SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 26 Issue: 1

Members’ Willingness to Invest Capital in the Agricultural Producer Unions: A Case of Samsun Province in Turkey

Bakiye Kılıç Topuz(IĞDIR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, IĞDIR ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-3607-4306
Pages
—
Publication Date
2020-03-05
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In order to increase members’ willingness to invest capital to their unions, members’ trusts and participations in the training activities and administration of the unions should be increased.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The research aimed to reveal the members’ willingness to invest capital in the Agricultural Producer Union (APU) and the factors influencing their decisions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The main data of the study obtained through the surveys from 420 members of the APU.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In order to increase members’ willingness to invest capital to their unions, members’ trusts and participations in the training activities and administration of the unions should be increased.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Willingness to invest capital · Agricultural producer union · Random effects Tobit model

Abstract

The research aimed to reveal the members’ willingness to invest capital in the Agricultural Producer Union (APU) and the factors influencing their decisions. The main data of the study obtained through the surveys from 420 members of the APU. Members’ willingness to invest capital in their unions and effective factors were determined using the Contingent Valuation Method and the Random Effects Tobit model, respectively. The research revealed that 44% of the union members were willing to make an average contribution of 355 TL to their unions. Random Effects Tobit model results revealed that member's trust, membership fee, participation in trainings, memberships of livestock union, apple and beekeeping, export crops through the union, attending the general assembly, level of education and agricultural experience positively affected the willingness to invest capital, while membership of the organic hazelnut and vegetables union, gender, management experience, age and total income negative affected the willingness to invest capital. In order to increase members’ willingness to invest capital to their unions, members’ trusts and participations in the training activities and administration of the unions should be increased.

🔖

Cite This Article

Topuz, B. K. (2020). Members’ Willingness to Invest Capital in the Agricultural Producer Unions: A Case of Samsun Province in Turkey. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 26 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.425327

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. Anastasopoulos P C & Mannering F L (2009). A note on modeling vehicle accident frequencies with random-parameters count models. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41(1): 153– 159
  2. Garrod G & Willis K G (1990). Contingent valuation techniques: a review of their unbiasedness, efficiency and consistency. Countryside Change Initiative Working Paper 10. Newcastle: University of Newcastle upon Tyne
  3. Greene W (2012). Limdep, Version 10.0. Econometric Software, Inc., Plainview, NY
  4. GTB (2012). Gümrük ve Ticaret Bakanlığı Kooperatifçilik Genel Müdürlüğü, Türkiye Kooperatifçilik stratejisi ve Eylem Planı 2012-2016, Ankara
  5. GTHB (2013). Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı 2013-2017 Stratejik Planı, Ankara
  6. Hansen M, Morrow J & Batista J C (2002). The impact of trust on cooperative membership retention, performance and satisfaction: an exploratory study. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 5(1): 41-59
  7. IRFO (2008). Çiftçi Örgütlerinin Kurumsal Güçlendirilmesi Projesi, Uygulama ve Tamamlama Raporu, Türkiye Ormancılık Kooperatifleri Merkez Birliği
  8. Karlı B & Çelik Y (2003). GAP alanındaki tarım kooperatifleri ve diğer çiftçi örgütlerinin bölge kalkınmasındaki etkinliği. Tarımsal Ekonomi Araştırma Enstitüsü, Yayın No: 97, ISBN: 975-407-122-5
  9. Karantinis K & Zago A M (2001). Endogenous membership in mixed duopsonies. American Journal of Agricultural Economic 83(5): 1266–1272
  10. Kaygusuzoğlu M (2002). Ekonomik Krizden Çıkışta Kooperatifçilik, Karınca Kooperatif Postası, Türk Kooperatifçilik Kurumu, Ankara
  11. Kılıç B (2011). Samsun ilindeki tarımsal kalkınma kooperatiflerinde ortak-kooperatif ilişkilerinin analizi. Yüksek lisans tezi, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Samsun
  12. Kılıç Topuz B (2017). Samsun ili tarımsal üretici birliklerinde güven ve performansa etkili faktörler. Doktora tezi, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Basılmamış), Samsun
  13. Kılıç Topuz B, Bozoğlu M & Başer U (2017). Güncel gelişmeler kapsamında Türkiye’deki çiftçi örgütlerine yönelik mevzuatın değerlendirilmesi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 52(Özel sayı): 140-161
  14. Kovacic D, Juracak J & Zutinic D (2000). Willingness of farmers to cooperate field study results in the Zagreb rural area. Portal Znanstventh Casopisa Republike Hrvatskb 6(56): 1119-1129
  15. Lord D & Mannering F (2010). The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: a review and assessment of methodological alternatives. Transportation Research Part A: Policy Practice 44(5): 291–305
  16. Mitchell R C & Carson R T (1989). Using Surveys To Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC
  17. Mülayim Z G (2010). Kooperatifçilik. Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara
  18. Newbery R, Sauer J, Gorton M, Phillipson J & Atterton J (2013). Determinants of the performance of business associations in rural settlements in the United Kingdom: an analysis of members’ satisfaction and willingness-to-pay for association survival, Environment and Planning 45: 967–985
  19. Österberg P & Nilsson J (2009). Members’ perception of their participation in the governance of cooperatives: the key to trust and commitment in agricultural cooperatives. Agribusiness 25(2): 181-197
  20. Özdemir G, Keskin G & Özüdoğru H (2010). Türkiye’de ekonomik krizlere alternatif bir çözüm önerisi: tarımda güçlü ve etkin üretici örgütlenme modeli. IX. Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi, 22-24 Eylül, Şanlıurfa, s.518-525
  21. Phillipson J, Gorton M & Laschewski L (2006). Local business co-operation and the dilemmas of collective action: rural micro-business networks in the north of England. Sociologia Ruralis 46: 40–60
  22. Rehber E (2006). Tarımda yeni nesil kooperatifler. Tarım ve Köy İşleri Bakanlığı, Türktarım Dergisi 171: 40-43
  23. RG (2004). 29.06.2004 tarih 25514 Sayılı Resmi Gazete, Tarımsal Üretici Birlikleri Kanunu.http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2004/07/20040706.htm#2 (Erişim tarihi: 11.01.2018)
  24. RG (2006). Tarım Kanunu, 18.04.2006 tarih 5488 Sayılı Kanun, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2006/04/20060425-1.htm (Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2018)
  25. RG (2013). 06.07.2013 tarih 28699 Sayılı Kanun, 10. Kalkınma Planı, http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/07/20130706M1-1.htm (Erişim tarihi: 02.02.2018)
  26. Şafaklı O (2003). KKTC’de kooperatiflerin finansmanı üzerine bir çalışma. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 10(2): 175-189
  27. TRGM (2017). Tarım Reformu Genel Müdürlüğü, Tarımsal Örgütlenme Tablosu. http://www.tarim.gov.tr/TRGM/Belgeler/TarimsalÖrgütlenmeTablosu (Erişim tarihi: 18.12.2017)
  28. Tobin J (1958). Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables. Econometrica 26(1): 24–26.
  29. Yamane T (1967). Elemantary Sampling Theory. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewoods, New Jersey.