How does who-you-sell-to affect your extent of market participation? evidence from smallholder maize farmers in Northern Ghana

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary statistics on variables used in study (n = 383)

Variable Name	Variable Description	Mean	Median	Std. Dev
Dependent Variables
Market participation	1 if household sold; 0 if household did not sell	0.29
Intensity of participation	Amount of maize sold (kg)	85.83	0.00	215.19
Independent Variables
Household size	Number of people living in a household	10.84	10.00	5.80
Age	Age of respondent in years	44.27	40.00	16.78
Married	Marital status (1 if married; 0 otherwise)	0.91
Educated	1 if respondent has at least primary education	0.11
Male	1 if respondent is male	0.90
Access to information	1 if household member received agricultural information through electronic media	0.13
Farm Output	Total annual quantity of maize produced in kg	986.18	600.00	4622.39
Sold to aggregators	1 if aggregator is the channel used; 0 if otherwise	0.15
Sold to consumers	1 if consumer is the channel used; 0 if otherwise	0.14
Price	Average price received by household in USD/kg	0.06	0.00	0.11

Note: Median and standard deviation are calculated for continuous variables only.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics on price, quantity sold and marketing costs by marketing channel

	Marketing Channel
Variable by	Aggregators				Consumers
Variable Name	Mean	Std. Error	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Error	Min	Max
Average distance travelled to market (Km)	0.52***	0.19	0.00	15.00	2.19***	0.41	0.00	20.00
Transport cost (USD/kg)	7.3x10^−3*	2.7x10^−3	0.00	1.47x10^−2	2.0x10^−3*	4x10^−4	0.00	2.4x10^−3
Load and offload cost (USD/kg)	5x10^−5	4x10^−5	0.00	2.93x10^−3	3x10^−4	1.6x10^−4	0.00	1.8x10^−2
Price of Maize (USD/kg)	0.09	0.01	0.00	0.45	0.11	0.01	0.00	0.41
Quantity sold of Maize (kg)	218.97***	32.53	0.00	1900.00	75.31***	10.64	0.00	700.00
Net Price (USD/kg)	0.09	0.01	0.00	0.45	0.11	0.01	0.00	0.41
Observations (Total = 112)	57				55

*,**,*** statistical significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level, respectively.

Source: Authors’ analysis

Table 3. Maximum likelihood estimates from first hurdle and the average partial effects (n = 383)

Market Participation Hurdle
Variables	Estimated Coefficient	Average Partial Effects
Household size	−0.03*	−0.01
	(0.01)	(0.65)
Age (years)	0.004	0.19
	(0.004)	(0.22)
Married	0.17	0.05
	(0.28)	(12.10)
Education	0.44**	0.14
	(0.22)	(12.15)
Male	0.12	0.04
	(0.27)	(12.39)
Farm Output (100 kg)	0.001	0.002***
	(0.001)	(0.06)
Access to information	0.70***	0.23
	(0.20)	(15.21)
Constant	−0.88***
	(0.35)

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. *,**,*** statistical significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level, respectively. The Collin test for multicollinearity for this model gave a Variance Inflation Factor of 1.37 implying very low correlation among the predictor variables. Heteroscedasticity was corrected for by using White’s robust standard errors

Source: Author’s analysis

Table 4. ML estimates from second hurdle and average partial effects (n = 383)

Intensity of Participation Hurdle
Variables	Estimated Coefficient	Conditional Average Partial Effects	Unconditional Average Partial Effects
Household size	21.84	3.34***	−0.93
	(16.46)	(0.62)	(0.64)
Age (years)	−1.46	−0.22*	1.45***
	(4.10)	(0.13)	(0.22)
Married	−47.38	−7.24	14.90
	(251.17)	(7.78)	(13.53)
Education	−80.43	−12.28*	37.15***
	(225.22)	(7.17)	(11.85)
Male	235.00	35.89***	10.64
	(412.58)	(13.14)	(18.22)
Farm Output (100 kg)	30.93***	4.72***	1.63 ***
	(8.18)	(0.44)	(0.45)
Access to information	195.44	29.85***	67.28***
	(173.15)	(6.16)	(19.41)
Sold to Aggregators	841.03***	128.46***	43.41***
	(264.78)	(13.21)	(13.21)
Average Price (USD/kg)	401.70	61.35***	20.73*
	(335.15)	(11.83)	(11.83)
Sigma^3	374.83***
	(75.34)
Constant	−1651.97***
	(840.13)

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. *,**,*** statistical significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level, respectively. The Collin test for multicollinearity for this model gave a Variance Inflation Factor of 1.37 implying very low correlation among the predictor variables. Heteroscedasticity was corrected for by using White’s robust standard errors

³The constant term in the section labeled sigma is the maximum likelihood estimator of sigma (Burke, 2009)

Source: Author’s analysis

Table 5. Marginal effects by land area disaggregated into quartiles

Land Area (Acres)	Conditional Average Partial Effects	Unconditional Average Partial Effects
First Quartile (n = 141)
Sold to aggregators	80.03	26.79
Second Quartile (n = 61)
Sold to aggregators	110.62	41.64
Third Quartile (n = 89)
Sold to aggregators	128.76	49.71
Fourth Quartile (n = 92)
Sold to aggregators	206.76	64.90

Source: Author’s analysis

Figure A1. A Close-up Picture of Map of Ghana within Africa Showing the General Study Area.

Source: http://www.pinkballoon.nl/Ghana-on-africa-map.html/.

Burke, W. J. (2009). Fitting and interpreting Cragg’s Tobit alternative using Stata. Stata Journal, 9(4), 584. st0179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900405.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar