Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 35 – uploaded by Mark J A R E D Matabi

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 4.28: Scores on Governance Indicators of the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives performers (since it contain no positive attributes of governance). The ranking is presented in Table 4.28 below. 4.2.3 Cluster Analysis of Performance, Institutional and G overnance Variables 4.2.3.1 Dendrogram of Variables 4.2.3.1 Dendrogram of Variables

Table 4 28: Scores on Governance Indicators of the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives performers (since it contain no positive attributes of governance). The ranking is presented in Table 4.28 below. 4.2.3 Cluster Analysis of Performance, Institutional and G overnance Variables 4.2.3.1 Dendrogram of Variables 4.2.3.1 Dendrogram of Variables

Related Figures (79)

Figure 1.1: Figurative Illustration of Agricultural C ooperative Existence Form and Essential Spirit Source: Author more productive than working individually.
Figure 1.1: Figurative Illustration of Agricultural C ooperative Existence Form and Essential Spirit Source: Author more productive than working individually.
Table 2.1: Postulated Tabulation of Registered C ooperatives in Malawi ll these concerted efforts were geared in one way or the other, to support the developme! f agricultural cooperatives. By 20125, there were 681 registered cooperatives in Malawi, 01 f which 382 are agro-based, 107 Community Savings and Investment Promotion (COMSIE nd 192 are SACCOs. The Southern region (with 13 districts) has got 217 registere ooperatives, out of which 105 are agro-based, 42 COMSIP and 70 SACCOs. The Centr sgion (with 9 districts) has got 304 registered cooperatives, out of which 177 agro-based, 5 OMSIP, and 73 SACCOs. The Northern region (with 7 districts) has got 150 registere ooperatives, out of which 100 are agro-based, 12 are COMSIP and 48 SACCO Sovernment of Malawi, Ministry of Industry and Trade- Department of Cooperative anuary 2012)6.
Table 2.1: Postulated Tabulation of Registered C ooperatives in Malawi ll these concerted efforts were geared in one way or the other, to support the developme! f agricultural cooperatives. By 20125, there were 681 registered cooperatives in Malawi, 01 f which 382 are agro-based, 107 Community Savings and Investment Promotion (COMSIE nd 192 are SACCOs. The Southern region (with 13 districts) has got 217 registere ooperatives, out of which 105 are agro-based, 42 COMSIP and 70 SACCOs. The Centr sgion (with 9 districts) has got 304 registered cooperatives, out of which 177 agro-based, 5 OMSIP, and 73 SACCOs. The Northern region (with 7 districts) has got 150 registere ooperatives, out of which 100 are agro-based, 12 are COMSIP and 48 SACCO Sovernment of Malawi, Ministry of Industry and Trade- Department of Cooperative anuary 2012)6.
effect by nature; the types of questions were pre-specified and outcome-oriented; and the types of analysis were numerical estimation and statistical inferences (Burney, 2008).
effect by nature; the types of questions were pre-specified and outcome-oriented; and the types of analysis were numerical estimation and statistical inferences (Burney, 2008).
Figure 3.2: Location of the Target Rice Growing Districts in Malawi based cooperatives in the district. District had 5 rice-based cooperatives out of 16 (31.3 per cent) agro-based cooperatives; and given the transport and administrative costs that were likely to be involved in collecting the
Figure 3.2: Location of the Target Rice Growing Districts in Malawi based cooperatives in the district. District had 5 rice-based cooperatives out of 16 (31.3 per cent) agro-based cooperatives; and given the transport and administrative costs that were likely to be involved in collecting the
Note: * No exact establishment dates recorded Table 4.1: General Information of the Selected A gricultural C ooperatives
Note: * No exact establishment dates recorded Table 4.1: General Information of the Selected A gricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.2: The Selected Agricultural Cooperatives’ Formation Reasons and Knowledge Status formation stage on cooperative organization and business development, performance was
Table 4.2: The Selected Agricultural Cooperatives’ Formation Reasons and Knowledge Status formation stage on cooperative organization and business development, performance was
Table 4.3: Total Number and Percentage of Founding Members of the Selected Agricultural Cooperatives
Table 4.3: Total Number and Percentage of Founding Members of the Selected Agricultural Cooperatives
Founding Membership: The total founding membership in seven (7) cooperatives ranged
Founding Membership: The total founding membership in seven (7) cooperatives ranged
Figure 4.1: Total Number of Founding Members in C ooperatives
Figure 4.1: Total Number of Founding Members in C ooperatives
Figure 4.2: Percentage (% ) of Cooperatives Founding Members by Sex
Figure 4.2: Percentage (% ) of Cooperatives Founding Members by Sex
Table 4.4; Total and Percentage Membership Change by Sex in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.4; Total and Percentage Membership Change by Sex in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Figure 4.5: Percentage (% ) Comparison of Membership C omposition by Sext at Formation and Present Stage
Figure 4.5: Percentage (% ) Comparison of Membership C omposition by Sext at Formation and Present Stage
Table 4.5: Total and Percentage Y outh C omposition in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.5: Total and Percentage Y outh C omposition in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.6: Total and Percentage of Membership Change in elected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.6: Total and Percentage of Membership Change in elected Agricultural C ooperatives
Figure 4.8: Comparison of the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives’ Membership C hange cooperatives themselves lacked internal membership mobilization policy, strategies and there is no a deliberate policy efforts to encourage women to join cooperatives, and the
Figure 4.8: Comparison of the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives’ Membership C hange cooperatives themselves lacked internal membership mobilization policy, strategies and there is no a deliberate policy efforts to encourage women to join cooperatives, and the
Figure 4.14: Average Percentage (% ) of Y outh Chairpersons in Agricultural C cooperatives
Figure 4.14: Average Percentage (% ) of Y outh Chairpersons in Agricultural C cooperatives
Table 4.8: Leadership Qualifications in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives Moreover, traditional authorities had a lot of influence on the cooperatives’ leadership, in which some were part of the executive committees, or rendered advisory, security and material support like provision of farming land. In other cooperatives, the traditional authorities were interfering with the leadership and management of the cooperatives affairs, for instance being part of mismanagement of cooperative resources, or with sole responsibility of appointing cooperative leaders. Whichever way, the traditional authorities’ roles in agricultural cooperative was not clear among the cooperators; as it is not spelt out clearly in the Cooperative Development Policy nor the Legal and Regulatory Framework.
Table 4.8: Leadership Qualifications in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives Moreover, traditional authorities had a lot of influence on the cooperatives’ leadership, in which some were part of the executive committees, or rendered advisory, security and material support like provision of farming land. In other cooperatives, the traditional authorities were interfering with the leadership and management of the cooperatives affairs, for instance being part of mismanagement of cooperative resources, or with sole responsibility of appointing cooperative leaders. Whichever way, the traditional authorities’ roles in agricultural cooperative was not clear among the cooperators; as it is not spelt out clearly in the Cooperative Development Policy nor the Legal and Regulatory Framework.
Table 4.9: Management Staff Composition in Selected Agricultural C ooperatives indeed implement business strategies which would bring benefit to the cooperatives. For
Table 4.9: Management Staff Composition in Selected Agricultural C ooperatives indeed implement business strategies which would bring benefit to the cooperatives. For
Table 4.11: Governance Structures and Systems in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.11: Governance Structures and Systems in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.12: Types of Subcommittees in the Selected A gricultural C ooperatives A.12 below highlights types of subcommittees in various cooperatives.
Table 4.12: Types of Subcommittees in the Selected A gricultural C ooperatives A.12 below highlights types of subcommittees in various cooperatives.
have a Supervisory Committee. The type of subcommittees varied among the cooperatives;
have a Supervisory Committee. The type of subcommittees varied among the cooperatives;
even (7) — 100.0 per cent —cooperatives had only one copy of their respective bylaws; which
even (7) — 100.0 per cent —cooperatives had only one copy of their respective bylaws; which
Table 4.14; Meetings Status in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives kept as per the Cooperative Societies Regulations, 2002 (Section 27 and 34 respectively). conducted, they were called by letter and conducted in a participatory manner; with minutes stem. The literature has shown that effective communication enhances relationships
Table 4.14; Meetings Status in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives kept as per the Cooperative Societies Regulations, 2002 (Section 27 and 34 respectively). conducted, they were called by letter and conducted in a participatory manner; with minutes stem. The literature has shown that effective communication enhances relationships
Table 4.15: Election Status in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives Govemance Principles as outlined by Malawi Code II, 2011, by cooperators. Regulations, 2002; were silent on the terms and tenure of office for officials. The reference could be made to the Malawi Code II, 2011, on Corporate Governance, of which cooperators
Table 4.15: Election Status in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives Govemance Principles as outlined by Malawi Code II, 2011, by cooperators. Regulations, 2002; were silent on the terms and tenure of office for officials. The reference could be made to the Malawi Code II, 2011, on Corporate Governance, of which cooperators
Cooperatives were not able to identify markets for their products due to lack of market information, making it difficult to buy members produce for sale. Poor infrastructure and technological development also exacerbated marketing problem in cooperatives. This technological gap between cooperatives and the private sector resulted in cooperatives experiencing difficulties in accessing market information. All cooperatives were not aware that there were such organizations such as Malawi Agricultural commodity Exchange (MACE) that were attempting to provide market information services (Nkhoma 2011). Table 4.16: Production and Marketing of Selected Agricultural C ooperatives were processing but they were not packaging and members were then selling individually.
Cooperatives were not able to identify markets for their products due to lack of market information, making it difficult to buy members produce for sale. Poor infrastructure and technological development also exacerbated marketing problem in cooperatives. This technological gap between cooperatives and the private sector resulted in cooperatives experiencing difficulties in accessing market information. All cooperatives were not aware that there were such organizations such as Malawi Agricultural commodity Exchange (MACE) that were attempting to provide market information services (Nkhoma 2011). Table 4.16: Production and Marketing of Selected Agricultural C ooperatives were processing but they were not packaging and members were then selling individually.
Figure 4.16: Landholding Status for the Selected A gricultural C ooperatives With the total land holdings per the cooperatives memberships, the cooperatives have great 4.1.7 Finances Mobilization and Management
Figure 4.16: Landholding Status for the Selected A gricultural C ooperatives With the total land holdings per the cooperatives memberships, the cooperatives have great 4.1.7 Finances Mobilization and Management
Notes: *Government or Donor support was majorly in terms of structures and machines Table 4.17: Comparison of Initial C apital in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Notes: *Government or Donor support was majorly in terms of structures and machines Table 4.17: Comparison of Initial C apital in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.18: Shareholding Status in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.18: Shareholding Status in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Figure 4.18: Members’ Shareholding in the Selected Agricultural C cooperatives
Figure 4.18: Members’ Shareholding in the Selected Agricultural C cooperatives
Figure 4.20: Percentage (% ) of Shareholders versus Total Membership in Agricultural C ooperatives
Figure 4.20: Percentage (% ) of Shareholders versus Total Membership in Agricultural C ooperatives
Figure 4.21: Range of Cash at Bank for the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives cooperatives were not diversifying in other enterprises within or along the rice value chain. for operations. The cooperators attributed this to lack of bank information on agricultural
Figure 4.21: Range of Cash at Bank for the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives cooperatives were not diversifying in other enterprises within or along the rice value chain. for operations. The cooperators attributed this to lack of bank information on agricultural
Table 4.19: Summary of Capital in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives government and donors in terms of fixed assets and other resources that could boost their financial positions; as argued see Hill, et al., 2007). Nonetheless, the external support seemed
Table 4.19: Summary of Capital in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives government and donors in terms of fixed assets and other resources that could boost their financial positions; as argued see Hill, et al., 2007). Nonetheless, the external support seemed
Table 4.20: Finance Management in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives \ ll the seven (7) — 100.0 per cent —cooperatives had not recorded profits for distribution. ver since, they were formed members have never been offered dividends because the ooperative business volumes had been low, to be in tandem with provisions in Cooperative societies Act, 1998 (Part V, Section 34, and Part I, section 46); and Cooperative Societies Regulations, 2002 (Section 16). This situation was in tum attributed to low member equity ontribution, and inadequate knowledge on diversification of enterprises and value addition n the rice value chains; that eventually led to poor business results.
Table 4.20: Finance Management in the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives \ ll the seven (7) — 100.0 per cent —cooperatives had not recorded profits for distribution. ver since, they were formed members have never been offered dividends because the ooperative business volumes had been low, to be in tandem with provisions in Cooperative societies Act, 1998 (Part V, Section 34, and Part I, section 46); and Cooperative Societies Regulations, 2002 (Section 16). This situation was in tum attributed to low member equity ontribution, and inadequate knowledge on diversification of enterprises and value addition n the rice value chains; that eventually led to poor business results.
Table 4.21: Partners of the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives instance, the agro-dealers, finance institutions and market institutions.
Table 4.21: Partners of the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives instance, the agro-dealers, finance institutions and market institutions.
Table 4.22: Challenges Facing the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives their organization and business performance.
Table 4.22: Challenges Facing the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives their organization and business performance.
Table 4.23: Assistance Required by the Selected A gricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.23: Assistance Required by the Selected A gricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.24: Enterprise Plans for the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.24: Enterprise Plans for the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Figure 4.1: Interdependence of Organizational and Governance Development and Political and Economic Institutions and their Influence on Business Development of Agricultural C ooperatives Factors This section classifies the above cooperatives’ organizational and business development
Figure 4.1: Interdependence of Organizational and Governance Development and Political and Economic Institutions and their Influence on Business Development of Agricultural C ooperatives Factors This section classifies the above cooperatives’ organizational and business development
Table 4.27: Scores on Institutional Indicators of the Selected Agricultural C cooperatives characteristics or positive attributes of governance) and cooperatives 6 as the worst
Table 4.27: Scores on Institutional Indicators of the Selected Agricultural C cooperatives characteristics or positive attributes of governance) and cooperatives 6 as the worst
Table 4.26: Ranking per Performance Indicators of the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.26: Ranking per Performance Indicators of the Selected Agricultural C ooperatives
Table 4.29: Inter-Relationship between Performance, Institutional and Governance factors of the Selected Agricultural C cooperatives
Table 4.29: Inter-Relationship between Performance, Institutional and Governance factors of the Selected Agricultural C cooperatives
Figure 4.45: Cluster 2 Linkages between Performance, Institutional and Governance Indicators of the Selected Agricultural C cooperatives 4.3 Summary The study findings revealed that the performances of the agricultural cooperatives under the
Figure 4.45: Cluster 2 Linkages between Performance, Institutional and Governance Indicators of the Selected Agricultural C cooperatives 4.3 Summary The study findings revealed that the performances of the agricultural cooperatives under the
Appendix 3: Extract from the Statement on the Cooperative Identity, Adopted by the General Assembly of the International C ooperative A lliance in 1995 The seven cooperative principles are guidelines by which cooperatives put their values into
Appendix 3: Extract from the Statement on the Cooperative Identity, Adopted by the General Assembly of the International C ooperative A lliance in 1995 The seven cooperative principles are guidelines by which cooperatives put their values into
Related topics:
Cooperatives (Development Studies)
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved