Searching for the potential of agricultural development : a comparative study of inclusion of cocoa farmers in Ghana and sesame farmers in Burkina Faso

(1)

Author: Kati Oudendijk

Research Master International Development Studies

Email: kati.oudendijk@gmail.com

Supervisor: Dr. N.R.M. Pouw

Second reader: Dr. Ir. Y.B.P. van Leynseele

Graduate School of Social Sciences

University of Amsterdam

Searching for the

potential of

agricultural

development

A comparative study of inclusion of

cocoa farmers in Ghana and sesame

farmers in Burkina Faso

(2)

Abstract

Although large part of Africa’s population still generates an income from agricultural activities, benefiting from agricultural trade has remained a challenge for the rural population. Little is known on why and how farmers can benefit from globalization processes. The recent debate on inclusion focuses on the link between farmer and value chain. This study contributes to this debate by reflecting on the theoretical framework with a comparative analysis of the cocoa sector in Ghana and the sesame sector in Burkina Faso. The concept is elaborated by highlighting the role of institutions and analyzing the heterogeneity among farmers to see what farmers benefit from different terms of inclusion.

This study is based on three and a half months of fieldwork in Ghana and Burkina Faso, during which a total number of 52 qualitative interviews with stakeholders, 10 participatory workshops with stakeholders and 146 quantitative interviews with farmers were conducted. The study showed that there was a large effect of the export market and the level of government regulation on the working of the value chain and the level of intervention. In both cases, the high demand led to high market access in the areas studied. However, whereas the sesame farmers face little market demands, the level of intervention in the cocoa sector was high in order to avoid supplier failure in the future. The demands and knowledge of these interventions might not be in line with the need and perspective of farmers. This suggests that inclusion of in GVCs and institutions is not necessarily good; rather, careful assessment of how external processes correspond with local reality is required in order to understand how different farmers can benefit from inclusion.

Keywords: Inclusion, agriculture, global value chains, sesame in Burkina Faso, cocoa in Ghana

(3)

Acknowledgements

I am amazed by and incredibly grateful to the great number of people that supported me in the research process. First and foremost, I am grateful to all the time a great number of respondents took to talk to me. Farmers during harvesting time as well as leaders of NGO programmes and companies and many others have received me with open arms. I hope in one way or another, I will be able to bring something back to all these people.

This research would also not have been possible without the support of the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) in Amsterdam. I am most grateful to Anna Laven of KIT for giving me the opportunity again to do an internship for KIT and her support when we were in the field together, which was of great importance for this research. Furthermore, I would like to thank Peter Gildemacher, the project coordinator for the opportunity and support. In addition to Anna, Ellen Mangnus and Mirjam Schoonhoven were of great support to me in the field during my internship; I really enjoyed my time with you in the field and it was a great learning experience, so thank you!

Additionally, I would like to thank my supervisor Nicky Pouw of the University of Amsterdam for all good feedback, the support in the research process and the effort to help me finish this thesis even when this was posing challenges on her own schedule. Also, I am grateful to Yves van Leynseele for being my second reader as well as his support during the entire master programme and in preparing for the field.

In addition to the respondents, the people I worked with put in tremendous effort into making this research to a success. A number of people have supported me in the field both in my research and as friends and I would have been lost in the field without them. My research assistants Isaac and Mamadi worked very long hours with me conducting interviews and finding the way in the field. I really appreciate all the effort put in by you every day and hope it was as great as an experience for you as it was for me. Furthermore, I would not have been able to do my research in Nouna without the great support of OCADES. Especially Dao was of great importance finding my way in Nouna as well as monsieur Yao of OCADES and Benoit of the farmers union. Thank you so much for everything. Kaanuba and Kusi have also been very important to me in bringing me to the field every day and helping me find the way.

Finally, I could not have conducted this research without the support from my family and friends. I am most grateful to my parents, who have supported me through many years of studying and always had confidence in my decisions. The friends I made in the field have been of great support to me; thank you Gloria and Emanuel for all the nice dinners I had with your family, and Marjolein, Dan, Amber and Dao, it was great spending time with you in Ghana and

(4)

Burkina Faso. Also, my classmates have been of great importance to me, spending endless hours with me in the library and talking about my research. I am most thankful to Ymkje, Frank and Jos; it is great to have such good friends at the university, you three have been of great in supporting me in this thesis process. Last, and most importantly, I am incredible grateful to Stéphane for your support in the entire research process, the endless phone calls in the field, the numerous emails, flying to Ghana to see me, the endless mental support as well as your input in the writing process.

(5)

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

APEX L'Agence pour la Promotion des Exportations du Burkina

CMC Cocoa Marketing Company

COCOBOD Ghana Cocoa Board

CODAPEC Cocoa Diseases and Pest Control

CRETEC Cocoa Research and Extension Technical Committee CSSVD-CU Cocoa Swollen Shoot Viral Disease Control Unit

DRAH Direction Régionale de l'Agriculture et de l'Hydraulique ECOWAS Economic Community of West-African States

FBS Farmer Business School

FFS Farmer Field School

GVC Global Value Chain

INERA Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles

IS Innovation System

KIT Royal Tropical Institute

LBC Licensed Buying Company

MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OCADES Organisation Catholique pour le Développement et la Solidarité

PBC Produce Buying Company

PC Purchasing Clerk

PPP Public Private Partnership

PPP-extension Public Private Partnership for extension PPPP Public Private Partnership Platform QCC Quality Control Company

SPU Seed Production Unit

UEMOA West-African Economic and Monetary Union UNDP United Nations Development Programme

(9)

List of Tables

Table 1: Key determinants of types of governance ... 20

Table 2: Respondents per method ... 35

Table 3: Summary of respondents of questionnaire ... 37

Table 4: Basic indicators for Ghana and Burkina Faso. ... 46

Table 5: Overview of results from cases ... 96

List of Figures

Figure 1: Different types of governance in value chain ... 19

Figure 2: Basic flows in the farming process ... 27

Figure 3: Conceptual scheme ... 28

Figure 4: Different forms of regional cooperation in West Africa ... 41

Figure 5: Agricultural production zones in West Africa ... 43

Figure 6: Map of Ghana with indication of research area... 43

Figure 7: Map of Burkina Faso with indication of research area ... 46

Figure 8: Share per LBC in 2011 ... 51

Figure 9: Basic representation of the cocoa chain. ... 51

Figure 10: COCOBOD and its subsidiaries ... 53

Figure 11: Cost-benefit analysis of cocoa producers in Boako district, Ghana ... 68

Figure 12: The basic structure of the sesame chain ... 72

Figure 13: Cost-benefit analysis of sesame farmers in Nouna, Kossi, Burkina Faso ... 88

List of Boxes

Box 1: Case of the Farmer Business School ... 58

Box 2: The case of group selection by OCADES ... 79

(10)

1. Introduction

1.1 Globalization and the African farmer: Raising the issues

The export-led growth of the Asian tigers fed the popular belief that trade can be an important driver of economic growth and thereby development (Perkins et al., 2006). Despite the popularity of the idea that there is a positive causal relationship between trade, growth and poverty reduction, this relation has been contested and empirical evidence is mixed (Jenkins, 2004). In addition to lacking empirical evidence, there is little clarity about how and to what extent assumed “trickle-down” effects of trade growth, which enable the poor to benefit from growth at a sector level, actually occur (Jenkins, 2004).

Especially the agricultural sector, which employs the vast majority of the African population (Ajao et al., 2013; Mkpado 2013), appears not to have been able to benefit from trade (Rakotoarisoa et al., 2012). The large rural population is no longer able to produce enough food to feed the continent, leading Africa to become a net importer of food products (Rakotoarisoa et al., 2012). Although efforts to enhance technology based growth for smallholder farmers through the “Green Revolution” according to the Asian model failed to a large extent in Africa (Hounkonnou et al., 2012), the idea that agricultural growth can be a driver for poverty alleviation has been a popular discourse (Djurfeldt, 2012).

Inclusion in global value chains (GVC) is an increasingly popular concept both within the academic world and development practice (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011). Although the debate originally focused on inclusion in a global value chain in terms of access (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011), this is now elaborated with a discussion on how producers are affected by participation in global value chains (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011; Ponte, 2008). The debate is developing conceptually, a clear operationalization of the concept is still lacking. Furthermore, farmers are approached as a homogeneous group in the inclusion in GVC debate, thereby ignoring the fact that within the farming population there might be large differences. Finally, the debate often ignores the role of institutions, which are indirectly part of the value chain (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011). Institutions with close connections to global value chain actors can influence the relation between farmer and the value chain (Pahe et al., 2013) and are therefore important in analyzing the position of farmers within a value chain.

1.2 The research

This study is a comparative analysis based on field research. It will contribute to the debate through a comparative analysis of inclusion of farmers in the cocoa sector in Ghana and the

(11)

sesame sector in Burkina Faso. Based on this analysis, the following research question will be answered:

How are cocoa producers in Boako, Ghana and sesame producers in Nouna, Kossi province, Burkina Faso, included in their global value chains and supporting institutions for innovation?

This study has four objectives. First, I want to understand how producers in the researched sectors are affected by inclusion in global value chain and institutions. The second objective is to create recommendations on how autonomy and progress for farmers within these value chains and institutions can be promoted by development actors, government and private sector. Third, I aim to understand how inclusion varies for different farmers. Finally, the fourth objective is to gain insight into trickle-down effects of growth of a sector on farmers in the respective sectors. The study is based on three and a half months of fieldwork in Ghana and Burkina Faso and desk research. The two sectors will be analyzed at the national level, whereas farmers will be studied in a specific department. In Ghana, this will be the Boako cocoa district in the Western region, whereas the Nouna district in the Kossi province in the region Boucle du Mouhoun in Burkina Faso will be analyzed. Due to the relatively large scope compared to the time and resources that were available, this study is explorative in nature.

1.3 Relevance of the research and the cases

1.3.1 Relevance

This research is provides an in-depth analysis of the specific circumstances in which farmers in the cocoa sector in Ghana and the sesame sector in Burkina Faso operate. Understanding how these farmers are affected by the global food market as well as how they operate within a local context contributes to the understanding of how farmers can better benefit from agricultural trade.

In addition, the focus on heterogeneity among farmers has practical implications for external actors working with farmers. Identifying the “low-hanging fruits” and the “high-hanging fruits” and studying why and how they are included in the GVC or in programmes can lead to better targeting by organizations working with farmers. Finally, understanding the relationship between the producer, the market and institutions is important for understanding what trade is fair and what trade is not. This can contribute to the debates on efforts to bring more sustainable products on the market.

Recently, the Dutch government announced that the Dutch foreign policy will focus on integrating their development objectives with their trade objectives, which was based on the

(12)

belief that trade can contribute to development (Rijksoverheid, 2013). This Dutch government acknowledges that the two do not automatically coincide (Rijksoverheid, 2013), leading to a need to understand if and under which conditions trade contributes to development. This study contributes to this debate by analyzing how producers of export crops in two selected chains benefit from trade and how improvements can be made. Understanding this relationship is not only relevant for the Dutch development policy, but also has a wider societal relevance, as rural poverty is a widespread social issue in developing countries.

Academically, this research contributes to the debate on the inclusion of farmers in global value chains. As stated earlier, the concept is still developing and little empirical work has been done that applies the theoretical concept of inclusion of farmers in GVC. This study contributes to the theoretical debate on inclusion by applying the concept to two specific value chains. Based on this, I will reflect on the operationalization of inclusion of farmers in GVC. Finally, I will contribute to the debate on inclusion of farmers in global value chains by linking it to the notion of farm heterogeneity.

1.3.2 Why cocoa in Ghana and sesame in Burkina Faso

This research is based on a comparative analysis, because this will enable me to better isolate the effect of globalization of the food market on two specific agricultural sectors, thereby contributing to the theoretical insights gained from this research (Bryman, 2008). The cases of cocoa in Ghana and sesame in Burkina Faso have common characteristics as well as differences. Both crops are export crops primarily cultivated by smallholder farmers, of significant importance to the local economies and showed tremendous growth in the past decade (Glin et al., 2013; Laven, 2010). These crops have to have a significant effect on their respective economies in order to contribute to development. Moreover, studying two crops that experienced high growth in relation to the farmers that cultivate the crop will provide insight in trickle-down effects of macro-economic growth.

Historically, cocoa has been of great importance to Ghana’s economy and is partly government regulated (Kalavalli and Vigneri, 2011; Laven, 2010). Sesame has grown to an important export crop in Burkina Faso, but the government involvement is low and the sub-sector is of less importance to the Burkinabe economy (Glin et al., 2013). Cocoa is primarily exported to Western markets, whereas most sesame ends up at Asian markets (Glin et al., 2013; Laven, 2010). Furthermore, the context of both countries differs in the level of economic development and the climatic conditions, where Ghana has a higher income and is richer in its natural resources (The World Bank 2014a; 2014b; 2014c). These differences as well as the similarities mentioned in the

(13)

previous paragraph make these crops an interesting comparison, because it will show how a large number of farmers are affected by different market conditions in a different context.

1.4 Looking ahead

The remaining of this thesis is structured as followed. In the following chapter, I will elaborate on the theoretical background, which results in a conceptual framework, which forms the basis for the research design and analysis. This will be followed by an explanation of the research methodology in chapter 3, where I will elaborate on how and why the fieldwork and the analysis were conducted. In chapter 4, an introduction to the context of West-Africa, Ghana and Burkina Faso will be provided. Chapter 5 till chapter 8 present the research findings. For both cases, a chapter will be dedicated to the chain level and another chapter to the farmer’s perspective. Chapter 5 will provide the chain perspective for the cocoa sector in Ghana, followed by the farmer’s perspective in chapter 6. Chapter 7 will describe and analyze the sesame chain in Burkina Faso, followed by the sesame farmers’ perspective in chapter 8. These four chapters will form the basis for analyzing and comparing inclusion for the cases in chapter 9. Finally, in chapter 10, conclusions, policy recommendations and suggestions for further research will be discussed.

(14)

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter introduces the four theories that are the theoretical basis for this research: food regime theory, inclusion in GVC, innovation systems (IS) and farm styles. These represent a wide range of approaches, which describe different levels of analysis and contrast methods of exogenous and endogenous development. The use of theories is grounded in post-development theory, which distinguishes endogenous and exogenous approaches by stating that ‘development’ is an external Western discourse based on industrialized models (Escobar, 1992). Therefore, a call for more endogenous approaches is made by post-development (Escobar, 1992). I will attempt to avoid the normative elements of post-development thinking1_{, but will} critically evaluate both endogenous and exogenous processes by analyzing how global food processes affect farmers in the two sectors studied. Using the insights from post-development, I will provide insight in the matches and frictions between endogenous and exogenous development processes within food production.

In the remaining of this chapter, the food regime theory will be discussed, which analyses the political economy of food at the global level. These global processes will be linked to local processes through two vertical approaches that have a focus on exogenous development: first, inclusion in global value chains will be discussed, followed by an elaboration of innovation system thinking. After this, the vertical approaches will be contrasted with the farmer’s perspective and capacities through the farm styles approach, which focuses on endogenous processes by putting the farmer central. Finally, I will discuss how these theories form the basis for the conceptual scheme.

2.1 Food regimes: An approach to different eras of food production

The food regime2_{approach analyses changes in the global agricultural system in a historical} perspective. A food regime can be defined as “a rule-governed structure of production and

consumption of food on a world scale” (McMichael, 2013: 9) and has a special focus on regulation

in agriculture, thereby analysing state-market relations in a capitalist world. Two clear historical food regimes are identified by the food regime approach and the debate remains whether or not a third food regime exists (McMichael, 2013; Pahe et al., 2013; Winders, 2009).

1_{Post-development is sometimes criticized for being ideological and rejects the notion of development} altogether (Nederveen Pieterse, 2000).

2_{The concept was first introduced by Harriet Friedmann (1987). It has roots in World Systems Theory} (Wallerstein, 1974) and the concept of regulation of capital accumulation(Aglietta, 1979).

14

(15)

2.1.1 Historical food regimes

The first food regime was dominated by the British and lasted from the 1870s till the Second World War (McMichael, 2013). This food regime was characterized by two types of colonial trade. First, there were large scale food imports of grain from the US to Europe. The second trade flow consisted of ‘tropical products’ from colonies to support industrializing Europe (Raikes and Gibbon, 2000). Land grabbing and labour grabbing through slavery enabled cheap food production, which in turn fed the labour force of urbanizing Europe (McMichael, 2013).

A second US-dominated food regime was created after the collapse of the British Empire (McMichael, 2013). After the Second World War, the proposition for a World Food Board was rejected, which led to a complex system of rules (Friedmann, 1993). The lack of transnational cooperation enabled national governments to establish import tariffs and export subsidies, which affected trade flows and led to food surpluses (Raikes and Gibbon, 2000). This caused Europe and Japan to become important exporters and Africa was excluded from markets for certain agricultural products (Raikes and Gibbon, 2000). During the US-hegemony, cheap staple food was considered as a development project: first for post-war Europe, later for the “Third World” through development aid and the “Green Revolution” (McMichael, 2013). However, many of these ‘development’ projects involved contractual elements, which often had negative effects on farmers, such as rising costs for pest control (Raikes and Gibbon, 2000).

2.1.2 The corporate food regime and peasant resistance

There has been debate on whether a third food regime exists, as this food regime cannot be as clearly characterized as the first two (McMichael, 2013; Pahe et al., 2013). McMichael (2006; 2013) argues that a third corporate food regime deliberately evolved during the 1980s from the second food regime. Liberalization led to the diminishing of power of nation states in global food systems and thereby led to an increase of corporate and financial power (McMichael, 2013). Moreover, the supply of export surpluses to developing countries slowly led to the integration of corporate food supply chains in the world agricultural system (Pahe et al., 2013). The dominant idea is that regulations to protect the environment, agriculture, health and society are restrictions to trade (Pahe et al., 2013). This is institutionalized by transnational organizations, large corporations and large philanthropies3_{(Pahe et al., 2013) and most importantly supported} by international finance and multilateral organizations (McMichael, 2013).

3_{Pahe et al. (2013) identify the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, Cargill,} Monsanto, Carrefour and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as important institutions reflecting this idea.

15

(16)

Like post-development thinking (Escobar, 1992), food regime is critical towards top-down processes and states that the increased power of corporations is self-destructive in the long run (Raikes and Gibbon, 2000). The corporate food regime is associated with issues of land grabbing,4_{bio fuels}5_{as well as the food crisis in 2007-2008}6_{. As stated by McMichael (2006:} 408): “The corporate food regime, which deepens the use, misuse and abandonment of natural and

social resources, unfolds within a general imperative of “disembedding”.

Central in food regime thinking is the concept of “food sovereignty7_{” as a response to the crisis,} where dispossession and ecological commodification led to the undermining of local stewardship of land and which made food security subject to global market relations within the current food regime: “While food sovereignty has multiple meanings depending on context, the

transnational political movement for the ‘peasant way’ is building an alternative, decentralised understanding of food security in which material want-satisfaction is not subordinated to the market but embedded in ecological principles of cooperative production relations and forms of agro-ecology” (McMichael, 2006: 414). This concept is associated with the transnational peasant

movement “Via Campesina”, which attempts to reclaim the autonomy of small farmers (Bernstein, 2014; McMichael, 2006).

2.1.3 Insights and limitations of food regime thinking

Food regime thinking contributes by interpreting current developments from a historical point of view (McMichael, 2013). Although food regime thinking is sometimes criticized for studying a global system and thereby not specifying their claims (Raikes and Gibbon, 2000) and not being useful as a conceptual tool (van der Ploeg, 2013), the approach can be praised because of the insights it provides on the global food system and thereby uncovering power mechanisms underlying global food production and consumption. In other words, rather than focussing on directly observable relations and processes, analyzing a specific food regime provides insight into the power structures underlying these relations and processes. This research reflects on the current food regime through a comparative analysis of two specific value chains8_{. Later in this} chapter, I will discuss inclusion in GVC, innovation systems and farms styles as analytical tools to operationalize these commodity chains within the global food system.

4_{The issue of land grabbing and the corporate food regime is discussed by McMichael (2012).} 5_{For instance by McMichael (2010).}

6_{A more elaborate explanation can be found in chapter 6 of McMichael (2013).}

7_{An example of a definition is given by Bernstein (2014:1): “The right of nations and peoples to control}

their own food systems, including their own markets, production modes, food cultures and environments as a critical alternative to the dominant neoliberal model for agriculture and trade.”

8_{Raikes and Gibbon (2000) also study a food regime by focussing on specific commodity chains.}

16

(17)

The food regime theory will be used in three important ways. First, it will be used to contribute to the understanding of underlying power mechanisms of observed processes. Second, based on the observations, I will reflect on the current global food system, thereby contributing to the debate on whether a third corporate food regime exists and if so, what the main characteristics are. Special attention will be paid to the role of different organizations that are stated to institutionalize the corporate food regime. Third, I will analyze to what extent the food regime approach applies to the African context, as food regime thinking pays relatively little attention to Africa9_{. Raikes and Gibbon (2000) claim that food regime theory might not reflect the situation} in Africa. Furthermore, the struggle for food sovereignty, or what McMichael (2006) calls the “resurgence of the peasant way” (p. 413), might not apply in the context of Africa, as examples of peasant resistance in Africa are rare.

2.2 Inclusion in Global Value Chains

Originally introduced as Global Commodity Chain by Hopkins and Wallerstein (1986), like Food Regime thinking, GVC is rooted in World Systems Theory10_{(Laven, 2010; Hughes and Reimer,} 2004; Raikes and Gibbon, 2000). The concept is not only popular in academic literature11_{, it is} also a popular tool for policy documents and development interventions (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011). GVC analyzes the interaction between global and local processes related to a specific commodity, thereby providing a useful analytical tool to understand how farmers are affected by exogenous processes for the sectors studied. I will use the link of inclusion to the GVC, because it shifts the focus from the entire chain to the link between producer and chain, thereby adding a development perspective to the analysis of farmers in a globalizing world. Before discussing implications of GVC for development through the concept of inclusion, I will describe the background of GVC, its most important dimensions, the governance of GVC and the use and criticism of the concept.

2.2.1 The concept of a Global Value Chain

A value chain can be defined as follows: “A value chain describes the full range of activities which

are required to bring a product or service from conception, through the intermediary phases of production (involving a combination of physical transformation and the input of various producer services), delivery to final consumers, and final disposal after use.” (Kaplinsky, 2000: 121).

Originally, this approach was applied to industrial value chains, but later the approach was applied to primary products (Laven, 2010). The GVC approach has similarities with the “filière”

9_{For instance, when discussing food regimes in different regions, McMichael (2013) ignores Africa.} 10 _{See Wallerstein (1974) and Hopkins and Wallerstein (1986).}

11_{Key academic literature on GVC include Gereffi (1994), Gereffi et al. (2005), Humphrey and Schmitz} (2002), Kaplinsky (2000), Kaplinsky and Morris (2001) and Raikes et al. (2000).

17

(18)

(chain) approach, which has its roots in the 1960s (Hughes and Reimer, 2004; Laven, 2010; Raikes et al., 2000) and the two approaches are often used interchangeably12_{(Hughes and} Reimer, 2004).

In value chain analysis, four important dimensions are identified:

1) The input-output structure concerns the sequence of different activities in the chain. 2) Geographical coverage or spread of different activities in the value chain.

3) Governance structures, which determine the power relations between different chain actors. 4) Institutional framework through which national and international conditions and policies shape the globalization process at different stages in the chain (Laven, 2010; Raikes et al., 2000). Value chain analysis can be used as a heuristic tool and as an analytical tool to explain the underlying processes and outcomes of these relationships. Three focus points are identified to add an analytical dimension to the heuristic use of GVC analysis. First, there is economic rent within a dynamic value chain. The actors that are able to protect themselves from competition will have the highest returns. Therefore, value chain actors will create barriers to enter the chain (Kaplinsky, 2000). Second, gains in competitive advantage can be made when looking at efficiency for the chain as a whole. Efficiency can only be improved to a limited extent at a specific point in the chain. Analyzing chain efficiency has implications for the driver of the chain, as they have the ability to have impact on links between chain actors (Kaplinsky, 2000). Third, the governance of value chains is a key element in understanding the economic power relations between different actors (Kaplinsky, 2000; Kaplinsky and Morris, 2001). As this research is focused on the relation between farmers and other chain actors, I will focus on how farmers are affected by power relationships in different governance structures. This will be elaborated in the next section.

2.2.2 Governance in value chains

As stated by Hughes and Reimer (2004: 2): “Perhaps one of the most useful aspects of the GCC

approach is provided by Gereffi’s (1994) characterization of the ‘modes of organisation’ that govern the commodity chains. …. Emphasis is placed upon the power of commercial and industrial capital in allocating economic resources and wealth within – and therefore defining the shape of – 12 _{The filière has roots in the 1960s, where it was applied by the French to agriculture in the post-colonial} era (Laven, 2010). The approach is mainly for empirical research, where the objective is to map commodity flows and identify important agents and activities in a chain (Raikes et al., 2000). The major differences between the GVC approach and the filière approach is more a collection of different approaches, whereas the GVC is a better developed theory. Furthermore, GVC puts more emphasis on power relations within a chain (Raikes et al., 2000).

18

(19)

global commodity chains.” Gereffi (1994) distinguished between two modes of explicit

coordination within value chains: producer-driven chains and buyer-driven chains. In

agriculture, almost all chains are buyer-driven, with the exception of a third type, the processor driven chain, in some cases (Raikes and Gibbon, 2000).

Based on the criticism that the framework by Gereffi (1994) did not address the variety of networks, a more elaborate typology was introduced by Gereffi et al. (2005). According to Gereffi et al. (2005), the mode of organisation of a GVC depends on three factors: the complexity of information and knowledge transfer required for a particular transaction; the possibility of codifying information and knowledge for a transaction; and the capabilities of actual and potential suppliers to meet the requirements for the transaction. This results in five types of governance in a value chain: market; modular; relational; captive; and hierarchy (see table 1 below and figure 1 above).

Within different types of value chains, there are different levels of economic power asymmetry. For instance, in a market-governed value chain, it is relatively easy for a producer to sell to another buyer, because there are many and the transaction is not complex. On the other hand, in the case of a captive supply chain the lead firm has explicit coordination and is likely to have administrative control over its supplier (Gereffi et al., 2005). It is expected that the market mode of governance is most widely present in agricultural commodity chains, because this requires the least knowledge for suppliers; however, this mode of governance is also characterized by low power asymmetry, which contrasts the hypothesis of food regime theory that corporations

Figure 1: Different types of governance in value chains (Gereffi et al., 2005)

(20)

are dominating food production. Therefore, different types are dominant and a reflection will be made on to what extent these modes of government apply to the context of this research.

Table 1: Key determinants of types of governance (from Gereffi et al., 2005)

2.2.3 The concept of inclusion

Inclusion has grown into a buzz-word in the development sector. Development agencies often refer to “pro-poor value chains” or “inclusion in value chains”, which means that they see “the

entire chain as an opportunity to generate livelihoods for the poor, while creating value, that is, increasing the overall productivity and delivering quality products and services to the end user/consumer.” (Pastakia, 2012: 270). Before going into detail on the debate on inclusion in

relation to value chains, I will shortly discuss the background of the concept.

In their analysis of the discourse on social inclusion, Hospes and Clancy (2011) note that the roots of the concept are within social policy of the EU rather than directly linked to policy. Originally, the notion of social exclusion was used to refer to people without access to social services. There are different types of inclusion, where the most important are economic, political, cultural and social inclusion (Hospes and Clancy, 2011).

Hospes and Clancy (2011) identify six assumptions underlying the concept of inclusion. First, it is often assumed that inclusion is good and exclusion is bad. However, Ponte (2008) notes that inclusion is not necessarily empowering, whereas exclusion does not necessarily lead to poverty. Therefore, he proposes to look at how, when and under what conditions people are included and excluded. Second, it is assumed that the excluded want to be included. Third, social inclusion and exclusion are often treated as new and distinctive concepts. Fourth, the assumption underlying policies and programmes aiming to promote inclusion is that they will reduce inequality. The fifth assumption is that social inclusion or exclusion refers to a possibly permanent condition and can be used to categorize groups or individuals. Sixth, social inclusion and exclusion are treated as a dichotomy. This assumption is challenged by Krishna and Nederveen Pieterse (2008), who propose the notion of a-symmetric inclusion, because pure exclusion does not exist.

(21)

Even if groups are excluded from a process, they still are affected by the process they are excluded from. They are still in reach of the financial regimes and national policies and therefore included in the system a-symmetrically.

2.2.4 Inclusion and GVC

Kaplinsky (2000) explains that the spread of globalization affects an increasing number of people in an unequal manner: “Yet, increasing inequalities are not just being experienced at the

inter-country level, but also with regard to intra-national distribution, affecting different regions, different sized firms, different households and different genders.” (p. 142). This section will discuss

GVC analysis as a developmental concept by adding the dimension of inclusion.

When linking inclusion to GVC, the assumption is often made that inclusion is good: “The idea is

that if the population in question (backward area, minority, or least developed country) would be included in the modern sector or in fast-lane capitalism, it would experience the benefits of economic growth.” (Krishna and Nederveen Pieterse, 2008: 230) Based on this idea, inclusion is

often defined as follows: “Inclusion is mostly defined as facilitation or enabling the participation

of small producers in more remunerative, often global, value chains.” (Helmsing and Vellema,

2011: 5). The focus of external processes for enhancing development positions inclusion in GVC as an exogenous development approach.

However, this narrow interpretation of inclusion is heavily criticized. Ponte (2008) acknowledges that the conditions under which groups are included or excluded from processes are more important than the simple concept of whether groups are included or excluded. Similarly, Hospes and Clancy (2011) argue that the focus should be on how people are included in Global Value Chains. Helmsing and Vellema (2011) take the debate further by analyzing the degree and conditions of inclusion. They state that the development impact of inclusion depends on two factors: “The terms of participation in the process of inclusion and the degree of alignment

of value chain logics with the capacities of actors and institutions embedded in territorial business systems.” (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011; 15). In other words, the contribution of inclusion to

development depends on the terms of inclusion and to what extent this corresponds with the producer’s capacities and the local institutions. Thus, although the inclusion debate still focuses on exogenous development, the debate is increasingly acknowledging that there should be a match between endogenous and exogenous processes.

This broader approach to inclusion in GVC links back to the notion of governance and related to this the power distribution within GVC. When looking at the terms of inclusion and the alignment of value chain logics with local reality, it is not only important what these are, but also

(22)

what economic power structures within a GVC determine the terms and conditions. The power structure determines, in turn, to what extent producers are able to affect the terms of inclusion, or are subject to conditions set by external actors.

2.2.5 Inclusion and GVC: Insights and limitations

GVC studies how market and power relations determine outcomes of globalization processes (Jenkins, 2004), thereby linking global and local processes through the studying of a specific commodity. Therefore, GVC has a strong focus on exogenous development processes. GVC will be used as a heuristic tool in this study by describing the input-output structure and activities of different actors. Furthermore, analytical elements will be adopted by analyzing the mode of governance of the chains and consequently the effect of the mode of governance on power relations within policy and the regulatory environment. Additionally, the debate about inclusion in GVC adds a developmental dimension to the analysis and focuses specifically on the lower end of the chain, where both the degree of inclusion in the GVC as well as the conditions of inclusion in the GVC vis-à-vis the farmer’s capacities and perspectives are analysed. Thereby, endogenous and exogenous processes are contrasted with each other. I will focus on analysing whether these exogenous and endogenous processes match.

Although both look at power relations in the global food system, food regime theory falls short in providing a concrete conceptual framework, whereas GVC provides a concrete framework to analyse developmental impacts of globalization when adding the concept of inclusion to the analysis. Despite the absence of a clear conceptual framework of this relatively new concept (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011), inclusion in GVC will be used as the major concept in this study for reflection on the global food production system. Following Helmsing and Vellema’s (2011) distinction between degree of inclusion, alignment between value chain logic and the farmer’s capacities and the terms of inclusion, the (mis)match between exogenous and endogenous processes concerning a specific commodity at the lower end of the chain will be studied. Endogenous processes will be later elaborated through the farm styles approach; however, the concept of inclusion in GVC contributes by linking the farm level to external actors.

GVC analysis has the limitation that it focuses on only one crop, while African farmers are often diversified. Therefore, at the farm level, cocoa and sesame will be studied in relation to other farm and non-farm activities of the respondents, thereby adopting a more comprehensive approach. Furthermore, as Hospes and Clancy (2011) state: “It is surprising that the role of

non-chain actors has not emerged more strongly in global value non-chain research.” (p. 29). Earlier it was

stated that in the current food regime, non-chain actors had contributed to institutionalizing corporate power. Therefore, innovation systems will be discussed in the next section as a

(23)

vertical approach that analyzes how different institutions work with farmers to enhance innovation.

2.3 Innovation systems: A driver for agricultural innovation?

Responding to the lack of attention paid to non-chain actors working with farmers for a specific commodity, this section will elaborate on Innovation Systems (IS) theory, which emphasizes the role of institutions in creating innovation. Like GVC analysis, this approach focuses on how external actors work with farmers; therefore, it focuses on exogenous development.

2.3.1 The background of Innovation System Theory

The concept of IS originates in Western countries, where it analyses the role of institutions in technological change in an economy (Pietrobelli and Rabellotti, 2011). Recently, it has been increasingly applied to agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa (Pietrobelli and Rabellotti, 2011), as a response to the Transfer of Technology view and the failed Green Revolution in Africa13_(Clark, 2002). Like GVC analysis, it focuses on vertical relations and analyzes the interaction between the farmer in this case and external actors. IS acknowledges that an innovation does not only entail coming up with something new, but also entails introducing it into an economic or social process (Spielman et al., 2009). Thus, IS approaches innovation from an exogenous perspective by focussing on how innovation can be implemented via institutions in economic and social processes, thereby looking at the interaction between endogenous and exogenous processes. An innovation system can be defined as: “The set of agents involved in an innovation process, their

actions and interactions, and the socioeconomic institutions that condition their practices and behaviours.” (Spielman et al., 2009: 399) Innovation systems thinking is a complex and

process-based approach which analyses innovation in relation to organizational and institutional change (Spielman et al., 2009), thereby linking technological aspects to socio-economic processes. Two major differences exist when IS is applied to agriculture instead of industrial production. First, agricultural production is more unstable and location specific. Second, technological resources are not always allocated efficiently by the market in agricultural chains. There is often underinvestment in farms, because especially smallholder farmers are relatively poor, which often leads the public sector to intervene (Clark, 2002).

13_{The Transfer of Technology view was based on the belief that Third World countries could be helped by} Western technologies. The attempt to accomplish this through the Green Revolution failed in Africa, which led to the acknowledgement that adoption of technologies is context specific (Clark, 2002).

23

(24)

2.3.2 Dimensions of IS thinking

IS stresses the importance of the interconnectedness between institutions on the one hand, and information and knowledge within these institutions the other hand (Clark, 2002). Although some studies are limited to a descriptive stakeholder analysis supporting innovation (Spielman et al., 2009), the IS is a vertical approach focussing on the information exchange between the institution and the recipient. Descriptive studies on institutions supporting innovation are limiting, because, as Hounkonnou et al. (2012) explain, the problem is not that there are not sufficient institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa, but how they function. Spielman et al. (2009) elaborate that an innovation only occurs when a trial is adopted and accepted in the social and economic environment. Thus, when institutions are pushing for a new practice, I will not only describe what institution promotes what practice, but also how the institution works with farmers and whether it is accepted and adopted.

Clark (2002) adds two dimensions to an IS. First, there is an ideological element to innovation, because there is a paradigm among stakeholders on what the correct knowledge for production is. Without informational coherence, it would be impossible to produce for a certain market. Thus, information promoted by institutions should align with the paradigm of the GVC. Second, the importance of interaction between recipient and institution is stressed, because information provided will only be useful if the recipient perceives it to be so. Flows of information are therefore only productive if there is an action related to the recipient of the information (Clark, 2002). Thus, IS is a vertical approach but it builds on earlier approaches by not only focusing on top-down flows of information, but also by putting emphasis on interaction.

2.3.2 Insights and limitations from IS theory

IS complements the theories discussed earlier in this chapter by adding an institutional dimension to GVC. Like inclusion in GVC, IS is a vertical approach and can therefore be used in this research to analyze the relationship between farmers and external actors. Furthermore, adding the importance of social and economic processes to innovation characterizes an important shift in thinking away from earlier simplistic views on technological change towards a focus on how exogenous development can be implemented in endogenous processes. Additionally, there is a partial overlap between GVC and IS, as GVC actors can also play a role in promoting the provision of innovation and information, and can therefore be part of the innovation system (Pietrobelli and Rabellotti, 2011).

However, IS also has its limitations. Assuming innovation leads to development, only few studies analyze aspects of innovation related to poverty and the assumption is often made that farmers

(25)

will benefit from the increased efficiency resulting from innovation (Spielman et al., 2009). Thus, the benefits of innovations should be critically evaluated. Additionally, with the focus on institutions for innovations, it takes a top-down view on innovation, leaving a blind spot for innovation that takes place outside of institutions, such as informal exchange of knowledge among farmers and experimentation at the farm level. Therefore, the interpretation of innovation by IS is rather narrow; the focus of the theory is on how new practices are implemented in social and economic processes from the top down by institutions rather than on studying how innovation takes place.

IS provides analytical insights when focussing on how institutions bring information to recipients within complex social and economic contexts (Spielman et al., 2009). Moreover, this research will analyze the coherence of paradigms between different institutions and private sectors. This will provide insight in how institutions might contribute to institutionalizing corporate power, as this is stated to be a characteristic of the current corporate food regime. I will apply the IS approach in relation to the debate about inclusion and exclusion. Both the inclusion in GVC and IS are vertical approaches that originally were based on the underlying assumption that participation in the GVC and the IS will benefit the producer. However, both approaches are moving away from this narrow view and are increasingly taking social and economic processes into account. I acknowledge that innovation can take place outside of these institutions and do not assume innovation is necessarily good; rather, like inclusion in GVC, I will use IS to analyze the relation between the farmer and the external actors that aim at changing the production process at the farm level, such as NGOs and government.

2.4 Farm styles: Exploring heterogeneity among farmers

After discussing two approaches focussing on exogenous processes and a macro-approach, I will now shift the focus to analyzing the farmer’s perspective in order to understand how these exogenous processes relate to endogenous processes.

2.4.1 Introducing farm styles

Based on the idea that “there is no single way (let alone superior way) to produce reasonable

income and promising prospects” (van der Ploeg, 2008: 138) van der Ploeg (1994) introduced the

idea of “farm styles”. Heterogeneity among farmers was already studied in Farming Systems research, which takes combinations of crops and/or animal husbandry as a starting point (van der Ploeg, 1994). In his approach, van der Ploeg (1994) adds a cultural dimension to the study of heterogeneity among farmers, stating that classification of different farmers should be based on careful analysis of patterns underlying farming, which strategically organize the farming process. Understanding heterogeneity among farmers is not only of scientific interest, but has

(26)

often been used for extension services (Fairweather and Klonsky, 2009). The farm styles approach is one of the few that approaches the peasant as a producer: “Hence, the distinctiveness

of peasants has principally been sought in terms of unequal power relations and/or their socio-cultural characteristics.” (van der Ploeg, 2008: 21). Rather, it has socio-socio-cultural, economic and

agronomic dimensions.

A farm style can be defined as “the complex but integrated set of notions, norms, knowledge

elements, experiences, etc. held by a group of farmers in a specific region, that describes how a specific farming praxis should be carried out.” (van der Ploeg, 1994: 17). A style emerges over

time as a result of both local and external forces (Long and van der Ploeg, 1994).Thus, a style of farming is not only shaped by external conditions, but a farmer contributes to the evolution of a style through participation (Vanclay et al., 2006).

Central in the analysis of how farms are managed in different styles of farming, is the production process, which consists of the mobilization of resources, conversion of resources into (end)products and marketing and reuse of end-products (van der Ploeg, 1994; 2008). The production process is connected through the farm style through labour: “During the labour

process the actors involved also construct, reconstruct and develop a specific finely tuned and well-balanced resource combination – that is, they construct a style of farming and link it in a specific way to the outside world.” (van der Ploeg, 2008: 26).

2.4.2 Determinants of a farms style

“Markets and technology thus do not determine how farming will be carried out, but provide the context in which different positions are possible.” (van der Ploeg, 1994: 9). Key in the farm styles

approach is the level of market integration of a farmer for resources and outputs, which is displayed in figure 2. The agricultural production process, thus the conversion of resources to output, depends on the integration in markets and non-commodity circuits. The main difference between the farm style and the production process is that a farm style concerns a certain pattern, which does not change in the short run (van der Ploeg, 2010). In other words, although a farm style expresses itself in terms of the production process, it is the underlying mechanism that determines the production process (see appendix 1 for an example typology).

These underlying mechanisms can be studied in different domains, including a strategic, structural, cultural and social domain. The strategic domain entails a cost-benefit analysis of the farm. The structural domain concerns farm practices, techniques and resources. The cultural

(27)

domain consists of the way that practicing agriculture is adapted to the local conditions based on the historical tradition. Finally, the social domain consists of relationships outside of the farm, such as with other farmers, suppliers and buyers. Without these relationships farmers are fully dependent on the market (Averbeke and Mohamed, 2006).

2.4.3 Application and limitations of the farm styles approach

As stated earlier, the farm styles approach is unique, because of the combination of technical, socio-cultural and economic dimensions. Therefore, it will be used to analyze both the farmer’s capacities and perspective in relation to the debate about inclusion. Moreover, it puts the peasant as a producer central, thereby focussing on endogenous development within their context. Finally, the approach innovates by acknowledging diversity among farmers.

The farm styles approach will be used as a comprehensive approach to both cultural and social factors in relation to the production process. I will do so by taking the cultural, structural, strategic and social domains that are identified by the farm styles approach as the form the basis of analyzing different aspects of the farmers studied in this research. Within these different domains, the level of market integration will be discussed through analyzing both inputs and outputs used from the farm and obtained through the market, which can also be thought of as

Figure 2: Basic flows in the farming process (van der Ploeg, 2008)

(28)

the degree of inclusion. Finally, differences in farm styles will be explored. Vanclay et al. (2006) published a critical evaluation on the approach after experimenting with it, criticizing the approach for the methodological complexity. Moreover, the use of typologies should be used with caution, because there is a risk of simplification. Therefore, I will explore why different groups might be perceived as outliers rather than to create a clear-cut typology.

2.5 Conceptual scheme

Figure 3 below shows how the different concepts described above will be used as the basis for this research.

Figure 3: Conceptual scheme

Central in the scheme is the producer. His decisions on how to manage the production process are shaped by his farm style, which consists of the structural, strategic, cultural and social domain. The producer’s farm style emerges over time through participation in the production

process.

A producer can be included in a (global) value chain, or excluded. If a farmer is included, he gets resources or inputs from input markets, and sells on formal (export) markets. When a

producer is excluded, he will get resources for production from his own farm.

(29)

The same holds for institutions that support innovation. An included producer has access to and participates in institutions for innovation, whereas a producer who is excluded, is not supported by institutions to innovate on his farm.

However, inclusion is not only studied in terms of inclusion or exclusion. The quality of inclusion is studied by analyzing the terms of inclusion set by external actors and by the

alignment between the logic of the value chain and the capacities of the producer.

This producer and related processes of inclusion and exclusion are embedded in a larger global political economy of food production, which is described as the corporate food regime.

2.6 Conclusion

This chapter discussed four different approaches that together will form the theoretical basis for this research. The concepts complement each other by focusing on different levels of analysis, which is needed to take a comprehensive approach to producers in relation to (international) food markets. IS and GVC both approach development from an exogenous perspective, whereas the farm styles approach is oriented towards endogenous development. Relating both approaches to inclusion shifts the focus to analyzing the relation between endogenous and exogenous processes.

In contrast to post-development thinking, which rejects the notion of exogenous development (Nederveen Pieterse, 2000), I will avoid a normative approach. Rather, I will take a neutral position towards endogenous and exogenous development and explore the potential of both ways of development, because farmers are subject to external processes and at the same time operate within the local context. Inclusion of farmers in the GVC and IS in relation to the farm style will be analyzed in two specific cases, where the focus will be on the lower end of the chain, after which inclusion will be compared between the two cases. Based on this analysis, I will reflect on food regime theory in general and on the corporate food regime specifically.

Due to the limited time and resources of this research, the study is explorative in nature. This study further operationalizes the concept of inclusion in GVC through linking it to IS and the farm styles approach, thereby adding institutional and cultural factors to the analysis. Moreover, through reflecting on food regimes based on a comparative analysis, more insight will be provided in the existence and characteristics of the current food regime, especially in relation to the African context. In addition, more insight will be provided in the potential of exogenous and endogenous development processes and in the relation between both. Finally, this study will further explore what the key factors in different farm styles are.

(30)

3. Research methodology

This chapter elaborates on the research methodology that will be used to analyze the theories discussed in the previous chapter. First, I will elaborate on some of the fundamental ideas behind this research, followed by an explanation of how this relates to the theory in the operationalization. I will continue by describing research techniques, followed by ethical considerations and the limitations of research. I will finish by providing a description of the methods of data analysis and some concluding remarks.

3.1 Research design

I will start this chapter by elaborating on the fundamental ideas behind the research methodology.

3.1.1. Realism and critical realism

This research focuses on how processes of globalisation affect farmers that seem to be excluded from these processes. Therefore, I will attempt to uncover the underlying power mechanisms and cultural factors influencing the farmers. I do this by first describing the clear-cut empirical results and then by dissecting the found relationships layer by layer and relating this to the less visible underlying relations of power and cultural factors. This is in line with the realist view on the world, which is based on the idea that “not all social phenomena, and the relationships

between them, are directly observable. There are deep structures that cannot be observed and what can be observed may offer a false picture of those phenomena/structures and their effects.”

(Marsch and Furlong, 2002: 31).

Critical realism contributes to realism by making a distinction between the ‘real’, the ‘actual’ and the ‘empirical’. The real is whatever exists, independent of our experience, such as an object or a power structure. This underlying reality studied in this research will primarily concern power and cultural factors affecting the production process of farmers, such as the power of corporations within the food regime, the governance structure of the GVC, the paradigmatic cohesion between institutions and the GVC and the cultural factors that affect production at the farm level. The empirical is our experience of the real. I will attempt to uncover the power structures and cultural factors behind the farming process through analysing different patterns in the farm process, the activities of different value chain actors and institutions. Finally, the actual is what happens when potential powers, structures or relationships of the real are activated (Sayer, 2000). Thus, for instance, even if corporations do not use their power now to force certain practices on farmers, the actual concerns their potential power to do so. Following this distinction, critical realists see the world as a system of multiple causal mechanisms that

(31)

interfere with each other. These different causations disrupt the rise of clear causal regularities (Sayer, 2000). A comparative analysis contributes to uncovering causal regularities, which will be elaborated below.

3.1.2 Comparative case study design

Bryman (2008) states that a comparative design “entails studying two contrasting cases using

more or less identical methods.” (p.58). The design of these cases can be based on quantitative or

qualitative methods (Bryman, 2008), or in the case of this research, mixed methods. When doing comparative research in different countries, this can contribute to understanding of social reality in different national contexts. Therefore, a comparative analysis contributes to unravelling underlying mechanisms within a complex causal system and thereby understanding the effect of the global food system and the power relations within this system on farmers. The choice to do a comparative study puts emphasis on the importance of a good and strict research design, in order to have two cases that are comparable. However, it should be noted that “the key to the comparative design is its ability to allow distinguishing characteristics of two

or more cases to act as a springboard for theoretical reflections about contrasting findings.”

(Bryman, 2008: 61) Thus, rather than looking for similarities between the cases, the methodology is designed to analyze different levels of food production and thereby unravel patterns within the cases which are the basis for comparison and theoretical reflection. The comparative analysis will be focused on inclusion of farmers in their value chains in the two cases, because this concept connects local processes to the global food system.

3.1.3 Unit of analysis

In the research, I will analyse the interaction between producers and their economic and institutional environment within the global food system, thereby contrasting perspectives of farmers, the value chains and institutions working on innovation. Specifically this means that the sesame and cocoa producers on one hand and the global value chains and the institutions that support innovation in the selected cases on the other hand will be a unit of analysis.

3.1.4 Selection of research area and respondents

In selecting the area for research within the countries I followed the criteria of comparability of the cases. Both in Burkina Faso and Ghana I focused the research in the area where production of the commodity studied is produced under the assumption that the effects of the value chain will be most visible in these regions.

(32)

Unfortunately, the geographical scope of the selected areas was different for logistical reasons. Ghana was the first country I visited, where I covered villages spread over Boako district. Initially, I intended to visit villages in the entire province. However, due to bad sandy roads I decided it was unsafe to travel distances further than the department of Nouna within the province.

Generally, when selecting respondents, I always aimed for diversity rather than representativeness. This research is explorative in nature; when studying commodities in two countries at different levels for a master thesis project it is impossible to make generalizations. Rather, I wanted to collect as many different perspectives as possible to understand the diversity among both farmers and stakeholders. How I exactly selected respondent will be elaborated below in the section on research techniques.

3.2 Conceptual framework and operationalization

I will now continue to explain how these concepts will be used based on the theoretical framework discussed in the previous chapter.

3.2.1 Research questions

The main question of this research is as follows:

How are cocoa producers in Boako, Ghana and sesame producers in Nouna, Kossi province, Burkina Faso, included in their global value chains and supporting institutions for innovation?

The following research questions will be used to answer the main question:

1) What similarities and differences can be identified among cocoa producers in Boako, Ghana and

sesame producers in Nouna, Burkina Faso?

2) What institutions can be identified that support innovation for producers? 3) How are producers included in different institutions that support innovation?

4) How are the cocoa chain in Ghana and the sesame chain in Burkina Faso structured and

governed?

5) How are cocoa farmers in Ghana and sesame farmers in Burkina Faso included in their

respective value chains?

The first research question concerns the farm level and will be answered based on a questionnaire conducted with cocoa farmers in Ghana and sesame farmers in Burkina Faso. Research question two and four study the institutional and value chain level and will be

Searching for the potential of agricultural development : a comparative study of inclusion of cocoa farmers in Ghana and sesame farmers in Burkina Faso

Author: Kati Oudendijk

Research Master International Development Studies

Email: kati.oudendijk@gmail.com

Supervisor: Dr. N.R.M. Pouw

Second reader: Dr. Ir. Y.B.P. van Leynseele

Graduate School of Social Sciences

University of Amsterdam

Searching for the

potential of

agricultural

development

A comparative study of inclusion of

cocoa farmers in Ghana and sesame

farmers in Burkina Faso

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Table of contents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Boxes

1. Introduction

1.1 Globalization and the African farmer: Raising the issues

1.2 The research

1.3 Relevance of the research and the cases

1.3.1 Relevance

1.3.2 Why cocoa in Ghana and sesame in Burkina Faso

1.4 Looking ahead

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Food regimes: An approach to different eras of food production

2.1.1 Historical food regimes

2.1.2 The corporate food regime and peasant resistance

2.1.3 Insights and limitations of food regime thinking

2.2 Inclusion in Global Value Chains

2.2.1 The concept of a Global Value Chain

2.2.2 Governance in value chains

2.2.3 The concept of inclusion

2.2.4 Inclusion and GVC

2.2.5 Inclusion and GVC: Insights and limitations

2.3 Innovation systems: A driver for agricultural innovation?

2.3.1 The background of Innovation System Theory

2.3.2 Dimensions of IS thinking

2.3.2 Insights and limitations from IS theory

2.4 Farm styles: Exploring heterogeneity among farmers

2.4.1 Introducing farm styles

2.4.2 Determinants of a farms style

2.5 Conceptual scheme

2.6 Conclusion

3. Research methodology

3.1 Research design

3.1.1. Realism and critical realism

3.1.2 Comparative case study design

3.1.3 Unit of analysis

3.1.4 Selection of research area and respondents

3.2 Conceptual framework and operationalization

3.2.1 Research questions