Comparative Analysis of Cashew Farmers' Perceptions of Institutional Performance under Contract Farming and Warehouse Receipt Systems in Mkuranga District, Tanzania

Institutional indicator	Questionnaire item	Response scale
Information access	How satisfied were you with the access to marketing information provided to you?	1 = Very dissatisfied
Information access		5 = Very satisfied
Training opportunities	How satisfied were you with the training opportunities you received related to cashew marketing?	1 = Very dissatisfied
Training opportunities		5 = Very satisfied
Timeliness of payment	How satisfied were you with the timeliness of payment after selling your cashew nuts?	1 = Very dissatisfied
Timeliness of payment		5 = Very satisfied
Trust in buyers	How satisfied were you with the level of trust you had in your buyers during marketing transactions?	1 = Very dissatisfied
Trust in buyers		5 = Very satisfied

[i] Source: own elaboration.

Table 2.

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents by marketing system (n = 354)

Variable	WRS % (n = 177)	CF % (n = 177)	χ² p value
Gender (male)	51.8	48.2	0.284
Age (35–51 years majority)	49.5	50.5	0.383
Education (primary majority)	45.7	54.3	0.259
Household size (6–8 members majority)	50.5	49.5	0.359
Farming experience (4–7 years majority)	55.8	44.2	0.391
Farm size (6–8 acres majority)	52.4	47.6	0.738
Distance to market (> 10 km)	42.7*	57.3	0.004
Cooperative membership	51.6*	48.4	0.001
Credit access	49.6	50.5	0.518

[i] Source: own elaboration.

Table 3.

Frequency distribution (%) of institutional indicators (N = 354)

Variable	Very low (1)	Low (2)	Moderate (3)	High (4)	Very high (5)	Median
Trust in buyers	14.69	16.10	20.06	27.12	22.03	3
Information satisfaction	18.93	17.23	11.58	20.90	31.36	4
Training satisfaction	12.99	20.06	22.88	24.01	20.06	3
Timeliness of payment	15.54	18.64	19.77	26.27	19.77	3

[i] Source: field survey, 2024.

Table 4.

Median comparison by marketing arrangement

Variable	Contract farming	Warehouse receipt system	Total
Trust in buyers	4	3	3
Information satisfaction	3	4	3
Timeliness of payment	4	3	3
Training satisfaction	3	3	3

[i] Source: field survey, 2024.

Table 5.

Mann-Whitney U test results (CF vs WRS)

Variable	z-value	p-value	Significance	Direction of difference
Trust in buyers	−4.405	0.0000	***	CF > WRS
Information satisfaction	1.590	0.1119	n.s.	No significant difference
Timeliness of payment	−3.232	0.0012	***	CF > WRS
Training satisfaction	0.022	0.9826	n.s.	No significant difference

[i] Source: field survey, 2024.

Table 6.

Ordered logistic regression results for institutional indicators of marketing efficiency

Variable	Trust in buyers	Information satisfaction	Timeliness of payment	Training satisfaction
Marketing type (CF=1)	0.793*** (0.249)	−0.471* (0.243)	0.354 (0.246)	0.069 (0.237)
Gender	−0.171 (0.218)	−0.079 (0.215)	−0.157 (0.217)	−0.177 (0.219)
Education	−0.054 (0.079)	0.027 (0.079)	−0.064 (0.080)	−0.041 (0.078)
Household size	−0.069 (0.088)	0.135 (0.088)	−0.030 (0.087)	0.157* (0.087)
Farm experience	−0.014 (0.107)	−0.138 (0.106)	−0.020 (0.106)	0.236** (0.108)
Farm size	−0.033 (0.088)	−0.142 (0.088)	−0.009 (0.087)	−0.008 (0.087)
Distance to market	0.053 (0.115)	−0.044 (0.115)	0.018 (0.114)	0.003 (0.117)
Cooperative membership	0.308 (0.447)	−0.137 (0.431)	0.255 (0.441)	−0.139 (0.427)
Access to credit	−0.450 (0.441)	0.833* (0.434)	−0.010 (0.436)	−0.502 (0.426)
Quantity sold	0.641*** (0.166)	0.148 (0.154)	0.435*** (0.163)	0.171 (0.162)
Transport cost	0.074 (0.111)	0.041 (0.109)	0.196* (0.111)	−0.011 (0.113)
Negotiation confidence	−0.723*** (0.186)	−0.044 (0.174)	−0.495*** (0.184)	−0.206 (0.177)
Transaction transparency	0.114 (0.072)	−0.011 (0.073)	0.067 (0.072)	−0.096 (0.071)

*** p < 0.01,

** p < 0.00,

* p < 0.10.

Source: field survey, 2024.

Table 7.

Marginal effects from ordered logistic regression

Dependent variable	dy/dx (CF = 1)	Std. error	z-value	p-value
Trust in buyers (trust_sat)	0.1419	0.0324	4.37	0.000
Information satisfaction (info_sat)	−0.0648	0.0405	−1.60	0.109
Timeliness of payment (paytime_sat)	0.0964	0.0303	3.18	0.001
Training satisfaction (train_sat)	−0.0007	0.0302	−0.02	0.983

[i] Source: field survey, 2024.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17306/j.jard.2026.2.00020r1 | Journal eISSN: 1899-5772 | Journal ISSN: 1899-5241

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 237 - 244

Accepted on: Jun 30, 2026

Published on: Jun 30, 2026

Published by: Poznań University of Life Science

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

contract farming,

warehouse receipt system,

marketing efficiency,

farmer perceptions,

Tanzania

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Political economics,

Political economics, other,

Business management,

Business management, other,

Life sciences,

Life sciences, other,

Social sciences,

Political science,

Political science, other

© 2026 Ezekiel Isidor Lyimo, Joseph Hella, Silver Hokororo, published by Poznań University of Life Science
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 80 (2026): Issue 2 (June 2026)