Reported Changes in Yield, Income and Member Welfare Associated with Farmer Producer Company Membership in Tamilnadu, India

Abstract

Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs) have been promoted in India since 2003 to help small and marginal farmers overcome diseconomies of scale in input, credit, technology and output markets, but commodity-level evidence on the changes experienced by their members remains limited. This exploratory, descriptive multi-case study documents member-reported changes in yield and net income before and after the incorporation of five functioning FPCs in Tamil Nadu that were incorporated between 2004 and 2014, covering ten commodities in eleven commodity-FPC cases. Data were collected in April–July 2015 as part of a doctoral study through focus group discussions and personal interviews with 154 member-farmers, who contributed 282 respondent-commodity records because several members grew more than one commodity. Commodity-wise mean yield and net income per acre were compared using simple percentage analysis. Mean net income was higher after incorporation in all eleven cases, by 15.81 per cent (Erode coconut) to 720.00 per cent (thinai), and mean yield was higher in all cases, by 2.22 per cent (areca nut) to 136.50 per cent (guava). In nine of the eleven cases, the percentage change in income exceeded that in yield, a pattern consistent with, but not proof of, gains from collective marketing and reduced intermediation; the data cannot separate these from price movements, inflation or cost changes. Members also reported changes in farm practice, household welfare and organisational capacity, which differed across the five FPCs. Because the data are recall-based and nominal, come from purposively selected and relatively successful FPCs, and lack a non-member comparison group, the findings are descriptive case evidence of reported change, not estimates of causal impact. They suggest that support to FPCs should give collective-marketing capability at least as much attention as input supply and production technology, and that future assessments should use prospective designs with comparison groups.