Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:40:11.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bargaining Strength of a Milk Marketing Cooperative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Peerapon Prasertsri  and
Richard L. Kilmer
Peerapon Prasertsri
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida
Richard L. Kilmer
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As a result of economies of size, food processors are generally large and few in number. These characteristics put processors at a bargaining advantage over independent farmers. Marketing cooperatives were established to counter the uneven bargaining position of individual farmers. This article investigates the relative bargaining strength of one milk marketing cooperative and several fluid milk processors. The Nash bargaining model can be used to analyze the negotiated price in the Florida fluid milk market which acts like a bilateral monopoly. The milk marketing cooperatives have bargained well with the milk marketing processors; The monthly bargaining strength of the Southeast Dairy Cooperative, Inc. (SDC), exceeds the monthly bargaining strength of the processors in all twelve months, ranging from a low of 0.6664 in January to a high of 0.7831 in September. The monthly average bargaining strength across all months for SDC is 0.7326.

Keywords

cooperativebargainingbilateral monopolydairyprocessors
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , October 2008 , pp. 204 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binmore, K. 1987a. “Nash Bargaining and Incomplete Information.” In Binmore, K. and Dasgupta, P., eds., The Economics of Bargaining. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 1987b. “Nash Bargaining Theory II.” In Binmore, K. and Dasgupta, P., eds., The Economics of Bargaining. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 1987c. “Perfect Equilibria in Bargaining Models.” In Binmore, K. and Dasgupta, P., eds., The Economics of Bargaining. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Binmore, K., Rubinstein, A., and Wolinsky, A. 1986. “The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling.” RAND Journal of Economics 17(2): 176–188.Google Scholar
Burtraw, D. 1993. “Bargaining with Noisy Delegation.” RAND Journal of Economics 24(1): 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, M., and Hildreth, A.K.G. 2000. “Wage Bargaining, Inventories, and Union Legislation.” Review of Economic Studies 67(2): 273–293.Google Scholar
Durham, C.A., and Sexton, R.J. 1992. “Oligopsony Potential in Agricultural: Residual Supply Estimation in California's Processing Tomato Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(4): 962–972.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Helmberger, P., and Chavas, J. 1996. The Economics of Agricultural Prices. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Iskow, J., and Sexton, R.J. 1991. “Bargaining Associations in Grower-Processor Markets for Fruits and Vegetables.” Research Report No. 104, ACS, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Jesse, E. V., Johnson, A. C., Marion, B. W., and Manchester, A. C. 1982. “Interpreting and Enforcing Section 2 of the Capper-Volstead Act.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(3): 431–443.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1979. Modern Microeconomics (2nd edition). London: Macmillan Press Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna, V., and Serrano, R. 1996. “Multilateral Bargaining.” Review of Economic Studies 63(1): 61–80.Google Scholar
Muthoo, A. 1999. Bargaining Theory with Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, J. F. 1950. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 18(2): 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. 1979. Axiomatic Models of Bargaining. Berlin and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. 1982. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model.” Econometrica 50(1): 97–109.Google Scholar
Sexton, R. J. 1993. “Noncooperative Game Theory: A Review with Potential Applications to Agricultural Markets.” Food Marketing Policy Center Research Report No. 22, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Various issues. “Florida Marketing Area Federal Order No. 6 Annual Statistics.” Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy Programs. Available at http://www.fmmatlanta.com (accessed November 1, 2007).Google Scholar
van Damme, E.E.C. 1986. “The Nash Bargaining Solution Is Optimal.” Journal of Economic Theory 38(1): 78–100.Google Scholar