Agricultural Producer Groups in Poland

– Empirical Survey Results

by:

Ilona Banaszak

Humboldt University of BerlinDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences

Chair of Resource EconomicsIntegrated Development of Rural Institutions and Agriculture in CEECs

contact: banaszai@rz.hu-berlin.de

The Research Funded within the 5th Framework Program of the European Commission

IDARI Working Paper Berlin, November, 2005

2

Abstract: This paper presents basic results from an empirical survey carried out in Poland with leaders of farmer organizations called producer groups. Producer groups are akin to marketing cooperatives and in the Polish law are defined as organizations whose main aim is to introduce agricultural output produced by individual farmers to the market. The main objective of the research I carried out was to understand the process of formation and the mechanism of functioning of the groups as well as to identify problems and critical points during the groups’ running. The data suggest that the core element to understand the phenomena of producer groups in Poland is not only to analyze the economic and market situation of the groups, but also to investigate the nature of collective actions in their governance dimension. For the associated farmers the critical problem appears as not to produce or to find purchasers, but to come together, to understand and to trust each other, and to avoid self profit maximization behavior.*

1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to present the main empirical results from a survey carried out in

Poland with leaders of organisations called producer groups. Producer groups are akin to

marketing cooperatives and in the Polish law are defined as organisations whose main

aim is to introduce agricultural output produced by individual farmers to the market.

These groups can be established only by producers (Dz.U. 2000).

There are several possible legal forms of producer groups. First of all, they can function

as a purely oral agreement among farmers and have an informal character. Second,

groups can have formal, legal character. Such groups have to be officially registered in

court, as a co-operative, association, union or commercial company. Groups registered in

court can apply for subsidies paid within EU programmes as if they were individual

farmers. Additionally, groups which fulfil certain conditions can be registered in the

province office and apply for financial support offered to them from state and EU

resources.

* The author is very grateful for the supervision of the research and for all the comments and remarks on the research and the paper given by Dr. Volker Beckamann, and also for the comments on the paper given by Dr. Catherine Murray and Dr. Annette Hurrlemann

3

Different literature encouraging farmers to associate in producer groups suggests that the

main benefits which can be potentially reaped by their members include gaining better

market position and higher prices of output, reducing costs of output distribution,

building a stable network of purchasers, negotiating lower prices for the means of

production, obtaining easier and cheaper access to information about the market, higher

efficiency – in terms of more efficient use of knowledge and skills of associated farmers -

and avoiding unnecessary competition among farmers (e.g. Zarudzki et all. 2000; Boguta

2002).

A few years ago both the Polish government and the EU authorities foresaw that due to

the above potential benefits, Polish farmers would be very eager to associate themselves

in groups. Producer groups were perceived as a chance for small Polish farms to

concentrate their production, to increase income of the farm holders and in more general

terms to regulate the Polish agricultural market, which is highly unpredictable and still

suffers from both over- and underproduction. In the years 2000, 2003 and 2004 a few

bills were worked out and passed by the Polish Parliament in order to provide a legal

framework for the establishment and functioning of producer groups in the country, and

also to offer financial subsidies to encourage farmers to associate (Dz.U. 2000, 2003).

Producer groups in Poland nonetheless, contrary to those predictions, still have a very

marginal share in terms of both the volume of the goods marketed and the number of

associated farmers.

In July 2003 an interview with a civil servant from the Extension Service for

Wielkopolska Province was carried out in order to find out basic facts and problems

related to the topic. According to the interview, in 2003 producer groups included only

about 2% of farmers in the province. What is more, over time there were fewer and fewer

groups, and their interest in the subsidies offered to them by the government was quite

low. In 2003 there were 25 groups fewer in the province than in 2001, and only 2 of 65

groups operating at that time applied for the subsidies.

4

Furthermore, at that time producer groups in Poland appeared to malfunction. Neither the

bills and subsidies offered for the groups, nor the efforts of the extension service and

other State agencies to promote this type of rural cooperation had much success.

A few groups nonetheless were identified which were functioning quite well. At least one

group marketing fruits, one marketing oil seed rape and about 6 groups in pork could be

classified as successful in terms of their time of functioning, volume of goods marketed,

and general profitability.

My central research question posed was: what are the determinants of success or failure

of producer groups in Poland. Why do some groups split up and some grow and bring

profits over time? I wanted to find out which factors determine these “selection”

processes.

This article, however, is the first outcome of the empirical investigation carried out

within the study. It aims to present the overall, general situation of producer groups in

Poland and contains the main descriptive results of the survey. This article fills a void,

since no other comprehensive literature about producer groups in Poland was available at

the time of writing.

My research is embodied in the Integrated Development of Agriculture and Rural

Institutions in Central and Eastern European Countries Project, which focuses on the role

of social capital, trust and innovations in rural development. The project is supported by

the European Commission.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research cluster

Producer groups in one province were selected as the object of the research. The chosen

province of Wielkopolska is one of the 16 provinces in Poland and is located in the

western part of the country. The total area of the Province is 29,826 sq kilometres, which

covers 9.53% area of the country. Wielkopolska is inhabited by 3,350 thousands of

people, which comprise 8.66% of the total number of people in Poland. The province is

the third most densely populated, the average density of population is 113 people per

5

square kilometre (GUS 2004:1). Poznan – the capital of Wielkopolska is the biggest and

the most economically advanced city within the region.

Map 1: Poland and the Wielkopolska Province

A few factors contributed to the selection of this Province as the research cluster. The

most important ones were availability of basic data about all producer groups in this

region, good knowledge of the province and local circumstances by the author, and the

fact that the agriculture sector in Wielkopolska is on average better developed and more

advanced than in other parts of the country.

Agriculture has traditionally been a very important sector of the Province’s economy and

is generally characterized by high effectiveness and efficiency, particularly considering

production of cereals, sugar beats, pork and poultry.

Regarding basic agricultural indicators 78% of the agricultural land is owned by private,

individual farmers, and agriculture occupies 64.5% of the land in the Province, from

6

which 51% is cultivated land, 25.4% forest, 6.8% as meadows, 1.6% grass land, 0.5%

orchards, and 14.5% other crops.

Over 13% of all domestic grains is produced in Wielkopolska, 19.2% of all potatoes, and

13.7 of all production of rape and bird rape (Wielkopolska 2003).

The average size of agricultural holdings in the Province is relatively small at about 10ha,

however, this is 2.8ha more than average size of holdings in Poland. Ten percent of farms

do not produce crops at all or produce only for their own needs; 64.7% of farms produce

output mainly to be sold on the market. The existing relatively-well-developed road

network facilitates transport opportunities (ibid.).

GDP in current prices was 18,900 PLN per capita in 2000, what was about 1000 PLN

higher that GDP per capita for the whole country. Agriculture together with hunting,

fishing and forestry contributed 4.3% of the GDP of the province (GUS 2004: LXVII,

LXXXV).

The choice of one of the best developed provinces, particularly regarding agriculture, as

the research cluster was motivated by the suggestion that producer groups could fail due

to a maldeveloped structure of agriculture or due to a maldeveloped structure of the

market. One could argue that in some regions producer groups do not occur since the

majority of agricultural holdings are small and do not produce goods to be sold on the

market. Others could argue that producer groups will flourish in circumstances where

agriculture is ineffective and inefficient and the goods sold by the groups are

uncompetitive on the market.

By selecting a province which is characterized by better economic and agricultural

indicators than the average for the country, we can to a certain degree avoid these

suggestions.

2.2. Methods and techniques of the research

The cross-sectional research design, sometimes also called social survey, was selected as

a research method for this investigation. This method involves the collection of data on

7

more than one case of variation in respect to people, families, organisations or other

subjects, and collection of data at the same time in order to obtain an aggregation of

quantitative and quantifiable data in connection with two or more variables, which are

then examined to identify patterns of association. This design entails employing such

research techniques as social surveys, structured observations, content analysis, and

analysis of official statistics and diaries (Bryman 2001: 41).

For this piece of research the technique of social survey was selected, within which the

structured interview with producer group leaders was the data collection strategy. The

structured interview consists of giving all interviewers exactly the same context of

questioning. Each respondent is asked by the interviewer exactly the same questions, in

the same order and under the same circumstances. Questions are often specific and have a

fixed range of answers. The above conditions enable aggregation and statistical

comparison of the answers (Bryman 2001: 107).

Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with civil servants dealing with

producer groups on the country and the Province level. The semi- structured interview is

one type of qualitative research interview. These techniques are usually much less

structured, and the interview process is flexible. The emphasis is more on the

interviewee’s point of view, on what the interviewee sees as relevant and important. The

interviewer has therefore a list of topics that must be covered rather than specific

questions, and it depends on him or her in which order they will appear and whether this

can be achieved in one or more meetings. The interviewer must collect as detailed and

rich answers as possible. Semi-structured interviews differ in that the interviewer has a

list of questions or fairly specific topics to be covered, however the interviewer decides

about the order of questions, and whether or not to ask some extra questions. All the

listed questions will be asked and a similar wording will be used in each interview (ibid:

311).

The table below give an outline of sampling procedures and techniques. Numbers in

brackets are numbers of associated farmers. According to the interview carried out with

8

the extension service official in July 2003, there were that time 61 groups which

associated 3,934 farmers to producer groups and 9 groups associating 261 farmers which

split up.

These numbers changed slightly by early 2005, the time when I completed my research.

At that time 55 functioning groups and 19 groups which stopped their activity were

identified.

I was going to interview the whole population of the recognized groups, however, due to

a few refusals and problems with finding current contact numbers of some other groups,

this was not possible. The majority of groups excluded from the research were those

groups which split up. For these, it was often difficult to find the former leaders or, due to

the failure of the group, the former leaders were reluctant to meet for an interview. A few

other refusals were due to health or family problems of the leader, or his lack of time.

Due to the above-mentioned problems 50 functioning groups and 12 groups which split

up were eventually subjected to the research. These 50 functioning groups associated

4.056 farmers, and the 12 which stopped their activity associated 394 farmers.

Table 1: Sampling procedure, techniques of the research (PG: producer group):

Provinces

Producer groups

Population Sample Population

Targeted

Full

Sampling Selection 2003 2005

17 provinces ± 700 PGs ± 700 PGs

Wielkopolska 61 +9 PGs 55 +19 PGs

61 functioning PGs (3934 members) +9 split up PGs (261 members) 55 functioning PGs (±4462 members) +19 split up PGs (±624 members)

50 functioning PGs

(4056 members) +12 split up PGs (394 members)

Technique semi-structured interviews with civil servants dealing with PGs on the country and province level

structured interviews with group leaders

9

2.2. Organisation of the questionnaire and timing

The structured interview with producer group leaders was organised into a questionnaire

composed of 5 parts. The first part comprised 12 general questions such as the group’s

address, legal status, number of members, and activities performed. The further 5 parts

regarded the process of formation of the group, functioning of the group (divided into 3

sections: management and decision making, production and marketing, and membership),

costs and benefits of cooperation, the role of the institutional environment, and

leadership. These 5 parts comprised 120 questions in total. Two types of questions were

asked in the questionnaire. The first type of questions was related to facts such as

numbers or descriptions of processes; the second type was related to subjective

evaluation of these facts.

Each interview was preceded by a phone call arranging the appointment with leaders

either in their houses or in the group’s office. Each interview on average took about 2

hours, the shortest one took about one hour, the longest about 4 hours. The time of the

interview depended on the complexity of the group’s history, situation and actions

performed, availability of the leader, and also willingness of the leader to talk.

All interviews were carried out between the end of December 2004 and May 2005. Due

to heavy snow the research had to be stopped for a few weeks during the winter time.

Within this time 61 group leaders were interviewed; two leaders of groups which split up

refused to meet (in one case the questionnaire was carried out with one of the former

management members), leaders of 5 groups were willing to meet, but due to different

reasons the appointments didn’t take place. Interviews with 6 other groups which had

split up did not take place, due to having no current contact information for people who

were involved in the group activity.

10

3. Empirical Results

3.1. General information about producer groups in Wielkopolska

In total 62 producer groups from Wielkopolska Province were subjected to the research.

By the time when the interview was carried out 50 groups were still operating, 12 groups

stopped activity.

The groups were not equally geographically distributed. Most of them were located in the

area of Kalisz (19 groups), Poznań (17 groups) and Leszno (13 groups).

Poznan-17 groupsKalisz-19 groupsPila-7 groupsKonin-6 groupsLeszno-13 groups

Region

Also some poviats (the polish equivalent of a county; on average they cover 850 sq

kilometres, there are in total over 200 poviats in Wielkopolska), tend to have more groups

than other poviats. There were 6 groups in the poviat of Gostyn, and 5 groups in the

county of Jarocin and poviat of Kalisz.

The average number of members per group was 71, the smallest group, in fresh tomatoes,

had only 5 members, the biggest, in potatoes, associated 700 farmers

11

Regarding the start up year, most of the groups were established in and around 1999,

though interestingly the earliest group initiated cooperation in 1992. The chart below

presents the start up time distribution.

Chart 1: Start up year of the groups (N=62)

1992 1993 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004

Start up year

0

5

10

15

20

Freq

uenc

y

Of the 12 groups which split up, most of them stopped activity about the year of 2002.

12

Chart 2: Split up year of the groups (N=62)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

EndYear

0

1

2

3

4

Freq

uenc

y

The most common legal forms of the groups were ‘associations’ and ‘unions’. Twenty-

three groups were functioning as associations, 18 as unions, 14 as limited liability

companies, 5 as informal groups, and only 2 as cooperatives.

Over half the groups (55%) introduced an entrance fee as a source of their group income,

31% appropriated a percentage from joint sales or purchases, 29% sold shares, and 24%

used membership fees. Besides, about 16% of groups had other sources of income such

as subsidies, profits from slaughtering, transportation, organising training for non-

associated farmers, etc.

Considering the main output produced by the members, the prevailing number of them

were dealing with pork (35), 13 groups were in different kinds of vegetables, 4 in fruits,

and 3 in grains. There was only one group involved in each of potatoes, pork and cattle,

hops, mushrooms, poultry, and rape, and one group of described as of ‘general’ character.

Joint sales of the output produced by the members were conducted by two thirds of the

groups (66% of the groups). 64% of the groups organised different kinds of trainings and

educational trips for their members, 55% of groups organised joint purchases of the

13

means of production, 45% integration events, and 22.6% joint transportation of the

output.

A few groups were also performing some other, less common kinds of activities. For

instance four groups organised insurance for the members, three other groups were

sorting, packing and storing the products together, two groups were preliminarily

processing the output (one group was slaughtering pigs, and one was drying and

purifying rape). Another interesting finding was that members of one group in tomatoes

were producing the good together, jointly owning the land and the means of production

(like in an old style cooperative). A few other groups also reported organising self-credits

for members (self-credits are member contributions to a common fund from which

members can obtain emergency interest-free loans).

3.2. The Process of Formation of Producer Groups

The interviewers reported 7 different direct types of actions which resulted in establishing

the group. For 40% of groups it was one of farmers who started to organise the group.

These initial organizers were usually local community leaders, and often were members

of other agricultural non-governmental organisations such as trade unions and

associations of pork or fruit producers.

A further 24% of groups were formed as a result of a meeting for farmers organised by

the agricultural extension service or the municipality office. 17% of groups, particularly

these in pork, were formed as a result of farmers’ strikes which took place at the end of

1999 and beginning of 2000. Farmers were protesting against a dramatic decrease in the

price if pork and in most cases they were blocking the roads. As the interviewees

reported, the strikes created for the farmers an opportunity to meet and discuss their

situation together, and also it was for them often the first time when they undertook joint

actions. The meetings and discussions brought the farmers to the conclusion that only if

they were united and associated in some kind of organisation, would they be strong

enough to impact on the government and to influence the agricultural market.

14

Among other direct actions which resulted in the formation of groups were initiation

resulting from a local processing plant (10% of groups), by an outside businessman

(3.2%), by a former socialistic municipality cooperative (3.2%), and in one case (1.6%)

the cooperation was initiated by a wholesale market.

The stage of planning and organising the group took usually about 5 months, and on

average 6.5 people were involved in the planning stage.

The majority of interviewees reported that most of the farmers who formed the groups

knew each other before. The acquaintance resulted mainly from ordinary neighbourhood

relationships (89.8%), social relationships (50%, such as from membership in the same

cooperative, organising the strikes together, membership in other organisations), business

relationships (24.2%), supplying the same plant (13%), and family relationships (6.5%).

Only in the case of 3 groups (4.8%) did most of members not know each other before.

During the formation, most groups were open to all farmers who wanted to join them

(69.4%), only 30.6% of groups applied some selection criteria to the members, such as

minimum volume of production, or character of the farmer (whether they were open to

new things, and not quarrelsome).

Regarding external factors which led to formation of the groups, the respondents pointed

too low prices as the most significant (2.48 on a 1 to 3 scale, where: 1-not a factor, 2-

minor factor, and 3-major factor), lack of bargaining power by individual farmers (2.39),

too high variability or uncertainty of prices (2.32), and ineffectively performed marketing

services (2.02).

15

Chart 3: External factors leading to the formation of producer groups (N=62)

(1 to 3 scale, where: 1-not a factor, 2-minor factor, and 3-major factor)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Prices weretoo low

Marketingservices werenot performed

effectively

Prices weresubjected to

too muchvariability oruncertainity

Marketingoutlet did notexist or wasundepedable

Individualfarmers lacked

barganinigpower

Campaign inthe mass

mediapromoting PGs

Possibility ofobtainingsubsidies

Eval

uatio

n (1

-3)

The interviewees were also asked about the initial aims that the group was supposed to

achieve. On a 1-4 scale (where: 1-not important aim, 2-rather not important, 3-rather

important, and 4-very important aim), the highest score achieved aims which expressed a

general desire to gain more control over the market, to sell at higher prices and to buy

means of production cheaper. The aim of earning higher profits for farmers was evaluated

at 3.79, gaining more bargaining power at 3.76, gaining higher prices at 3.71, and to buy

the means of production cheaper at 3.68.

Other, also important aims of establishment of the groups were such as obtaining easier

and cheaper information about the market (3.55), to provide higher security for

transactions (3.50), building a stable network of purchasers (3.48), saving time spent for

supplies and sales, and reaching higher efficiency of agricultural production (both 3.44).

The lowest score received such aims as obtaining different kinds of subsidies for

production available only for members of producer groups (1.74), obtaining support

offered for producer groups (2.50), and not competing with one another (2.58).

16

The average starting up capital varied quite much amongst the groups. The mean equalled

6,137 EUR, allocating 347 EUR per member. The standard deviation from the mean,

however, was quite high. 5 groups did not have any starting up capital, and one group in

fresh tomatoes had a starting up capital amount as high as 113 925 EUR.

Tab. 2: Starting up capital and starting up capital per member (in EUR)

N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation

Start up capital 62 0 113 925

6 137

16 102

Start up capital per member 62 0 6 400

347

1 055

Only 3 groups used debt as a source of the initial capital. In one case the money was

borrowed from a commercial bank, in the 2 other cases from earlier unions of producers

on which bases the producer groups were formed.

The most commonly used source of advice during the process of formation was the

extension service (with a result of 1.92 on a 1-3 scale, where: 1-was not source of advice,

2-minor source of advice, 3-major source of advice), advisors from the municipality

office (1.74), private consultants, like e.g. lawyers (1.63), and other groups (1.47). The

advice was mainly regarding the choice of the legal structure, registration in court, and

writing a statute and a business plan.

Considering the choice of the marketed output by the groups, in most of cases it was in

accordance with the previous production of farmers who joined the group (about 89%), in

only 8% of cases the product was chosen due to anticipation of high profitability, in one

case due to availability of drying equipment, and in one other the choice was made by an

extension civil servant.

The respondents were also asked to state the biggest problems to be overcome at the

formation stage. What is very interesting, is the two major problems related to

membership issues; members commitment (with the value of 2.05 on a 1-3 scale where 1-

not a problem, 2-minor problem, 3-major problem), and to trust each other (1.95). Other

reported problems were problems sourcing buyers for the products (1.90), problems

17

associated with leadership (1.48), difficulties associated with obtaining advice on how to

form a producer group (1.47), problems in agreeing upon the legal form of the group

(1.42), problems with finance some necessary investments, and bookkeeping (both 1.39).

These results suggest that regarding critical factors of success or failure of these forms of

rural cooperation, such governance issues as to agree with one another and to trust each

other appear to be more crucial than pure market and economic factors.

3.3. Functioning

As it was already mentioned among 62 groups investigated in this piece of research 50

were still functioning while 12 groups have split up. In this section only the groups which

were functioning when the interview was carried out will be taken into account.

Questions within this section were organised around 3 topics; management and decision

making issues; production and marketing; and membership issues.

3.3.1. Section 1: Management and decision making

Considering the 50 functioning groups, the average number of managers in the group

management team was 4.22. The maximum number of managers was 12 persons, 3

groups did not have a management team at all, and 2 groups had 1 person management

(the function was exercised by the leader).

The average number of meetings of the management team per year was 32, what gives

about 2.5 meeting per month; the average number of meetings of the all members per

year was nearly 10, which implies 1 meeting every 5 weeks.

Nine groups reported having an ‘outsider’ in their management team - usually it was an

extension service official.

For half of the groups the most important executive (taking most of decisions) was the

management, for 27.4% the leader, for 13% all groups members, and in case of 9 groups

(14.5%) there were no decisions taken that time at all (due to experiencing crisis).

Considering decisions taken by the general assembly, or all members of the producer

group, the prevailing structure adopted was one member one vote principle (for 88% of

the producer groups), which is one of the basic rule of the cooperative movement. It is

18

also interesting to note that this also occurs in groups which function as commercial

companies, where members own different number of shares in the company. Only 4

groups (8%) imposed member decision making power equal to patronage.

Regarding group revenues and expenditures, 8% of groups reported not having any group

income at all, 30% of groups spent all the revenues on operational activity, 14%

accumulated all revenues and did not spend anything for the operational activity, 26%

spent some revenues on operational activity and saved some, and 18% spent on the latter

purposes and also invested some of the revenues.

Additionally one group spent the group money for operational activity, capital

accumulation, investments, and also paid dividends from equity capital to its members,

and one other group spent revenues on operational activity and charity (funding

scholarships for talented children from the local community).

Chart 4. Expenditures of producer groups (N=50)

Expenditures of prodcuer groups

4

16

7

14

9

1 1

02468

1012141618

no g

roup

mon

ey

all r

even

ues

spen

t on

oper

atio

nal a

ctiv

ity

ever

ythi

ng a

ccul

mul

ated

som

e sp

ent o

n op

erat

iona

lac

tivity

, som

e ac

cum

ulat

ed

som

e sp

ent o

n op

erat

iona

lac

tivity

, som

e ac

cum

ulat

ed,

som

e in

vest

ed

som

e sp

ent o

n op

erat

iona

lac

tivity

, som

e ac

umul

ated

, som

ein

vest

ed, a

nd s

ome

on d

ivid

ents

som

e sp

ent o

n op

earti

onal

activ

ity, s

ome

on c

harit

y

The respondents were also asked how they would describe members’ participation in the

decision making process, specifically whether the members are passive and do not

suggest/propose anything to the management, or from time to time they propose to do

19

something, or they are very active and often propose the management or leader to do

something. The results are in accordance with normal distribution, 26% of leaders

described their members as very passive, 46% as proposing something from time to time,

and 28% as very active.

In most of groups, members were rather acquiescent, only 36% of groups have reported

experiencing any member conflicts. Similarly with respect to expressing complaints by

members, only 24% of groups have reported the articulation of complaints by the

members against the management or leader’s performance.

The conflicts were mainly related to commitment issues, such as selling products outside

the agreed boundaries set by the group, and lack of a common vision for the group (8

groups). Other areas of conflicts cited were due to financial problems and lack of

transparency (4 groups), bad management, some failed decisions taken by the

management (3 groups), and due to the leader’s performance (1 group).

The most common area of members’ complaints was that the management negotiates too

low prices or there were delays of payments (7 groups). Other complaints regarded the

plant’s policy, performance of the management, performance of the leader, and

organisation of the transportation (in each case 1 group).

3.3.1. Section 2: Production and marketing

The majority of interviewers (64%) declared that the volume of goods marketed by the

group grows over time. Most of the groups sell the products directly to processors.

Processors are the main source of sales for 79.5% of groups. 25% of groups indicated

wholesalers as both the main and minor source of sells. Only one group (2%) indicated

these source of sales as ‘other’, mainly retail stores and restaurants.

Generally speaking, the position of the groups within the retail chain is quite good, half

of the groups pointed to processors producing final goods as the most important

purchasers of groups’ output, 37% of them pointed processors producing half-processed

products, and only 12% of groups pointed middlemen as the main source of sales. Also

the contracting position seems to be quite good for the producer groups in this study. 61%

of groups reported having long-term contracts with the purchasers, with different levels

of formalisation but with the price not stated in the contract. 12% of groups used shot-

20

term contracts. 22% did not have any agreement, although the purchasers were the same

each time they sold. Only 2 groups (4%) were selling their products each time to different

purchasers.

The data shows a relatively high interdependence of the groups to the purchasers.

On average each group performing joint sales of the products produced by their members

was selling the output to 1.7 processors and 1.5 middlemen. Nonetheless, due to the high

fluctuation of the prices, the groups did not perceive themselves as independent nor as

having a good position on the market.

Nonetheless, regarding effectiveness of the groups in terms of obtaining higher prices for

output for the group members, the producer groups of the study appear to be quite

successful. 76% of interviewees (leaders of groups which negotiate prices for their

members, there were 46 such cases) declared that on average their group members

obtained higher prices than non-member farmers. For 24% the price for members and

non-members was the same, and there were so cases where members obtained lower

prices than non-members. The price for members was on average 8.7% higher than for

non-members.

What is also interesting, many of the interviewees did not see the competition on the

market as a threat for their groups. For those who did, the most frequent source of threat

on the market was private companies such as middlemen (about 50% of the interviewees

pointed them as both main and minor competitors). Other individual farmers were seen as

competitors only for 19% of respondents, and other producer groups for 15% of

respondents. Cooperatives were perceived as competitors for none of the interviewees.

Besides, 3 leaders (2 of groups in vegetables and one in hop) pointed the international

competition with countries as Hungary, Serbia, Germany, China and America as a threat

for their businesses.

Many of interviewees complained about price instability and fluctuations. They were

often arguing that a single group is too small to change something on the market in

favour of farmers. Therefore, a question about cooperation with other groups and

21

coordination of some group actions on the broader level was incorporated in the

questionnaire.

60% of functioning groups cooperated with some other producer groups, though on

average each of these groups cooperated only with 2 other groups. In half of the cases the

cooperation consisted just in exchange of experience and sharing problems. 17% of

groups planned coordination of some actions in the future, and 33% actually were

coordinating some actions. The actions were not very advanced, in most of cases it was

no more than informing each other about retail possibilities and prices offered by their

purchasers.

3.3.3: Section 3: Membership issues

As was already mentioned, the most frequent problem for the producer groups was to

overcome commitment and problems with selling outside agreed boundaries. What is

remarkable in light of this, is that only half of the existing groups used some kind of

marketing agreement between the group and its members, and only 36% of these groups

have imposed any sanctions for not fulfilling the agreements.

This low rate of formalisation and rigorousness of the performance must nonetheless be

considered in terms of embeddness of the groups in their local institutional environment.

Many of the leaders pointed out that it is difficult for them to apply formal rules and

sanctions towards the group members, who are often their close neighbours and friends.

It could be observed therefore that the degree of formalisation of the members is

dependent on the size and geographical dispersion of the group.

The majority of groups (60%) which used marketing agreements between associated

members were more geographically dispersed, and associated members who lived in one

or more poviat (the polish equivalent of a county; on average they cover 850 sq

kilometres).

In total, considering the geographical dispersion of the groups, 6% of groups associated

members who lived within the same village, 30% associated members who lived mostly

within one municipality, 24% of groups associated members who lived mostly within one

poviat, and 40% of the groups associated members who lived within more than one

poviat.

22

In terms of volume of production most of members associated non-homogonous

members, who had very differentiated economic potential. 86% of the leaders declared

that their groups unite members who produce dissimilar quantities of the product. In 74%

of groups most of the members participated with their main crop.

About half of the groups experienced some fluctuations of the quantity of members. The

tendency was towards the increase of the number of members. On average each group

gained 11.5 new members, and lost 5.6 members. The biggest flow of new members

equalled 156; the biggest lost of members equalled 131. The average period of

membership came to 4.3 years.

Most of the leaders would like their groups to grow in terms of the number of members.

The mean number of optimal number of members quoted by them equalled to 138 (the

actual mean number of members for the functioning groups was 81).

3.4. Benefits and Costs of Cooperation

On this point I would like to discuss what kind of benefits the group provides for its

members. The data will come from all the groups I have interviewed, also from these

which split up, since during the interview the former leader quite often said that although

the group did not exist any more, former member farmers were still gaining some

benefits of the collective actions. Nevertheless, the data will be split into two categories -

the results for the functioning groups and for the split up groups.

In this part of the questionnaire the initial motives of establishing the group were

transformed into affirmative sentences about outcomes of the activity, with which the

interviewees could strongly disagree (coded as 1), rather disagree (2), rather agree (3),

and fully agree (4).

As the below table presents, most of members of the functioning groups benefit from

obtaining easier and cheaper information about the market (question 12, mean answer =

3.60), using in the group knowledge and skills of the associated farmers in a more

efficient way (question 15, mean answer = 3.52), and gaining more bargaining power in

the group in the relations with purchasers (question 3, mean answer = 3.38).

23

Considering members of the groups that stopped their activity, the results show that

although the groups split up, their members in many cases are still in touch and some of

them benefit from the previous contacts. Thus there is a continued value to the existence

of the group in the past, measured through the networks which were formed and endure,

even after the group formally disbanded. Many of the former group members still inform

each other about different market opportunities (question 12, mean answer = 2.17), they

do not compete unnecessary with one another (question 16, mean answer = 1.92), they

offer one another some kind of mutual help, and probably due to the diffusion of the

knowledge are reaching higher efficiency of production (questions 7 and 14, both mean

answers = 1.75).

Tab. 3: Benefits of the cooperation Mean of the answers

(1-strongly disagree, 2-rather

disagree,

3-rather agree, 4-fully agree)

Question

Functioning

groups (N=50)

Split up groups

(N=12)

1. Our farmers are gaining higher prices for their output 3.12 1.17

2. Our farmers are earning higher profits 3.20 1.42

3. Our farmers gained more bargaining power, are able to set higher

prices

3.38 1.25

4. We obtained access to some additional markets 2.88 1.25

5. We excluded middlemen 2.56 1.33

6. Our farmers gained more investment power 2.52 1.25

7. Our farmers are offering one another certain services 2.94 1.75

8. Our farmers are buying means of production cheaper 3.38 1.50

9. Our farmers reduced their costs of output distribution 2.96 1.00

10. Our group built a stable network of purchasers 2.68 1.00

11. Our group negotiated long term contracts 2.48 1.00

12. Our farmers are obtaining easier and cheaper information about

the market (they inform one another about different possibilities)

3.60 2.17

13. Our farmers are saving time spent for supplies and sales 3.24 1.67

14. Our farmers are reaching higher efficiency of production 3.10 1.75

24

15. Our farmers use in the group their knowledge and skills in a

more efficient way

3.52 1.67

16. Our farmers stopped unnecessary competition between

themselves

3.12 1.92

17. Our group managed to provide higher security for the

transactions

3.12 1.00

18. Our farmers are maintaining the profitability of their production

by obtaining subsidies for production

1.62 1.17

19. Our group obtained some kind of external support from the

EU/central/regional/local authorities

1.48 1.00

The majority of the leaders had some knowledge of the subsidies offered for agricultural

producer groups paid from the EU and the country budget (92% of the functioning

groups’ leaders, 75% of the split up groups’ leaders). Some of the leaders pointed also to

other sources of support available for producer groups (such as local governments,

NGOs, and banks), although there were several leaders who did not know anything about

any sources of financial assistance.

56% of the functioning groups and 25% of the split up groups have already applied for

some kind of support. 32% of the functioning groups have received the subsidies, and

18% were expecting to get it soon. Considering the groups which split up, all of those

who applied for the support received it.

The leaders of the functioning groups were also asked about the costs of functioning as a

producer group.

Administration costs such as costs of running the office and bookkeeping were perceived

as the highest costs by the leaders (1.92 on a 3 to 1 scale, where: 3 is a major costs, 2 is a

minor costs and 1 is not a costs). Enforcing what was agreed by the group was perceived

as the second highest costs (1.74), obtaining member commitment as the third (1.65).

What is also interesting the fourth highest costs was not initially listed in the

questionnaire – the time of the leader - which was also ranked high (1.61). This result

was not surprising, given that most of leaders did not receive any financial reward for

their work and time spent for the group. It was documented that they actually were

spending their private money for the group activity. Often they used their private phone

25

or car and other members were not very willing to reimburse their expenses. Many of the

leaders pointed out that the member farmers are not willing either to employ a group

manager or to pay a salary for the leader, and did the members did not want to understand

that working full-time for the group means neglecting the leaders’ own farms.

Another highly ranked cost of running a producer group was paying membership fees

(1.48 on the 3 to 1 scale).

Despite the costs overall over half the leaders of the functioning groups (62%) thought

that benefits from their group’s functioning were higher than the running costs. 30%

thought that the benefits equal the costs, and only 8% declared that cost are higher than

benefits of the group’s functioning.

Also over half of the leader of the functioning groups (64%) thought that their group

achieved success. 28% described it as a major success, 2% as a middle success, 34%

called it a minor success. For 10% of he groups it was too early to say. Nonetheless, for

26% of the leaders their groups did not achieve success. Considering the groups which

split up, it was obvious that all of the leaders said that their groups were not successful.

Considering the issue of how the leader understood their success, most of them

interpreted success either in economic or in collective action terms. It was described

using such expressions as: they managed to organise joint sales, they managed to

organise a joint purchaser, they negotiated better prices, the farmers gained a better

position on the market, the group is well known on the market. The later, collective

action success was described by such phrases as: the farmers managed to build something

together, the farmers are still together, the group consolidate or integrated the members,

and the farmers manage to build something.

A few other leaders perceived the group success also in term of obtaining subsidies, and a

few others in terms of fulfilling EU regulations or achieving better quality products.

3.5. The Role of the Institutional Environment

In this section the respondents first were asked to evaluate the local climate for doing

business. They were asked 7 different questions concerning their opinion about the public

26

administration, cooperation with civil servants, law, finding trustworthy partners for

doing business, obtaining capital, interests of the people in doing business and

competition with big industry. They could disagree with these sentences (ranked as 1),

rather disagree (2), rather agree (3), and agree (4).

As the table below shows the leaders had on average a rather positive opinion about the

local public institutions, law and local civil servants. However, they were more sceptical

about possibilities of obtaining capital for doing business, finding trustworthy partners,

and about competition with the big industry.

Tab. 4: Evaluation of local climate for doing business (N=62)

How do you evaluate local climate for doing business? Disagree-1, rather disagree-2, rather agree-3, agree-4 Mean

1. It is easy to do all the administration job required by the law 2.10 2. It is easy to cooperate with local civil servants 2.84 3. The local law acts in favour of businessmen 2.42 4. It is easy to find trustworthy partners 1.89 5. It is easy to obtain capital 1.54 6. People here are interested in doing business 2.95 7. There is too high competition with big industry on the local market 2.84

The group leaders were also asked about the number of producer groups and cooperatives

which function in their group’s neighbourhood (understood as a range about 20 km). On

average the interviewees knew about 1.3 producer groups and 1.1 cooperatives operating

near their group. About 40% of groups did not have either other groups or cooperatives in

the neighbourhood at all, however, there were some cases were there was very high

density of collective enterprises and the groups bordered with 5 or 6 other groups or

cooperatives.

Taking into consideration contacts of producer groups with public institutions, the most

frequent contact the groups had was dealing with municipality officials (1.97 on the 3-1

scale, where: 3-frequent contacts, 2-from time to time, 1-no contacts), with the

agricultural extension service officials (1.94), with poviat officials (county) and with the

Agency of Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (both institutions 1.58). The

leaders on average evaluated this cooperation with civil servants positively (all about

27

3.65, on a 5-1 scale, where: 5-very helpful, 4-rather helpful, 3-neutral, 2-rather not

helpful, 1-not helpful).

Tab. 5: Cooperation of groups with public institutions (N=62)

With which public institutions does the group cooperate? Frequency of contacts (mean)

Evaluation of the cooperation (mean)

3-frequent contacts, 2-from time to time, 1-no contacts

5-very helpful, 4-rather helpful, 3-neutral, 2-rather not helpful, 1-not helpful

1. Voivodhip (province) officials 1.53 4.00 2. Poviat (county) officials 1.58 3.48 3. Municipality officials 1.97 3.67 4. Agricultural extension service 1.94 3.61 5. Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture

1.58 3.62

6. Other institutions 1.56 3.68

Over half of the group leaders (53%) declared good knowledge of the law and regulations

pertaining to producer groups, 27.5% knew the law partially and only 19.5% did not have

any knowledge of it. Nevertheless, overall the leaders evaluated the law disapprovingly.

The mean evaluation equalled to 2.47 (on a 5 to 1 scale, where: 5-positive, 4-rather

positive, 3-difficult to say, 2-rather negative, 1-negative). The most frequent reason of

complaining about the legal regulations was that the law does not offer any tax

preferences for producer groups, and the groups have to pay the same taxes as other

business entities, and that the law requires too much bureaucracy and administration

work in order to receive the subsidies, which seriously increases costs of functioning and

is difficult to fulfil by small groups. Other reasons for the disapproving attitude to

legislations were that the law is not clear and not precise and there is confusion about it

even among civil servants. The leaders were also not happy about the stated purpose of

spending the subsidies (only for administration purposes), and that there is a time-lag (the

groups can receive the subsidies only after one year of functioning). Some leaders

thought that it would be better if the support could be offered at the beginning of

functioning, as it would allow the groups to expand their activity already at the start up.

28

The last question in this section regarded attitudes of the local community towards the

cooperation of farmers. The leaders could evaluate the attitudes of their neighbourhood

community towards different forms of farmer cooperation as positive (5), positive (4),

neutral (3), rather negative (2), and negative (jealousy, low trust, scepticism, coded as 1).

11.3% of the leaders described the local environment as positive, 30.6% as rather

positive, and 22.6% as neutral. 30.6% of the leaders thought their local community had

rather negative attitudes towards farmer cooperation, and 4.8% ranked it as entirely

negative. What is interesting, is that the mean for all groups was slightly lower than the

mean for existing groups (3.13 for all groups to 3.18 for still operating groups), which

indicates a slightly more unfriendly local environment in the places where producer

groups split up.

3.6. The profile of the group leaders

The majority of the leaders were leading their groups since the beginning of their

establishment. Only 24% were second or third group chiefs. The average period of

leadership was about 4.5 years.

The most frequent reason of the leader’s change was that the previous one was too busy

with other things, and didn’t have enough time to devote for the group (5 such cases), in

two cases the previous leader appeared to be dishonest, and in other single cases the

change resulted from: the previous leader not selling his products with the group;

passivity and lack of managerial skills; due to death of the leader; due to a change of the

vision of the group and new elections; and in the last case the group had a rule that the

whole management team and the leader must change every four years in order to give a

chance new people and that the managers will not get accustomed to their positions.

In the next part of the questionnaire the leaders were asked 25 different questions which

described their relationship with the group, other groups, and with the local community,

with which they could agree (4), rather agree (3), rather disagree (2), and fully disagree

(1).

Most of the leaders reported to know personally most of the group members before

establishing of the producer group (80% for both answers agree and rather agree). About

29

35% of the leaders had previous friendship relationship with most of the group members,

however, only 19% reported to have some family relationship with some of the group

members. Also about 35% of the leaders reported to have some previous business

relationship with some of the group members, and what is interesting 96% of them were

satisfied with doing that business.

The leaders generally speaking see their own role in the group as quite principal. About

60% of them agreed with such sentences as: “It was I who had the biggest impact on this

how the group looks like today”, “I convinced most of the members to join the group”, “I

found most of purchasers of our output”, and “I take most of decisions regarding the

group”.

Nonetheless, almost all the leaders (97%) appeared to be fairly democratic and admitted

that they always ask other members for advice before taking the most important

decisions.

Quite many leaders (about 75%) also reported having good knowledge of the local

people, the local environment, and the local decisions makers, which means overall they

have good positions within the local networks.

A positive result to emerge, despite all the problems producer groups facing, was that

most of the interviewees (about 60%) were satisfied (to some degree) the leadership of

their groups. However, only 36% of them wanted to lead the group if it were possible.

These findings as well as the other not mentioned are presented in the table below.

30

Tab. 6: The leaders’ profile (N=62)

Do you agree with: Agree:4, rather agree: 3, rather disagree:2, disagree:1

Mean: 1. I knew personally most of members of the Producer Group (PG) before 3.48 2. I had friendship relationship with most of the members before establishing the PG

2.87

3. I had family relationship with some of the members before establishing the PG 1.54 4. I had business relationship with some of the members before establishing the PG

2.05

5. If yes, I was satisfied with doing that business with that people 3.76 6. It was I who had the biggest impact on this how the group looks like today 3.72 7. I convinced most of the members to join the group 2.77 8. I found most of the purchasers of our output 2.61 9. I had previous business relationship with the purchasers 2.18 10. I take most of decisions regrinding the group 2.82 11. I always ask other members for advice before taking the most important decisions

3.85

12. I have a good knowledge of local people, local environment 3.72 13. I grew up in this village/municipality 3.20 14. I know personally most of the local decision makers (members of the local government, officials, priest, etc.)

3.77

15. I have friendship relationship with most of them 2.56 16. I have family relationship with most of them 1.18 17. I know leaders of other Pgs 3.39 18. I often meet other leaders 2.38 19. We discuss and exchange experience with the other leaders 2.52 20. A good leader should always listen to the people he/she is governing 3.69 21. I am always ready to listen to advices of other people 3.82 22. I often follow advices of other people 2.52 23. I am satisfied with my membership in the group 3.07 24. I am satisfied with my leadership in the group 2.72 25. I would like to lead the group as long as it will be possible 2.18

Regarding personal characteristic of the leaders the mean age of them was 46 years, the

youngest leader was 25, the oldest 62. Only one leader was female.

95.2% of the leaders were married, the rest (3 respondents) were single. On average each

of them had 2.74 children, six of them did not have any children, and six had 5 children,

which was the highest number.

Most of the interviewees declared to have secondary education (58%), 22.6% declared a

vocational education and slightly less (21.3%) higher education. The average education

31

of the producer group leaders appeared to be much higher than the average education of

Polish farmers. By comparison, only 15.5% of polish farmers completed either secondary

or high education (GUS 2004).

Tab. 7: Leaders’ education (N=62)

Leaders’ education: Frequency Percent Vocational non agricultural 4 6.5 Vocational agricultural 10 16.1 Secondary non agricultural 5 8.1 Secondary agricultural 31 50.0 Higher non agricultural 1 1.6 Higher agricultural 11 17.7

Considering membership of the respondents in different non-governmental organisations,

on average each of them belonged to two organisations. The most frequent was

membership in some agricultural associations and on the second position local division of

the fire brigade, and further local government. There were 15 leaders who did not belong

to any organisation and one leader who belong to as many as 7 different bodies.

Almost half of the interviewees (48.4%) did not have any other professional experience

other than working on the farm, 35.5% worked outside the farm, and 16% worked in the

agricultural sector but not as farmers (most of them were employed by agricultural

cooperatives). 6.5% besides declared having experience working abroad.

When the interview was carried out for over half of the leaders (51.6%) farming was the

only one source of the income, for 27.4% farming was the main source of income, for

14.5% farming was just additional source of income, and 6.5% reported to have only

other than farming source of income (these were usually professional managers, or

worked in some kind of other agricultural business).

43.5% of the respondents had some previous experience in managing other groups,

cooperative or other management experience, and 34% of them finished management

training.

32

Considering the time the leaders devoted for managing the group, majority of them

(61%), spent for the group less than 10 hours per week, 13% spent 10-20 hrs per week,

8% spent 20-35 hours, and 18% of the leaders spent for the group more than 35 hours per

week.

Most of the leaders worked voluntarily for the group. Only 12 of the interviewees

(19.4%) received salary from the group for their work.

3.7 Critical points during the groups’ functioning

At the end let me quote answers which the interviewed producer group leaders gave to

the question of which problem during running the group was for them the most difficult

to overcome. They could rank the listed problems as major problem (3), minor problem

(2) or not a problem (1), and also give other not listed problems.

What is remarkable, among the first five major problems, only two are related to the

economic issues, and the three other are related to governance and collective action

issues.

As the most frequent problem to overcome the leaders saw members’ commitment and

loyalty of the members (mean rank 2.13). Finding purchasers for the output was ranked

as the second most frequent problem (mean 1.87), to obtain financial support available

for producer groups was seen as the third one (1.84), to build trust among members as the

fourth one (1.82) and leadership was seen as the fifth most frequent problem to overcome

(1.76).

Also among other, not listed problems such institutional components as individuality of

farmers, to encourage other farmers to joint the group, lack of knowledge about market

mechanism among members, mentality of the people and willingness to have immediate

profits, and pessimism of the members were quoted as the major problems for the group

to overcome. In the total among quoted by the respondents other problems 15 are related

to such as the mentioned above governance factors and 13 to economic issues (such as

difficulties to obtain a credit for the group, to find capital, or to deal with price

fluctuations).

33

Tab. 8: Biggest problems to overcome during running of the groups (N=62)

What do you see as the biggest problem to overcome during running of the producer group?

Major problem (3), minor (2), not a problem (1)

Percent of respondents who saw this problem as the biggest one

Mean Percent 1. Group decision making 1.58 1.8 2. Leadership 1.76 7.0 3. Finding purchasers for the output 1.87 17.5 4. Tax requirements 1.48 3.5 5. To cope with/follow the legal acts about Pgs

1.68 3.5

6. To obtain support and advice about Pgs

1.39 0

7. Cooperation and contacts with public institutions

1.32 3.5

8. Bookkeeping 1.29 0 9. To obtain financial support offered for the PGs

1.84 1.8

10. To find money for necessary expenditure

1.53 3.5

11. To build trust among members 1.82 12.3 12. To build trust to the leader and management

1.40 0

13. Members’ commitment, loyalty 2.13 19.3 14. Other 21.1

4. Conclusions

This article presented the main empirical results from a survey carried out in Poland with

leaders of farmer marketing organisations called producer groups. The main aim of

producer groups is to organise joint sales of goods produced by individual farmers. The

survey was conducted within one province from which 50 representatives of functioning

groups and 12 representatives of groups which split up were interviewed.

34

The aim of the survey was to understand the process of formation of the groups, their

functioning, and the influence of the institutional environment, as well as to identify

problems and critical points during the groups’ functioning.

The majority of the groups subjected to the researched associated farmers producing

hogs, vegetables and fruits. The average number of members per group was 71. The main

“official” task of producer groups, which is marketing of the output produced by

individual farmers, was performed only by 66% of the groups.

Most of the groups started up around 1999, just before introduction of the legal bills

about producer groups. Usually the cooperation was initiated by one of the farmers,

usually the community leader. Some groups were formed in cooperation with a former

socialistic municipal cooperative. The groups were regularly formed among people who

knew each other; the acquaintance resulted mainly from ordinary neighbourhood

relationships.

Although the groups appeared to fulfil many social and educational functions too, the

most important motives and aims of establishing the groups were usually of an economic

character, such as earning higher profits and gaining higher prices.

The average start-up capital equalled 347 EUR per members, however, the amount of the

start-up capital varied very highly, some groups reported not having any at all. Only 3

groups used debt as a source of the initial capital.

Considering groups which split up, most of them stopped their activity around 2002. The

most frequent reasons for breaking up were trust and members’ commitment problems.

The functioning groups usually were characterised by strong leadership (the leader

together with a few management members). Regarding decisions taken by the general

assembly, the majority of the groups adopted the “one member one vote” principle.

Overall the market position of the groups which performed joint sales looked quite good

in the data; nonetheless, due to the high fluctuation of prices, the groups perceived

themselves as dependent on their buyers and the whims of the market.

35

The majority of the groups associated members whose economic potential was very

different. Furthermore, larger groups whose members were more geographically

dispersed tended to develop a more advanced governance structure, characterised for

instance by employing formal marketing agreements between members and the group.

Most of the leaders of the functioning groups reported than benefits from their groups’

activity exceeded the costs, and they perceived their groups as successful enterprises. The

most frequent benefits were lowering the information costs, diffusion of knowledge and

learning, and gaining more bargaining power. Administrative costs and the costs of

enforcement were perceived as the highest costs of running the groups.

Among formal institutional factors, which influence the process of formation and

functioning of the producer groups, the availability of subsidies appeared to be the

strongest incentive. About 40% of the functioning groups either had already received a

portion of the subsidies or were expected to receive it soon. Nonetheless, the leaders

perceived the legal bills regulating the conditions of receiving the support as well as the

procedure itself as too complex and too bureaucratic.

The interviewees saw commitment and loyalty of the members as the most frequent

problem during the groups’ functioning.

The above findings suggest that the core element to understand the phenomena of

producer groups in Poland is not only to analyse the economic and market situation of the

groups, but also to investigate the nature of collective actions in their governance

dimensions. For the associated farmers the critical problem appears not to be production

or finding purchasers but to come together, understand each other, trust each other and

avoid of free riding and self profit maximisation behaviour. The forthcoming pieces of

work will therefore further explore these findings in the light of theories of collective

action and cooperation.

36

REFERENCES

Boguta, W., 2002, Organizowanie I działanie grupy producentów rolnych, Fundacja Społdzielczości Wiejskiej, Inowrocław. Bryman, 2003, Research Methods in Social Sciences; Oxford University Press. GUS – Cenral Statistical Office, 2002, Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland, GUS, Warszawa. Legislation: Dziennik Ustaw Nr 88 poz.983, 15 września 2000, z póź. zm. Dziennik Ustaw Nr 229, poz.2273, z późn. zm. 28 listopada 2003. Wielkopolska, 12.12.2003, information about the Province inserted on the official web-siate of the Voivodship: http//:www.wielkopolska.pl. Zarudzki, R., Przepióra, A., Futymski, A., 2000, Poradnik lidera grupy producentów rolnych, Agrolinia, Poznań.