Politics, power and unfair market concentration in the cocoa global value chain (GVC): analysing the prospects of the living income differential (LID) for achieving a just and sustainable livelihood for cocoa farmers in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ghanaian cocoa farmers confront many social and economic challenges and are \nunable to pursue needed farm improvements because of insufficient and dwindling income. The income of farmers is too low for them to generate enough capital to invest in \nimprovements in productivity or even more sustainable ecological practices. While various \ninitiatives exist aimed at eradicating the problem of child labour, promoting better farming \nmethods and ensuring access to agricultural inputs like fertilizer, sustainable credit and \nfinancing, often overlooked is the centrality of guaranteeing a viable minimum price for \ncocoa farmers, their families and workers, upon which other sustainable achievements in the \ncocoa industry ultimately hinge. A guaranteed minimum price can play a key role in \ncombating the vicious cycle of poverty and social injustice by providing farmers with a living \nincome. Having a guaranteed minimum price can create a more stable social and economic \nenvironment in which cocoa farmers can have the confidence to invest in their farms, \nincluding the necessary and costly replanting of cocoa trees. Cocoa farming cannot be \nconsidered fair, ethical or sustainable if it cannot provide a living income to the millions of \nhardworking farmers and workers in Ghana. I will argue that the decision by the Government of Ghana to initiate a guaranteed minimum price of $400 premium per tonne for cocoa is the \nmost efficient and simplest way to address insufficient income among cocoa farmers in the \nlong term.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".