Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Electronic National Agricultural Markets:The Way Forward


Affiliations
1 ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi - 110012, India
 

The Model Agricultural Produce Marketing Act (APMC Act), 2003, and recent improvements to it through Model Agricultural Produce and Livestock Marketing (Promotion and Facilitating) Act (APLM), 2017, provide some hope in increasing efficiency in agricultural markets in India. The Model APLM Act advocates increased competition in the marketplace by allowing private markets, farmers’ markets, and electronic-National Agricultural Markets (eNAM). Under eNAM, the Central Government introduced electronic trading in about 400 APMC markets in 2016 and connected them through uniform market platform in line with the e-markets of Karnataka introduced in 2012. This article examines experience of e-markets in Karnataka since 2012, with the intention to suggest improvements to eNAM. Results show that e-markets help increase competition, eliminate collusion among traders resulting in increased farmers’ price and market arrivals. They facilitate competitive bidding and same day payments to farmers. However, there was some resistance from traders and commission agents as they felt that there were no benefits in e-auction compared to physical transactions. In addition, there was fear of taxation of on-line transactions. Aligning interests of all stakeholders, including farmers, traders and commission agents is the biggest hurdle in the implementation of eNAM.

Keywords

Agricultural Commodities, Commission Agents, Electronic Markets, Farmers, Traders.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Williamson, O. E., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, Free Press, New York, USA, 1985.
  • Kambil, A. and van Heck, E., Reengineering the Dutch flower auctions: a framework for analyzing exchange organizations. Inf. Syst. Res., 1998, 9(1), 1–19.
  • Chand, R., e-Platform for National Agricultural Market. Econ. Polit. Wkly., 2016, 51(28), 15–18.
  • Aggarwal, N., Jain, S. and Narayanan, S., The long road to transformation of agricultural markets in India: lessons from Karnataka (No. 2016-026). Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, 2016.
  • Reddy, A. A., Impact of e-markets in Karnataka, India. Indian J. Agric. Market., 2016, 30(2), 123–134.
  • Reddy, A. A., Status of market reforms. Indian Farm., 2016, 66(8), 33–37.
  • Ribbers, P., Fairchild, A., van Heck, E. and Kleijnen, J., Creating alternative electronic trading mechanisms in time-sensitive transaction markets. In Trust in Electronic Commerce, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2002, pp. 147–170.
  • Bakos, J. A., A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces. MIS Q., 1991, 15(3), 295–310.
  • Clemons, E. K., Reddi, S. P. and Row, M. C. The impact of Information technology on the organization of production: the ‘move to the middle’ hypothesis. J. Manage. Infor. Syst., 1993, 10(2), 9–35.
  • Cramton, P. C., Money out of thin air: the nationwide narrowband PCS auction. J. Econ. Manage. Strat., 1995, 4(2), 267–343.
  • Gurbaxani, V. and Whang, S., The impact of information systems on organizations and markets. Commun. ACM, 1991, 34(1), 59– 73.
  • Hess, C. M. and Kemerer, C. F., Computerized loan origination systems: an industry case study of the electronic markets hypothesis. MIS Q., 1994, 18(3), 251–275.
  • Konsynski, B., Warbelow, A. and Kokuryo, J., Aucnet, TV Auction Network System, Harvard Case Study 9-90-001, Harvard Business School, Boston, USA, 1989.
  • Lee, H. G., Electronic brokerage and electronic auction: the impact of IT on market structures. In Information Systems – Organizational Systems and Technology, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (eds Nunamaker, J. F. and Sprague, R. H.), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1996, vol. IV, pp. 397–406.
  • Lee, H. G. and Clark, T. H., Impacts of the electronic marketplace on transaction cost and market structure. Int. J. Electron. Commer., 1996, 1(1), 127–149.
  • Malone, T. W., Yates, J. and Benjamin, R. I., Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Commun. ACM, 1987, 30(6), 484–497.
  • Toppen, R., Smits, M. and Ribbers, P., Financial securities transactions: a study of logistic process performance improvements. J. Strat. Inf. Syst., 1998, 7, 199–216.
  • Wilson, A. D., Diverse applications of electronic-nose technologies in agriculture and forestry. Sensors, 2013, 13(2), 2295–2348.
  • Carpio, C. E., Isengildina-Massa, O., Lamie, R. D. and Zapata, S. D., Does e-commerce help agricultural markets? The case of MarketMaker. Choices, 2013, 28(4), 1–7.
  • Chhachhar, A. R., Qureshi, B., Khushk, G. M. and Ahmed, S., Impact of information and communication technologies in agriculture development. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res., 2014, 4(1), 281–288.
  • Davis, D. D. and Holt, C. A., Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1993.
  • Hendricks, K. and Porter, R. H., An empirical study of an auction with asymmetric information. Am. Econ. Rev., 1988, 78, 865–883.
  • Milgrom, P., Auctions and bidding: a primer. J. Econ. Perspect., 1989, 3(3), 3–22.
  • Morgan, J. P. and Euroclear, Global Custody Guide, Brussels, Belgium, 1994.
  • Altman, E. J., Nagle, F. and Tushman, M., Innovating without information constraints: organizations, communities, and innovation when information costs approach zero. In The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Oxford University Press, New York, USA, 2015, pp. 353–379.
  • Clemons, E. K. and Weber, B. W., Strategic information technology investments: guidelines for decision making. J. Manage. Inf. Syst., 1990, 7(2), 9–28.
  • Streeten, P., What Price Food? Agricultural Price Policies in Developing Countries, St. Martin's Press, New York, USA, 1987.
  • Chand, R., Saxena, R. and Rana, S., Estimates and analysis of farm income in India, 1983–84 to 2011–12. Econ. Polit. Wkly., 2015, 50(22), 139–145.
  • Morehart, M. and Hopkins, J., On the Upswing: Online Buying and Selling of Crop Inputs and Livestock, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Outlook, Washington, DC, 4 September 2000, p. 4.
  • Mueller, R. A., E-commerce and entrepreneurship in agricultural markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 2001, 83(5), 1243–1249.
  • Bulik, B. S., Procter and Gamble’s Great Web Experiment, Business 2.0, 2000, 5(22), 48–51.
  • Maskus, K. E. and Wilson, J. S., Quantifying the impact of technical barriers to trade: a review of past attempts and the new policy context. In Paper presented at the World Bank Workshop on ‘Quantifying the Trade Effect of Standards and Technical Barriers: Is it Possible?’, Washington DC, 27 April 2000, 20433; http://www.worldbank.org/research/trade/conference/maskus.pdf
  • David, P. A. and Greenstein, S., The economics of compatibility standards: an introduction to recent research. Econ. Innov. New Technol., 1990, 1, 3–41.
  • Jones, P. and Hudson, J., Standardization and the costs of assessing quality. Eur. J. Polit. Econ., 1996, 12, 355–361.

Abstract Views: 12

PDF Views: 1




  • Electronic National Agricultural Markets:The Way Forward

Abstract Views: 12  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

A. Amarender Reddy
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi - 110012, India

Abstract


The Model Agricultural Produce Marketing Act (APMC Act), 2003, and recent improvements to it through Model Agricultural Produce and Livestock Marketing (Promotion and Facilitating) Act (APLM), 2017, provide some hope in increasing efficiency in agricultural markets in India. The Model APLM Act advocates increased competition in the marketplace by allowing private markets, farmers’ markets, and electronic-National Agricultural Markets (eNAM). Under eNAM, the Central Government introduced electronic trading in about 400 APMC markets in 2016 and connected them through uniform market platform in line with the e-markets of Karnataka introduced in 2012. This article examines experience of e-markets in Karnataka since 2012, with the intention to suggest improvements to eNAM. Results show that e-markets help increase competition, eliminate collusion among traders resulting in increased farmers’ price and market arrivals. They facilitate competitive bidding and same day payments to farmers. However, there was some resistance from traders and commission agents as they felt that there were no benefits in e-auction compared to physical transactions. In addition, there was fear of taxation of on-line transactions. Aligning interests of all stakeholders, including farmers, traders and commission agents is the biggest hurdle in the implementation of eNAM.

Keywords


Agricultural Commodities, Commission Agents, Electronic Markets, Farmers, Traders.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv115%2Fi5%2F826-837