BASE OUTCOME)
Variables	RRR	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	RRR	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
contacts with extension officers	2.251	0.666	7.612	2.421	0.358	16.366
	2.727	0.716	10.385	1.308	0.149	11.511
Farm experience	0.904**	0.840	0.973	0.896	0.786	1.022
Residing with projects	7.420	0.446	123.305	44.896	0.000	2216503
Training received	0.893	0.147	5.444	8.108	0.400	164.209
Have employees	0.278	0.011	6.886	0.245	2.950	20420.860
Non-farm activities	0.761	0.287	2.016	0.837	0.180	3.891
Union member	0.756	0.291	1.969	1.793	0.144	7.172
Distance to output market	0.979**	0.960	0.998	0.996	0.968	1.025
Gender				0.149***	0.002	0.093
marital status				2.253**	1.155	4.794
Age				1.065**	1.006	1.126
Household size				0.775	0.541	1.109
Educational level				0.380**	0.189	0.768
Number of observation	163			163
Wald chi square	62.02***			66.20***
Maximum likelihood	−53.43605			−91.723696

Hint: Significant levels. * Significant at 10%, ** Significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, CI = Confidence Interval; RRR = Risk Relative Ratio

Table 6. The results from the multinomial logit regression model: The interaction models

INFORMAL MARKET VS. NON-MARKET PARTICIPATION (BASE OUTCOME)
Unadjusted Model				Adjusted Model
Variables	RRR	95% C I		RRR	95% C I
		Lower Bound	Upper Bound		Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Farm experience	0.911***	0.842	0.986	0.895**	0.809	0.989
Residing with projects	1.132	0.467	2.742	1.464	0.538	3.986
Training received	0.875	0.629	1.215	0.730	0.489	1.089
Gender *farm experience				0.974	0.699	1.357
Gender*training received				4.338	0.560	33.588
Gender*educational level				1.019	0.939	1.105
FORMAL MARKET VS. NON-MARKET PARTICIPATION (BASE OUTCOME)
	RRR	95% CI		RRR	95% CI
		Lower Bound	Upper Bound		Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Farm experience	0.921**	0.852	0.996	0.954	0.849	1.073
Credit access	3.384*	1.414	8.094	3.662**	0.115	12.023
Educational level	0.482***	0.345	0.674	0.267***	0.159	0.444
Gender *farm experience				0.734*	0.528	1.019
Gender*training received				33.117**	3.503	313.133
Gender*educational level				1.089**	1.002	1.183
Number of observation	163			163
Wald chi square	65.83***			71.56***
Maximum likelihood	−65.12234			−43.92645

Hint: Significant levels. * Significant at 10%, ** Significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, CI = Confidence Interval; RRR = Risk Relative Ratio