Determination of Dominant Factors of Governance on the Economic, Political, Social and Environmental Aspects of the Agricultural Sector in Iran

اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 2, Volume 33, Issue 2 - Serial Number 44, June 2019, Pages 125-149   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead2.v0i0.78364

Authors

M. Ronaghi¹; M.R. Kohansal^{* 2}; M. Ghorbani¹

¹Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

²Ferdowsi university of Mashhad

Abstract

Introduction: The role of governance is attracting much attention these days and is often considered as a major reason why some countries have experienced faster economic growth than others. A typical definition of governance is the process of making and implementing decisions that affect economic, political and social institutions. Much of this idea of governance, or good governance, is related to the functioning of government within a country, but the concept of governance involves more actors than just government. It includes companies, political parties, the military, non-government organizations (both domestic and international) and even influential individuals. All of these structures have an influence on how decisions are made within a country.
Materials and Methods: The agricultural sector plays a major role in human life, but the share of this sector has decreased in the economic development of Iran. So due to economic sanctions and numerous challenges, attention should be paid to agriculture in Iran. In this study, we determine the factors of agricultural governance which can be used to improve Iran’s agricultural sector. We first use the Meta-synthesis method to find the important factors/variables that have been used in the literature to investigate agricultural governance worldwide. Then we present these variables to two Iranian experts who rank the variables on a worldwide basis using the Shannon Entropy method (which is explained later). The variables from the Meta-synthesis analysis are also presented to a selected group of ten Iranian experts. They identify the important variables of agricultural governance in Iran by modifying, adding, and deleting variables from the meta-synthesis. These experts weigh the variables by a Binary Comparison Matrix (which is explained later). Experts are selected by Snowball sampling and they complete their list (and ranking) through Delphi method. Finally, we compare the global agricultural governance variables from the Shannon Entropy method with those from the pairwise comparison matrix using the Fuzzy method.
Results and Discussion: The results from the pairwise comparison matrix in Iran are different from the results of the Meta-synthesis method worldwide. The Meta-synthesis method shows that international policy, group participation, and cooperative companies, and observance standards have the highest importance and rank. However, for the fuzzy analysis the factors of agricultural employment, group participation and cooperative companies have the highest weight in the political, social and environmental areas and the factors of increase production, and financial and capital markets have the highest importance in the economic area.
The group participation and cooperative companies are common in both methods. Group participation and cooperative companies provide a connection between people and government so that popular demands are easily communicated to the government. Group participation refers to an approach toward building accountability that relies on civil engagement – in which ordinary farmers or cooperative companies demand accountability. The role of group participation is not to replace but to complement and enhance public accountability mechanisms. It includes two categories including Formal social participation, which are social participation mechanisms that are formally written in laws and Informal social participation, which are social participation mechanisms which are not written in law. Easy access to financial resources is one of the requirements for investment and development of the agricultural sector. However, due to the characteristics of the agricultural sector in Iran, and the lack of developed agricultural financial markets, this sector faces investment constraints.
The agricultural sector can be one of the sectors which provides meaningful employment for the rural population. This research suggests that increasing agricultural employment is important for improving agricultural governance. Despite having such a large reduction in employment, the agricultural sector still employs three times more than any other sector.
Agricultural production is vitally important to the world. Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for 2.5 billion people in the world, yet the growth of agricultural productivity has stalled. Yields for major grains grow by about 1 percent per year, which is lower than the population growth rate. Given that, expanding the cultivated area is not possibility to meet future needs so increasing agricultural productivity is the only solution to feeding the growing (urbanized) population (who has higher food demand). The use of modern communications methods in extension services can foster adoption of new technologies and promote profitable cultivation among farmers. Increasing productivity among smallholders in developing countries is a crucial instrument to guarantee food security in the long-run (Dethier et al, 2011).
One of the most important worldwide variables of agricultural governance is international policy. The international aspects of agriculture policy have an important role in pursuing the fundamental objectives of governments. For instance, the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union emphasizes agricultural productivity, as a fair standard of living for farmers, ensuring reasonable prices for consumers, and promoting stability in markets (in particular stabilizing imports and exports) as well as food security (Ciolos, 2012). Another significant variable in agricultural governance worldwide is observance standards. Standards and technical regulations have attracted increasing attention in ongoing regional and global trade policy dialogue as tariff and quota issues seem to assume a declining dimension. With the reduction in the applicability of tariff barriers, the adoption rate of standards as a trade restrictive strategy has increased significantly.
Conclusion: Group participation shows that the introduction of civic engagement into the entire process of allocating, spending and monitoring public resources can help produce significant operational results (improved performance, the introduction of corrective measures) and process outcomes (Institutional, behavioral and relational changes). This can take the form of direct farmer participation in formulating public policy and budgets in the agricultural sector. Participatory policy formulation has become an increasingly common trend, particularly with the introduction of the poverty reduction strategies at the national and community levels driven by development initiatives at the local level. Participatory budget formation usually occurs at the local level, but at higher levels, representatives of the farming community can play an important role in expressing farmers' preferences in setting up and financing budgets.

Keywords

Agricultural governance; Group participation; Fuzzy method; Meta synthesis

References

1- Alizadeh A., Amadeh A., and Baqaian M. 2014. Impact of Economic Sanctions on Employment Level in Iran. Ministry of Science, Research and Technology - Allameh Tabatabai University, Department of Economics. (In Persian)

2- Antle J. 1983. Infrastructure and aggregate agricultural productivity: international evidence. Economic Development and Cultural Change 31: 609–619.

3- Asgharpur M. 2004. Multi-criteria decision making. Tehran, Tehran University Press. (In Persian)

4- Artstein S., Ball K.M., Barthe F., and Naor A. 2004. Solution of Shannon’s Problem on the Monotonicity of Entropy. Math. Soc, 17: 975–982.

5- Atanassov K.T. 1999. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Springer.

6- Bard J.F., and Sousk S.F. 1990. A Trade Analysis for Rough Terrain Cargo Handlers Using the AHP: An Example of Group Decision Making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 37: 222-228.

7- Barnett E., and Thomas J. 2009. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods NCRM Working Paper Series. Homepage: www.ncrm.ac.uk.

8- Benson A., and Jafry T. 2013. The State of Agricultural Extension: An Overview and New Caveats for the Future. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 19: 381-393.

9- Bijman J., Sanjen G., and Hanisch M. 2014. Shifting control? Thte changes of internal governance agricultural cooperatives in the EU. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 85: 641–661.

10- Bitzar V., Bertus W., and de Steenhuijsen P. 2016. The governance of agricultural extension systems. Kit working papers.

11- Booth A., Papaoianno D., and Sutton A. 2012. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage.

12- CAPMAS. 2006. Final Results of the General Population Survey and Housing Conditions. Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), Cairo, Egypt, 3–7.

13- Chakrabortty S., Pal M., and Nayak P.K. 2013. Intuitionistic fuzzy optimization technique for Pareto optimal solution of manufacturing inventory models with shortages. European Journal of Operational Research 228: 381–387.

14- Chinsinga B., and Cabral L. 2010. The limits of decentralized governance: the case of agriculture in Malawi. Policy Brief 33, Future Agricultures.

15- Ciolos D. 2012. International aspects of agricultural policy.” BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR THE ADVISORY GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURE.

16- Dethier J., and Effenberger A. 2011. Food and agriculture challenges are examined in Evaluative Lessons for Agriculture and Agribusiness by the Evaluation Cooperation Group. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 5553.

17- Dekker R., and Bekkers V. 2015. The contingency of governments' responsiveness to the virtual public sphere: A systematic literature review and meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly 32: 496–505.

18- DFID UNDP, EC and WB. 2009. Analyzing Governance and Political Economy in Sectors. Joint Donor Workshop, London, UK, 2–6.

19- Division for democratic governance. 2002. The Political Institutions Participation in Democratic Governanc, Good Governance.

20- Donkor S., and Ohiokpehai O. 1998. The relationship between food security and good governance. In: Africa HUGG International Symposium: Food Security and Governance in Africa. .

21- Elmenofi G., Bilali H., and Sinisa B. 2014. Governance of rural development in Egypt. Annals of Agricultural Science 59: 285–296.

22- Fan S., Jitsuchon S., and Methakunnavut N. 2004. The importance of public investment for reducing rural poverty in middle-income countries: the case of Thailand. DSGD Discussion.

23- Fink A. 2010. Conducting research literature reviews. From the internet to paper (3rd Edition). London: Sage.

24- Fulginiti L., and Perrin R. 1993. Prices and productivity in agriculture. Review of Economics and Statistics 75: 471–482.

25- Glasbergen P., and Schouten G. 2015. Transformative capacities of global private sustainability standards: a reflection on scenarios in the field of agricultural commodities. J. Corp. Citizsh 58: 85–101.

26- Globerman S., and Shapiro D. 2002. Global foreign direct investment flows: the role of governance infrastructure. World Development 11: 1899–1919.

27- Hall R., and Jones C. 1997. Levels of economic activity across countries. American Economic Review 87: 173–177.

28- Hayami Y., Ruttan V. 1985. Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

29- Hillborn R.C. 1994. Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York.

30- Hospes O. 2014. Marking the success or end of global multi-stakeholder governance the rise of national sustainability standards in Indonesia and Brazil for palm oil and soy. Agric. Hum. Values 31: 425–437.

31- Hughes A., McEwan C., and Bek D. 2013. Retailers, supply networks and changing articulations of ethicality: lessons from Flower Valley in South Africa. Econ. Geogr 13: 211–230.

32- Huo A., Dang J., Song J., Hong Chen X., and Mao H. 2016. Simulation modeling for water governance in basins based on surfacewater and groundwater. Agricultural Water Management.

33- International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2015. Agriculture and achieving the Millennium development goals. IFPRI, Washington, D.C., USA, [online] URL: http://www.ifpri.org/pub lication/agriculture-and-achieving-millenniumdevelopment-goals.

34- Janssen M., and Van der Voort H. 2016. Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly 33: 1-5.

35- Jayachandran J. 2015. The Roots of Gender Inequality in Developing Countries. Annu. Rev. Econ 7: 63–88.

36- Kawagoe T., Hayami Y., and Ruttan V. 1985. The inter-country agricultural production function and productivity differences among countries. Journal of Development Economics 19: 113–132.

37- Khosravipour B., Baradaran M., Ravahinezhad M., and Ghichani O. 2014. Investigate the Importance and Role of Companies Cooperatives in the agricultural sector. Social, Economic, Scientific and Cultural Monthly Work and Society, 175. (In Persian)

38- Kulak O., and Kahraman C. 2005. Fuzzy Multi-Criterion Selection Among Transportation Companies Using Axiomatic Design and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Information Sciences 170: 191-210.

39- Leung L.C., and Chao D. 2000. On Consistency and Ranking of Alternatives in Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 124: 102-113.

40- Liu M., and Lio M. 2008. Governance and agricultural productivity: A cross-national analysis. Food Policy 33: 504–512.

41- MALR. 2009. Sustainable Agricultural Development Strategy ‘SADS’’, towards 2030. Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR), Cairo, Egypt, 20: 26, 32, 43.

42- Mizan news. 2017. The Impact of Negotiations with Developing Countries on Agricultural Development. http://www.mizanonline.com/fa/news

43- Mohammadzadeh Y., Hekmati S., and Sharifi A. 2016. The Effect of Government Size on Good Governance and Economic Performance in Selected Countries. Research Papers on Economic Growth and Development 7(26): 7-112. (In Persian)

44- Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., and Altman D. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 6: 2642–69.

45- Mosaddegh F., Kazemi F., and Yelfani A. 2016. Investigating the effects and consequences of sanctions on foreign investment in Iran and the relationship between resistance economy and decreasing negative effects of sanctions. Research Papers on Economic Growth and Development 2: 1-10. (In Persian)

46- Nawar M.H. 2006. Rural development policies in Egypt: historical background and devolution of the institutional framework. In: Chassany, J.P., Pellissier, J.-P. (Eds.), Politiques de de´veloppement rural durable en Me´diterrane´e dans le cadre de la politique de voisinage de l’Union Europe´enne. Montpellier, CIHEAM, 45– 54. (Options diterrane´ennes: Se´ rie A. Se´min aires Me´diterrane´ens; n.71) PD F=6400056, France.

47- Neal P., Marian J., Greco F., Connell D., and Conrad J. 2016. The social-environmental justice of groundwater governance. Integrated Groundwater Management Journal 25: 253-272.

48- Odularu G., and Tambi E. 2011. Establishment of standards for international agricultural trade: Promoting Africa’s participation. Trade Negitiations Insights, 10.

49- OECD Work on Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, 2017. TOWARDS BETTER FOOD POLICIES.

50- Petticrew M., and Roberts H. 2006. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

51- Ping Wan SH., Li Qin Y., and Ying Dong J. 2017. A hesitant fuzzy mathematical programming method for hybrid multi-criteria group decision making with hesitant fuzzy truth degrees. Knowledge-Based Systems 138: 232-248.

52- Pohekar S.D., and Ramachandran M. 2004. Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to Sustainable Energy Planning. A Review Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 8: 365-381.

53- Poulton C. 2010. Agricultural Services and Decentralisation in Kenya. Policy Brief 035, Future Agricultures.

54- Rongbao G. 2017. Multiscale Shannon entropy and its application in the stock market. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect. Physica A, 484: 215–224. Saaty T.L. 1994. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytical Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.

55- Saaty T.L. 2001. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.

56- Sarkis J., and Talluri S. 2004. Evaluating and Selecting e-Commerce Software and Communication Systems for a Supply Chain. European Journal of Operational Research 159: 318-329.

57- Schouten G., and Bitzer V. 2015. The emergence of Southern standards in agricultural value chains: A new trend in sustainability governance. Ecological Economics 120: 175–184.

58- Shannon C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379–423.

59- Sheng Y. 2015. What is Good Governance?” United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

60- Social Development Department Demand for Good Governance Team, August 2010.

61- Stead D. 2015. What does the quality of governance imply for urban prosperity? Habitat International 45: 64-69.

62- Taha H.A. 2003. Operations Research, Pearson Education Inc. Fayetteville. (In Persian)

63- Taylor B.W. 2004. Introduction to Management Science. Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey.

64- Thirtle C., and Piesse J. 2013. Governance, agricultural productivity and poverty reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America.” Irrigation and Drainage 56: 165-177.

65- Tomich T., Kilby P., and Johnston B. 1995. Transforming Agrarian Economies: Opportunities Seized, Opportunities Missed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

66- Triantaphyllou E., and Mann S.H. 1995. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice 2: 35-44.

67- US Agency for International Development (USAID). 2002. Foreign Aid in the National Interest.

68- US Agency for International Development (USAID). 2017. Investing in Agricultural Research and Development.

69- Vermont B., and De Cara S. 2010. How costly is mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture? A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 69: 1373–1386.

70- Yahyapour Sh., Shamizanjani M., and Mosakhani M. A. 2016. Conceptual breakdown structure for knowledge management benefits using meta-synthesis method. Journal of Knowledge Management 19: 1295–1309. Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2015-0166.

71- Wabalickis R.N. 1988. Justification of FMS with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 17: 175-182.

72- World Bank. 2015. Africa development indicators. World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. [online] URL:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/AFRICAEXT/ Resources/english_essay_adi2010.pdf.

73- World Bank and IFPRI. 2010. Gender and governance in rural services: Insights from India, Ghana, and Ethiopia. Agriculture and Rural Development. Washington, DC, USA: The World Bank.

74- World Bank. 2018. Agriculture Finance & Agriculture Insurance.