The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm

Bringing more
Bringing more value to small value to small
farmers: a study of potato farmers

farmers in Pakistan
Syed Zahoor Hassan and Muhammad Shakeel Sadiq Jajja
Suleman Dawood School of Business,
Received 31 December 2018
Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan Revised 14 April 2019
Muhammad Asif 12 July 2019
27 October 2019
College of Business, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Accepted 22 November 2019

George Foster
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Small farmers, being the primary producers of crops, are the key players in the food supply chain.
Yet, they remain the most marginalized in the value chain. The marginalization of small farmers can affect
food sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to identify opportunities for bringing more value to small
farmers in an agricultural value chain.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper makes use of action research, studying the potato value
chain, in a developing agricultural country Pakistan. The authors conducted an in-depth study of 37 farmers
in four regions, each being a large potato growing ecosystem. The study examined the end-to-end
decision-making processes, sources of input (both physical and information), cultivation and sales practices,
cost structure, productivity and profitability of the farmers in potato farming.
Findings – Large variations exist in the crop yield, cost structure and profitability of farmers within each of
and among the four regions due to differences in cultivation practices and approach to sales. There is a
significant potential to lower costs, increase yield and enhance overall profitability by using the existing
better processes. By addressing the issues faced by small farmers their profits can be potentially doubled.
The paper also discusses potential means of recrafting and streamlining the value chain to bring more value
to small farmers.
Research limitations/implications – The paper provides a detailed account of how different
interventions can increase the value for small farmers. Since the current food supply chain and sustainability
are under stress, worldwide, the findings of this study have implications for farmers as well as policy makers.
Originality/value – The literature on streamlining the agricultural value chain and enhancing the share of
small farmers is scarce. Improving the value chain and reducing the marginalization of small farmers is an
essential step toward increasing food sustainability.
Keywords Pakistan, Agri-business, Agricultural ecosystem, Agriculture value chain, Potato crop,
Small farmer
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
There are more than 500m small farmers on the planet (Dyck and Silvestre, 2019). It is
widely recognized that farmers all over the world, and in developing countries, in particular,
do not get a fair share of their efforts and investments (Loconto and Simbua, 2012). The lack
of or minimal knowledge of scientific agricultural practices and poor infrastructure in
developing countries put the small farmers in the most disadvantaged position (Reddy and
Ankaiah, 2005). Limited knowledge about scientific farming practices, difficulty in the
acquisition of physical inputs, and poor access to financial needs put the farmers at the
mercy of powerful actors in the supply chain such as the middleman. This is despite the fact
Management Decision
This work was supported by the Stanford Institute for Innovation in Developing Economiesunder © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Grant number 1165265. DOI 10.1108/MD-12-2018-1392
MD that the farmer bears the highest risk and gains the least share in the supply chain
(McMichael, 2013; Yan et al., 2019).
The relatively low share for small farmers is not specific to a particular crop or a country
(Loconto and Simbua, 2012; Sartorius and Kirsten, 2007). For example, small farmers
producing cocoa, the main ingredient of chocolate, get only 6 percent of the price paid for
chocolate which is almost three times less than the 16 percent they got in the 1980s
(Gro Intelligence, 2016). Similarly, while the demand and prices of nuts have increased
significantly by over 473 percent between 2000 and 2013 but the production has not kept up
with high demand. In this flourishing market, farmers bear the highest risk because
unfavorable conditions affect the yield that takes about five years to come after the initial
planting (Gro Intelligence, 2016; International Nut and Dried Fruit Council, 2016).
Potato value chain presents a similar situation in Pakistan. The existing potato value
chain is laid out such that the small farmer who is the key person in producing potato crops
is the most disadvantaged (Reddy and Ankaiah, 2005). The weak position of the farmer
makes him prone to exploitation. For example, small farmers resort to local commissioning
agents (called Aarthi) to fulfill their financing needs. The power asymmetry, which favors
the Aarthi, tends to yield opportunistic behaviors by the middleman at the cost of value for
the small farmer. Farmers bear the risk of low yield due to attack of pests, unfavorable
weather and lack of knowledge of nutritional requirements (Liljestrand, 2017). Further,
sometimes to get a higher price, farmers sell crops earlier at the expense of low yield.
In a nutshell, small farmers remain the most marginalized players in the value chain. Hence,
the key question addressed in this paper is:
RQ1 How can the share of small farmers be increased?
Implicit in this research question is to understand the interactions of small farmers with
other players in the value chain and challenges faced by small farmers.
This paper used action research to study the potato value chain in four largest potato
producing cities of Pakistan. Based on data collected from in-depth interviews with
farmers, market intermediaries, observation of the agricultural practices, input-output
analysis and comparison of cost, yield and profitability figures, this paper develops rich
insights into the potato value chain and explores the factors that limit the share of the
small farmer. We use qualitative and quantitative data to highlight the contextual and
regional factors that may determine what kind of intervention is appropriate to enhance
the farmers’ return.
The findings highlight that infrastructural, farming and market inefficiencies together
shape a potato value chain that yields unequal and unfair benefits to different players at the
cost of the smallholder who is the most valuable yet most marginalized player in the value
chain. Further, the value of the smallholders does not commensurate the risk they bear.
The findings imply that overall, potato value chain is inefficient and inherently
unsustainable as it promotes exploitation of the smallholders. This presents an alarming
situation and a threat to the food chain. The potato produce has an important place in the
food chain as it is an economical source of carbohydrates in developing countries and an
essential ingredient of several processed and unprocessed foods, including chips, fries,
mashed potatoes and potato dumplings, among many others.
The key contribution of this study is that it chalks out the factors underpinning the low
share of potato smallholders. In doing so, it adopts the value chain perspective to explore the
role of different players, their interactions, risk and value proportion of different players,
and the overall performance. The value chain framework provides a useful lens to
understand the root cause of inefficiencies and suggest recommendations for improvement.
In general, to create more value for small farmers, two possible strategies can be formulated:
first, increase the size of the pie leading to better value for small farmers; and second,
restructure the allocation of value among the players such that farmers get a better share. Bringing more
This research explores both of these options. Specific ideas for triggering entrepreneurial value to small
ventures to improve the value chain have also been discussed. farmers
Literature review
Small farmers, who lie at or near the bottom of the value chain, bear a higher risk of being
marginalized as the volume of their produce is small, and the value is only a small fraction of
the value of the end product (Nyamah et al., 2017). The World Bank reports that “with its
focus on competitiveness, globalization favors large-scale operations in the quest for
increasingly higher trade volumes to counter ever tighter margins” (Bresnyan, 2008). Some
studies have explored the factors underpinning the meager share of small farmers. Poulton
compared the potential transaction cost advantage of small and large farmers along ten
dimensions, including unskilled labor supervision and motivation, local knowledge, skilled
labor, market knowledge, technical knowledge, inputs purchase, finance and capital, output
markets, product traceability and quality assurance, and risk management. The author
found that small farmers have an advantage only in the first two dimensions
(i.e. unskilled labor supervision and motivation, and local knowledge) while in the rest
eight dimensions large farmers have the edge over small farmers.
The adoption of popular initiatives, such as the Organic Food and the Fair Trade, have
been discussed for addressing the problem of the meager share of small farmers (Loconto
and Simbua, 2012). Scholars argue that the diffusion of these initiatives is more popular in
some particular sectors (such as tea and coffee production) than others (such as potato and
wheat farming) (Loconto and Simbua, 2012). Cadilhon et al. (2005) argue that most of the
studies on agricultural supply chain typically focus on large multinational companies,
whereas the agri-food industry is mainly dominated by small- medium-sized enterprises.
Further, private established companies have managed to tackle these challenges through
integrated supply chain structures; however, supply chains involving small farmers are
neither integrated nor efficient. In well-established supply chains, managed by large
companies, small farmers usually extract a minimal percentage of the available pie
(Cadilhon et al., 2005).
Since the sustainability of the food cycle is increasingly contingent on the adequate
production of food (Golini et al., 2017), the need has arisen to help improve the share of less
privileged small farmers (Dyck and Silvestre, 2019). A number of approaches have been
discussed in the literature to address the problem of the low share of the value chain
captured by small farmers. Most prominent of these approaches include aggregation,
decommodification, repeasantisation, altering transaction mechanisms, improving
information symmetry, organic initiatives, fair trade, conservation agriculture and
value chain analysis. All these approaches acknowledge the marginalization of the small
farmer by powerful players in the value chain and intend to bring more value to small
farmers. Table I presents a brief description of these approaches and associated studies in
the literature.
“Aggregation,” which seeks to develop formal or informal cooperatives of farmers, has
been reported in the literature as a means to reduce the production cost, increase yield and
eliminate unnecessary intermediaries (Gabriel et al., 2009; Markelova et al., 2009). An et al.
(2015) noted that aggregation brings small farmers a number of benefits. First, it helps
reduce costs through the aggregate purchase of raw material, sharing of facilities and
collective investment in mechanical implements. Second, aggregation creates learning
opportunities through exchange of ideas. Third, by selling the product under one brand,
farmers acquire more power and also reduce their marketing efforts. Fourth, aggregation
can shorten the supply chain by eliminating unnecessary intermediaries. Finally,
aggregation can also reduce uncertainties by selling directly to a firm that offers a
MD Approaches Description Representative literature

Aggregation Aggregation approach seeks to bring together small An et al. (2015), Gabriel
farmers for their collective interaction with other players et al. (2009) and
in the ecosystem such as buyers for achieving economies Markelova et al. (2009)
of scale and financial institutions for access to capital.
This approach has been argued to have the potential to
create benefits for agricultural communities in developed
as well as developing economies
Decommodification In contrast to the commodification which implies McMichael (2013), Vail
specialization of agriculture and competition among (2010) and Henderson
producers, decommodification is about moving away (2004)
from the dominant agri-food system, creating a closer
bond between grower and consumer, utilizing food from
further down the industrial food chain (to reduce
processing, transport, etc), and assuming a greater level
of direct involvement in the growing, preparation and
sharing of food
Repeasantisation A form of resistance to the modern indebtedness and Singh and Bhogal (2014),
deskilling impacts of commodity farming. McMichael (2013) and
Repeasantisation means farmers eliminate commercial Van der Ploeg
inputs (e.g. fertilizers, seeds, and pesticides) to reduce
their debt and exploitation and bid for independence from
market-driven relationships that subjugate the farmer to
standardized (and increasingly expensive) inputs and
outputs. Fundamental to repeasantisation is the
“return to nature”
Altering transaction Small farmers have low transaction costs due to Haq et al. (2013), Poulton
mechanisms accessing and supervising motivated family labor and et al. (2010) and
due to their local knowledge and expertise. However, in Stockbridge (2003)
all non-labor functions, the small farmers have high
transaction costs compared to large farmers. Transaction
cost can be reduced by providing small farmer better
access to market and financial services. Intermediaries
located between the small farmer and commercial service
provider usually coordinate transactions and extract their
share, adding to the overall cost of the product
Improving information A traditional agricultural supply chain usually has a Tyrychtr (2017),
symmetry large number of players. The greater the number of Reddy and Ankaiah
players, the more difficult it is exchange information and (2005), Matopoulos et al.
collaborate. Improved information exchange such as and Bowersox et al.
through the use of information and communication
technology can lead to increased efficiencies
Organic agriculture They are meant to promote a sustainable world agro-food Loconto and Simbua
and fairtrade initiatives production systems. Products that have met a certain (2012), MacDonald
production and trade criteria can be labeled as organic (2007), Bacon (2005) and
and Fairtrade. Compliance of these initiatives is verified Raynolds (2000)
by a third party
Conservation Conservation agriculture seeks to develop practices and Dyck and Silvestre
agriculture encourage crops that save resources in crop production (2019), Pittelkow et al.
thereby conserving the environment as well as enhancing (2015), Umar (2014) and
profits of farmers Wall (2007)
Value chain analysis Analyzing the whole value chain to see opportunities for Staritz (2012), Godfrey
Table I. value creation and reappropriation at different points in et al. (2019), Thai (2017),
Streams in the the supply chain McMichael (2013),
literature on Webber and Labaste
the low share of (2010), Bresnyan (2008),
smallholding farmers and Taylor
guaranteed selling price (Markelova et al., 2009). The concept of cooperatives that offers Bringing more
mechanisms for aggregation is well established in developed countries, e.g. 2,500 value to small
cooperatives exist in the USA (National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 2017) but has not farmers
received due recognition in the developing countries (Campos-Climent et al., 2012; Nyamah
et al., 2017). Some authors have discussed the voluntary actions of groups to pursue
common objectives in terms of “community-based organizations” (Kruijssen et al., 2009) and
“collective actions” (Markelova et al., 2009). While aggregation is about the pooling of
resources to achieve higher efficiencies in a market transaction, these initiatives have also
been discussed in the literature as a means to alleviate small farmers’ poverty.
“Decommodification” is about establishing a closer bond between farmer and consumer
by moving away from the industrialization of food chain production of bulk commodities
(Henderson, 2004; McMichael, 2013). Decommodification is the opposite of commodification
which promotes specialization of agriculture and competition among producers.
Decommodification results in a shorter supply chain. It has a greater realization that the
debt consumers bear for being dependent on the farmer for their daily food need cannot be
managed with money alone. “Repeasantisation” refers to restoring peasant activities and
reducing reliance on those market mechanisms that subjugate farmer to standardized
(and increasingly expensive) inputs. Farmers eliminate or minimize commercial inputs (e.g.
fertilizers, seeds and pesticides) to reduce their debt and exploitation and seek independence
from market-driven exploitative relationships. Fundamental to repeasantisation is “return to
nature.” “Altering transaction mechanisms” is another approach to benefit small farmers.
Small farmers have higher transaction costs compared to larger farmers (Markelova et al.,
2009). The transaction cost of small farmers can be reduced by providing better access to
markets and financial services (Poulton et al., 2010). Further, redefining the role of
intermediaries can reduce transaction costs in the supply chain. “Improving information
symmetry” suggests that in the presence of a large number of players in the supply chain,
information asymmetries bring disproportionate value to different players (Tyrychtr, 2017).
The small farmer usually lacks the knowledge of market mechanisms and scientific
agricultural practices thus becoming more prone to failure in capturing value. The use of
ICT by small farmers can bring greater efficiencies and more value to the small farmer
(Aramyan et al., 2007; Tyrychtr, 2017). “Organic agriculture” and “Fairtrade” initiatives also
promise to benefit the small farmer. Products that have met a certain production and trade
criteria can be labeled as organic and Fairtrade. Compliance of these initiatives is verified by
a third party (Loconto and Simbua, 2012; Raynolds, 2000). However, Fairtrade is criticized
for its lack of focus on increasing overall size of the pie. As Kramer and Porter (2011) note
“[though Fairtrade] may be a noble sentiment, fairtrade is mostly about redistribution rather
than expanding the overall amount of value created” (p. 4).
“Conservation agriculture” is another approach to improve the productivity of small
farmers, yet in a sustainable way. The concept of conservation agriculture builds upon the
holistic implementation of three practices including reducing mechanical disturbance of the
soil, placing crop residues on the top of the soil when land is not in use and crop rotation to
restore the nutrient contents of the soil. Conservation agriculture reduces the fertilizer need
by restoring nutrient contents. For example, alternating corn by legumens whereby corn
uses nitrogen from the soil while nitrogen-fixing legumens restore the nitrogen contents.
Thus, it reduces or eliminates the need of fertilizers, improves soil quality, increases
productivity and positively affects the economic conditions of small farmers, see, e.g. Dyck
and Silvestre (2019) and Umar (2014).
One of the most valuable tools to understand agriculture supply chain and improve its
performance is the “value chain model” (Higgins et al., 2007; Letaifa, 2014; Loconto and
Simbua, 2012; Staritz, 2012). The value chain framework is particularly useful to understand
the economic problems of small farmers when viewed in a larger frame of interaction with
MD other players of the supply chain (Letaifa, 2014; Loconto and Simbua, 2012). A value chain
starts with a supply chain; the “value” component emphasizes value addition as the product
passes through different stages (Porter, 1985). Value is defined as benefits relative to costs,
and not just benefits alone (Kramer and Porter, 2011). Different activities in the potato
supply chain add value to the product while also creating economic value for the consumer
and other players in the chain. Value is created as the product passes through various
stages in the chain (Hawkes and Ruel, 2012; Porter, 2001).
The literature on agricultural value chain in developing countries provides insights into
the engagement of small farmers and the role of standards and certifications and social
issues, such as poverty and gender in value chain interventions (Staritz, 2012; Thai, 2017).
Thai (2017) mainly discussed the theoretical aspects of the value chain and the roles of
players associated with the agricultural value chain. Building on the value chain and
intervention concepts discussed in that paper, the current study further delineates
interventions in a potato value chain and explores alternatives to increase the size of the
share of small farmers. Thai (2017) also highlights the role of poverty, gender and
empowerment in value chains and the need for effectively managing global value chains.
A discussion of the social issues in value chains is beyond the scope of this paper but
remains an important topic for future studies.

Research methodology
Selection of crop
The research was carried out in Pakistan, a developing country of more than 180m people
where agriculture and related industries contribute about 40 percent to the GDP (Pakistan
Economic Survey, 2016). With recent GDP growth rates of about 4 percent and population
growth rate of almost 3 percent (Asian Development Bank, 2016), there is an urgent need
to find ways to enhance productivity and generate additional value, and agriculture
offers the most promising prospects in this regard (Kramer and Porter, 2011). With a vast
majority of farmers falling in the small category (less than 10 hectares area), any
improvement in the profitability of these farmers will have a significant impact on the
overall economy and the social well-being (Dyck and Silvestre, 2019; Godfrey et al., 2019;
Kramer and Porter, 2011).
Based on analysis of the crops of Pakistan, the potato crop was selected for study as the
potato was entirely unregulated with almost no intervention from the government. Lack of
government interventions minimizes market distortion and maintains natural supply-
demand and market forces. In a typical farming cycle, potato price may increase about three
times the base price. On the farming side, potato crop is increasingly grown by small
farmers in many parts of Pakistan. although, in general, it is considered as a profitable crop,
for small farmers it is a high-risk crop and prone to low productivity and low profitability.
Hence, it was decided to focus on the potato crop.

Basic framework
A pilot study was carried out to gain a better understanding of the potato value chain and
underlying issues. The pilot study included:
(1) Identifying the key players in the supply chain at the inputs (raw material),
cultivation and market stages.
(2) Interviewing different farmers who had extensive potato cultivation experience.
Through these interviews we learned:
• Cultivation comprises the followings stages: Seed Purchase or Sowing Decision
→ Soil Preparation → Soil Fertilizer Application → Seed Planting → Chemical
 Application → Crop Fertilizer Application → Crop Watering → Crop Weeding Bringing more
→ Crop Harvesting → Grading → Storing → Selling. value to small
• The role of different players in the potato value chain. farmers
The resulting framework for potato supply chain developed from the pilot study is shown
in Figure 1.
During the interviews, two key determinants affecting farmers’ gains emerged: seed
quality and the role of Aarthi. To investigate these issues, we contacted different
institutions and looked at their work in this regard. The authors contacted Research
Department of Agriculture Institute (RDAI) Faisalabad which is the premier agriculture
institute of Pakistan to get knowledge of the quality of seed. Our interactions at the institute
revealed that seed quality is a critical determinant of farmers’ output and that there are two
key aspects associated with the seed, its cost and resistance to diseases. Recognizing the key
role of seed quality in farmers’ output, the Government of Punjab, Pakistan, established a
department called Punjab Seed Corporation to develop its own seed variety.
To understand the role of Aarthi in this business, we visited the vegetable trading
market (called Mandi) of Lahore city. This visit helped in understanding the market side of
the supply chain that spans from the farmer to the end consumer. The following are the key
actors that play a role in the supply chain:
• Farmer → Aarthi in the market → Vegetable market buyer→ Vegetable retailer→
End consumer.
Some companies also purchase potato directly from large farmers (Hassan and Ahmed,
2017). These companies prefer buying from a single or few large farmers to reduce their
transaction cost (including greater consistency of product). Since the volume of the produce
of small farmers is usually small, they are not preferred by the buyer. In this case, the potato
supply chain takes the following form:
• (Large) Farmer → buying company producing products such as frozen food or chips.
From these visits, we learned that from the market to the end consumer, price increases by
more than 50 percent as all intermediaries extract their share. The farmer is the one who
faces the most risk and uncertainty. Aarthi exerts significant control over the whole supply
chain and has a key influence on the cultivation process. Aarthi is a commission agent who
sells on behalf of the farmer. According to government regulation, Aarthi can receive only a

POTATO CULTIVATION

CAPITAL COMMERCIAL
$ ADVICE

KEY INPUTS POTATO MARKET

SEED FARMERS CS
LOCAL
AC
Land: owned/rented --------------------------
CHEMICALS EXPORT
Water: canal (almost free)
--------------------------
or natural stream or
INSTITUTIONAL
FERTILIZER underground water

Figure 1.
Key activities in
STANDARD SPECIAL
ADVICE SITUATIONS
Pakistani potato
AC: auction marketplace (locally called Mandi) value chain
AGRICULTRAL AND MARKET ADVICE CS: cold storage
MD commission of 3.15 percent from each sale and pay the farmer the remaining sale proceeds
immediately (Haq et al., 2013). However, as the Aarthi also arranges credit for the farmer, the
Aarthi charges a higher rate of commission (sometimes more than 10 percent). In addition,
the Aarthi also delays payments for weeks and influences the farmer’s choice of place and
price of buying seed and fertilizers and timing of harvesting the crops.

Data collection
A 28 page questionnaire[1] was used to capture in-depth information on each farmer’s
following aspects: personal and family information; social context; potato cultivation practice –
soil preparation, fertilizer use, seed purchase, seed planting, chemical treatments, watering
approach, weeding process; harvesting details; prices of inputs and outputs; grading
mechanism; storage method; and sale process. The questionnaire was designed for collecting
data through extensive interviews with farmers at their potato fields at each stage of the potato
cultivation process. In addition, extensive interactions with leading farmers, seed suppliers,
fertilizer and chemicals retailers, extension services staff and agriculture research scientists
provided background information about potato farming and related markets in Pakistan.
There are two key aspects that need to be considered for sampling in qualitative and
longitudinal research design: sample selection criteria and size (Ritchie et al., 2013). In line
with the recommendations of Ritchie et al. (2013), we used diversity and representation as
the criteria to develop a mix of farmers to be studied in detail. Scholars argue that the
sample size is generally small in qualitative and longitudinal research studies (Morse, 2000;
Ritchie et al., 2013). This is primarily because if data collection process captures the richness
of each case and data are properly analyzed quickly, a point would come where little new
evidence is obtained from additional data points (Morse, 2000). Also, the information yielded
by qualitative and longitudinal work is rich in detail and “many hundreds of bites of
information” are generated in each case thus even a small sample size is fairly insightful and
intense to consume research resources (Ritchie et al., 2013, p. 83).
The sampling frame of 60 accessible farmers from four main potato growing regions in
Pakistan was developed with the help of local support. The sampling frame sought to
achieve diversity in terms of age, education, total landholding, potato cultivation land, total
cultivated land, proportion of owned and cultivated land, potato cultivation experience, and
number of family members. The local research support was provided by four field
researchers (one located in each region), regional community and a senior researcher who
coordinated and oversaw work of the field researchers. A total of 48 farmers (12 from each
region) were randomly selected from the sampling frame with the view that the research
team will be able to collect data of the complete crop cycle from at least ten farmers from
each region. Considering the research objectives, high intensity of effort and richness of data
collection from each farmer, and longitudinal research design ten farmers were considered a
reasonable sample size from each region (Morse, 2000; Ritchie et al., 2013). During the data
collection process, due to lack of support from either farmers or local field researchers, the
research team could collect complete crop cycle data from 37 (77 percent) of 48 randomly
selected farmers in the four regions. Khairpur region, being the farthest from the location of
the senior researcher coordinating and overseeing the data collection activities, had the least
representation in the mix of studied farmers. Table II provides region wise details of
the farmers that completely participated in the research. Our focus on different geographic
regions of the country provided comprehensive data on agricultural practices that may be
influenced by local weather and social conditions.
The four different regions of Pakistan selected for full-scale data collection represent
different socio-economic conditions, varying levels of maturity of the potato cultivation
practices and diverse climatic and soil conditions. Okara, the first region, produces more
than 80 percent of the total potatoes in Pakistan and is the most advanced in terms of
cultivations practices. Taxila, the second region, has small land holdings; the potato is a Bringing more
major crop for farmers. Mansehra, the third region, is located in the Himalayan foothills. It value to small
has high-quality soil but small landholding. Finally, the fourth region, Khairpur, is located in farmers
the south of Pakistan. The potato is not the main crop and the potato ecosystem is
considered to be relatively weak in Khairpur (Figure 2).
The farmers were tracked on a regular basis during a full crop cycle (starting from
preparation for cultivation to final sale of produce) spanned over late 2013 to early 2015. The
authors developed a data collection protocol for standardizing the data collection process
and capturing the required richness of information regarding each farmer. The protocol
required audio recording of on-field interviews and independent verification of the data by
the senior researcher through periodic direct contacts with farmers and other key
stakeholders. Farmers’ decisions, activities and interactions with other players in their value

Potato cultivation Number of Total

Sample Age Education experience family cultivated Land cultivated
Region size (Years) (Years) (Years) members land (Acres) for potatoes (%)

Okara 11 23–47 5–14 5–25 6–15 12–42 8–67

Taxila 10 30–60 0–10 9–45 5–13 1–38 7–93 Table II.
Mansehra 11 18–55 0–12 6–32 6–22 5–19 17–100 Demographics
Khairpur 5 26–53 0–16 5–14 5–14 1–35 6–50 of farmers

0 100 200 300 km

Capital
∗ Sampling Area
N Number of farmers
∗ N
Mansehra 10
Taxila 10 Figure 2.
Location of the four
Okara 11 regions included
Khairpur 5 in the study
MD chain were studied and documented. The value of inputs from each player was determined
and the related appropriation of value by various stakeholders was captured. Data were
tracked, collected and analyzed during the various phases of the crop cycle. The purpose of
this activity was to develop a model of the value chain that captures the flow of material,
finance and information, and significant decisions at various stages of the chain
(McMichael, 2013; Webber and Labaste, 2010).

Data analysis
We analyzed the actual activities, effort levels and the costs incurred in each of the main
stages of the potato value chain by each farmer in each region separately. This provided the
basis to compare the practices and the results of farmers in each region. We then compared
the farmers with respect to their profiles, cultivation practices and investments in various
phases of the cultivation cycle. The total investment in various aspects, achieved yields,
prices obtained and the resulting profits per acre of land were then computed. In these
comparisons, we also considered the peculiarities of the ecosystem in each region.
Based on the overall analysis, we then developed ideas for how the value chain could be
re-crafted in each region to bring more value to the small farmer. In the following section, we
discuss in detail the potato farming practice and the overall ecosystem in Okara, the biggest
producer of potatoes in Pakistan.

Potato farming ecosystem in Okara

Okara region, located in the agricultural heartlands of Punjab, is considered to possess the
most suitable ecosystem for potato farming. With its relatively large scale of potato farming,
all the main physical support structure is available, including cold storage facilities, the largest
exclusive market for potato trading, an extensive network of seeds, fertilizers and chemical
suppliers, and a large agricultural implements industry. Potato is cultivated in this region
during the September-to-April season. The soil preparation and sowing takes place during
September and October, and usually, harvesting starts from January to early April. Since most
of the land in this region is cultivatable and watering is done through flood irrigation, the
demand for water is high. Despite an elaborate canal system in place and the charges for using
canal water are quite nominal, there is not enough water to meet the full needs of crops
throughout the year. Hence, farmers need to use their own tube wells to pump underground
water. Given the energy shortage in the country, many farmers use diesel engine-based pumps
that have very high operating costs and the government does not provide subsidy on the fuel.
Okara is also the main center for the production of potato seeds. Many medium to large
scale farmers produce seeds. In most cases, farmers have also set up their own cold storage
facilities. There are also many independent cold storage facilities for small farmers. Many
farmers also store consumption potatoes in cold storage with the idea to sell later when the
price is much higher.
Prices of pesticides. In many cases, it was also found that the pricing practices of the
retailers selling pesticides were not transparent – they would in some cases give heavy
discounts of up to 30 percent of the listed price and in other cases charge a premium of
nearly 80 percent on the printed price. It is suspected that two factors were at play in these
situations: in those cases where the farmer was in dire need of the chemicals but could not
pay in cash the retailers would charge a heavy premium upfront with the promise by the
farmer to pay when the crop is sold; retailers would also sell chemicals of dubious quality at
heavily discounted rates, making the farmers believe that he is getting a good deal while
also getting the chemicals on deferred payment.
Sources of advice. In most cases, small farmers relied on their elders and other farmers for
agricultural advice. Regarding the use of pesticides and chemicals, the only professional
guidance was available from the field agents of the companies or retailers selling the Bringing more
chemicals. Similarly, farmers had only limited scientific guidance on what type of nutrients value to small
were required for a specific crop for a given type of soil. Soil fertility testing facilities were farmers
available but the government did not promote the use of these facilities. Also, the required
infrastructure for all soil-related fertility tests was not available in these labs. Hence, farmers
followed their own experience and advice from other farmers. It is estimated that in some
cases the farmers may be unnecessarily spending extra on fertilizer that does not provide
any additional yield improvements.
Usage of seeds. Farmers primarily used their own seed or bought seed from other farmers
with a reputation for producing good seed. Farmers usually planted the imported seed on a
small portion of the land with the idea to develop seed to be used next year – one acre of
such land would usually produce enough seed to be able to cultivate nearly seven acres next
year. The availability of reliable cold storage facilities made this cost-saving practice
possible. Farmers usually continued this cycle for three to four years before moving
on to using the new base imported seed to ensure that yield did not suffer due to old seed.
This cycle of seed usage had become almost a standard practice in Okara region.
Fertilizer usage. Investment in fertilizers is considered more expensive and less
rewarding than that in seeds. Although there was a general understanding of what
fertilizers were needed to obtain the best yield of the potato crop, the actual practice in the
use of fertilizer did vary across different farmers that we studied. This was due to variation
in farmers’ ability to invest in fertilizer and also their access to cattle manure as almost a free
alternative to expensive chemical fertilizers.
Use of chemical. There is a much greater variation in the use of chemicals as most
farmers did not follow any specific guidelines. Most farmers did not use chemicals as
a preventive measure and only started applying once they spotted problems. We noted a
heavy use of chemicals when the eventual yield was very low, indicating a reactive use of
chemicals. Small farmers’ attitude toward using chemicals, i.e. use only if they had a
problem was due to a number of reasons: lack of knowledge about the chemicals to use for
various situations, lack of confidence in the quality of the available chemicals and a
shortage of financial resources. Most farmers looked at investment in chemicals as an
expense that should be avoided as much as possible.
Harvesting and sales practices. Harvesting process and the related costs per acre varied
significantly across the farmers – ranging from nearly $50 to over $150 per acre. This variation
was due to the extent of the use of mechanical implements. The cost incurred in the sales process
also varied from almost 0 to over $100 per acre. Those farmers who sold their crop on the field to
buyers did not incur any sales cost, while those who had obtained loans from Aarthi had to pay
a much higher commission rate (almost three times the regular rate of 3.15 percent of sales).
Access to capital. On average farmers have to invest nearly $900 per acre. A major portion
of this investment is spent on the procurement of seed and fertilizers. When farmers do not
have their own resources, they usually borrow from the Aarthi with the understanding that
they will sell their produce through the Aarthi. Aarthis apparently do not charge any
interest on their loan but get an effectively interest rate of over 100 percent by charging the
farmers a much higher commission rate (as high as 10 percent in place of the official rate of
3.15 percent) at the time of the auction of their produce, making the farmers buy fertilizer at
much higher prices (usually a premium of 10–15 percent), and making the farmer sell the
crop early in the season when the price is relatively low. Some farmers sold their crops early
in the season as they did not have money even to buy diesel for their tractors. Consequently,
these farmers not only got a relatively low price but their yield also suffered.
Small farmers cultivated only potatoes on a small percentage of their land and used the
rest of the land for growing other seasonal vegetables that can provide cash while they wait
MD for the potato crop to be ready for harvesting. There is no provision for obtaining loans from
banks or other financial institutions to the small farmer who cultivates on leased land.
Hence, the farmers are left to handle their financing requirement through informal channels
like the Aarthi.

Potato cultivation practices in other regions

Several of the farming practices remain essentially the same in all four cases, although the
cost of inputs changed. A comparison of the key features of the four regions is summarized
in Table III.

Analysis of investments, yields and profitability

The comparison of four regions in terms of investment, crop yield, profitability and yield per
$ investment is shown in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Overall, the average total
investment per acre across the four regions varied from $866 (in Okara region) to $2,050 (in
Taxila) (Figure 3). The average total investment per acre is much higher in Khairpur, Taxila
and Mansehra (less developed potato farming ecosystems) than Okara (a relatively
well-developed ecosystem). This indicates that farming costs can be reduced in the presence
of a strong agricultural infrastructure. In particular, we identified those inputs and factors
that increase the cost of cultivation. We identified that these factors relate to both farming
practices as well as the acquisition of inputs and selling crops in the market.
It was found that the prices of potato crops varied across four regions. Further, crop
prices also varied based on market demand thus influencing farmer profitability
(Figure 5). “Crop yield per $ of investment,” on the other hand, provides a more robust
yardstick to compare productivity across four regions. A detailed yield and investment
analysis shows that losses did occur in all four regions. Further, there is significant
variance in crop yield within and across regions (Figure 4) thus implying greater
uncertainty and risk at the farmer’s end. The figures show a large variation in
productivity levels within and across regions. For example, the productivity of low-end
farmers is 2.60 times less than that of high-end farmers in Okara, 2.67 times less in Taxila,
3.50 times less in Mansehra and 2.67 times less in Khairpur (Figure 6). Figure 6 shows that
in Okara, improving the productivity of farmers on the lower end to bring to the average
level would mean 60 percent increase and bringing it to the level of higher-end farmers
would result in an increase of 160 percent. Similarly, in Taxila, Mansehra and Khairpur,
there are significant differences in minimum, average and maximum productivity of
farmers. The potential increase in productivity achievable by improving the performance
of farmers within each region is shown in Table IV.
Since farmers in a particular region use similar resources (such as land, water, seed and
chemicals), use farming practices that are comparable and have the similar overall
infrastructure, low productivity bearing farmers are less likely to face challenges in
improving their productivity as high-end farmers provide a credible benchmark model.
The presence of such models available in the same locality is expected to boost the farmer’s
self-efficacy leading to the adoption of those best practices. The improvement process can be
triggered through the sharing of knowledge among farmers and the use of best practices
regarding the acquisition and utilization of inputs, cultivation, harvesting methods and
selling crops in the market.

Farmer risks
The findings show that farmers face risk at multiple points in the value chain. Identifying
those risks is the first step toward recrafting the value chain. The risk at the farmer end
pertained to the use of inputs, farming practices, weather conditions and market transactions.
Dimension Okara Taxila Mansehra Khairpur

Climate and potato Hot summer but mild winters Warm summers and cold winters Mild summers and very cold winters Very hot summer and mild
crop times (harvesting September/October–January/ December/January–April/May and also December/January–May/April and also winter
season) March August–November August–November November/December–
February/March
Role of potato Major crop Major crop Important crop Support crop
cultivation Mostly grown once a year Some farmers grow twice Grown twice a year Grown once a year
Type of soil Low level of organic materials Some amount of organic materials High organic materials Very low level of organic
materials
Watering Canal water or tube wells Canal water or tube wells when canals Natural water streams fed by melting Canal water or tube wells
when canals dry dry snow and mountain springs when canals dry
Access to inputs Local production of seed No local seed No local seed No local seed production
Network of fertilizer retailers Imported due to lack of cold storage Imported due to lack of cold storage Bought from Okara
Many chemicals retailers Limited access to fertilizer and chemical Very limited local access to fertilizer and Limited access to fertilizer
retailers chemicals and chemicals retailers
Cold storage facilities Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate
Access to capital Loan from Aarthi Loan from Aarthi only to farmers Loan from Aarthi and bank ( for those Loan from Aarthi
cultivating at least 5 acres who also grow tobacco)
Access to agricultural Extensive local experience and Limited local expertise, primarily learn Limited local expertise Limited local expertise
expertise expertise available from large from Okara farmers Government extension services almost Some support available
farmers No government extension service non-existent from fertilizer companies
Large farmers have access to Government extension
government research centers services practically non-
existent
Labor cost Low Very high High High
Access to markets Next to the largest potato Small local markets Far from main markets (more than Only sell in the small local
market in Pakistan Larger growers sell in markets located 500 km) market
400 km away
Access to agricultural Major implements No local implements manufacturing No local implements manufacturing No local implements
implements manufacturing industry industry but local repair facilities industry but limited local repair manufacturing industry but
located in the area available facilities limited local repair options
Scale of farming Large Small Small Small
Availability of Adequate (Mechanical) Inadequate (manual) Inadequate (manual) Inadequate (manual)
mechanization

(continued )
farmers
value to small
Bringing more

chain in four regions

of the potato value
Table III.
Cross-case comparison
 MD

Table III.
Dimension Okara Taxila Mansehra Khairpur

Role of Aarthi Key role in seed provision, Provides loan to farmers Provides loan to farmers Provides loan to farmers
cold storage, fertilizer Takes high commission in the sale Takes high commission in the sale o Takes high commission in
arrangement, loan of potato f potato the sale of potato
arrangement for farmers
May influence farmer to sell
crops early to take advantage
of more profit, causing yield
loss for the farmer
Fertilizer Synthetic fertilizers Chicken manure Synthetic fertilizers Farmyard manure
Chicken manure Chicken manure
Soil fertility testing Available Inadequate Inadequate – the nearest one is 100 km Inadequate
facilities away
Seed cultivation The whole potato is used as a Imported potato seed is cut into 6–7 Manual; sometimes re-sowing seed due Manual; seed obtained
practice seed. Local seed costs 25% pieces, each containing an “eye” that to the attack of wild boars that dig locally from Okara
cheaper. Seeds sowed through sprouts a plant, and planted these pieces out seeds
a mechanized process by hand, adding to labor cost Imported potato seed is cut into 4–8
pieces, each containing an “eye” that
sprouts a plant, and planted these pieces
by hand, adding to labor cost
Sales cost Varies from $0 (sold on the Small farmers sell locally and do not Small farmers sell locally and do not Farmers sell locally and do
field) to $100 (sold through incur any selling cost incur any selling cost not incur any selling cost
Aarthi) per acre Sale price increases if Aarthi is involved Sale price increases if Aarthi is involved
Risk at farmer end 20–30% yield loss if harvested Dependent on the retailer for imported High cost of cultivation Due to the procurement of
earlier (to take advantage of seed Farmers tend to harvest earlier to avoid local seed
high price) High cost of cultivation damage caused by rain, thus, Lack of cold storage made
Yield decline due to harsh Rains may decrease the yield reducing yield farmers sell the crop
weather
Major expense Seeds and fertilizers Physical inputs (65%) of the total cost Buying imported seed due to lack of Seed and fertilizer
(Average investment $ 866/Acre Buying imported seed due to lack of cold storage $1,043/Acre
per acre) cold storage $1,796/Acre
$ 2,050/Acre
Average Yield 7,109 kg/Acre 8,801 kg/Acre 7,146 kg/Acre 5,180 kg/Acre
Average profit/acre $499 $1,359 $1,148 $257

(continued )
Dimension Okara Taxila Mansehra Khairpur

Key advantages Mostly produce their Less amount of seed used due to Selling in local Mandi Abundant availability
own seeds splitting potato seed into 6–7 pieces Abundant water supply of water
each containing an “eye” Very low selling cost (Sold
locally)
Major disadvantage Yield loss Lack of access to loan facilities, Lack of access to loan facilities, Lack of access to loan
High commission paid to agricultural guidance, and cold storage agricultural guidance, and cold storage facilities, agricultural
Aarthi (sometimes W 10%) Small-scale farming also adds to cost High cultivation cost due to manual guidance, and cold storage
High cultivation cost sowing and re-sowing seeds Due to small-scale farming,
High labor costs farmers have to sell locally
To avoid hot weather and to
pay off their loans farmers
harvest earlier, possibly
leading to yield loss
Opportunities A large variation in crop yield A large variation in crop yield within A large variation in crop yield within A large variation in crop
within the region the region the region yield within the region
Minimum yield/$ investment Minimum yield/$ investment is less Minimum yield/$ investment is less Minimum yield/$
is less than half of the than half of the maximum than half of the maximum investment is less than half
maximum of the maximum
farmers
value to small
Bringing more

Table III.
MD 3,500

3,000

2,500

$/Acre 2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
Okara Khairpur Taxila Mansehra
Maximum 960 1,380 3,111 3,040
Minimum 717 617 1,208 1,205
Average 866 1,043 2,050 1,796
Figure 3.
Comparison of total Standard Deviation 68 273 579 546
investment per acre
across regions Note: Much higher investment in Taxila and Mansehra primarily due to higher costs of seed, more
labor-intensive processes in harvesting and greater sales cost

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000
Kgs/Acre

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
Okara Khairpur Taxila Mansehra
Figure 4. Maximum 11,796 8,400 12,400 11,200
Comparison of Minimum 4,133 2,800 6,240 4,000
effective yield per acre Average 7,109 5,180 8,801 7,146
across regions
Standard Deviation 2,361 2,402 2,420 2,226

Some examples of risk factor, their sources and consequences are shown in Table V. The table
shows how different inputs impact farmer productivity. In addition to risk arising from inputs,
weather conditions and global warming also affect farmer productivity. Earlier summer and
cold weather adversely affected the potato yield. Finally, it was found that small farmers’
farming practices are linked to other economic activities of farmers, such as growing
 4,000 Bringing more
3,500 value to small
farmers
3,000

2,500

2,000
$/Acre

1,500

1,000

500

(500)

(1,000)
Okara Khairpur Taxila Mansehra
Maximum 1,528 629 3,474 3,417
Minimum (172) (127) (327) (42)
Average 499 257 1,359 1,148
Figure 5.
Standard Deviation 618 294 1,016 977 Comparison of profit
per acre across
Note: Higher profits in Taxila and Mansehra primarily due to the higher price of potato at the time regions
of harvesting

16

14

12
Yield/$ Investment

10

0
Okara Taxila Mansehra Khairpur
Maximum 13 8 7 8
Minimum 5 3 2 3 Figure 6.
Comparison of
Average 8 4 4 5 effective yield per $
Standard Deviation 3 1 2 2 investment across
regions
Maximum Minimum Average Standard Deviation
MD vegetables and feed for cattle on some part of their land. Overall, an ecosystem exists where
different activities are linked and any decision to make a change in farming practices will need
to factor in other sources of income and living.

Discussion and recommendations

General farming
A comparison of the findings of this paper with similar studies carried out in other
settings highlights several common problems, including lack of supporting infrastructure,
market insensitivity to socio-environmental initiatives, a win-lose based approach to

Percentage difference in yield per $ of investment

Potential for improvement if productivity improves from Okara Taxila Mansehra Khairpur

Min. → Max.
((Max. − Min.)/(Min.))×100 160 167 250 167
Table IV. Min. → Average
Potential increase in ((Avg. − Min.)/(Avg.))×100 60 33 100 67
productivity within Average → Max.
and across regions ((Max. − Avg.)/(Avg.))×100 62.5 100 75 60

Risk factor Underlying reasons Consequences

Chemicals Spurious chemicals Decrease productivity

High cost
Seeds Lack of Different varieties of
Cold storage seeds lead to variations in
Seed branding mechanisms productivity
Pest-resistant seeds
High-yield producing seeds
Soil Lack of Reduces crop yield
Soil testing facility for nutrients
Water supply Use of tube wells adds cost to the farmer Increases farmer cost
Differences in the quality of water from flood irrigation Variations in productivity
and tube wells
Access to capital No provision of loan from banks Makes farmer rely on
Reliance on the intermediator (Aarthi) exploitative options
Weather Global warming Causes variations in
conditions Earlier summer productivity
Extreme cold in winter
Heavy rains
Cultivation Non-scientific farming practices Increases waste of inputs
practices and outputs
Access to market Distance from market adds transaction cost to the farmer Makes farmer rely on less
Makes farmer reply on less lucrative buyers lucrative options
Resistance to A tendency to rely on local wisdom Makes the farmer
change Farming linked to other economic activities, such as reluctant
growing other crops and feed for animals to change
Mechanical Lack of Reduces productivity
implements Laser levelers
Table V. Advanced mechanical implements
Types of risk Harvesting equipment
encountered by the Labor intensive Unavailability of cheap labor Increases farming cost
small farmer Low labor productivity
transactions, farmer education and skills development and platforms for smallholders for Bringing more
effective bargaining. value to small
Technological and infrastructural developments. Most of the problems related to low farmers
productivity of potato farmers and the potato value chain relate to the lack of infrastructure.
Studies carried out in many other developing countries such as Kenya (Hoeffler, 2006),
Tanzania (Rahko, 2012), Nigeria (Ugonna et al., 2013) and Asian countries (including India,
China and Bangladesh) (Minten et al., 2016) converge on the lack of adequate infrastructure
as the key factor underpinning potato farmers low productivity. Infrastructural
improvements facilitating the acquisition of inputs, farming practices and market
transactions can make a significant improvement in smallholder productivity.
Several of the existing technologies to aid cultivation, harvesting and sales processes are
more beneficial mainly for large-scale farming. One way in which this issue could be addressed
for small-scale farming is to form some collaborative arrangements among small farmers for
specific crops (An et al., 2015). For this to function effectively, proper accounting processes
would have to be devised so that the investments and returns are appropriately shared among
the collaborating farmers. These collaborative arrangements allow farmers to share resources
and thus reduce their costs. These cooperatives have been functional in the USA, Spain,
Australia, New Zealand and Europe (Campos-Climent et al., 2012; Chaddad and Iliopoulos,
2013). Alternately, a facilitating agent can act as the aggregator to collectively serve small
farmers. For example, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives in the USA furnishes a
platform for promoting farmer cooperatives. The council promotes farmer ownership and
control in the production and supply chain (National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 2017).
Regarding the use of highly advanced technologies, it is worth noting that while
technological developments have entered the Industry 4.0 phase, these developments have not
yet made their way into potato farming and potato value chain. The use of artificial intelligence
and satellite-based measures of vegetative health in routine farming practices, predicting
seasonal effects, and finding the right mix of inputs are still unknown in the potato value chain.
The findings show that extreme weather, winter frost, early summer and heavy rains have all
adversely affected the yield of potato farmers all over the world (Gro Intelligence, 2016). The
impact of these problems can be minimized to a great extent through the use of the latest
prediction technologies building on artificial intelligence (Liljestrand, 2017). Further, other
developments such as the use of sophisticated mechanical implements, including laser levelers,
automatic seed cultivator, soil conservation technology, and blemishes and shape sorters,
that reduce menial job, improve productivity, and reduce cost are still not in full use (Dyck and
Silvestre, 2019; Umar, 2014). Finally, while the use of hydroponics is barging its way into
modern farming and is increasingly being embraced due to higher productivity, it is still
unknown in potato farming and needs further research.
Market insensitivity to popular socio-environmental initiatives. Popular socio-environmental
initiatives, such as Fairtrade, Organic Farming, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and
GLOBALG.A.P (international standards for GAP), that are well recognized in other
agri-products including coffee, cocoa, tea, soybean, honey, bananas and other fruits and
vegetables are relatively unknown in the potato value chain (Loconto and Simbua, 2012). The
market indifference to these initiatives in potato products can be one reason why best practices
did not make their way into the potato farming and value chain (Cadilhon et al., 2005). Informing
the customer about potatoes farming practices, challenges in the acquisition of inputs, risk at the
farmer’s end, impact of environmental factors and power asymmetries in the role of players can
have a significant impact on how customers make choices about potato-based products, e.g.
potato chips, fries, nuggets and dumplings. When customers recognize the value of these social
initiatives, it increases attention of the relevant value chain players and motivates them to adopt
fair and best practices in order to avoid losing their legitimacy.
MD Win-lose approach-based transactions. Findings clearly show that transaction
mechanisms among potato value chain players tend to be win-lose transactions
(Loconto and Simbua, 2012; Sartorius and Kirsten, 2007). Win-lose relationships tend to
be unsustainable as they build upon the exploitation of the marginalized player, the potato
farmers in this case (McMichael, 2013; Reddy and Ankaiah, 2005; Yan et al., 2019). Our
findings show that Aarthi is a key player in the value chain who buys directly from the
farmer (Figure 7). Since Aarthi arranges loan and supply of inputs to farmers, he charges
commission much higher than fixed by the government. In addition, the decision-making
power regarding the use of inputs such as chemicals and herbicides is shifted from the
farmer to Aarthi. This shows the power of Aarthi at the cost of farmer exploitation
(Haq et al., 2013). The interviews with farmers further highlighted this problem making it
clear that power asymmetry between farmers and Aarthi needs to be corrected by
addressing the financing needs of farmers.
As the small farmers mostly cultivate on leased land, they are not able to provide any
collateral except their crops. An agriculture-specific loan scheme or a transparent deferred
payment system for primary inputs (e.g. seed, fertilizer, and chemicals) needs to be devised
(Figure 8). This system should be flexible and fair, and work in conjunction with the support
to farmers in terms of advice, counseling and training. Aggregating the procurement of
inputs, microfinance loans and use of scientific agricultural practices can also minimize the
cost and thus financing needs of the farmer.
Farmer education and skills development. Farmer education and development in areas
such as farming economics and group leadership skills can be highly advantageous in
making better choices in the selection of inputs and farming methods (Hoeffler, 2006). In this
study, most of the small farmers had little insight into dynamics of their value chain
(Figure 7). In general, they were unaware of the fate of their produce, whether the produce is
stored or immediately sold, consumer preferences, types of packages suitable for different
types of consumers and price factors. Farmers need to be made more knowledgeable about
the markets as well as the ways in which they can produce potatoes that can help satisfy
target market’s preferences in a better way, enabling them in the process to charge a better
price (McMichael, 2013). Guidance from companies that procure potatoes on a large scale or

FUNCTIONS DOMESTIC MARKET EXPORT MARKET SUPPORT AREAS

Market
Rural and Value addition Restaurants Super Supermarkets
Retailing information
urban markets (processing) and hotels markets export channel
services

Standards,
Traders/distributors/
Wholesaling Distributors Cold storage certifications
exporters
and logistics

Small scale Village level Logistics

Brokerage
brokers brokers

Financial/
Farmers (small/medium/large) business-
Figure 7. Production Farmer cooperatives
Seed development/
Key actors, functions, technical services
markets, channels and
possible areas of
interventions Supply Inputs
distributors
 FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND
COMMERCIAL ADVICE Bringing more
1. Farmer focused financing
a. Agriculture-specific loans
b. Deferred payment system for primary
value to small
inputs
c. Microfinance loans
d. Risk minimizing mechanisms for
farmers
farmers such as insurance
2. Imparting agri-business skills
a. Tracking of market dynamics
b. Maintaining basic accounts
c. Buyer requirements
d. Demand sources and consumption of
potatoes
e. Variety of potatoes and relevant markets
3. Support services
a. Laser leveling of fields
KEY INPUTS b. Conducting soil tests to determine
1. Access to quality seeds proper use of fertilizer
a. Supply of certified seeds c. Platforms for shared use of resources
b. Establishing local collaboration among d. Farmer cooperatives
seed developing farmers
c. Cold storage facilities for seed storage
d. Efficient seed distribution and support
network STORAGE AND AUCTION POTATO MARKET
2. Supply market infrastructure MARKETPLACE 1. Packaging and branding facilities
a. Seed testing, certification, and branding 2. Assignment of responsibilities of large
1. Distribution channels
facilities FARMERS corporations involved in potato buying
a. Access to cold storage facilities
b. Collective investment in procurement of 3. Communication support from
b. Convenient access to markets
mechanical implements telecommunication companies
c. Access to demand and price across
c. Arrangements for shared use of 4. E-auction platforms
different regions
mechanical implements 5. Aggregation of buyers or demand sources
d. Provision of electronic platforms for
agricultural guidance
e. Easy procurement of inputs AGRICULTURAL ADVICE
f. Road network to give farmer access to 1. Inputs
supply markets a. Knowledge of spurious chemicals
h. Establishing farmer cooperatives b. Knowledge of the right use of
chemicals
c. Knowledge of fertilizers and nutrients
d. Using mechanical tools to increase
efficiency and productivity
2. Scientific agricultural practices
a. Seed cultivation practices
b. Plant-to-plant distance
c. Row-to-row distance Figure 8.
d. Appropriate use of chemicals
e. Crisis management in case of a disease Potential interventions
outbreak or attack by pests
f. Crop rotation techniques in potato value chain
g. Conservation agriculture approaches

those who supply vegetables to the local or export markets could help address this issue
(Ebata and Huettel, 2019; Markelova et al., 2009).
The need for market knowledge is highlighted by the fact that buyers use potatoes for
different purposes and understanding their demands and the overall market knowledge is
an important step toward better value creation (Figure 7). For instance, the producers of
potato chips, French fries and frozen food define potatoes quality in terms of potatoes shape,
size, color, oil absorbability, starch contents and taste (PotatoPRO, 2019), whereas the
buyers of organic potatoes define potatoes quality in terms of organic growth and
cultivation without harmful fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Accordingly, restaurants
using potatoes may have different requirements, depending upon use, for example, floury
potatoes for mashing and solid potatoes for frying. The current supply chain model of small
potato farmers is insensitive to subtle and not-so-subtle differences in various needs of
buyers. It is mainly push-based whereby potatoes produce is sent to the market at the
end of each season, irrespective of the unique requirements of different buyers.
This demand-supply mismatch creates inefficiencies for both farmers and buyers.
The knowledge of market dynamics, requirements of the buyer and better coordination
with small farmers can help the farmers to better serve the specific needs of buyers (Ebata and
Huettel, 2019). A farmer can make appropriate choices about when to sow seed, selection of
seeds, quality of seed and other inputs, harvesting time and other factors for producing
suitable quality and quantity of potatoes for a particular buyer. Thus, a transition from the
push-based to pull-based value chain can sizably reduce waste, help the farmer charge
premium price and establish a mutually beneficial buyer-supplier relationship. It can also open
new channels such as contract farming whereby buyers provide capital and small farmers use
their farming knowledge to engage in a mutually beneficial relationship.
Platform for smallholders. The lack of platforms for smallholders that can provide
opportunities for collective bargaining also contributes to low share of small farmers
MD (Campos-Climent et al., 2012). The development of such platforms is particularly useful to
highlight the issues of smallholder and will give farmers an opportunity to have a greater
say in transactions and other decisions that affect their yield (Kruijssen et al., 2009; Nyamah
et al., 2017). The collective platforms are also more effective in bringing smallholders’
problems to the limelight and increasing customer sensitivity (Gabriel et al., 2009;
Markelova et al., 2009).

Specific value chain related recommendations

In order to develop specific suggestions aimed at improving the potato value chain, we carried
out a number of activities. First was the synthesis of the field data to identify key actors,
functions, markets, channels and possible areas of intervention in the potato value chain as
depicted in Figure 7. Second was the analysis of the overall value chain, with a particular
focus on the costs incurred by the farmers and weak points in the value chain where farmers
bore more risk (Letaifa, 2014; Yan et al., 2019). Third, we sought input from the farmers about
these problems and their possible solutions. Finally, a team of experts from the field discussed
these issues to explore possible solutions and improve the overall value chain.
The analysis of results shows that interventions, as highlighted in Figure 8, at multiple
points in the potato value chain can create a significant improvement in value for small
farmers. These different intervention points, including the supply of inputs, financing needs of
farmers, availability of modern techniques and mechanization, and educating farmers to
acquaint them with buyers’ requirements and market knowledge constitute the overall
infrastructure contributing to the value extracted by small farmers (Ebata and Huettel, 2019).

Recrafting the value chain

A number of ideas have emerged for launching interventions to re-craft the potato value
chain for enhancing the value for small farmers. These interventions fall into five broad
categories as described below.
Comprehensive value chain intervention. The emphasis in this intervention would be to
enhance the size of the value pie and reallocate it to benefit the small farmers. In general,
comprehensive intervention would require the establishment of support infrastructure for
provision of key inputs including capital in the form of loans or equity partnership, expert
guidance related to cultivation practices through field staff and provision of certified seed
and quality chemicals as summarized in Figure 8. Further support should be extended to
provide access to the market and enhance value through the provision of more choices in
variety, packaging, branding and storage facilities of potatoes (McMichael, 2013). One such
initiative is e-Choupal in India (www.echoupal.com), which links directly with rural farmers
over the internet for the procurement of agricultural inputs and supplies. The platform
provides real-time information and customized knowledge and improves the capability of
farmers to align their output with market demand. The platform enables access to high-
quality inputs from established and reputed manufacturers at fair prices. The direct link of
farmers with market and suppliers of inputs effectively eliminates wasteful intermediation
and multiple handling thus significantly reducing transaction costs (Markelova et al., 2009).
The key benefit of this approach is that it does not involve competition with existing
players as most of the initiatives are entirely new, opens new channels and increases the
overall size of the pie. Therefore, it is less likely that this approach will get resistance from
the existing players in the value chain. On the other hand, given the scope of new activities
and new mechanisms involved, effective implementation of such an initiative will need
significant time and effort.
Narrow and deep value chain intervention. This intervention focuses on only one specific
aspect – the supply of certified seeds to farmers and addresses the entire seed supply issues,
effectively setting up a seed company. The facility will determine the seed needs of the Bringing more
farmers, provide certification, labeling and ensure the easy availability of seeds to the value to small
farmers, thus enhancing the performance of production phase in the value chain (Figure 7). farmers
Scientific farming advice. At the core of this approach is enhancing understanding of
scientific agricultural practices and encouraging the acquisition of core skills in managing
the agri-business aspects of farming thus enabling small farmers to extract more value from
all areas in the value chain (Figure 7). First, as shown in the Figure 8 farmer counseling
should aim at developing a mindset, especially in those who are educated, that farming can
be a rewarding profession provided a scientific approach be employed to improve the entire
value chain, from using the right inputs to addressing sale and marketing in an organized
way (Reddy and Ankaiah, 2005). Second, counseling should emphasize that the use of
proper inputs like seed, fertilizers and chemicals, along with guidance on how to employ
them effectively, can achieve better yield with relatively lower investment (Reddy and
Ankaiah, 2005). They should be made aware of the need to follow simple practices like laser
leveling of fields and conducting soil tests to determine the proper use of fertilizer. Following
consistent and scientifically based practices such as the plant-to-plant and row-to-row
distances while planting potato seeds can significantly improve the farm yield. Third,
farmers should be guided on how to deal with special situations arising because of adverse
weather and crop diseases. Finally, skills about agri-business aspects need to include
training and counseling on how to maintain basic accounts to keep track of expenses and
manage cash flow, develop basic profit-loss statements and make sense of implications of
various financing options (Sartorius and Kirsten, 2007). The farmers should recognize the
need to track market trends and to explore ways in which additional investment in better
understanding the sales marketplace could lead to better revenues and increased profits
(Markelova et al., 2009; Stockbridge, 2003).
Access to quality seed. Currently, the quality of locally produced seed is only determined
by the credibility of the farmer who has produced the seed. Our interactions at RDAI
Faisalabad revealed that framers make a trade-off between the cost of seed and its
resistance to diseases. The first-generation potato seed is expensive but resistant to
diseases. However, as the seed ages, i.e. after seven to nine generations, its cost decreases
but vulnerability to diseases increases. This fact was well known to farmers and constitutes
the local farming wisdom and, thus, influenced their decisions regarding seed selection.
Seed constitutes at least 25 percent of the total cost of cultivation and its quality has the
maximum impact on the final yield. Where farmers have to use imported seed, due to lack of
trust in local seed, their seed cost could be as high as $600 per acre. One way in which this
issue could be addressed is to develop a local collaborative effort among seed developing
farmers for establishing proper testing, certification and branding mechanisms along with
an efficient distribution and support network.
Access to quality chemicals. Another example of narrow intervention is to address the
fertilizer needs of the farmers, again emphasizing the farmer’s productivity. This function
could provide services such as soil fertility testing, assessing the fertilizer needs of the
farmers, providing fertilizers and advising affordable options. Finally, a comprehensive
function addressing pesticides and other chemical needs of the farmers is another option for
narrow and deep value chain intervention.
The main strength of the narrow and deep intervention approach is its explicit focus on a
single aspect rather than providing multiple goods/services at various places in the whole
farming chain thus reducing the execution risk by narrowing the focus. On the other hand,
this will lead to competition with the existing players in the seed business (Stockbridge,
2003). Also, it may not produce the desired impact on a farmer’s profitability without the
other important factors being addressed at the same time. For instance, small farmers
MD usually need loans to execute their routine activities. Aarthi who usually arranges loan may
stipulate loan with purchasing of seed from him, thus making the whole initiative
ineffective. One way to address these concerns could be to become part of a consortium that
addresses the other dimensions (An et al., 2015; Markelova et al., 2009).
Interventions aimed at selected components. This approach may pick a minimum set of
high priority areas of the value chain and, depending on the situation in each region, address
only a subset of the possible intervention dimensions. This can include supplying certified
high-quality seed, quality chemicals and related advice, focusing on access to capital for the
provision of proper inputs, and educating farmers in farm management and better farming
practices. This approach has the advantage of providing the option to start with a limited
set of interventions that could have a significant impact in a given region and then move on
to add others.
Orchestration of the value chain. This approach suggests creating an aggregator through
the use of technology to leverage resources from other players by guiding on specific
requirements and ensuring proper compliance and adherence to standards. This will involve
setting up collaborative arrangements with those who can supply capital, agricultural
know-how, educational programs, seed and chemicals thus effectively managing all support
areas of the supply chain as shown in Figure 7. Many large organizations have an interest in
the sustainable supply chain of potatoes, for instance, producers of potato chips and other
food products purchase potatoes in large quantity. These organizations have a natural
interest in maintaining a sustainable supply of potatoes at low cost and thus can act as
orchestrators of the value chain. The development of a sustainable system would benefit
both small farmers and buyers. The former gets better value while the latter gets a
sustainable supply of potatoes (Golini et al., 2017). Thus, organizing collaborative
arrangements with those who can supply resources can be a game-changing strategy.
However, the involvement of large corporations in the potato value chain is not without
potential threats for small farmers. As these organizations support agricultural inputs, such
as seeds, fertilizers, chemicals, and some aspects of agri-business, the relationship may turn
into an instrument of control, dispossession and debt dependency (McMichael, 2013), thus,
adversely affecting small farmers.
Entrepreneurial ventures in recrafting the value chain. The above discussion makes it
clear that planned and systematic interventions at various points can help to increase the
value for small farmers. The next step is identifying the entities that can potentially carry
out these interventions. In the following section, we discuss the role of some of these players
in various areas in the value chain.
Players within the value chain. Large corporations control several parts of the food
supply chain and directly influence food inventories and prices (Hallsworth and Wong,
2015). By adopting good food marketing and procurement policies and sustainable growth
strategies, these “giants” can help to control global food insecurity (Greenberg, 2017). For
example, food manufacturers, such as potato chips producers and processed food
manufacturers, who use potato have a natural interest in the adequate supply of potatoes.
Intermediation by these organizations that benefits small farmers will essentially create a
win-win situation for both small farmers and the organization.
PepsiCo Frito-Lay, the manufacturer of potato chips, showed interest in the initiatives
discussed in this study. The company initially procured from large farmers providing them
technical support and seed on a deferred payment basis thus intervening at seeding and
production functions. To better engage small farmers and integrate them in the premium
value chain, the company may leverage on the capabilities of large farmers from one area to
serve as intermediaries for dealings with small farmers in other areas. The intermediaries
can be used to achieve aggregation and scale to lower coordination costs incurred during
village brokering and wholesaling as shown in Figure 7. Further, intermediaries can also Bringing more
address the training, guidance and credit needs of small farmers. value to small
Entrepreneurs with a social agenda. Entrepreneurs who intend to bring social change farmers
through innovations can also contribute to recrafting a specific function or the complete
value chain. Such initiatives can connect small farmers to suppliers, service providers and
buyers to reduce transaction costs and obtain scale economies through aggregation
(Sartorius and Kirsten, 2007). This could be achieved through the development of
e-commerce apps for farmers (Higgins et al., 2007). These apps can provide an e-auction
platform, agricultural guide, analytics and step by step farming advice (Figure 8). Recently,
Ricult, a farmer support company operating in Pakistan, is attempting to create an eBay like
platform which partners with banks, fertilizer and chemical suppliers, and telecom
companies (Lee et al., 2017). The platform of the company plans to provide all inputs and
services in one window and removes Aarthis from the value chain thus intends to create
more value for small farmers.
Service providers. Organizations that provide service to farmers, such as banks
providing loans to small farmers can help bring more value to small farmers thereby
strengthening production phase in the value chain as shown in Figure 7 (Obaidullah, 2015;
Tyrychtr, 2017). To better engage small farmers, banks may introduce intermediaries who
can ensure that farmers use the right inputs and follow proper cultivation practices by using
financing provided by the bank (Hassan and Arafat, 2017). However, one challenge in this
model is to identify intermediaries who have the requisite skills and resources. Innovation in
telecom companies can also help by facilitating the communication aspect. One example of
such a model is Telenor Pakistan, a leading telecom operator in the country (Telenor, 2017).
The use of high-speed internet and mobile apps can bring more value to small farmers.
Small farmers living in far-flung areas are usually cut off from markets and lack relevant
information. The company’s mobile apps act as a source of agriculture-related information
provided by the government thus affecting multiple farming areas such as access to quality
input and production knowledge, and provision of price information to deal with village
level brokerage. The company also owns a microfinance bank which plays a role in the
financial support of small farmers.
Players with social development agenda. Organizations that have the agenda of social
development can also facilitate either streamlining or recrafting of the value chain in multiple
areas. National Rural Support Program that is meant for developments and uplift of rural
areas represents one example. Among international development organizations – such as
World Bank, USAID and DFID – have global exposure and thus possess competencies and
resources required to uplift underprivileged small farmers. Similarly, local philanthropic and
poverty alleviation organizations such as Akhuwat and microfinance banks provide interest-
free loans and then reinvests the resources into the cycle (Obaidullah, 2015).

Conclusion
This paper analyses the supply chain of the potato crop to understand how the gain for
small farmers can be increased. The findings highlight a number of challenges for small
farmers. First is the problem of low yield. The use of best farming practices only in each
region can improve productivity by several folds. For example, at a minimum level, if the
productivity of the farmers on the lower end could be moved closer to the average level, it
would result in at least 60 percent increase in Okara and Khairpur and a 100 percent
increase in Mansehra. There is a huge potential for increasing productivity and thus
bringing more value to small farmers. Second, the small farmer is heavily dependent on the
middleman which causes farmer exploitation. Third, selling crops through middleman
increases transaction costs. And finally, the small farmer lacks scientific knowledge of
MD agriculture, access to the supply of inputs (e.g. seeds, chemical and mechanical implements),
and infrastructural facilities (e.g. cold storage and soil testing facilities) which all contribute
to the low crop yield and losses by the farmers. In the end, the small farmer who not only
receives the least share but bears the most risk turns out to be the most disadvantaged
player in the value chain (Nyamah et al., 2017).
The improvements in the low share of small farmers can be brought about in two ways:
streamlining the existing value chain and recrafting the whole value chain. A challenge in
redesigning the value chain is that new initiatives and changes in the current chain may
compete with the existing actors, leading to resistance to the adoption of new initiatives.
Therefore, new initiatives need to take into account the different risks associated with each
initiative and options to minimize those risks. The paper also presents different methods to
re-craft the supply chain and minimize risks and highlights entrepreneurial ventures that
can increase the share of the small farmers.
This study has certain limitations that may be addressed in future research. Two
limitations are particularly noteworthy. First, the dynamics of agricultural value chains are
unique to each country because these are intricately linked to social, economic and
technological developments in the country. This study was carried out in a developing country
and therefore, the generalizability of the findings is limited mainly to the developing countries.
The farmers in developed countries, owing to the use of advanced and sophisticated
technologies and support services, may not face these hindrances. Therefore, caution is needed
in generalizing the findings of this study to other countries. Second, a large variety of potatoes
exist in the market which have different characteristics (i.e. shape, color, taste and starch
contents) and uses, require different cultivation practices, and have unique risk vulnerabilities
(i.e. resistance to attack by pests, diseases and environmental factors). The cultivation of these
varieties will give different yields even with the same cultivation practices. This study did not
consider inter-variety differences which may originate from the use of different types of seeds.
The inter-variety differences will affect the utilization of inputs and productivity and may have
implications for the value chain. These limitations need to be considered in future research.
In addition, future research could assess the efficacy of the proposed entrepreneurial
ventures. Longitudinal studies can help to explore the dynamics and interactions among the
key stakeholders when implementing these initiatives and the challenges faced in this
process. The second area for future research is to understand small farmers’ total business
model (that accounts for all crops and other economic activities along with the related
resource allocations, capabilities employed, cash flow implications and profitability) and the
related value chains. This will help to understand cross-value chain synergies and conflicts.
The third area for future research is to explore opportunities that align with unique and
fundamental strengths (e.g. flexibility, low capital requirements, low-cost labor and broader
scope) and weaknesses (e.g. less use of technology, limited financial resources, small-scale
and behaviors related to being in the poverty trap) of small farmers.

Note
1. The questionnaire is available upon request from the authors.

References
An, J., Cho, S.H. and Tang, C.S. (2015), “Aggregating smallholder farmers in emerging economies”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 1414-1429.
Aramyan, L.H., Oude Lansink, A.G., Van Der Vorst, J.G. and Van Kooten, O. (2007), “Performance
measurement in agri-food supply chains: a case study”, Supply Chain Management: an
International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 304-315.
Asian Development Bank (2016), “Pakistan: economy – Asian development bank report”, available at: Bringing more
www.adb.org/countries/pakistan/economy value to small
Bacon, C. (2005), “Confronting the coffee crisis: can fair trade, organic, and specialty coffees reduce farmers
small-scale farmer vulnerability in northern Nicaragua?”, World Development, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 497-511.
Bresnyan, E. (2008), “World development report 2008 value chains and small farmer integration”,
available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/489001468270654669/pdf/693840BRI0
P1100sed06060201200Agri05.pdf
Cadilhon, J.-J., Fearne, A.P., Tam, P.T.G., Moustier, P. and Poole, N.D. (2005), “Collaborative commerce
or just common sense? Insights from vegetable supply chains in Ho Chi Minh City”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 147-149.
Campos-Climent, V., Apetrei, A. and Chaves-Ávila, R. (2012), “Delphi method applied to horticultural
cooperatives”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 1266-1284.
Chaddad, F. and Iliopoulos, C. (2013), “Control rights, governance, and the costs of ownership in
agricultural cooperatives”, Agribusiness, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Dyck, B. and Silvestre, B.S. (2019), “A novel NGO approach to facilitate the adoption of sustainable
innovations in low-income countries: lessons from small-scale farms in Nicaragua”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 443-461.
Ebata, A. and Huettel, S. (2019), “The effect of value chain interventions for staple crops: evidence from
small-scale farmers in Nicaragua”, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 581-596.
Gabriel, D., Carver, S.J., Durham, H., Kunin, W.E., Palmer, R.C., Sait, S.M., Stagl, S. and Benton, T.G. (2009),
“The spatial aggregation of organic farming in England and its underlying environmental
correlates”, Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 323-333.
Godfrey, S.S., Ramsay, G.C., Behrendt, K., Wynn, P.C., Nordblom, T.L. and Aslam, N. (2019), “Analysis
of agribusiness value chains servicing small-holder dairy farming communities in Punjab,
Pakistan: three case studies”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 119-135.
Golini, R., Moretto, A., Caniato, F., Caridi, M. and Kalchschmidt, M. (2017), “Developing sustainability in
the Italian meat supply chain: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 1183-1209.
Greenberg, S. (2017), “Corporate power in the agro-food system and the consumer food environment in
South Africa”, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 467-496.
Gro Intelligence (2016), “Gro intelligence: contextualizing global agricultural data”, available at: https://
gro-intelligence.com/
Hallsworth, A. and Wong, A. (2015), “Tyranny of corporate dominance exemplified by food supply in
modern-day Britain”, Journal of Business Systems, Governance & Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 25-38.
Haq, A., Aslam, A., Chaudhry, A.A., Naseer, A., Muhammad, K., Mushtaq, K. and Farooqi, M.S. (2013),
“Who is the ‘arthi’: understanding the commission agent’s role in the agriculture supply chain”,
International Growth Centre (IGC).
Hassan, S.Z. and Ahmed, F. (2017), “Frito-lay Pakistan – from farm to crisps”, case study, Suleman
Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences.
Hassan, S.Z. and Arafat, S. (2017), “Faysal bank limited – agriculture financing strategy”, Suleman
Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore.
Hawkes, C. and Ruel, M.T. (2012), “Value chains for nutrition”, Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and
Health, pp. 73-82.
Henderson, G. (2004), “ ‘Free’ food, the local production of worth, and the circuit of decommodification:
a value theory of the surplus”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 485-512.
Higgins, A., Thorburn, P., Archer, A. and Jakku, E. (2007), “Opportunities for value chain research in
sugar industries”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 611-621.
MD Hoeffler, H. (2006), “Promoting the Kenyan potato value chain: can contract farming help build trust
and reduce transaction risks”?, 99th Seminar, European Association of Agricultural Economists,
Bonn, February 8-10.
International Nut and Dried Fruit Council (2016), “International nut and dried fruit council”, available
at: www.nutfruit.org/
Kramer, M.R. and Porter, M. (2011), “Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89 Nos 1/2,
pp. 62-77.
Kruijssen, F., Keizer, M. and Giuliani, A. (2009), “Collective action for small-scale producers of
agricultural biodiversity products”, Food Policy, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-52.
Lee, H.L., Mendelson, H., Rammohan, S. and Srivastava, A. (2017), “Technology in agribusiness
opportunities to drive value: opportunities to drive value”, Stanford University, Graduate School
of Business.
Letaifa, S.B. (2014), “The uneasy transition from supply chains to ecosystems: the value-creation/value-
capture dilemma”, Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 278-295.
Liljestrand, K. (2017), “Logistics solutions for reducing food waste”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 318-339.
Loconto, A.M. and Simbua, E.F. (2012), “Making room for smallholder cooperatives in Tanzanian tea
production: can fairtrade do that?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 4, pp. 451-465.
McMichael, P. (2013), “Value-chain agriculture and debt relations: contradictory outcomes”, Third
World Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 671-690.
MacDonald, K. (2007), “Globalising justice within coffee supply chains? Fair trade, starbucks and the
transformation of supply chain governance”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 793-812.
Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J. and Dohrn, S. (2009), “Collective action for smallholder
market access”, Food Policy, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Minten, B., Reardon, T., Gupta, S.D., Hu, D. and Murshid, K. (2016), “Wastage in food value chains in
developing countries: evidence from the potato sector in Asia”, Food Security in a Food
Abundant World: An Individual Country Perspective, Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 225-238.
Morse, J.M. (2000), Determining Sample Size, Sage Publications Sage CA, Thousand Oaks, CA.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (2017), “National council of farmer cooperatives”, available at:
www.ncfc.org
Nyamah, E.Y., Jiang, Y., Feng, Y. and Enchill, E. (2017), “Agri-food supply chain performance: an
empirical impact of risk”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 872-891.
Obaidullah, M. (2015), “Enhancing food security with Islamic microfinance: insights from some recent
experiments”, Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 142-168.
Pakistan Economic Survey (2016), “Pakistan economic survey – 2015-2016”, available at: www.finance.
gov.pk/survey/chapters_16/02_Agriculture.pdf
Pittelkow, C.M., Liang, X., Linquist, B.A., Van Groenigen, K.J., Lee, J., Lundy, M.E., van Gestel, N., Six, J.,
Venterea, R.T. and van Kessel, C. (2015), “Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of
conservation agriculture”, Nature, Vol. 517, pp. 365-368, doi: 10.1038/nature13809.
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, FreePress,
New York, NY.
Porter, M. (2001), “The value chain and competitive advantage”, Understanding Business: Processes,
pp. 50-66.
PotatoPRO (2019), “Myanmar chip processors prefer chipping potatoes from the United States”,
available at: www.potatopro.com/news/2017/myanmar-chip-processors-prefer-chipping-
potatoes-united-states
Poulton, C., Dorward, A. and Kydd, J. (2010), “The future of small farms: new directions for services,
institutions, and intermediation”, World Development, Vol. 38 No. 10, pp. 1413-1428.
Rahko, J. (2012), “Potato value chain in Tanzania”.
Raynolds, L.T. (2000), “Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organic and fair trade Bringing more
movements”, Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 297-309. value to small
Reddy, P.K. and Ankaiah, R. (2005), “A framework of information technology-based agriculture farmers
information dissemination system to improve crop productivity”, Current Science, Vol. 88 No. 12,
pp. 1905-1913.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C.M. and Ormston, R. (2013), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for
Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage.
Sartorius, K. and Kirsten, J. (2007), “A framework to facilitate institutional arrangements for
smallholder supply in developing countries: an agribusiness perspective”, Food Policy, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 640-655.
Singh, S. and Bhogal, S. (2014), “Depeasantization in Punjab: status of farmers who left farming”,
Current Science, Vol. 106 No. 10, pp. 1364-1368.
Staritz, C. (2012), “Value chains for development? Potentials and limitations of global value chain
approaches in donor interventions”, Working Papers No. 31, Österreichische Forschungsstiftung
für Internationale Entwicklung (ÖFSE)/Austrian Foundation for Development Research.
Stockbridge, M. (2003), “Farmer organization for market access: learning from success”, literature
review, Wye College, London.
Telenor (2017), “Government of Punjab collaborates with Telenor Pakistan and Telenor microfinance
bank for ‘connected agriculture platform Punjab’ ”.
Thai, M. (2017), “Agricultural value chains in developing countries: concepts and analysis, synthesis of
reading materials”, available at: http://ezproxy.psu.edu.sa/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.A2CE6F25&site=eds-live
Tyrychtr, J. (2017), “Economic value of information systems in agriculture: cohesion and coupling of
information elements”, Agris On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 71-79.
Ugonna, C., Jolaoso, M. and Onwualu, A. (2013), “A technical appraisal of potato value chain in
Nigeria”, International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science, Vol. 3 No. 8,
pp. 291-301.
Umar, B.B. (2014), “A critical review and re-assessment of theories of smallholder decision-making: a
case of conservation agriculture households, Zambia”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 277-290.
Vail, J. (2010), “Decommodification and egalitarian political economy”, Politics & Society, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 310-346.
Wall, P.C. (2007), “Tailoring conservation agriculture to the needs of small farmers in developing
countries: an analysis of issues”, Journal of Crop Improvement, Vol. 19 Nos 1-2, pp. 137-155.
Webber, C.M. and Labaste, P. (2010), Building Competitiveness in Africa’s Agriculture: A Guide to Value
chain Concepts and Applications, World Bank Publications.
Yan, B., Wu, J. and Wang, F. (2019), “CVaR-based risk assessment and control of the agricultural
supply chain”, Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 1496-1510, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1108/MD-11-2016-0808

Corresponding author
George Foster can be contacted at: gfoster@stanford.edu

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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com