The impacts of agricultural support on enhancing the efficiency, competitiveness and sustainability of sheep breeding: The case of Niğde and Aksaray provinces, Turkey
Abstract
Aim of the study: The sheep breeding sector in Turkey has lost its potential to become a highly competitive and efficient sector despite a number of policies being implemented over the years. Therefore, the objective of the study was to empirically evaluate the competitiveness of sheep breeding and the determinants of the technical efficiency of the sector as well as the current impacts of agricultural policies on the performance of the sector.
Area of study: Niğde and Aksaray provinces of TR71 region in Turkey.
Material and methods: The required primary data were obtained through a face-to-face survey from 110 sheep breeders. Two methodological approaches, namely Stochastic Frontier Analysis and Policy Analysis Matrix, were used.
Main results: The support policies caused an inefficiency in allocation of already scarce resources in sheep breeding, but not ensure to increase the competitiveness at both national and international levels. Sheep farms could increase their income by up to 50% without changing the level of input by taking into account the factors that caused inefficiency in sheep breeding. The major determinants that decreased efficiency were current subsidies for sheep breeding, herd size and the excessive utilization of family labour, while the factors that increased the efficiency were sheep race, access to extension services, grazing period and location. Besides, Domestic Resource Cost (DRC) value in the efficient farms decreased to 0.88, implying that they had a comparative advantage.
Research highlights: Implementation of structural support policies with long term would enhance efficiency of sheep farms and ensure the sustainability and competitiveness of the sector.
Downloads
References
Akter S, Jabbar MA, Ehui SK, 2003. Competitiveness and efficiency in poultry and pig production in Vietnam. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya. Socio-economics and Policy Research Working Paper 57.
Alemdar T, Bahadir B, Ören MN, 2010. Cost and return analysis and technical efficiency of small scale milk production: A case study for Cukurova region, Turkey. J Anim Vet Adv 9 (4): 744-847. https://doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2010.844.847
Anonymous, 1998. The regulation on pasture. Official Newspaper No. 23419, dated 31.07.1998. http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.5057&sourceXmlSearch=&MevzuatIliski=0
Anonymous, 2018. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Records of the Department of Agricultural Supports, Turkey.
Antriyandarti E, 2015. Competitiveness and cost efficiency of rice farming in Indonesia. J Rural Probl 5 (12): 74-85. https://doi.org/10.7310/arfe.51.74
Battese GE, 1992. Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: a survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics. Agr Econ 7:185-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5150(92)90049-5
Battese GE, Coelli TJ, 1995. A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production. Emp Econ 20: 320-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01205442
Bozoglu M, Saglam O, Topuz BK, 2017. Economic sustainability of family dairy farming within the scope of technical efficiency: a case study of Bafra District, Turkey. Custos e Agronegocio on line 13 (2): 295-316.
Bravo-Ureta BE, Solís D, Moreira VH, Maripani JF, Thiam A, Rivas TE, 2007. Technical efficiency in farming: A meta-regression analysis. J Prod Anal 27 (1): 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-006-0025-3
Chen J, 1993. Social cost-benefit analysis of China's Shenzhen special economic zone. Dev Policy Rev 11 (3): 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.1993.tb00041.x
Eroglu NA, Bozoglu M, 2019. The effects of livestock supports and external input use on profitability of beef cattle farming: the case of Samsun Province, Turkey. Custos e Agronegocio on line 15 (3): 368-383.
Eroglu NA, Bozoglu M, Bilgic A, 2019. The impact of livestock supports on production and income of the beef cattle farms: A case of Samsun Province, Turkey. J Agr Sci 26 (1): 117-129.
Fang C, Beghin JC, 2000. Food self-sufficiency, comparative advantage, and agricultural trade: A policy analysis matrix for Chinese agriculture. FAPRI Publications 99-wp223, CARD at Iowa State University. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/fpaper/99-wp223.html [Febr, 2019).
FAO, 2019. FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/
FAS, 2018. Turkey-livestock and products-Turkey livestock annual report. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN, Report Number: TR8027.
Fatah FA, 2017. Competitiveness and efficiency of rice production in Malaysia. PhD diss. Georg-August-Univ, Fac of Agr Sci, Int PhD. Program for Agricultural Sciences in Goettingen (IPAG). February, Göttingen, Germany.
Gelan A, Muriithi B, 2015. Examining returns to scale in smallholder dairy farms in East Africa. Quart J Int Agr 54 (3): 237-259.
Gürer B, Türkekul B, Ören MN, Abay C, Özalp B, 2017. The impact of Turkish agricultural policy on competitiveness of cotton production. Int J Food Beverage Manuf Busin Models 2 (1): 20-30. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJFBMBM.2017010102
Javed MI, Khurshid W, Adil SA, Hassan I, Nadeem N, Ali A, Raza MA, 2011. Analysis of technical and scale efficiency of smallholder farms of rice-wheat system in Punjab, Pakistan. J Agr Res 49 (1): 125-137.
Jayanthakumaran K, 2003. Benefit- cost appraisals of export processing zones: a survey of the literature. Dev Policy Rev 21 (1): 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7679.00198
JICA, 2015. Project for irrigation development master plan in the Republic of South Sudan. Final Report. Japan International Cooperation Agency, the Republic of South Sudan.
Kumbhakar SC, Lien G, 2010. Impact of subsidies on farm productivity and efficiency. In: The economic impact of public support to agriculture; Ball VE, Fanfani R & Gutierrez L (eds.). pp: 109-124. Springer, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6385-7_6
Lampach N, Nguyen-Van P, To-The N, 2018. Measuring the effect of agricultural extension on technical efficiency in crop farming: meta-regression analysis. Working Papers of BETA 2018-48, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3208034
Latruffe L, 2010. Competitiveness, productivity and efficiency in the agricultural and the agrifood sectors. OECD Publ: OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working paper.
Latruffe L, Bravo-Ureta BE, Carpentier A, Desjeux Y, Moreira VH, 2016. Subsidies and technical efficiency in agriculture: evidence from European dairy farms. Am J Agr Econ 99 (3): 783-799. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaw077
Li Z, Li D, 2011. The impact of agricultural extension on technical efficiency of agricultural production in China. 3rd Int Conf on Communication Software and Networks, Xi'an, pp: 446-450. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSN.2011.6013869
Mane-Kapaj A, Kapaj I, Chan-Halbrendt C, Totojani O, 2010. Assessing the comparative advantage of Albanian olive oil production. Int Food Agribus Manage Rev 13 (1): 15-26.
Manevska-Tasevska G, Rabinowicz E, Surry Y, 2013. Policy impact on farm efficiency in Sweden: 1998-2008. Agrifood Economics Center. Working Paper No. 6. Scheelevägen, Sweden.
Masters WA, Winter-Nelson A, 1995. Measuring the comparative advantage of agricultural activities: Domestic resource costs and social cost-benefit ratio. Am J Agr Econ 77 (2): 243-250. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243534
Mohanty S, Fang C, Chaudhary J, 2003. Assessing the competitiveness of Indian cotton production: A Policy Analysis Matrix approach. J Cotton Sci 7: 65-74.
Monke EA, Pearson SR, 1989. The policy analysis matrix for agricultural development. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, London.
Nurwahidah S, Dwidjono HDM, Lestari RW, 2015. Efficiency and competitiveness of corn farming in Sumbawa regency. IOSR J Agr Vet Sci 8 (11): 39-47.
OECD, 2011. Fostering productivity and competitiveness in agriculture. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264166820-en
Parlakay O, Yilmaz H, Gül M, Akkoyun S, Bilgili ME, Vurarak Y, Hizli H, Kiliçalp N, 2017. Technical efficiency of dairy cattle farms in the Eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey by stochastic frontier analysis. J Anim Plant Sci 27 (5): 1689-1694.
TURKSTAT, 2018. Foreign trade statistics. Turkish Statistic Institute. http://tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=kategorist [Dec 2018].
TURKSTAT, 2019. Livestock statistics. Turkish Statistic Institute. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=kategorist [March 2019].
TURKSTAT, 2020. Livestock statistics. Turkish Statistic Institute. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=kategorist [April 2020].
Usman S, 2015. Analysis of the efficiency and competitiveness of rice production systems in three selected states of Northern Nigeria. PhD thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ahmadu Bello Unıversıty, Zaria, Nigeria.
Yamane T, 1967. Elementary sampling theory. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA. 405 pp.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
