Impact of cooperatives on smallholder dairy farmers’ income in Kenya

Figures & data

Table 1. Treatment, heterogeneity and transitional heterogeneity effects

Sub sample	Decision stage		Treatment effects
	Participant	Non-participant
Participant	a)$E\left(Y_{1i}/P=1\right)$	c)$E\left(Y_{2i}/P=1\right)$	On the treated (ATT)
Non-participant	b)$E\left(Y_{1i}/P=0\right)$	d) $E\left(Y_{2i}/P=0\right)$	On the untreated (ATU)
Heterogeneity Effects	BH1	BH2	TH

BH1, base heterogeneity for participants; BH2, base heterogeneity for non-participants; ATT, average treatment on the treated: ATU, average treatment on the untreated; TH, transaction heterogeneity

Table 2. Covariates for ESR and descriptive statistics

Variable	Description	Mean (Std. Dev)
Treatment variable	Participants 1= cooperative 0 otherwise	0.42(0.49)
Outcome variable	Annual income in KES	368,812.60(25508.37)
Independent variable
Age	Age of household head (years)	57.04 (13.80)
Gender	Gender of household head (male dummy)	0.76 (0.43)
LevEdu	Years of schooling	10.80 (4.56)
Extension acc	Extension services access (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.58 (0.5)
CrdAcc	Access to credit	0.37 (0.48)
Farm size	Farm size in acres	4.34 (0.25)
Lactating cows	Number of lactating cows	1.5(0.07)
Offarmincome	Access to off-farm income (1=yes,0 No)	0.64 (0.48)
H/size	Household size	5.3 (2.2)
Paymthd	Payment duration (daily = 1, 0 otherwise)	0.52 (0.5)
DistMrk	Distance to the nearest market centre	1.25 (1.58)
Fodder growth	1=yes 0 = no	0.80 (0.02)

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations associated with the means of the variables indicated.

Table 3. Farm and farmer descriptive characteristics

	Participant Mean Std. Dev		Non-participants Mean Std. Dev		difference t-stat
Variables
Age (years)	56.93	13.38	58.43	14.10	0.8818
Lactating cows (count)	2.0	0.12	1.0	0.07	−6.342***
Household size (count)	4.9	1.92	5.5	2.32	2.439**
Gender (male dummy)	75.86	0.43	75.78	0.43	−0.016
Education (yrs of schooling)	12.08	4.33	9.84	4.57	−1.175***
Payment(1=daily,0 =otherwise)	0.009	0.29	0.83	0.37	17.63
Collection point distance (Km)	1.42	1.63	1.13	1.53	−1.485
Credit access (1=yes,0=no)	0.35	0.48	0.39	0.49	0.536
Extension access (1=yes,0=no)	0.67	0.47	0.51	0.50	−0.045***
Fodder growth (1=yes,0=no)	0.76	0.43	0.27	0.44	−9.214***
Farm size (count)	5.28	0.46	3.65	0.28	−3.250**
Off-farm income (1=yes,0=no)	0.61	0.47	0.66	0.49	0.167
Annual income (KES)	509806	453806.61	267190	371585.9	−4.883***

Abbreviation: KES, Kenyan Shillings.

*** and **represents statistical significance at 1%, and 5% levels, respectively.

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations associated with the means of the variables indicated.

Table 4. ESR results for impact of choice of market outlet

	Selection model		Household income (Participants)		Household Income (Non-participants)
Variables	Coef	Std. Err	Coef	Std. Err	Coef	Std. Err
Education (years)	0.069	0.054	0.067***	0.016	0.041**	0.018
Age (year)	0.003	0.010	0.005	0.005	0.001	0.006
Gender (male dummy)	−0.327	0.335	−0.132	0.142	−0.034	0.195
Off-farm income (0= no, 1=yes)	−0.830	1.280	0.926***	0.134	0.835***	0.164
Farm size (acres)	−0.051*	0.026	0.041***	0.012	0.028	0.023
Household size	0.036	0.079	−0.018	0.032	−0.008	0.035
Credit access (0= no, 1=yes)	0.130	0.275	−0.032	0.129	0.114	0.158
Extension access (0= no, 1=yes)	−0.002	0.293	0.273**	0.136	−0.031	0.158
Lactating cows	0.280**	0.122	0.103**	0.048	0.100	0.088
Homa bay (0= no, 1=yes)	−2.553***	0.373	0.531	0.362	0.101	0.232
Market Distance (Km)	0.193**	0.095	0.103***	0.038	−0.079	0.052
Fodder growth (0= no, 1=yes)	−0.231	0.479	−0.212	0.207	0.153	0.181
Payment period (1=daily 0=otherwise)	−2.020***	0.296
Off-farm res	0.7249	1.2972
_cons	0.733	0.931	10.760***	0.373	10.494	0.499
rho_1	−0.327	0.251
rho_2	−0.629**	0.180
Log-likelihood - −377.98, LR test of independent equations χ2(1) 7.02 ***

Abbreviations: ESR, endogenous switching Regression

Note: ***, **, * denote statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively. A log of income was used.

Table 5. Mean treatment effect on farmers’ income

	Sub-sample	Decision
Outcome		Participants	Non-participants	ATE
Total income	Participants	(a) 12.70	(c) 11.74	ATT = 0.96***
	Non-participants	(d) 12.87	(b) 11.92	ATU = 0.95 ***
Heterogeneity Effect		BH1= −0.17	BH2= −0.18	TH = 0.1

Abbreviations: BH₁ base heterogeneity for participants; BH₂ base heterogeneity for non-participants; ATT average treatment effects on the treated; ATU, average treatment effect on the untreated; TH transaction heterogeneity, ATE Average treatment effect

***represents significance at 1%. Note the values are logs of income.

Table 6. ATT results using PSM

Outcome	ATT(PSM)	ATT(IPWRA)
Household income	0.891 (0.315) ***	0.461(0.217) ***

Abbreviations: ATT, average treatment effects on the treated; IPWRA, inverse probability weighted regression adjustment; PSM, propensity score matching.

***significance at 1%. Note the values are logs of income.