Improving Agricultural Market Performance:

Developing Agricultural Market Information Systems

published the price data, usually without any trend analysis. In addition, ‘bulletin boards’ were

sometimes mounted in some markets and prices in those as well as other major markets

recorded for the information of market players (CTA, 2012).

Though the stated objective in most cases is to assist market participants such as farmers and

traders, policymakers usually became the primary beneficiaries as they used the information for

monitoring and in initiating policy actions in response emergency situations (Galtier et al.,

2014). Central statistical authorities use the information in computing price inflation whilst

central banks similarly used such information in determining monetary policy actions aimed at

ensuring price stability at the macroeconomic level.

Despite these benefits, it is apparent from several reviews that market players, including

farmers, find these systems of little value as they are unable to convert the information provided

into tangible market decisions (Shepherd, 1997; Chiatoh, and Gyau, 2016). Factors which

account for this include long lag-times between collection and dissemination of prices, implying

that reported prices are often of little relevance by the time they are published (Robbins, 2000;

Tollens, 2002; Galtier and Egg, 2003). Reliability of the published data is another problem and

so also is the issue of the extent to which the information shared meets the needs of target

stakeholders. A review conducted by the FAO of 120 1GMIS platforms in developing countries

revealed that only 53 fulfilled the basic operations criteria, such as providing reliable price

information to decision-makers (CTA, 2008).

The limitations were not merely technical but also extended to the institutional sphere,

including lack of innovation due to weak institutional structures and financial, time-bound

project funding (Galtier et al., 2014). Galtier and Egg (2003) further argue that these

shortcomings were due in part to the absence of a mechanism to adjust information with respect

to the needs of market players. The non-interactive dissemination platform such as radio and

billboards limited feedback frommarket players/producers in terms of the ability to understand

their requirements and failed to explain to users the context of the information provided or

suggest how they might use it. In the 1990’s several interventions tried to solve this by linking

MIS to emerging Farmer Field School approaches. Although promising, these models proved

expensive and unsustainable (Bennett and Layola, 1996).

These outcomes, in part, provided the impetus for the second generation MIS models which

emerged towards the end of the 1990s and early 2000s with the hope of better meeting the

needs of market players. These were either created through modifying earlier MIS systems or

the development of new ones. Moreover, the technical developments in information and

communication technologies (ICT) largely supported this endeavour. Other innovations which

catalysed the development of the second generation MIS included the emergence of regional

marketing systems as a result of sub-regional efforts to promote regional integration (David-

Benz et al., 2012). Furthermore, the rise of professional organizations e.g. farmers’ organisations

contributed to this development (Galtier et al., 2014; David-Benz et al., 2012).