MAKING MARKETS WORK FOR THE POOR
Engaging in the market place
THROUGH THE EYES
OF
CARE
Table of Contents
MAKING MARKETS WORK FOR THE POOR .................................................. 1
List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................... 3
Preamble : Why this paper, and why now? ............................................................................................ 1
A Rights-Based Approach to Making Markets Work for the Poor ................... 1
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 5
Description ................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology............................................................................................................. 6
Findings ..................................................................................................................... 6
Recommendations .................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Market Identification ............................................................................................................................... 13
Risk Assessment and Share of Risk ...................................................................................................... 13
Buyers and Suppliers ............................................................................................................................... 14
Policies and Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 14
The Problem Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 16
What is a Market and who are the Poor? ........................................................... 21
Beginning at the Micro Level ............................................................................... 23
Two sides of the continuum ...................................................................................... 25
Voicing the poor’s perspective - multilateral and international organizations and Scholars
Frame the Market Access Problem and Solution .......Error! Bookmark not defined.
Multinational and Private sector perspective - the Base of the Pyramid concept .... 25
A Closer Look at the Market Access Problem .......................................................... 26
NGOs and civil society .......................................................................................... 27
Capitalism and Market Failures ............................................................................ 28
Collective Action Constraints ................................................................................... 29
A Delicate Brew: Governments, the Private Sector, and Civil Society .................... 30
Corporate Social Responsibility ............................................................................... 30
Complex World of International Trade and the Fair Trade issue ............................. 31
Spotlight on the Coffee Industry ........................................................................... 33
Prices ......................................................................................................................... 35
Property....................................................................................................................... 36
Playing Fair ............................................................................................................. 36
Private Interests ...................................................................................................... 37
Public Affairs ............................................................................................................ 37
Probing the third sector ......................................................................................... 37
Synthesis .................................................................................................................. 41
(Make this a separate section) Making Markets Work for the Poor: CARE .................................. 44
Common Constraints ............................................................................................... 46
Common Practices .................................................................................................... 48
Future Directions and Next Steps .......................................................................... 49
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 51
Selected Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 52
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 55
APPENDIX I : CARE Market Intervention Programs – TypologyError! Bookmark
not defined.
Appendix II: Typology Category Characteristics for Market InterventionsError!
Bookmark not defined.
Appendix III: Coffee Exports Worldwide ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix IV: From Crop to Cup ........................................................................... 56
Appendix V: Checklist for potential Market Intervention Programs – ......... 57
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
2
List of Acronyms
AGENT
Agribusiness Entrepreneur Network and Training
AMI
Agricultural Marketing Initiative
BDS
Business Development Services
CASHE
Credit and Savings for Household Enterprises
CIDA
Canadian International Development Association
CGAP
Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest
CLUSA
Cooperative League of the United States of America
CRISP
Credit for the Informal Sector Project
CREAM
Consultancy for Rural Enterprise Activity Management
CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility
DFID
Department For International Development (UK)
FLO
Fairtrade Labelling Organisation
JENGA
Joint Encouragement of Gainful Activities
JOSACA
Jozani Savings and Credit Association
KI
Kupfuma Ishungu Project
LIME
Livestock Marketing Enterprises Promotion
MAPA
Market Access and Poverty Alleviation
MFI
Microfinance Institution
MJT
Musow ka Jugiya Ton
MNC
Multi-National Corporation
NGO
Non-governmental Organization
REAP
Rural Enterprise Agri-Business Promotion
Qif
Quick Impact Facility
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
WEDCO
Women’s Economic Development Company
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
3
Preamble : Why this paper, and why now?
A Rights-Based Approach to Markets Access
“Making markets work for the poor” is a market-driven, pro-poor way of
framing economic development agenda that encourages a rights-based approach.
Commitment to making markets work for the poor with human rights as a fundamental
value has the potential to better people’s lives in a respectful, participatory manner.
Both the private sector and the non-profit sector can incorporate the rights-based
approach meaningfully into their collaboration with the poor on ‘creation of and access
to the Market’. Corporate Social Responsibility, as a subject, is a primary derivative of
the Rights Based Approach to development, and needs to be expanded in that light.
In the past sixty years, CARE has evolved from providing ‘emergency relief’ to
‘addressing basic needs’ approach to development of a rights-based orientation. What
does this mean? Emergency relief is so often necessary even in today’s world. Needsbased development remains relevant - ensuring that basic human needs are met, and
has a large service delivery component. Rights-based development incorporates a
different orientation and approach that puts Poor and Marginalized at the center,
recognizing peoples’ basic human rights and adopting the Universal human rights
standards. This excerpt is from CARE’s website:
…the full spectrum of human rights encompasses a range of fundamental rights that,
taken together, entitle all human beings to be treated equally and to live in freedom and
dignity…For CARE, human rights implementation means doing our part to make basic rights
- to life, food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, and freedom of expression,
association, and participation - a reality for people who are lacking them.
CARE Vision:
“We seek a world of hope, tolerance and social justice, where poverty has been
overcome, and people live with dignity and security”
What does a rights-based approach mean for economic development? It means that we
must evolve service delivery into a broader strategy if we are to champion not only the
universal human rights to food, shelter and water, but specifically the economic rights of
the poor. Unfortunately and fortunately, ’Market’ plays a critical role in creating or
denying the economic opportunities to many of the poor communities, and their
poverty often becomes the reason for social exclusion and injustice. For the work in
economic development this means that:
1. We challenge ourselves to assist the poor in their right to access the market as
entrepreneurs and productive human beings of the society. The poor should have
the capability and resources to move beyond subsistence living. CARE does this by

creating a more level-field enabling market environment (through engagement
with private and public sector) that provides fair terms of trade to the poor

Helping entrepreneurs to organize themselves into co-operative structures/
institutions so that they have greater voice and volume for a fairer return.

facilitating negotiation and/or contracts with private sector buyers and suppliers
on behalf of small farmers, sometimes providing partial guarantee

training entrepreneurs in business skills and financial management
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
2

Facilitating access to savings and credit and other financial services for better
exploiting business opportunities and improve their ‘staying power’ to negotiate
a better deal in the market place.
2. We support the efforts of the poor in their right to access the market as consumers.
Consumption of goods should not be monetarily or geographically inaccessible to
the poor. CARE does this by

Collaborating with the private sector to enhance their understanding of the poor
(as a collective) as a viable market and encourage their expanding of market
network ‘for’ and ‘with’ the poor.

Helping the poor to access financial services such as savings and credit on
market terms that are non-exploitative and reliable.
3. we create opportunities to support Poor’s right to work by creating a more enabling
environment that expands Poor’s engagement in the markets, their capabilities
through job skills training and financial services, even in the event of a grave
infirmity such as HIV/AIDS.
4. We facilitate the Poor’s exercising their right to market information. Information
asymmetry can be a formidable barrier to the Poor’s accessing and participating in
the formal market successfully.
5. We encourage private sector to enable Poor’s right to participation and engagement
in every link of the market chain through ‘fairer terms of trade’. We can assure that
our clients participate in every step of the program planning, implementation and
evaluation processes.
6. We can recognize the Poor’s right to non-discrimination through instituting gender
equity and market access across cultural and income-level barriers, including those
impacted and affected by HIV/AIDS.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
3
‘Markets’ are often seen and explained as ‘self correcting’ systems that will eventually
benefit all in the society. Yet our experience with the communities living in poverty
convince us that ‘poverty is man made’, and is often a factor of how and how much
poor are able to negotiate their way in Markets. By default, markets are imperfect and
‘fail the poor’. Often, we here how ‘market failures’ have let down the poor. Yet, we in
CARE must recognize and agree that (economic) poverty is a function of Markets.
‘Making Markets Work fro the Poor’ is a theme that is attempting to draw lessons from
experiences of CARE and other members of the NGO community – in how the
members of civil society can and should engage with private and public sector to meet
their vision and goal of addressing (economic) poverty through intervention in the
Markets.
Monica Oliver, Intern, EDU
Under guidance of Anuj Jain, Sr. Technical Advisor, EDU
June 2005
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
4
Executive Summary
a.
Description
Making Markets Work for the Poor is an emerging issue in international development.
With the onset of globalization, increasingly sophisticated technology permits greater
and greater ease of global integration, travel and information exchange, allowing for
markets to defy social and geographical boundaries. Globalization has brought
international attention to the phenomenon of intercontinental commodities exchange,
notably through 1999’s “Battle in Seattle” coalition calling for a change in WTO
practices.1 Whether one views globalization as the promise of the future or as a danger,
the modern day, increasingly integrated economic system it is here to stay, and
responding to it conscientiously requires considering the rights of the poor that are last
to be factored into that changing economic equation.
As the free market system expands its tentacles and grows in strength, the
world’s poor increasingly find themselves faced with newer opportunities but also
greater risk of getting an even shorter end of the stick due to hindered access to a
market system that holds the key to their livelihoods. Who can intervene in the markets
and assure the Poor’s just access, both as consumers and as entrepreneurs and
producers? Looking at market intervention programming through the eyes of CARE
provides useful insights into the potential complementary roles of NGOs, the private
sector, the governance regime and poor communities in Making Markets Work for the
Poor.
The “Battle in Seattle” was a grassroots protest involving thousands of activists from all over the world. The
protesters came together in Seattle in December of 1999 to coincide with and express dissent for the United Nations
World Trade Organization convention. The protest was itself a demonstration of the effect of globalization on
communication and coalition-building, as activists on several continents organized themselves for the event via the
internet. For a more thorough understanding of this event, see “Globalizing Resistance: The Battle of Seattle and
the Future of Social Movements,” Jackie Smith, in Smith and Johnston, eds., Globalization and Resistance.
1
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
5
b.
Methodology
This paper explores the literature on Making Markets Work for the Poor and, as such,
situates CARE as an active player in NGO activity in this domain. Review of strategy
and concept papers and evaluations contributed to the analysis. Similarly, personal
conversations and interviews enhanced the qualitative data gleaned from the
documents.
c.
Findings
CARE intervenes in the markets generally in one of three ways: Market Access
programs, where CARE helps the poor as producers and suppliers; Market Extension,
where CARE educates and collaborates with the private sector to extend the benefits of
market activities to the poor as consumers, entrepreneurs, and partners; and Financial
Services programs, where CARE ascertains the access to capital, savings and other
financial services so that they increase their entering, staying and negotiation power in
the market.. In all three streams of programming, the goal is to promote sustainable,
commercially viable and private sector oriented systems that significantly enhance the
participation and influence in the Market equation. CARE’s role varies across projects organizing and capacity building of micro-producers, brokering relationships with
private sector, setting up guarantee funds for risk mitigation, and providing
education/awareness and technical assistance. In some cases, CARE projects have
explicit roles in influencing public policies (especially in microfinance sector). The
experience suggests that NGOs have a unique and critical role to play to foster
collaboration among private sector and poor communities, and engage with public
policy makers in making the markets work for the poor.
d.
Recommendations
By understanding the lessons and experiences from each of the above three categories
of programming more thoroughly, CARE can systematize its market intervention
programs, and make them more effective in having an impact on poor people’s
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
6
livelihoods. CARE, with its field presence in more than 70 countries and among
numerous communities with pro-poor programming focus, has immense potential to
become a resource and a leader in this area. For this to happen, the projects must begin
to learn from each other and develop a set of ‘sound practices’ for private sector
engagement and market interventions; and learn to systematize market analysis steps
and processes. It is far easier said than done, especially for us in the sector who do not
fully understand how Markets work. Particular attention should be paid to the
education and awareness components of programming, i.e. building capacity of the
communities to better negotiate a market opportunity/ risk, and engaging with the
private sector beyond corporate social responsibility, to help them work with the poor
as full partners and make the Markets work for the poor.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
7
1.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
Introduction
8
1.
Introduction
In a good year, the rains come to the sun-baked Mukueni district of Kenya twice a year – in April and
December. In a bad year, the rains fail, which means the crops fail and malnutrition increases. So it’s no
surprise that the subsistence farmers of Mukueni survive by the skin of their teeth.
It’s hard to imagine in this dry climate that farmers would ever be able to grow crops all the year round.
Or with an unstable economy, those subsistence farmers would be able to sell their produce to the
European Union. But against all odds, both these things are happening.
Right now, farmers in Makueni, about 120 miles south east of Nairobi, are banding together to lease land
along the Athi River. They are clearing the bush, creating small farms and borrowing money to buy
pumps and piping to irrigate the fields. They are growing exotic vegetables throughout the year for export
to Europe in partnership with a powerful new force – the private sector.
Under the project, farmers are organized in groups, each member of which pays a small membership fee.
The fund has been set up to lend them money to buy irrigation equipment, seeds, tools and fertilizer – and
the project also supplies the technical assistance. ‘The reason the money is lent rather than donated, is to
avoid distorting the market’, said Peter Muthee, CARE's manager for the project. ‘In total, we have
organized 30 farming groups. Members can choose to wait for the farm to pay dividends, or become
employees working for a wage’.
Each group leases 30 acres along the river and has created a farm. The project helps the farmers broker a
contract with the exporter - ensuring the farm’s crops, for the entire year, are sold in advance for a preagreed and negotiated price. Crops include okra, ravaya (a type of cabbage), baby corn, karalla (bitter
gourd) and chili peppers, all of which are grown for export to European restaurants.
Currently, the average income of the farmers participating in the project is less than £54 ($ 100) per year.
But expectations are that it will increase to £540 ($ 1,000) when the farms reach full production potential.
"What this kind of work has proved, first and foremost, is that it's possible to get small farmers negotiate
their way into the market," says Muthee. "People thought it was impossible."
-from the CARE International UK website
These hardy Kenyan farmers did not lack farming know-how.
They did not lack perseverance or motivation.
They did not lack ability to work cooperatively.
The farmers lacked most was market access.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
9
Despite their experience as farmers, they had neither the financial capital nor the
knowledge of and relationship with (buyer) markets to be able to move beyond a
subsistence existence and into markets with greater profit potential. With project
assistance, these farmers have been able to establish a promising relationship with the
exports and access to the European Union, an established global market with promising
growth potential.
In the past few decades, capitalism has emerged triumphant worldwide as the
dominant economic system even as some of us accept it more readily than others. The
resource-rich and the underdeveloped alike are susceptible to market forces and to the
effect the free market has on the prices and exchange of agricultural commodities. The
challenge for the industrialized world is to assure that the formal commodities markets
work for the small farmers so that the poor are not banished to subsistence-living in the
informal market. Same is true of the financial markets. Where and how, if at all, do and
can CARE and other NGOs contribute to government and the private sector’s efforts to
intervene in the markets so as to facilitate market access for the poor in such a way that
enterprise and incomes of the poor can grow?
Market-driven approaches to attack poverty have received a great deal of
attention in the past few years, notably through the World Bank’s Integrated
Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries2. The
literature on the relationship between the private sector, governments, and civil society
is vast, as is scholarly work on collective action issues and market failures as they relate
to unequal market access. However, a gap often exists in the discussion of how these
relationships between public, private and nonprofit sectors can balance their respective
2
For a more thorough understanding of this Integrated Framework, a collaboration of the World Bank, IMF, ITC,
UNCTAD, UNDP, and WTO, see: http://www.integratedframework.org/
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
10
roles and achieve complementarities so as to address systemic problems like market
failures – that are more of a norm rather than the exception from the Poor’s perspective.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
11
2.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
Methodology
12
2.
Methodology
Understanding the scope and nature of CARE’s work on the theme of Making
Markets Work for the Poor involved undertaking a review of both program and
academic literature on the topic. This created a context from which to examine CARE’s
work and situate it in terms of what other organizations are doing. This preliminary
review and analysis resulted in the following guiding questions. Given the nature, timeframe and scope of the inquiry, the analysis and conclusions have managed to answer
only a few of these, while have pointed toward areas for further work in the future.
a.
Market Identification

What are the local, national, and global markets through which the poor can
benefit through access? How to go about identifying context specific
commodities that present a comparative advantage and in which markets?

Who all need to participate in identifying these markets?

What are the critical factors for facilitating market access and identifying gaps/
market potential?

What roles are appropriate for different players in this domain - Private, public
and the nonprofit sector?

Which strategies have been useful for poor to negotiate their way into a fairer
market? (e.g. branding, participation in supermarketization, forward contracting,
export market access)
b.
Risk Assessment and Share of Risk

How to assess the risks associated with the project interventions – especially
from Poor’s perspective? Using what resources and tools?

How much of the risk burden does CARE shoulder, and who takes on the rest?
The poor? The private sector?
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
13
c.
Buyers and Suppliers

How the Market constraints and inefficiencies have been understood? Who links
buyers with suppliers?

Who are the players in the buyer-supplier- producer chain ? What are project’s
objectives and challenges in altering or eliminating part of middlemen chain?

In what ways does CARE partners with the private sector in order to link the
supply and the demand?

Is there a mid to long term shareholder / investor role for CARE?

Is there an enabling- environment- related advocacy role for CARE?
d.
Trade Regulation and Certification

What are the regulation and certification considerations for a particular
specialized market (e.g. EurepGAP, FLO)?

What are the time constraints in meeting these regulations? The product quality
constraints?
e.
Policies and Infrastructure

Which formal policies, and informal trade relations/ structures help or hinder in
the integration of small farmers into the market? How do residual effects of
colonialism, or decentralization, privatization, and structural adjustment policies
affect small farmers’ market access?
These questions guided a qualitative inquiry which included review of strategy
papers, evaluations, and other informational pieces on CARE’s market-driven
programs, as well as personal interviews of the some project managers.
One limitation to this approach is that the lack of systematic information
gathering – inconsistency of similar sources for each project or program – makes the
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
14
final conclusions that much more subjective and qualitative. Also, the theme of
“making markets work for the poor” is so vast and multi-faceted that treating all angles
of it equally rigorously would be beyond the scope of this document. Yet, this
preliminary assessment provides the framework and direction for future work.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
15
3.
The Problem Analysis
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
16
3.
The Problem Analysis
Literature review suggests that the problem of access to the market for the poor
has been around for as long as capitalist economies have shaped the world’s
interactions (DFID 2003; de Soto 2000). As technology advances and transnational trade
becomes easier, the chasm between smallholder farmers and plantation farmers grows.
Small-scale farmers, with little means for transportation to trading junctures, little
credibility with or access to large-scale buyers, limited access to credit or other capital,
and fewer resources for production, are increasingly shut out of the national, regional,
international and even local markets which markets.
Globalization undeniably expands markets and market opportunities; as ease of
communication and transportation melts borders, far-reaching marketing research and
intercontinental trade are more possible than ever before. But even as corporations
might facilely identify markets for their products or new products and act to take
advantage of the opportunity, the poor are increasingly marginalized because neither
they are not being considered significant consumers, nor they are considered potential
entrepreneurs in the market chain, they are not considered potential investors (nor
borrowers), and they do not have the resources to seize open opportunity windows.
The more robust the trade at a regional, national or other formal level, the more the
poor are relegated to the shrinking informal sector or less opportunity-filled markets
because they are not perceived as a good or necessary risk. This is not to dismiss
globalization, which has meant market creation and growth for scores of entrepreneurs;
it is simply to acknowledge and address the corollary plight of the poor.
In his classic The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith coined the phrase “invisible
hand” to describe a free market system in which players would act in their self-interest,
leading to an efficient allocation of scarce resources. It is clear, however, that markets
left to the invisible hand do not always allocate resources efficiently; moreover, Smith,
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
17
who thought a free market system would encourage local markets, probably could not
have anticipated the information technology explosion that has brought the global
market to peoples’ doorsteps. This is particularly true in developing countries where
competition excludes the poor from the formal system, relegating them to the informal
sector (de Soto 2000). This is due to market failures, notably information asymmetry
(Annimalai and Rao) and a poor allocation of resources, in part resulting from a lack of
access to capital (Meehan 2004).
A. HOW SOME MULTILATERAL/ INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SEE IT?
DFID’s (2000) strategy paper on making markets work for the poor frames the
topic as a ‘market soup’ of four markets – land, labor, finance, and food – and presents a
pro-poor market system as efficiently breaking out the roles of government, nonprofits
and the private sector in each of these four markets. The paper portrays markets as
regulatory systems, and as such a pro-poor market identifies market failures and
corrects them, such as by distributing risk more evenly, in a pro-poor fashion.
The World Bank, in its piece on making markets work for the poor in the 20002001 World Development Report, talks about market reforms at a government/macro
policy level. The paper cites reform constraints, such as bureaucracy, corruption, and
inadequate public investment. Land ownership and use surfaces as a key to the poor
accessing the market. Also, distributing risk, relieving the burden of regulation, and
encouraging small and medium enterprises can improve the Poor’s situation in the
market, as can access to financial services.
>
The UNDP, in its 2004 report on making business work for the poor, emphasizes
the importance of private sector engagement in this endeavor. The private sector can
create jobs and opportunities for the poor, as well as provide affordable goods and
services to them. Likewise, governments can help with pro-poor policies and liberal
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
18
trade arrangements. Development institutions can encourage public-private
partnership and can help professionalize the informal sector. The paper calls for
increased accountability on the part of civil society.
>
The Grameen Foundation, in a working paper on the future of microfinance, sees
the international capital markets as the essential to the growth of microfinance
institutions. MFIs are reaching more and more of the very poor, the paper contends,
but in order for MFIs to expand and offer more services, they will need access to
external markets. Grameen’s focus is on access and channelising macro and
mainstream financial capital for the micro-finance sector to exponentially expand its
outreach to the poor.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
19
B. UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT AND THE DEBATES
a.
The Farmer as a Victim of Market Failure?
The plight of the small farmer in a less-developed country, or LDC, is fraught
with the characteristics of an inefficient market. The governing or legal system does not
protect the farmer or give him property rights (de Soto 2000). He has little to no access
to capital because he has no collateral (Yunus 1999; Meehan 2004). With no way to
obtain credit or otherwise build capital, few to no assets such as land or other property,
Supermarkets, super opportunities:
El-Shams Egypt
*see Appendix I, typology, # 4
A consortia of Farmers Associations at the regional level contract with for-profit Regional Agribusiness Enterprises (RAEs) that can act as consolidators and represent them in large scale marketing
and supply operations (e.g., purchase of improved seed, field testing of specialized varieties). RAEs
also act as second-tier organizations that provide market intelligence services, certification training (e.g.,
EurepGAP, organic), business skills development, and other forms of continued capacity building. ElShams is helping poor, small land-holding farmers in Upper Egypt to get more involved in high-value
horticultural production and marketing. The program is working to identify
and include in its marketing contracts, Egyptian food processing companies, hotels, restaurants, cruise
ships (Nile River tour boats), and high-end local supermarkets as outlets for the high quality produce
that does not go
to the EU or Gulf states.
Constraints:
 Because supermarkets are wary of dealing with small farmers, often a middleman trader gets a
large share of the profits.
 Forming a grocers’ association would help the small farmers negotiate with the supermarkets
and make the supermarkets less wary of negotiating with them while stabilizing quality
standards - but Egyptians do not trust each other very much in business, they tend to take a
short-term view of business management and do not like to cooperate at all with those who
they view as their competition.
 CARE approaches the medium-scale and modern or forward looking supermarkets (grocery
stores) on a one-on-one basis.
Lessons learned:

While the farmers can gain the best incomes from exporting their produce, there is also a high
demand locally (within Egypt) for good quality produce and this can provide a reliable source
of income that can mitigate against the fluctuations of international prices.
and often a limited education, he has no means of moving out of the informal economy
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
20
and beyond a subsistence level of survival. S/He cannot afford to take risks or make
mistakes in the way that a large-scale farmer, with more resources, can (Caiden and
Wildavsky 1990). He also suffers from inadequate access to critical information, such as
current market prices for his goods. This stems from poor technology infrastructure,
among other things. But most importantly, all these elements render him vulnerable to
the ‘middleman’ who is his sole link to the formal market, but who is in a position to
usurp the bulk of his profits
Market Access: REAP Kenya
*see typology, Appendix I, #12
(Purushothaman, Subhas, and
Nagrecha 2003).
b.
What is a Market and
who are the Poor?
The food chain: “The market”
ranges in meaning from the
village gathering spot for
household-level exchange to
intercontinental trade as
monitored by agreements such
as NAFTA and WTO with
myriad layers in between. The
subsistence farmers and
producers, operating out of
immediate need and limited
information, often understand
the market to be the local trader
or place where s/he can sell
most immediately and obtain
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
One example of a successful market intervention program is
CARE’s REAP (Rural Enterprise Agribusiness Promotion) program
in Kenya, whose main goal is to increase household livelihood
security of men and women farmers in the communal areas of
Kenya through the establishment of a network of rural horticultural
product traders. The REAP program organizes smallholders into
legally recognized Production Units. REAP then ensures that the
production standards and prices meet the norms of the export
market. Farmers also have better access to necessary inputs such
as irrigation and technical assistance through the program. The
REAP program has effectively increased farmer productivity, agent
capacity, and market access and linkages for the buyers and
farmers. REAP has not been without its constraints, from macro
policy-level governmental service delivery withdrawal to mesa
business-level risk management issues, to micro-level lack of access
to credit for the farmers. These constraints have provided more
opportunity to learn and modify the program than they have
obstacles.
Programs such as REAP show that targeting the individual
entrepreneur with a market-based approach can be cultivated to
great effect to better the Poor’s role in the private sector at the
micro level with far-reaching effects on the more macro levels.
Lessons learned:
 Risk mitigation can be a critical role for CARE if farmers
are reluctant to wait for payment or to promise their crops
without a minimum guarantee, or if buyers are reluctant to
count on farmers for a certain quantity or quality.
 Farmers need time to develop capacity to transition in
mindset from subsistence to commercial farming. CARE is
situated to build this capacity.
 More access to credit and market analysis would enhance
the program.

21 is
Rapidity and consistency of payments to farmers
essential to their motivation and participation; also, careful
consideration of the right client profile is critical to
successful participation.
needed cash in her/ his hand. The bigger plantation owner or commercial farmer, on
the other hand, can afford take risks, has bigger working capital and can afford to wait
for payment, and has established credibility with potential buyers. In between the
subsistence farmer and the plantation mogul are countless small-scale farmers who,
while their standard of living may be characterized as being a little less dire than that of
the poorest, still are impeded from moving up to the next level of the market because of
limited or no access to capital, information, or other such risk-mitigating and
relationship-building factors.
In the food chain, each one has the space to operate and role to play. Yet, in the
absence of transparency in market systems and information, players who have
influence and control over most of the information and policy forums (namely the
bigger players) enjoy unfair advantage over smaller producers who are illiterate, often
fragmented and have little knowledge or influence to negotiate a better market share or
price equation.
c.
Targeting poorest or the poor: False debate?
Assisting the poorest of the poor is always a development sector priority, for
their need is unequivocally the most immediate. Yet, we need to recognize that poverty
is a moving target. Many households move in-and-out of poverty conditions through
seasonal opportunities or vulnerabilities within a short period, even as there remain a
smaller percentage of, what can be called as ‘chronically poor’ communities or
households. While it is extremely important for programs in CARE to be sensitive of
promoting participation of the poorest, their inclusion should not mean exclusion of
poor. In many ways, the ‘poverty targeting’ debate is useful only as long as it ensures
inclusion of the poor, and not work against entrepreneurial and productive poor that
usually form 90-95% of the poor in any community. The challenge is to advocate
policies and program designs that are ‘sensitive’ to the conditions and capacities of the
poorest and consciously ‘inclusive’ in approach to deepen the poverty outreach. By
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
22
being inclusive and distributive in approach to market interventions, both poor and the
poorest can benefit from moving up the market access echelon. By making the poorest
and destitute as exclusive focus of market intervention, we might get bogged down in a
false debate Market interventions are not only about the poorest stabilizing their income
but also more and more poor coming out of the poverty pit, breaking the poverty cycle.
C.
Frameworks for understanding Market and Access
a.
Where do we begin and where do we end?
Making markets work for the poor transcends several layers of private sector
development as well as trade environment, starting with the micro level in the hamlets,
villages, and slums and culminating in global exchange and commerce. In a theoretical
paper on Making Markets Work for the Poor, C. Lindahl of the Swedish International
Development Authority (SIDA)3 postulates that developing the private sector in a propoor fashion breaks down into four levels:

The Meta, or international, level, concerned with international trade, technology
innovation and transfer, global capital movements;

The Macro, or national, level, involving a specific country’s institutions, its level
of peace and stability, its legal and governance framework and capacity, and its
macroeconomic policies;

The Meso, or business level, including financial capital, physical capital, human
capital, and labor; and finally,
3
Lindahl, C. Swedish International Development Authority (Sida). “Challenges to SIDA’s
support to private sector development: Making Markets Work for the Poor.” October 2003.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
23
Microfinance Innovation: CASHE India
*see typology Appendix I #3
India’s largest microfinance initiative by an NGO,
CASHE (Credit and Savings for Household Enterprises),
has taken the concept of market linkages to exciting
heights. CASHE has identified issues and works at all
levels.
At the Micro and Meso levels (Tier I), CASHE works
with several local partners to increase the outreach of
micro-finance services, in terms of both the quality and
range of products and services. Partners organize small
savings and credit groups, comprised predominantly of
women. The groups are organized into federations.
These federations then interact with external financers so
that they can themselves act as financial intermediaries.
CARE provides technical assistance to partner NGOs and
federations in the first tier of the program.

The Micro, or individual
level, involving individual
entrepreneurs, frequently the
donor’s development target.
The four levels are intertwined
and certainly have a bearing on
each other. Expanding the private
sector and its practices so that it
At Macro level (Tier II and III), CASHE works with
multiple institutions. It facilitates capacity building of
capacity building institutions and networks to help them
works for the poor needs thoughtful
to enhance their services. It works with private sector
banks, to facilitate business relationship with microinterventions at all levels – from
finance operations and access capital access.. In the third
tier of the program, research and advocacy are the main
areas of focus , create a more conducive enabling
micro to meta. So what possible
environment at the State (provincial) and national levelworking with national stakeholder agencies and Central
roles can a civil society member play in the Market?
Bank..
These
steps represent some of the typical action areas for NGOs intervening on the
Lessons
learned
 CARE has and must remain a facilitator - mainly
most micro
level.
The
challenge becomes anticipating the potential relationship
a broker
and an
aggregator.
 Bringing together stakeholders interested in
between
the individual entrepreneur and the global market so as to program effectively
market-based innovative microfinance services is
an important
of CASHE,
as evidenced
by
with a sensitive
eyeaspect
toward
the unique
challenges
of the very poor. Identifying the
the well-attended Microfinance India conference.
 CASHE
is exploring
innovative
projects
for the lend a useful lens to the practitioner
distinctions
between
these
layers of
intervention
poor, including micropensions and money
for conceptualizing
how an NGO can target these levels through its programming in
transfer services.
 There is a substantial potential market role for
order toCARE
facilitate
market
access.
JENGA program in UGANDA illustrates this.
as a risk
mitigator
in the CARE’s
financial market.
JENGA, a five-year business development services project, builds local capacity through
business education and establishes linkages with the private sector to encourage
exchange in previously inaccessible markets. At the micro level, JENGA trains
individual community members in business techniques. At the meso level, JENGA
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
24
translates this human capital into linkages between businesses, banks and borrowers.
At the macro level, JENGA accesses and introduces appropriate technologies that allow
for local production, which has a regional impact. The essence of CARE’s work in this
example is forging linkages between the levels, resulting in stronger markets and better
access for all involved.
b.
Multinational and Private sector perspective - Base of the Pyramid concept
>
In the Dominican Republic, the poorest half of
the population receives less than one-fifth of GNP,
TOP
$
while the richest 10% enjoys nearly 40% of national
income. This sort of income inequality reflects the
reality of much of the developing world, where the rich
BOP
few with ample resources can exploit market
opportunities, where the poor receive almost none of
the national income, and there are few people in the middle at all (neither poor nor
rich). The middle, where there is less vulnerability and more opportunity for growth, is
an enviable place to be; unfortunately, getting there is as unattainable for the poor as
wealth is because of lack of access to markets with any possibility of growth, or
perceived lack of access because of seemingly insurmountable risk. This may be
conceptualized as a pyramid, with the multitude of poor at the base of the pyramid
(BOP), and the few rich at the TOP of the pyramid.
Those individuals in developing countries who fall below the PPP$1500 per
capita income line comprise the “Base of the Pyramid,” according to University of
North Carolina’s Kenan-Flager Business School Base of the Pyramid Learning
Laboratory. The Learning Lab asserts that though these individuals are disadvantaged,
socio-economically speaking, they represent a great business opportunity and potential
market. Noted champions of this concept include C.K. Prahalad, whose “The Fortune at
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
25
the Bottom of the Pyramid. Eradicating Poverty Through Profits” describes his concept of
generating wealth at the pyramid’s base (the BOP) rather than the TOP of the triangle.
Prahalad posits that there is a great deal of profit to be made from those with marginal
incomes, but that they have to be partners in their own success. Prahalad eschews
governments, other suppliers of foreign aid, philanthropists, and corporate social
responsibility advocates for approaching the poor as victims to help. His idea is that if
businesses tailor their products and marketing to the needs of the poor, they can tap
into a latent market among the poor, provided that they educate the poor in aspects of
the market, treat the poor as entrepreneurs as well as consumers, and address
corruption.
There is a middle ground for the two above to meet -- where Market and its conditions
that are often more influenced and shaped by private sector, can deepen and expand its outreach
to the very poor as its consumers, and yet also help the poor actively engage and benefit from the
market equation – so the additional wealth created at the bottom can again be exploited on
private sector principles to continue the seamless ripple effect in wealth creation across the
chain.
c.
A Closer Look at the Market Access Problem
Larger corporations and financial institutions have begun to intervene in the
markets with an eye toward the poor as a small farmer, producer or consumer.
Supermarket chains, for example, have engaged in trade with farmers’ associations to
ensure that smaller farmers participate in supplying agricultural goods for consumers 4.
Financial institutions and banks, especially those with a social mandate, have
collaborated with farmer associations to finance their crop production. Businesses and
banks prefer to work with farmers’ cooperatives or associations because it is less
4
For a deeper understanding of “supermarketization,” see
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
26
difficult for them than negotiating with individuals. This market intervention to
influence or establish such
Post-Conflict Opportunity: Qif Bosnia
*see typology Appendix I #17
relationship has to be at the
mesa level.
d. Role of NGOs and civil
society
NGOs have
attempted to help farmers
gain market access in a
number
of ways, some of which are
region-specific. For
example, CLUSA, or
Cooperative League of the
USA, the National
Cooperative Business
Quick Impact Facility is a post-conflict program in Bosnia/Herzegovina
designed to increase employment, access to credit, and general
economic reconstruction as the country rebuilds from war.
QIF’s work can be divided into three categories: 1) providing specialist
advice to clients; 2) using a grant fund to target specific projects; 3)
sharing best practice between organizations and across sectors. Qif
works with three main client groups: small and medium enterprises;
non-profit organizations/ non-governmental organizations; and
municipalities and economic service providers.
Constraints:
 Stilted economic activity due to a high volume of displaced
persons has created a nondynamic environment for
entrepreneurship.
 Politically, numerous municipalities did not welcome the
return of displaced minorities, making their unemployment
problem particularly challenging.
 The country has a trade deficit, with far more imports than
exports.
Lessons learned:

Association’s international
program, works all over

the world, often

collaborating with smaller,
local NGOs to train
farmers in business tactics

Many ex-Yugoslavs had previous contacts or work experience
with the EU, and these benefited the most from Qif. This might
make replication a challenge for other post-conflict countries
whose ties to the EU are less strong.
The business logic of the entrepreneur is critical and is a
capacity to be built.
Interest-free, recyclable, working-capital loans would be useful;
this recommendation from on-site evaluators is specific to this
post-conflict situation, where such loans might be a one-time,
temporary, limited-time-frame means of jump-starting a
flagging economy.
Technical assistance is as important as grants.
and to assist them in linking with larger market chain.
NGOs work with governments and with the private sector to create space in the market
domain for the small farmer. NGOs play a capacity building role, an advocacy role,
and sometimes the role of a negotiator or broker. NGOs also intervene in the market on
behalf of the farmer at the individual household micro level.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
27
NGOs contribute to understanding and
solving the problem of market access for small
farmers in ways that governments and
corporations do not. Governments are constrained
by the bureaucratic system, insufficient
Women farmers using heavy mulch to
grow groundnuts in Angoche District
infrastructure, and external responsibilities at the
meta and macro level. Corporations have their
own profit as their ultimate aim and are limited to working with the small farmer only
insofar as he can contribute to that corporate profit; the corporations remain at the mesa
level. NGOs have the potential to make the resources of governments and corporations
more available to the individual farmer, and they are positioned to understand the
social dynamics of a farmer’s situation in order to assist her/ him in succeeding at the
micro level. All three of these entities – the government, the private sector, and the
NGOs -- are important to the small farmer’s ultimate success in the global market.
Each has complementary strengths that lend themselves to different elements of the
solution to market access for the poor.
Government policies,
infrastructure,
delivery system
Small farmer. Producer
in Informal economy
Formal private sector
Market operations
i.
NGO’s role as intermediator to deepen linkage
and access on fair terms
Bridging relationships in/ with Markets
Development literature is rife with tales of middlemen scarfing up profit at the
expense of defenseless farmers. But it is not the case that the middleman is necessarily a
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
28
detriment to farmers wishing to access a bigger market; on the contrary, a middleman
often serves as the very conduit between the smallholder farmer and the bigger market
if the relationship is such each profit from what the other has to offer. The middleman
has relationships with buyers; the farmer has a desirable product. An NGO with
knowledge of the local market and culture, for example, can assist the middleman and
the farmer in reaching an equitable arrangement for all involved.
ii.
Addressing Collective Action Constraints
The smallholder farmer often has no surplus, so s/he cannot meet the expense of
a bad season or a bad business
transaction (Caiden and Wildavsky
1990). S/He cannot guarantee quantity
or quality to meet the demands of a
large-scale buyer or the stringent
regulations of a developed country.
This results in a classic example of what
Mancur Olson (1971) terms a ‘collective
Building on Successful Programs: AMI
*see typology Appendix I #2
AMI, operating in Uganda, seeks to influence the
operating environment in which small farmers work
through assisting farmers in forming cooperatives,
offering technical assistance to farmers in
agricultural techniques and marketing, and targeting
women through focusing on products where women
already have a presence. There is an emphasis on
non-traditional cash crops, particularly sesame. AMI
is organized under CREAM, whose JENGA business
training program has already experienced success in
the area.
action problem’ – a disconnect between
social costs/benefits and personal
costs/benefits. Though the entire
formal economy would benefit from the
poor farmer’s active participation, the
Constraints and lessons learned:



personal costs to the farmer are so great
as to be insurmountable. The farmer

would benefit from collaborating with

other smallholder farmers in order to
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
High production costs for small cultivation
areas.
Farmers are wary of improved seeds and
farming techniques for lack of understanding
of the benefits.
Farmers reluctant to sell to nonlocal markets
because of delay in payment and storage
concerns.
Farmers lack information about best time to
sell for best return.
Buyers reluctant to trust that farmers will
deliver the promised quantity and quality.
29
offer more of a quantity and quality guarantee to large-scale buyers. But the transaction
costs of organizing and then negotiating with the buyer are sometimes formidable to
the subsistence farmer.
iii.
Stirring a Delicate Brew with Governments and Private Sector
The literature on the intertwined roles of government, the private sector, and
civil society, while it disagrees on the exact formula, acknowledges that each has a
legitimate contribution to make to advancing and maintaining society. Perhaps the
most instructive indication of how they can work together is in the research and
analysis on a given subject. For example, in the arena of human rights, governments are
perceived as either violating or upholding human rights. The NGO’s role becomes that
of advocate, go-between, or of lobbyist on behalf of the abused (Pal 1995). Similarly, in
the area of environmental issues and concerns, governments are either regulators or
violators.
iv.
Facilitating Corporate Social Responsibility
The private sector has ‘corporate social responsibility’ images to uphold.
Through initiatives such as that of the World Bank, an increasing body of activity and
literature focuses private sector attention on ‘corporate social responsibility’, or CSR, as
integral to the private sector’s mission to provide societal leadership through including
the poor in their growth and development considerations (May, Mascarenhas and Potts
2004). Recent attention has been given to CSR as a means of measuring a corporation’s
economic impact on the community within which it operates and elsewhere (Monaghan
et al., 2003). This is due to emerging awareness of the social impacts of economic
decisions.
The NGO then becomes the advocate for those who have no voice, or a sort of
broker or regulatory monitor between the private sector, the government and
environmental activists (Raustiala 1997). Finally, in the case of labor issues, the
governments have a responsibility to establish regulations and to administer them. The
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
30
private sector has the responsibility of observing fair hiring practices, respecting trade
and labor law, and equal-opportunity hiring. They advocate and lobby on behalf of
victims, and they broker for them between the government’s rules and the corporation’s
practices.
v.
Simplifying the Complex World of International Trade and the Fair Trade issue
Fair Trade has become the movement du jour for small farmers, particularly with
the onset of EurepGAP in 2005. A company or association that is “fair trade certified”
has access to numerous European and North American markets where the demand for
organic produce and socially- and environmentally-friendly practices are climbing
steadily. The international Fair Trade certification body, FLO (Fairtrade Labelling
Organisation International), guarantees that products bearing its label adhere to
internationally recognized fair trade standards and help underprivileged producers.
FLO acts as an international, universally recognized governing body for fair
trade practices. There are also several independent organizations that promote fair
trade through education, advocacy, and marketing. TransFair USA is an American
501c(3) organization that promotes fair trade coffee, tea and other products and acts as a
third-party verifier of fair trade quality standards. TransFair Canada does similar
promotion in Canada. The European Fair Trade Association, EFTA, is a similar
European body. All three recognize FLO and facilitate the supply of air trade certified
products to supermarkets and similar.
The Fair Trade movement is not without its dissenters; there are those who
contend that companies will do whatever they can to acquired the Fair Trade
label without real regard for small farmers. Similarly, there are those who find
FLO’s standards too stringent for truly disadvantaged producers.
Nevertheless, the fair trade movement has gained such momentum that is more likely
to provide opportunity for smallholders than damage if harnessed.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
31
Dimly related to Fair Trade, and of significance to smallholder farmers, is the
EurepGAP initiative. EurepGAP is a consortium of European retailers committed to
setting minimum quality standards for agricultural products. They have an eye toward
social concerns, but their biggest priority is reassuring the consumer of minimal risk.
EurepGAP’s certification, registration, and licensing fees fall to the association seeking
the certification, so this promises to be an obstacle for struggling smallholder farmers.
Furthermore, EurepGAP certifies at the farm level, so an individual field or crop
meeting its standards cannot be certified by itself.
vi.
So, What are the Implications?
The above discussion of NGO intervention areas highlights the complementary
roles government, the private sector, and civil society can hold in comprising threads of
an intricate societal tapestry. These examples also offer hints as to the possible unique
role for an NGO in making markets work for the smallholder farmer. The individual
farmer can suffer from repercussions of market failures and collective action
constraints. This is in part due to lack of formal governmental structure for property
ownership and for buyer and consumer rights.
The government can address this property ownership inequality by constructing
more inclusive policies and attempting to integrate the informal market into the formal
market. The private sector can observe corporate social responsibility practices by
taking risks on small farmers and regarding the poor as viable consumers and business
partners. The question remains as to the potential role of the NGO in making markets
work for the poor. Based on the human rights, labor rights, and environmental
examples, NGOs might be best suited to play an advocacy role, giving voice to the
smallholder farmer, and a broker role, linking buyers with small farmers and
facilitating a forum for commodity exchange between the two.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
32
4.
Spotlight on the Coffee Industry: A case-let
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
33
4.
Spotlight on the Coffee Industry – a case-let
In order to understand how CARE’s market access interventions fit into a larger
scheme of collaboration between NGOs, government, communities, and the private
sector, it is useful to examine the respective activities of CARE and other NGOs as they
interact with other sectors in one particular example: smallholder coffee farmers.
Coffee consumers reside mostly in the western world, and coffee producers
reside almost exclusively in the developing world. Small-scale coffee farmers are
prolific. They are located in Latin America and Africa, and they are subject to the everfluctuating world coffee price. Like any other crop, coffee is susceptible to pests and the
weather. The amount of per capita consumption varies considerably in industrialized
society – Americans, for instance, consume about 10 lbs of coffee per person per year,
while Germans consume nearly twice that per capita (ILO 2004). However, the bulk of
the coffee farming and production occurs in Latin America and in some parts of Africa.
Smallholder coffee farmers are subject to the world coffee price, which may or may not
be regionally viable for them in terms of covering their production costs enough that
they make a profit, let alone a living wage. They are also subject to fair trade
regulations such as the European Union’s imminent EurepGAP trade guideline 5, which
can be far more stringent than those of the farmers’ local government. Finally, they
suffer, as any smallholder farmer might, with lack of access to formal capital and lack of
formal training in business and entrepreneurship.
5
EurepGAP, an initiative of the European Union, regulates agricultural standards and promotes fair trade. Its Green
Coffee campaign is new as of 2004. For more information, see www.eurep.org.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
34
Coffee is an important world trading commodity. More than 53 countries
produce it, and for some of them coffee represents nearly 75% of their total exports.6
Brazil is by far the greatest exporter of coffee beans, with Colombia second, and then
Indonesia, Mexico, and Guatemala. Some African countries, while not among the
exporters with the highest volume, have the greatest percentage of their export market
devoted to coffee (about 75%). The countries with the greatest volume of coffee are the
United States and the European Union, particularly Germany.
a.
Prices
Because there is a processing aspect of the coffee industry, it is vulnerable to
MNC market domination (Auty 1995); most processing occurs in consumption
countries rather than in production countries. The largest international coffee
processing companies, including such household names as Nestlé and Proctor and
Gamble, have such expansive resources and ability to take risk or temporary loss that
any smaller players have difficulty breaking into the coffee market at any significant
level (Talbot 2002). Furthermore, coffee suppliers’ battles among themselves to increase
their respective market shares results in a volatile price fluctuation for a commodity
already susceptible to the weather as a determinant of output (Talbot 2002).
Colonialism further locked coffee-growing countries into patterns of supplying
raw beans to industrialized nations, who handled the more lucrative processing portion
of coffee production (Talbot 2002) and still do in large part today. Coffee plantations
have a clear advantage and pattern of domination over smallholder farmers (Sick 1997).
Producing countries collaborated to form an International Coffee Agreement (ICA) in
1962, in which a quota system controlled each country’s coffee exports in an effort to
6
These figures and other coffee statistics in this paper, unless otherwise noted, come from the International Coffee
Organization (ICO), a UN-sponsored intergovernmental body that provides statistics and trade information on coffee
in addition to activities encouraging the worldwide coffee economy. www.ico.org
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
35
stabilize the price. This lasted until 1972. The International Coffee Organization, or
ICO, attempted in 1989, after the world coffee market crashed, to reinstate a version of
the agreement, but without success; its failure was in part due to an inability on the part
of producing countries to come to collective agreement. Though the ICO and other
regulatory bodies lend a hand to governance and development of factions of the coffee
trade, smallholder coffee farmers struggle continually to find a niche in a market where
plantation owners and MNCs reign supreme.
b.
Property Rights, Ownership and Investments
Land tenure remains a problem for the smallholder coffee farmer. State policies,
particularly in Latin America, cater to those with large landholdings (de Soto 2000).
Small farmers have little means of acquiring more land, and rarely have access to
capital in order to do so. Collective action to address the government policies is a sticky
remedy to this problem, for often farmers’ cooperatives have little voice or lack pricing
and other information critical to bargaining power.
c.
Playing Fair (Trade)
The Fair Trade Coffee practice started out as a movement subsequent to the
coffee price decline and crash of the late 1980s. The concept was to offer direct trade
and fair prices to the developing world. Coffee producers can become fair trade
certified through FLO, the international certification body, and several of its affiliates,
indicating that the producers uphold fair trade standards in their exchange with sellers
in developing countries. Fair Trade has enabled small farmers to
receive organic cultivation certification and fair prices by applying for
this status through cooperatives of farmers (Simpson and Rappone
2000).
Starbucks has brought consumer attention to the Fair Trade movement through
its purchase and endorsement of Fair Trade coffee beans (May, Mascarenhas and Potts
2004). Starbucks has invested in providing educational materials to its coffee drinkers
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
36
with a simple, easy-to-understand explanation of the importance of assuring Fair Trade
conditions for LDC coffee farmers.
d.
Private Sector Interests
Starbucks provides an example of how corporations contribute to improving the
livelihood of the small-time coffee farmer. Starbucks and other coffee companies such
as the lesser-known Seattle-based Tully’s Coffee help to stabilize a just price for the
farmer by engaging in internationally recognized Fair Trade practices. They also
increase awareness through educating the consumer about fair trade practices using
marketing tools such as brochures and labeling. Using this or a similar model,
businesses can, through their own commitment to corporate social responsibility
principles, help poor coffee farmers while still profiting themselves.
e.
Public Affairs
Governments of coffee-producing nations, while in part responsible for the
challenges facing small-time coffee growers because of policies that disfavor the poor,
can similarly use policy as a tool for improving the selling climate for the farmer. In
Costa Rica, for example, policies favoring co-ops and community development
organizations have contributed to a coffee economy in which there is a place for the
smallholder farmer (Sick 1997). Similarly, intergovernmental groups, notably the ICO,
have successfully advised projects and provided governance guidelines to
policymakers. These examples point to the policy arena as an appropriate role for
government in promoting the viability of the small coffee farm.
f.
Probing the third sector players – the NGOs
But what of NGOs? Is there a role for NGOs in facilitating adequate and just
access to the global coffee market for the small-time coffee farmer? In other domains,
NGOs have worked alongside government and the private sector to address
overarching development themes, such as with the aforementioned human rights issues
or environmental concerns. NGOs have similarly played a distinct role with
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
37
international trade issues; while governments make and influence trade policy, and
corporations have an obvious self-interest in trade policy, NGOs have been watchdogs,
coalition builders, policy developers, and awareness-raisers on trade issues (cf. Esty
1996).
We can expect that NGOs have a comparable part to play in the complicated
challenge of facilitating or creating market access for the poor.
Five cases of NGOs working with small coffee farmers provide insight into how
NGOs might play a role distinct from government or the private sector in addressing
the market failures and collective action obstacles that confront the smallholder farmer.
All five are well-known NGOs with proven track records in service delivery and
technical assistance working on multiple continents. In light of NGO functions in other
domains such as the environment, human rights, and trade, each case is examined for
expected NGO activities:

Nature and geographical scope of project

Advocacy component

Education/awareness component

Other intervention components
A synthesis of the findings for each of the NGO cases offers a perspective on how
NGOs, including CARE, do and could intervene on behalf of small-time coffee farmers,
as well as how they might for other commodity producers with similar market access
problems for the poor. The information for each case comes from the respective NGOs’
websites.
Oxfam
Oxfam America does not work directly with coffee farmers but advocates for
them. Oxfam draws attention to the situation of small coffee farmers in Central and
South America and Africa. They lobby supermarkets to carry fair trade certified
products so that consumers have a choice. They report on the injustices and difficulties
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
38
facing the coffee market, particularly the small coffee farmer’s situation. They are
working mostly on the Meta level, internationally through their website.
CARE
CARE works with the coffee trade market in Honduras, Guatemala and Ethiopia.
CARE staff provides technical assistance to Honduran smallholder coffee farmers,
organizes them into cooperatives, and educates them in how to meet international
standards so as to compete in Western markets. Its Van Houtte coffee label, in
collaboration with the Van Houtte Company of Canada, sells coffee purchased from
small-time Honduran producers. CARE also collaborates with Starbucks
to promote environmentally responsible and commercially profitable
coffee growing among small Ethiopian farmers, and provides technical
assistance and income generation activity for Guatemalan coffee growers.
They are working on the Meta level through their coffee distribution, the
Meso level with Starbucks and Van Houtte, and the Micro level with individual farmers.
Interestingly, CARE’s relationship with Starbucks and its arrangement with Van
Houtte are markedly different from each other in that its relationship with Van Houtte
is much more intimate and direct, with CARE supplying technical assistance to farmers
and Van Houtte guaranteeing an outlet for the farmers’ coffee. Starbucks, on the other
hand, promotes fair trade coffee, but also provides funds for CARE projects across
sectors in coffee origin countries. An unfortunate result of CARE’s decentralized
structure is that CARE’s relationship with Van Houtte stems out of CARE Canada,
while CARE’s relationship with Starbucks is based in the United States. Van Houtte
and Starbucks, both coffee companies, are technically competitors, and consequently,
Van Houtte cannot market ‘CARE coffee’ in the United States, a potentially lucrative
market.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
39
World Vision
World Vision does not work with coffee in any particular geographical region.
Its aim is to influence policy, which it does by reporting on unfair practices toward
producers of “primary products,” including coffee-growers. They advocate for the
rights of small-time growers through their stance that the coffee crisis is not a matter of
an imperfectly free market, but of a structural problem of excess supply of coffee, so
that the price is never stable and never advantageous to the small farmer whose
production costs are high and who sees none of the revenue. They are working on the
Meta level with international education and the Macro level with national politics.
World Relief
World Relief assists Nicaraguan coffee farmers. The NGO works with farmers,
offering technical assistance and micro-loans for the purchase of farming supplies.
World Relief partners with Pura Vida Enterprises to package and market Mission Blend
Coffee, for which the beans are purchased from small Nicaraguan farms. World Relief
offers Mission Blend Coffee as a fundraising opportunity for faith-based groups who
want to earn money for their organization while simultaneously promoting a fair price
for coffee farmers. They work on the Meta level internationally, the Macro level with
Pura Vida, and the Micro level with individual coffee farmers.
Conservation International
Conservation International, like CARE, partners with Starbucks to bring coffee from
small-scale farmers to the North American consumer market. CI’s focus is to offer
smallholder coffee farmers’ economic and technical incentives to produce coffee using
practices that champion conservation. Environmentally smart practices such as soil and
water conservation or crop rotation are not always the least expensive option for smallscale farmers. CI recently added USAID to its partnership with Starbucks. They work
on the Meta level with the international roasters and the Micro level with farmers.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
40
Synthesis
The above five cases are not entirely representative of the scope of NGO
involvement with the coffee market worldwide but are examples of well-known NGOs
with considerable resources who have taken leadership in other forms of economic,
social and political development projects and programs in the international arena.
Their cases thus provide a guideline for ascertaining what elements might comprise an
NGO’s involvement in facilitating better access to the global coffee market for the poor
farmer.
As expected, NGOs play a bit of an advocacy role, as in the example of Oxfam
and World vision raising awareness via reporting and their websites or World Relief
proffering fair trade certified coffee as a fundraising possibility for churches. They
educate the coffee-drinking public and raise public awareness about the rights of smallscale coffee growers on their websites. NGOs also play a predictable role of service
provider, as with CARE and CI offering technical assistance and access to credit for
small farmers.
The five cases above also elucidate three other interesting elements of NGO
intervention. One is a brokerage role, as with CARE assisting farmers to navigate the
stringent trade regulations of Western nations. Related to this is risk mitigation for the
buyer and the supplier. Another is the varying forms of technical assistance; provision of
access to capital, as with Conservation International and CARE offering microcredit
opportunities to coffee farmers, merits further exploration. The third is a private sector
collaboration, as with World Vision partnering with Pura Vida to roast and distribute
coffee and CARE partnering with Starbucks on service provision and Van Houtte on
coffee labeling and distribution. There is also an attention to the significance of Fair
Trade certification on the part of Oxfam, World Vision, and CARE, all of which refer to
FLO (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International), the international fair trade
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
41
certification body, or its American subsidiary, Transfair USA. The range of NGO
involvement in making the coffee markets accessible to the poor is represented in the
following:
NGO Activity Grid:
Making the Coffee Market Work for the Poor
ACTIVITY
Advocacy
Education/
awareness
Technical
assistance
Brokerage
Private Sector
Collaboration
Fair Trade
promotion
Level of
Intervention




Meta, Mesa,
Micro


Meta, Macro


Meta, Micro
Meta, Mesa,
Micro

Meta, Mesa
NGO
CARE
Oxfam
CI
World
Relief
World
Vision







This checklist is a useful starting point for visiting the policy implications of
NGO intervention in world coffee markets. The market system, though purportedly
‘free,’ is disadvantageous to the small-scale farmer because the farmer is susceptible to
such classic market failures as lack of information about pricing and unequal access to
means of promoting or growing his business, as well as lack of a forum for collective
action in some cases. The international coffee market is an example of how the rich
profit from a lucrative commodity with no guarantee of a comparable boon for the
poor. Government and the private sector have established roles for intervening in the
market to correct for these market failures.
The above cases show that NGOs have both a current and a potential role in
assisting small farmers that is distinct from and complementary to that of government
and the private sector. Using the above matrix as a guideline, further research may
expand the number of cases of NGOs or apply the activities to another agricultural
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
42
commodity or sector. Also, the collaborative interventions, namely NGO partnership
with corporations to distribute and market fair trade-certified coffee, open the door for
other forms of inter-sectoral collaboration, as well as for eventual partnership with
government.
The question of how to ascertain that the poor have adequate access to global
markets is a large one with few ready answers. Central to the dilemma is the respective
roles of NGOs, government and the corporate world, and their relative political and
financial influence. The case of coffee suggests that all three sectors do indeed have
respective negotiated roles to play. NGOs, in particular, can take leadership in creating
transparency, advocacy, technical assistance, and cross-players collaboration. The
potential is enormous for a truly free and efficient market at the expense of no one. This
possibility is grounds for continued conscientious intervention on the part of NGOs.
The question of how to make markets work for the poor continues to challenge
us to prioritize the poor in every way that we conceptualize the role of the market. As
the lines between civil society, NGOs, and the private sector get renegotiated, our
ability to pinpoint the partnership possibilities between these three sets of actors
becomes paramount to our successfully making markets work for the poor so that the
poor don't have to work fruitlessly for the markets.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
43
5.
Making Markets Work for the Poor & CARE
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
44
5.
Making Markets Work for the Poor & CARE
As the literature and examples indicate, the approaches to market-based
development are as broad as the topic of making markets work for the poor. There are
those who begin with identifying the markets (e.g. financial, labor, food) and propose
different ways for NGOs and corporations to intervene in those. There are those who
focus primarily on the fair trade aspect, those who zero in on MNCs and the base of the
pyramid, and those who are mainly proponents of corporate social responsibility as the
solution to facilitating market access for the poor. CARE’s experiences show that each of
these foci is a piece of an ever-expanding puzzle – none by themselves are enough to
make a dent in poverty with a market-based approach.
Reviewing CARE’s market intervention programs reveals patterns in how CARE
collaborates with partners to facilitate market access for the poor. It also highlights
common obstacles and transferable practices. In attempting to organize the partnerships
between poor communities, CARE and the private sector into a useful schematic, three
divisions become apparent.
*
Expanding the Market Access (by poor) - includes programs that attempt to link
the poor (as suppliers and producers) to the market by connecting them with buyers,
organizing suppliers into cooperatives to give them more leverage, guaranteeing the
transaction , and training farmers and community leaders in business and marketing
skills to reinforce these linkages.
*
Deepening the Retail Market (for poor)- this assists the private sector in
identifying and working with the poor as consumer and collaborator/entrepreneur.
Whereas the first category of interventions helps the small farmer to access the formal
market as a supplier, the Market Extension category calls on the corporations and
private sector to see the profit potential in selling to the poor and employing them as
collaborators in the Market. Corporate Social Responsibility activities must consider
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
45
this set of interventions closely for benefiting the poor while maximizing profits at the
same time.
*
Opening Financial Services sector/ Capital Markets (for poor) - this broad
category includes access to financial services (loans, savings, insurance, and other
banking/ financial products). It is believed and experienced that access to financial
services and capital (or lack there off), plays a critical factor in poor people’s ability to
engage in the market place meaningfully.
a.
Common Constraints
Though each component of the program has its own unique set of challenges and
opportunities related to its setting, some common elements of CARE’s market-based
programming include:

Middleman and Market Linkage- Creating transparency and making the middlemen channel more efficient is a constant challenge for market-based programs,
and though ‘elimination’ of middleman is not always the most auspicious goal.
The middleman is a natural reality of a Market place and can become the cement
for establishing a fairer relationship between the supplier and the buyer, as with
the El-Shams project in Egypt (see profile on Page 28). CARE can help to cultivate
this relationship so that it is equitable. In some cases, CARE assumes the cloak of
the middleman by negotiating with buyers and aggregating sellers, guaranteeing
each to the other. CARE also creates a market information system that makes the
relationships and transactions more transparent and informed.

Risk management and mitigation - risk is a big factor in buyers’ reluctance to
negotiate with smallholders, as it is in smallholders’ reluctance to rely on big
buyers for minimal incomes. To establish more reliable, mutually beneficial and
trustworthy relationships, the programs broker negotiated contracts between
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
46
producer groups and corporations, as well as have put up guarantee
mechanisms and funds to mitigate the initial risks in those relationships.

Attitudes and habits - Farmers are slow to move from a subsistence mindset to a
commercial attitude, just as the private sector is slow to recognize the poor as
potential collaborators. Both parties need to stretch their attitudes of doing
business to meet midway.

Managing the Timings – Linking buyers to suppliers in a timely fashion matters
for keeping fresh produce fresh, and is even more critical with recognized
standards such as FLO and EurepGAP. Likewise, paying farmers in a timely
fashion is critical to their motivation to participate.

Creating Incentives for all through a private sector approach – if there is little to
no incentive to participate in a program, the status quo is inevitably more
appealing.

Internal Management and Technical Coordination – CARE is decentralized in
terms of management, and while this helps in avoiding bureaucratic
sluggishness, it has been a constraint with market access programs where the
intervention approaches, technical capacities, application of lessons and best
practices, market negotiation capacities etc. have been applied inconsistently.

What to do with Profit – In acting as a guarantor, broker, shareholder or
middleman and/or promoting income-generating activities, CARE is occasionally
faced with the sticky question of what to do with any profit its interventions
generates. Feeding the revenue back into the program by covering the program’s
expenses, helping it to grow, or providing additional training and supplies for
farmers seem reasonable uses for such income – but none are seamless for an
NGO that traditionally leaves income generation to the private sector.

Role confusion in Market Creation – market creation and establishment is de
rigueur for a profit-generating business; capitalizing on opportunity means
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
47
researching, identifying, and taking advantage of profitable markets for
products. But this is clearly articulated within CARE whose primary mission is
to address the issue of poverty. While interventions and investments in the
Market have a direct bearing on Poverty, it also brings the dilemma for CARE. It
wishes to be conscious and aware that helping the private sector identify and
develop markets with/ for the poor brings with it the possibility of creating
dependence. It can also generate the desire among the poor for products or
commodities that they do not truly need,. Another dilemma is to first reach the
poorest and the most marginalized, who do are least connected with the Market.
While logic dictates that this is a way to deepen the growth of an economy, it
does not automatically enhance the quality of life of the subsistence dweller.
Becoming involved as an NGO in private sector partnership is an effective way
of making the markets work for the poor, but brings with it dilemmas heretofore
shouldered uniquely by the private sector.
b.
Common Practices
CARE’s involvement in market intervention has seen patterns in its practice:

Risk mitigation is a critical role for CARE. CARE often guarantees the sellers to
the buyers so that buyers will be encouraged to initiate a relationship with poor
farmers; this facilitates market creation. CARE also guarantees buyers to sellers,
so sellers can be assured of a minimum amount of profit and will have more
incentive to risk investing in crops beyond subsistence needs.

Farmers need to transition in mindset from subsistence to commercial farming.
CARE is situated to build this capacity through education. Businesses likewise
need education in understanding the poor as consumers and as entrepreneurs.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
48

Linking MFIs to commercial resources and capital is a way both to build capacity
of MFIs and to facilitate better the flow of mainstream financial capital (and
investments) towards the poor.

CARE can facilitate guarantee mechanisms, timely delivery and payments,
increasing incentive to collaborate on both ends.

CARE is very often a linchpin, liaising between the poor, the private sector,
NGOs and local governments to reassure stakeholders and create pro-poor
markets.
c.
Future Directions and Next Step
If CARE is to promote Making Markets Work for the Poor as a theme of programming
in economic development, it will be critical to develop a shared approach or mission
among the programs, country offices, regional management units and the CI members.
Because making markets work for the poor involves collaborating with the private
sector as partners rather than merely as donors, a centrally articulated strategy is
important for avoiding conflicts of interest stemming from the competition that is
innate to the health of the private sector.
Making markets work for the poor brings with it the significant potential for a
permanent reduction in the plight and the vulnerability of the poor. While the
combined aid capital is significant for the reduction of global poverty, the lessons of
micro-economic development need to be adapted and transferred to the private sector,
whose resources are significantly higher, and can create much more sustainable and
lasting change for the poor. However, entering this arena also brings with it the
dilemma of how to grapple with issues not central to more classic development
programming. Developing a strategy for how to handle the investments and profits
as a “nonprofit” will be critical to CARE’s success as a sort of middleman, because the
credibility CARE can glean from having a thought-out mechanism for handling those
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
49
profits can greatly enhance its leverage as a link between buyers and suppliers who
have a vested interest in where the profit goes.
CARE’s intervening in the markets means creating new opportunities for the
poor who need it the most. CARE, with its knowledge and experience of the cultural
and economic milieu, may be well-positioned to identify potential markets
opportunities and interventions in collaboration with the private companies, even
though companies themselves historically do their own market research. It can be
mindful of and an influencer to the market-deepening process where products not
meeting ‘basic’ and essential necessities are avoided by the poor. CARE could
collaborate with private sector for the market research but remain engage in the
education of the poor so as to develop as savvy consumers and entrepreneurs; CARE
could adopt a programming policy for creating new market possibilities for its clients,
while not compromising on a social mission. However, CARE will have to deal with
various options that exist for interventions and choose appropriate role(s) in the
market , which are far from cut-and-dry.
Finally, the examination of the coffee industry shows that CARE and other
NGOs are in a unique position and in an integral position to intervene in the markets in
collaboration with the private sector, and indeed, they already are engaged in such
activities. In part because this style of programming is new, evaluating it in such a way
as to understand its real impact on the coffee and other industries as well as to grasp
how effective the technical assistance is or is not well developed. For-profit companies
look for the “bottom line” to measure their success, and market-based programming
necessarily must look at that too. Better evaluation design integrated into market
intervention programming would make it easier to have data that donors and potential
private sector partners would understand and would also provide insight into how to
improve market intervention programming methods to make them even more effective.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
50
END-NOTE
A rights-based approach to economic development ensures that it is growthoriented and that it respects and dignifies the individual. Our challenge in viewing
“making markets work for the poor” through a rights-based lens is to acknowledge
economic growth and well-being as a fundamental right and use it as a foundation in
our conception of market or demand-driven programs. The market cannot thrive
without the private sector, and the poor cannot access the market without the efforts of
the private sector. CARE and other NGOs are uniquely positioned to promote the right
of the poor to access the market, and in collaboration with poor communities and the
private sector, the market can work for all levels of the pyramid.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
51
Selected Bibliography
Annamalai, Kuttayan, and Sachin Rao. 2003. “What Works: ITC’s E-Choupal and Profitable
Rural Transformation.” University of Michigan: World Resources Institute Digital
Dividend Case Study Series.
Auty, Richard. 1995. Patterns of Development: Resources, Policy and Economic Growth.
London: Edward Arnold.
Caiden, Naomi, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1990. Planning and Budgeting in Poor Countries. New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
CARE website. http://www.care.org/
CLUSA website. http://www.ncba.coop/clusa.cfm
Conservation International website. http://www.conservationinternational.org
De Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and
Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books.
DFID. 2003. “Making Markets Work Better for the Poor: A Framework Paper.” Eldis.
Lindahl, C. October 2003. “Challenges to SIDA’s support to private sector development: Making
Markets Work for the Poor.” Swedish International Development Authority (Sida).
Esty, David. 1996. “Public Participation in the International Trading System.” Global
Environmental and Trade Study, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development.
EurepGAP website. www.eurep.org.
Fischer, Klaus. 2000. “A Market Approach to Microfinance: A Deserving Research Agenda.”
CREFA, Laval University.
FLO website. www.fairtrade.net.
Hammond, Allen, and C.K. Prahalad. 2004. “Selling To The Poor.” Foreign Policy, May/June.
London, Todd, and Stuart L. Hart. 2004. “Reinventing Strategies for Emerging Markets: Beyond
the Transnational Model.” Journal of International Business Strategies.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
52
May, Peter H., Gilberto Mascarenhas, and Jason Potts. 2004. “Sustainable Coffee Trade: The role
of Coffee Contracts.” Sustainable Commodity Initiative, United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development with International Institute for Sustainable Development. May.
Meehan, Jennifer. 2004. “Tapping the Financial Markets for Microfinance.” Grameen
Foundation USA Working Paper Series.
Monaghan, Patrick, et al. 2003. “Business and Economic Development: The Impact of
Corporate Social Responsibility.” Report by AccountAbility and Business for
Social Responsibility. June.
Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard Economic Studies.
OXFAM website.
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatyoucando/act_now/campaign_action/coffee
Prahalad, C.K. 2004. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through
Profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Purushothaman, Sangeetha, M. Subhas, and Mitali Nagrecha. 2003. “Building Women’s
Capacities to Access Markets in the Peri-Urban Interface: the Hardware and Software
Required.” Paper presented on behalf of UNDP to the Regional Symposium on Local
Governance and the Informal Economy, Colombo, Sri Lanka, December.
Raustiala, Kal. 1997. “States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions.”
International Studies Quarterly, Winter.
Raynolds, Laura T. 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade
movements. Agriculture and Human Values,17(3), September.
Sick, Deborah. 1997. “Coping with Crisis: Costa Rican households and the International Coffee
Market. Ethnology 36:3.
Simpson, Charles R., and Anita Rappone. 2000. “Community Development from the Ground
Up: Social Justice Coffee.” Human Ecology Review, 7:1.
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Smith, Jackie, and Hank Johnson. 2002. “Globalizing Resistance: The Battle of Seattle and the
Future of Social Movements.” Globalization and Resistance, Latham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
53
Talbot, John. 2002. “Information, Finance and the New International Inequality: The Case of
Coffee.” Journal of World Systems Research VIII: 2, Spring.
Transfair USA website. www.transfairusa.org.
UNDP. 2004. “Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business Work for the Poor.” New York.
World Relief website. http://www.wr.org/featurestories/view.asp?id=30000013
World Vision website.
http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/wvususfo.nsf/stable/globalissues_trade_ethica
ltrade
Yunus, Muhammad. Banker to the Poor: Micro lending and the Battle Against World Poverty.
New York: Public Affairs, 1999.
Zedillo, Ernesto. 2004. “Making Business Work.” Forbes. (6):173.
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
54
APPENDICES
Making Markets Work for the Poor, 2004-05
55
Appendix IV: From Crop to Cup
The Conventional Trade Route
Small
Process
Farmers
Mill
Local
Exporters
Brokers
Importers
Roasters
Middle-
Distribut
Retailers
Consumers
ors
man
Estate
Coffee
Workers
Estates
The Fair Trade Route
Farmers
Cooperatives
Importers
Roasters
Distributors
Retailers
Consumers
Prepared by Monica Oliver for CARE USA Economic Development Unit Fall 2004
Page 56
TransFair USA 2004
Appendix V: Checklist for potential Market Intervention Programs –
Is your program making the market work for the poor?
 Market identification – what are the informal, regional, national, and international
markets for your commodity? What are the chief obstacles to accessing it?
 Middleman – Is there a problem of a middleman in your potential market? Is CARE in a
position to take the middleman’s role and assure that the profits get to the buyers and
suppliers?
 Risk – what are the risks involved for the buyers/private sector? For the
suppliers/farmers? Is CARE in a position to act as guarantor and mitigate risk?
 Attitudes – what are the attitudes toward subsistence vs. commercial farming on the part
of the poor? What are the private sector’s attitudes toward the poor as consumers? As
partners? What are CARE’s other programs’ attitudes toward collaborating with market
access programs for a holistic approach?
 Timing – can CARE facilitate product delivery and money transactions in a timely,
motivating fashion?
 Incentive – what are the buyer’s incentives for participating in the program? What are the
seller’s incentives? What is the private sector’s incentive for risking collaboration with the
program? What are other CARE sector’s incentives for collaborating with market access
programs?
Prepared by Monica Oliver for CARE USA Economic Development Unit Fall 2004
Page 57