MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794640806 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n5p31

Middlemen Market Power and Land Reform Policy Implication: An Imperfect Competition Analysis for the Traditional Food Market of Vietnam

2018· article· en· W2794640806 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ngo Chi Thanh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImperfect competitionEconomicsMarket powerCompetition (biology)OligopolyOrder (exchange)IntermediaryCournot competitionDistribution (mathematics)Shock (circulatory)ProductivityImperfectFood securityIndustrial organizationMicroeconomicsAgricultureEconomic growthMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional food distribution system is often characterized by small farmers and of several retailer called middlemen who sell their products on market. Since the intermediaries and their market powers are largely considerable in the food market, this paper proposes an industrial organization model of the middlemen in this conventional food distribution system for developing countries. Since most of the works in this field has adopted an empirical approach, the focus of our study in this paper will be instead on theoretical model. In order to analyze this situation, we borrow several arguments from the theory of imperfect competition. We assume that middlemen have oliopsony and oligopoly power in the up and down stream of the food system. We defined the consumer behavior by discrete choice model and study the quantity flow from small producers to the consumers by mean of Cournot competition. We address the question of land reform policy implication by creating a productivity shock in order to examine the effect of this instrument on the wealth of both farmers and consumers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207