See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332189043

Analysis of the Sweet Potato Value Chain in Ghana; Linkages, Pathways,

Governance and Constraints

Article · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 228

2 authors:

Prosper Wie Robert Aidoo

Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology
3 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   242 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ROFE-Researching the obesogenic food environment in South Africa and Ghana View project

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE TRIALS AND ADOPTION OF SELECTED SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT (SFM) TECHNOLOGIES AMONG GRAIN LEGUME FARMERS IN THE
NORTHERN AND UPPER WEST REGIONS OF GHANA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Prosper Wie on 04 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J. Agric. Food. Tech., 7(1)1-13, 2017 ISSN 2090 – 424X
Journal of Agriculture and
© 2017, TextRoad Publication Food Technology
www.textroad.com

Analysis of the Sweet Potato Value Chain in Ghana;

Linkages, Pathways, Governance and Constraints
Prosper Wie, Robert Aidoo

Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

ABSTRACT

This study was aimed at examining the various relationships and product pathways of the sweet potato value chain
and constraints of actors along the sweet potato value chain in Ghana. Data were collected from both primary and
secondary sources with primary data forming the core of the study. A total of Three Hundred and Eighty (380)
respondents were interviewed comprising 200 producer respondents, 100 traders and 80 processors. Value chain
mapping and governance approach was done to establish the linkages and relationships among actors along the
value chain and the produce pathways. The Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was used to analyze the various
constraints by actors. The study results revealed that, the main actors along the sweet potato value chain are input
suppliers, producers, collectors, wholesalers, retailers, processors and consumers. The sweet potato value chain was
found to be buyer-driven and governed by collectors. The chain was also found to be weak in terms of integration
and access to market information. Producers were constrained with high cost of chemical inputs, poor road network
to farms and high cost of labour during the production process whilst low commodity price, poor road network and
long market distance were their critical marketing challenges. Traders also identified high transport cost, inadequate
storage facilities and high post-harvest losses as the most critical constraints to their sweet potato business. Limited
working capital, limited access to credit and high perishability of produce were identified as the most constraining
factors at the processor level. Therefore, policies and strategies aimed at improving the shelf life of the crop,
enhance coordination and enhanced access to credit is recommended by the study.
KEY WORDS: Actors, Buyer-driven, Chronbach’s alpha, Integration, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, Value
chain map

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In Ghana, agriculture employs more than 50 percent of the economic active population and contributes more
than 30 percent to export receipts and 22 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (GSS, 2013). Within food crop
production, diverse crop enterprises are managed in order to improve food security and household income generation.
Major among such enterprise are cereals and grains followed by Root and tuber (R&T) crops (Babaleye, 2005). Root
and tuber crops consumption form between 16 and 31% of per capita daily calorie intake in Ghana (GSS, 2005). The
main roots and tuber crops in Ghana are cassava, yam, cocoyam and sweet potato. Sweet potato has seen minimal work
on value chain development. However, the crop holds the position as one of the main food security crops in Africa due
to its resistance to drought, flexible planting, harvest cycle and tolerance of low-quality soils. Due to the crop’s
versatility and adaptability, it is ranked as a universal crop and seventh most important food crop next to wheat, rice,
maize, potato, barley, and cassava since it contains a substantial source of carbohydrate, carotene and vital vitamins
(CIP, 2000; FAO, 2002). The consumption of the crop is mainly in the fresh form by either frying, boiling or roasting;
the vegetative parts (vines) are mostly fed to livestock predominantly in areas such as central Kenya where zero grazing
management systems particularly in small scale dairying is well established. They may also be utilized by young calves
as starter feed and partial milk replacer (Orodho et al., 1995). Notable production areas and sweet potato supply centers
in Ghana are Eastern, Central, Northern, Upper East, and Volta Regions; the later three regions coincide with the
country’s poverty map. The sweet potato value chain in Ghana comprises many actors interlinked by different
governance structures which expose them to various constraints. Addressing constraints of sweet potato production as
well as physical, facilitating and exchange functions of marketing thus promises improvements in poverty and food
security. Sweet potato is a food security crop which contributes not only to calorie intake but employment creation,
income and poverty alleviation in production and distribution centers. A number of actors are involved in the
production of the crop in some Southern and Northern Regions of Ghana. Due to its short gestation period, it can be

Corresponding author: Prosper Wie, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension, Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, Email: [email protected].

1
 Wie and Aidoo, 2017

cultivated three times in a calendar year by farmers serving as a constant and stable source of income for them. The
marketing and distribution as well as processing of sweet potato have generated employment to many households
especially women, and livelihoods to such households largely depend on the crop. Nutritionally, the crop is known to
be a well-balanced major plant food with a good proportion of protein and calories, whilst complemented largely by
substantial quantities of vitamins, especially vitamin C, minerals, and trace elements. Because of the correct balance
between protein and calories, it is regarded as a start-up food for growing children (Berga et al, 1993). Whilst
potentially sweet potato is regarded as being widely versatile in its uses, substantial constraints of production and
marketing have caused the sector to remain considerably sluggish in terms of productivity and value chain
development. Thiele et al. (2009) assert that significant issues confronting the sweet potato value chain are; limited
access to quality planting materials and other production inputs, limited market for the crop as it competes with other
prominent roots and tuber crops like yam, high perishability of the crop is also seen as the main issues which has made
the development of the crop’s value chain sluggish. The crop potentially can be cropped at least three times yearly.
However, heavy dependence on rains rather than irrigation has made the crop seasonal reducing its cropping potential.
Also, limited coordination among value chain actors has made the value chain of sweet potato less developed. The
foregone discussion is indicative that sweet potato value chain is one bedeviled with many constraints whereas research
effort has been very low. The constraints coupled with the linkages, pathways, roles and governance structure of the
value chain if not critically examined can hamper the effective role of the sweet potato value chain in providing
alternative livelihoods for the households who are dependent on it. The study therefore seeks to carry out and thorough
analysis of the sweet potato value chain, linkages and governance structure and finally enumerate the various
constraints along the chain in order to address them appropriately.

1.2 Value chain governance

Kaplinsky and Morries (2000) refer to governance the role of coordination and identifying dynamic profitable
opportunities and assigning roles to key players. Value chains entail repeating linkages through actor interactions. In
ensuring governance among actors along a value chain, chain managers are to ensure that these relationships are
reflective of their organization rather than some randomness of those events. The conception of value chain
governance stems from a requirement to set a product and process through adequate logistic standards which then
impact an action from either the downstream or upstream of the chain.
The terms coordination and governance tend to have been used in a synonymous manner in the literature
particularly in the 1980s. Williamson (1985) conceptualized governance to mean the set of institutional organizations in
which involves some transaction. Gereffi’s et al. (2005) used the term governance to mean coordination which he
defined as meaning the vertical organization of activities and functions of actors in work on Global Commodity Chains.
Williamson (2002) stressed that the gradual shift from spot trade to contract ordering of goods and services leads to the
reconceptualization of the firm not being a production function (mainly for the production activities) but as a
governance structure. This improves the quality of standards for the benefit of industrial coordination which is mainly
seen in the agri-food chains where commodities are perishable and frequently change form as it progresses towards its
target consumer. Also, the network theory stipulates that, relationships are not only shaped by economic considerations;
other concepts like trust, reputation and power also have a key impact on the structure and duration of inter-firm
relationships (Uzzi 1997). Since the 1990s, social capital theory has become an important branch within the network
approach. Network relations may enhance the “social capital” of a company, by making it feasible to get easier access
to information, technical know-how and financial support (Coleman 1990; Burt 1997) and by encouraging knowledge
transfer between network partners (Humphrey and Schmitz 2002), thereby reducing transaction costs and improving
access to markets ( Gulati, 1998). Firms/companies would therefore select the governance form that minimizes
transaction costs, under conditions of bounded rationality and opportunistic behavior of partners. The trust that is
existent between firms makes it possible for an industry to have several coordination forms. Kaplinisky and Morris
(2000) classified value chains based on whether the said chain exhibits a market oriented (buyer-driven) or a produce
oriented (producer-driven) governance structures or setting: Buyer-driven chains are usually associated with labor
intensive industries, and so it is more important for international development and agriculture. In such industries, the
lead role in coordination in terms of products specification and volume is determined by buyers. This is particularly the
case for crops whose shelf life is short.

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Sampling Method and Data

The study was conducted in the West Mamprusi and Fanteakwa districts of the Northern and Eastern regions
of Ghana respectively due to its their prominence when it comes to the production of the target commodity (sweet

2
 J. Agric. Food. Tech., 7(1)1-13, 2017

potato). Also, these areas have seen some interventions when it comes to root and tubers crops utilization
(processing) into different forms by RTIP/RTIMP initiatives. Four (4) communities were selected from each of the
districts by the use of a simple random sampling technique. Farmers in the selected communities were then selected
by way of simple random sampling approach using the village farmers list from the AEAs and the random number
table approach which tends to reduce selection biases significantly. Markets and communities selected for trader and
processor respondents were purposively selected with areas of high concentration of the targets (processors and
traders) given highest priority. A combination of accidental and snowballing techniques was used to select
marketers/traders and processors based on referrals from initial subjects due to the difficulty in getting a sampling
frame at these actors. With this, respondents were interviewed as and when they were identified and willing to
participate in the survey. A sample size of one hundred (100) farmers, fifty (50) traders and forty (40) processors
were selected from each of the districts (West Mamprusi and Fanteakwa) making a total of Three Hundred and
Eighty (380) respondents. Primary data formed the core of the data used in this study.

2.2 Data Analysis

A combination of value chain map and the governance structure were used to analyze the sweet potato value
chain. Mapping value chain helps to get a better understanding of connections between actors and processes and
interdependency between actors and processes in a value chain. A value chain map allows one to depict all
activities, actors, and relationships among segments of the chain, and the interactions between producers and
intermediaries. This exercise was carried out in qualitative and quantitative terms through graphs presenting the
various chain actors, their linkages and all the operations of the chain from production level through the to the
consumer. Within the concept of value chain, governance defines the structure of relationships and coordination
mechanisms that exist among chain actors. Constraints faced by actors along the sweet potato value were also
analyzed using the Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance (W). Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) The
Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance was estimated as follows;
12(T − T 3 )
W= 2
m − ( n3 − n ) (1)
Where;
T= Sum of ranks for each constraints been ranked
m= Number of respondents passing judgment on the constraints
n= Number of rankings
Then test of significance of the Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance is given by:
−1
z = 0.15log e ( ( m − 1) w )(1 − w )
(2)
The Kendall’s Concordance is hypothesized as;
H0= There is no agreement among the rankings of the constraint
H1= There is agreement among the rankings of the constraint
The test of significance of the Kendall’s Concordance was done using the chi-square (χ2) statistic which is computed
using the formula;
χ 2 = p ( n − 1)W
(3)
Where;
n= Sample size; p=number of constraints; W= Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance
After the various constraints and the agreements have been elicited, the Cronbach’s Alpha was used as an estimator
of the internal consistency and reliability of psychometric scores for a sample of respondents for a five (5) point
Likert scale helped in removing constraints that were not in-line (consistent) or measuring the same construct with
the general outlook of constraints. The theoretical form of the Cronbach’s Alpha is shown below;
 n

N  ∑ σ Yi 2 
α= 1 − i =1 2 
N −1  σX 
 
(4)
α= Coefficient that indicates the reliability of constraints.
N= Number of components (Items)

3
 Wie and Aidoo, 2017

= Variance of observed total test scores for the current sample of persons

= Variance of component i for the current sample of persons

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Descriptive Analysis of Producer.

Tables 1 and 2 present demographic and summary statistics of producer respondents. About 79% were males
and 21% were females. The average age of farmers from the pooled sample was 40 years. With regards to
educational status of the farmers, it was realized that majority of farmers had never been to school (44.5%) followed
by farmers with basic level of education (43.5%) with an average years of schooling of 8. Majority (83%) of the
farmers from the study were married with an average household size of 7 people (pooled) which is an indication of
additional farm labour. Majority (54%) of farmers indicated they owned their lands for sweet potato cultivation with
an average farm size of about two (2) acres and above 15 years of farming experience. Output per acre was seen to
have an average of 12.5 bags (1362.5kg) per acre. It was also realized from the study that, majority (53%) of farmers
had access to extension services with an average extension contact of three (3) per year. Membership of FBOs was
seen to be low (26%) which ultimately make group level technology transfer difficult. Record keeping was also seen
to be on the low (41%) with the main reason of not keeping records by farmers being their inability of write. From
the study, access to credit was found to be very low since only 12% of farmers indicated they had access. Savings
habit of farmers was seen to be good since farmers reported saving about 50% of their profit.

Table 1 Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Producers

Fanteakwa West Total (N=200)
(n=100) Mamprusi
Variables (n=100)
% % Freq %
Sex Male 71 87 158 79
Female 29 13 42 21
Educational Level Never been to school 26 63 89 44.5
Basic 68 19 87 43.5
Secondary 6 16 22 11
Tertiary 0 2 2 1
Marital Status Single 14 7 21 10.5
Married 75 91 166 83
Separated 2 0 2 1
Widowed 9 2 11 5.5
Land Tenure Arrangement Own land 27 80 107 53.5
Family land 15 16 31 15.5
Share cropping 53 0 53 26.5
Renting 5 4 9 4.5
Access to Extension Yes 32 74 106 53
No 68 26 94 47
Membership of a Co- Yes 0 52 52 26
operative
No 100 48 148 74
Record Keeping Yes 6 35 41 20.5
No 94 65 159 79.5
Access to Credit Yes 14 17 31 15.5
No 86 83 169 84.5
Source; Field survey, 2015

4
 J. Agric. Food. Tech., 7(1)1-13, 2017

Table 2 Summary statistics on characteristics of Producers

Fanteakwa (n=100) West Mamprusi (n=100) Total (N=200)
Variables Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Age (years) 42.99 14.34 37.82 11.69 40.41 13.31
Years of schooling 7.48 2.62 9.1842 3.42 8.053 3.0054
Household size 5.8 2.91 8.28 4.6 7.04 4.032
Distance to farm (km) 1.6 1.076 2.584 1.97 2.092 1.65
Years of SP farming 14.36 9.17 6.6 5.45 10.48 8.47
Farm size of SP (acres) 2.2825 1.77 1.2875 0.67 1.785 1.42
Output (109kg bag) 23.095 14.52 26.02 16.31 24.55 15.47
Extension Contact 2.1481 1.026 3.1067 1.58 2.8529 1.51
Amount saved last season (GHȼ) 571.5556 469.029 241.1236 190.37 407.26 394.16
Credit received last season (GHȼ) 576.42 517.32 286.47 75.74 417.41 374.89
Price of SP (109kg) 93.7 12.28 65.88 11.0034 79.79 18.15
Income from SP (GHȼ) 1899.8 1398.44 1274.82 645.84 1587.31 1130.74
Profit for last season (GHȼ) 1310.9 1362.44 567.27 611.5 939.085 1117.33
Source; Field survey, 2015

3.2. Descriptive Analysis of Traders

Traders serve as the main link between the downstream and upstream of the value chain. Tables 3 and 4
illustrate their demographic and summary statistics. From the survey, it can be realized that majority of the traders
(98%) females. It is however worth noting that, the average age of traders was 43years. About 38% of traders were
wholesalers with 29% being collectors and 33% being retailers. The study revealed that, majority (61%) of sweet
potato traders had never been to school with an average of 3years of schooling. Majority (51%) of traders had the
main target customers for their sweet potato as fellow traders with 25% of traders targeting their produce directly to
processors and 24% targeting consumers. It was realized from the survey that the main point of sale for sweet potato
was the main district markets with 81% of traders responded to the affirmative. From the survey, it was realized that
48% traded in only sweet potato whilst majority (52%) of traders indicating they traded in other root and tuber
crops. The survey further revealed that, majority (72%) of traders were not members of any trader association.
Generally, access to price information was seen from the survey as high since majority (56%) of the traders had
access to price information and handled about 9 bags (981kg) per week.

Table 3 Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Traders

Fanteakwa West Mamprusi Total (N=100)
Variables (n=50) (n=50)
% % Freq %
Sex Male 4 0 2 2
Female 96 100 98 98
Age <30 16 14 15 15
30-60 80 76 78 78
>60 4 10 7 7
Type of Trader Retailers 40 26 33 33
Wholesalers 30 46 38 38
Collectors 30 28 29 29
Educational Level Never Been to School 30 92 61 61
Basic 68 8 38 38
Secondary 2 0 1 1
Target Customer Fellow Traders 54 48 51 51
Processors 8 42 25 25
Consumers 38 10 24 24
Main Point of Sale Main District Market 74 88 81 81
Market Within District 10 12 11 11
Market Outside District 16 0 8 8
Trade in Other Yes 52 44 48 48
Commodities No 48 56 52 52
Membership of a Trader Yes 42 14 28 28
Association No 58 86 72 72
Awareness of SP Price Yes 74 38 56 56
Information No 26 62 44 44

5
 Wie and Aidoo, 2017

Table 4 Summary statistics characteristics of Traders

Fanteakwa (n=50) West Mamprusi (n=50) Total (N=100)
Variables
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Age (years) 42.12 10.63 42.5 12.57 42.31 11.58
Years of schooling 5.54 4.067 0.66 2.37 3.10 4.12
Household size 5.62 1.88 6.54 3.19 6.08 2.65
Volumes of SP handled per week 12.945 13.89 4.16 2.61 8.55 10.88
(109kg bag)
Minimum capital Requirement(GHȼ) 1676.2 1533.89 411.6 163.61 1043.90 1257.62
Marketing cost 4188.74 4590.53 698.59 525.58 2443.664 3693.62
Unit Price(GHȼ /109kg) 130.294 26.77 67.63 10.12 97.222 37.13
Total revenue(GHȼ) 4937.56 5072.10 877.65 683.029 2907.603 4138.41
Profit (GHȼ/typical month) 748.82 982.021 179.058 190.35 463.939 759.75
Source; Field Survey, 2015

3.3 Descriptive Analysis of Sweet Potato Processors.

Processors in the sweet potato value chain perform the transformational role by changing the produce into
different products for a more convenient utilization by consumers. The main product processed from fresh sweet
potato was found to be the fried form. Processors also play a role as a major receptacle for the absorption of most of
the sweet potato from traders compared to proportions channeled directly to consumers. This activity is basically
performed by females as observed in the survey since all eighty (80) processors identified were female. The
International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated about 61% of females in the informal sector in developing
counties (ILO, 2000). The study revealed that, majority (85%) of processors were within the age category of 30 and
60 years. With regards to the level of education of processors, it can be seen from the results that majority (50%) of
processors had attained basic level with eight (8) years of schooling. Also, majority (81%) of processors were into
the processing of other commodities. Membership of processor association was almost non-existent since majority
(67%) of processors were not members. A typical processor had about six (6) years of experience. Majority (46%)
of processors indicated their reliance on retailers for fresh produce due to the convenience and/or proximity to these
traders (retailers). The mode of marketing was also found to be the same across the two districts since all (100%)
processors indicated their use of spot trade either for their produce or products. The source and type of capital used
by processors was mainly own equity (96%) source. With regards to access to credit, majority (92.5%) of processors
indicated they had limited access. Place of savings has been very critical in recent times in one’s ability to access
credit facilities from FIs.

Table 5 Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Processors

Fanteakwa West Mamprusi Total (N=80)
(n=40) (n=40)
Variables % % Freq %
Age <30 7.5 22.5 12 15
30-60 92.5 77.5 68 85
Educational Level Never been to 12.5 80 37 46
school
Basic 83 17.5 40 50
Secondary 5 2.5 3 4
Processing more than one Yes 10 62.5 65 81
commodity No 0 37.5 15 19
Membership of a Trader Association Yes 0 22.5 9 11
No 100 77.5 48 89
Main Point of SP Procurement Farm gate 10 10 8 10
Collector 23 20 17 21
Wholesaler 30 15 18 23
Retailer 37 55 37 46
Source; Field Survey, 2015

6
 J. Agric. Food. Tech., 7(1)1-13, 2017

Table 6 Summary Statistics of characteristics of Processors (continuous variables)

Variable Fanteakwa (n=40) West Mamprusi (n=40) Total (N=80)
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Age (years) 38 6.51 34.40 7.67 36.2 7.30
Years of schooling 7.53 3.29 1.53 3.40 4.53 4.49
Household size 4.88 1.67 6.25 2.26 5.56 2.092
Average distance (km) 3.91 4.59 2.77 1.26 3.32 3.33
Total income from SP (GHȼ) 1310.45 846.44 683.75 212.85 997.10 689.56
Years of sweet potato processing 7.15 3.94 4.33 2.27 5.74 3.49
Credit received for SP processing (GHȼ) 1266.67 1342.63 1266.67 1342.63
Average processing cost /cycle (GHȼ) 64.85 22.83 57.90 11.57 61.37 18.32
Average Profit/cycle (GHȼ) 46.99 63.14 42.77 34.17 44.88 50.49
Source; Field Survey, 2015

3.4 Value Chain Analysis

3.4.1 Value Chain Map of Sweet Potato in Ghana
The value chain map of sweet potato in Ghana is generated from the study as depicted in Figure 1. The
various actors in the value chain are depicted and the various distributional channels of the flow of sweet potato to
the final consumer illustrated. From the map, it can be seen that producers mainly enjoy support services such as
input supplies, financial assistance and educational programmes on innovative technology from service providers
(MoFA, private input dealers, NGOs, FIs, and RIs). Information flow is mainly a two way flow where service
providers receive feedback from producers on whatever service is given. Producers after production of sweet potato
have a number of alternative channels to sell their produce. It was realized from the study that, majority (65.5%) of
producers sold their produce to collectors who mainly buy sweet potato from the farm gate with 30.5% of producers
selling to wholesalers and 1.5% selling to retailers. Only 1.5% and 1% of producers sold directly to processors and
consumers respectively. Also, majority (60%) of collectors sold their produce to wholesalers, 20% selling to
processors and 18% sold to retailers. Notwithstanding, 2% of collectors sold their produce directly to consumers.
Wholesalers mainly sold their produce to retailers with 60% of them indicating their sale to retailers. It was also
realized that whilst 38% of wholesalers sold to processors, only 2% of them sold to consumers. At the retailer level
however, 60% and 40% of them sold their sweet potato to processors and consumers respectively. Finally, all
processors (100%) sold their products directly to consumers in a more convenient and ready-to-eat forms.

3.4.2 Actors and their Role in Sweet Potato Value Chain

The value chain map emphasized the involvement of diverse actors who participate directly or indirectly in
the value chain of sweet potato in Ghana. According to KIT et al. (2006), the direct actors of a value chain are those
involved in actual activities along the chain (input suppliers, producers, traders, processors and consumers) whilst
the indirect actors can be said to be actors who provide financial or non-financial support services, such as credit
agencies, government via MoFA, NGOs, cooperatives, researchers and extension agents. Input suppliers are
involved either directly or indirectly in the supply of agricultural inputs. Private input suppliers have been
acknowledged by farmers as the main source of input supply (especially fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and farm
implements). Sweet potato growing farmers also participate in this stage of the value chain particularly when it
comes to sweet potato planting materials (vines) supply to fellow farmers at a fee and/or gratis. Notwithstanding, it
was also observed that MoFA through its agents of technology transfer (AEAs) sometimes provide sweet potato
vines in the form of vine multiplications programs. Such actors are responsible to supply agricultural inputs like
improved sweet potato vines, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and farm implements which are essential inputs at the
production stage. Sweet potato farmers/producers are the major actors who perform most of the value chain
functions right from farm inputs preparation on their farms or procurement of the inputs from other sources to post
harvest handling and marketing. Ploughing, planting, fertilization, irrigating, weeding, pest/disease control,
harvesting and post-harvest handling are some of the major functions undertaken by sweet potato producers.
Monocropping was the most practiced production system. Post-harvest handling, which includes different activities
like sorting, grading, packing, storing, transportation, loading and unloading, are mostly done by the farmers
themselves if they send the produce (sweet potato) to the market or traders who go to the producing centers to buy at
the farm gate. Traders in the value chain are those actors who basically ensure the movement of the physical sweet

7
 Wie and Aidoo, 2017

potato from the downstream of the value chain to the upstream of the chain. These traders were identified as
collectors, wholesalers and retailers. Collectors are traders in assembly markets and/or farm gates who collect sweet
potato from farmers in village markets and from farms for the purpose of reselling to wholesalers and retailers. They
use their financial resources and their local knowledge to bulk sweet potato from the surrounding area. They play an
important role and they do know areas of surplus well. Collectors are the key actors in the sweet potato value chain,
responsible for trading up to 65.5% (Figure 1) of sweet potato from production areas to wholesale and retail
markets. However, wholesalers are mainly involved in buying sweet potato from collectors and producers in larger
volumes than any other actor and supply them to retailers, processors and consumers. The results indicate that
wholesale markets are the main assembly centers for sweet potato in their respective surrounding areas where
collectors from producing areas deliver the produce. They had better storage, transport and communication access
than other traders. Almost all wholesalers had a warehouse in a market either self- owned or used on rental basis.
Retailer involvement in the chain includes the purchase of sweet potato, transporting to retail shops, grading,
displaying and selling to processors and final consumers making them the last trader link between producers and
consumers. Sometimes they could also directly acquire volumes from the producers (1.5%) and collectors (18%)
(Figure1). Consumers and processors usually buy the produce from retailers as they offer according to requirement
and purchasing power. With regards to processors, they are very vital due to the role in changing the physical form
of the produce whilst improving the shelf life of the crop. Processors of the sweet potato value chain in Ghana were
found to mainly perform two type of value addition. The first activity performed is the addition of value to the
produce itself in the form of storing, packaging (produce) and transporting the produce to the processing site. The
second phase of value addition includes peeling, washing, frying and packaging (product) to consumers in such
convenient ready-to-eat form. Processors mainly obtained sweet potato from retailers. Also, it is worth noting that,
provision of services such as training and extension, information, financial and research services are the reserve of
these supporting actors who may not be directly involved in the mainstream chain. Access to information or
knowledge, technology and finance determines the state of success of value chain actors (Martin et al., 2007). These
supporting service providers in the sweet potato value chain were seen as MoFA, private input dealers, Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Financial Institutions (FIs) and Research Institutions (RIs). Although co-
operative societies are present in some communities, they mainly perform a facilitating role of mobilizing farmers
for such services to be provided by the aforementioned institutions.

8
 J. Agric. Food. Tech., 7(1)1-13, 2017

Figure 1 Value Chain Map of Sweet Potato in Ghana.

2.0%
1.0%
CONSUMERS
40.0%
1.5%
60.0% 100.0%
2.0%% PROCESSORS

38.0%
RETAILERS 60.0% WHOLESALERS

20.0%
18.0%
COLLECTORS 60.0%

30.5%
65.5%
1.5%
PRODUCERS

SERVICE PROVIDERS
[MoFA (AEAs), Private Input Dealers, NGOs, FIs, RIs]

Represents information and technology in a two way dimension

Represents the physical flow of inputs and produce/products
Source; Researcher’s Own sketch from Field Survey, 2015

3.4.3 Governance of the Sweet Potato Value Chain

The facilitation role of value chain is performed mainly by dominant actors. This is done mainly through the
movement of the commodities and price setting mechanism. They basically set the mode of operation and rules of
marketing of the chain for which every chain actor subscribe. The study results indicated that the collectors and
wholesalers supported by the producers are the main value chain governors. Markets (Walewale, Agomanya,
Ehiamankyene and Achiaman) are heavily dependent on collectors, and therefore the sweet potato value chain is
heavy dependent on the volumes supplied to these markets. In most instances, the level of relationship among the
key actors is one of a free market exchange and not coordinated since all actors market their produce by the spot
trade system. As a result of the improper information flow and ultimately the minimal bargaining power, farmers are
left with very little options than to set their produce at the farm level particularly due to the high perishability of the
crop coupled with poor storage systems. This is in conformity with work done by Bezabih (2008) who concluded
that the lack of coordination among producers increase their bargaining power of producers in the value chains of
horticultural crops in Ethiopia. Actors along the sweet potato value chain mainly depend on the collectors for price
fixation although final price determination has some semblance of negotiations. Vertical linkage between value
chain actors was virtually non-existent due to the mistrust among the actors leading virtually to no contractual
arrangement along the chain but there is horizontal linkage between traders of the same type (i.e. collectors linking

9
 Wie and Aidoo, 2017

up with fellow collectors in terms procurement and transportation and so on). In some cases, failure of either
producers or traders to meet predetermined conditions and commitments results in conflicts.
Generally, the sweet potato value chain is one that is characterized with a governance structure which is buyer
driven with little-to-no trust between chain actors. Whilst farmers blame traders for offering very low prices for their
produce, traders also blame farmers for not providing adequate produce with the right specifications. Farmers are
mainly smallholders and are not very organized when it comes to marketing of their produce and do not govern the
value chain. Due to the fear of recording huge post-harvest losses, producers are price takers and hardly negotiate
for improved prices. The governance structure of the sweet potato value chain was observed to be similar across the
two districts.

3.5 Sweet Potato Value Chain Constraints

The value chains of perishable and semi-perishable commodities like root and tuber crops including sweet
potato are reported to be constrained by large post-harvest losses and inefficient value chain management among
others (Kumar et al., 2011). These constraints are not just at a particular level but along the entire chain. The study
therefore sought to independently identify the various constraints faced by actors along the sweet potato value chain.

3.5.1 Constraints Faced by Sweet Potato Producers

Producers in the value chain are the primary actors in the value chain who basically produce sweet potato
and subsequently deliver mainly through sales to the other actors in the value chain. Table 7 presents constraints as
faced at the production level. Generally, high cost of chemical inputs, poor road network, high cost of labour,
limited access to credit facilities and high labour requirement were identified as the five most critical constraints that
hinder the effective production of sweet potato. The most important constraint identified by farmers was the high
cost of chemical inputs mainly because of the high requirement of the crop for these input particularly pesticides
owing from the sweet tuberous roots of the crop which attracts a number of borers. Poor road network to farms
makes it difficult for farmers to easily transport their produce from the farm to market centers which further
increases the rate of post-harvest losses owing from the long duration the crop has to stay on the farm after maturity.
The nature of production of the crop makes it naturally labor intensive since the land preparation methods involve
either ridging or mounding whilst crop management after planting involves a lot of crop care. This coupled with the
competing needs of labour in these areas makes it difficult to attack labourers to assist in these rigorous farm
activities especially when the remuneration for agricultural labour is comparably low. This results in high wage
charges for the very few who are able to secure the services of paid labour. Although, there was a weak agreement
among the various constraints identified with a Kendall’s W value of 0.107, this level of agreement was significant
at the 1% level with a Chronbach’s alpha of 0.677. Also, critical marketing constraints identified by farmers were
low commodity price, poor road network and long market distance. Farmers were however of the view that, prices
for their produce after harvest was low since the crop was highly perishable and reduces their bargaining power
when traders come to procure their produce. Also, the poor road network from their farming communities to market
centers coupled with the relatively long travel distance to these centers further weakens the marketing power of their
produce. There was nevertheless little agreement among the marketing constraints of farmers with a Kendall’s W
value of 0.279 which was significant at a 1% level.

Table 7 Critical Constraints of Sweet Potato Producers

Production Constraints* Fanteakwa West Mamprusi Pooled(N=200)
(N=100) (N=100)
High cost of chemical inputs 1.61 1.66 1.64
Poor road network 1.06 2.35 1.71
High cost of labour 1.59 1.89 1.74
Limited access to credit facilities 1.29 2.21 1.75
High labour requirement 1.78 1.98 1.88
High interest rate on credit 1.51 2.27 1.89
High incidence of pest and diseases 2.3 1.59 1.95
Erratic rainfall pattern 2.65 1.63 2.14
Poor/declining soil fertility 2.32 2.14 2.23
High cost of planting material 2.36 2.12 2.24

10
 J. Agric. Food. Tech., 7(1)1-13, 2017

High weeds infestation 1.99 2.53 2.26

High level of losses 2.71 2.15 2.43
Limited access to extension services 1.71 3.2 2.46
Inadequate storage facilities 2.55 2.5 2.53
Unavailability of quality planting material 2.92 2.62 2.77
Limited access to chemical inputs 2.5 3.03 2.77
Limited access to land 2.64 3.6 3.12
Kendall’s W=0.107; Chi-square=341.171; df= 16; Sig. 0.000; Chronbach’s alpha = 0.677
Marketing Constraints* Fanteakwa West Mamprusi Pooled (N=200)
(N=100) (N=100)
Low commodity price 1.3 1.84 1.57
Poor road network 1.1 2.21 1.66
Long market distance 1.67 2.42 2.045
Inadequate storage facility 2.26 2.31 2.29
High transport cost 2.53 2.1 2.32
Poor linkage with value chain actors 2.66 2.28 2.47
Inadequate market information 2.04 3.12 2.58
High market toll 3.31 2.93 3.12
Low commodity demand 3.63 3.74 3.69
Kendall’s W=0.279; Chi-square=446.473; df=8; Sig. 0.000; Chronbach’s alpha = 0.484
* Ranking scale: 1=Strongly Agree; 2=Agree; 3=Neutral; 4=Disagree; 5=Strongly Disagree.
Source; Field Survey, 2015

3.5.2 Constraints Faced by Sweet Potato Traders

Table 8 presents the major constraints encountered by traders in the sweet potato value chain. From the study, it was
realized that traders identified high transportation cost, inadequate storage facility, high post-harvest losses, poor
road network to produce sources and limited capital as the most pressing constraints hampering effective
performance of their role in the value chain. The high transport cost was mainly as a result of the long travelling
distances that are usually travelled by traders to production areas coupled with the bad nature of these roads. Also,
the inadequate storage facilities for the produce expose the fragile crop to high post-harvest losses which ultimately
affect their profit levels. However, traders disagreed to the assertion that there was low demand for the produce.
These constraints were seen to be measuring the same construct since the Chonbach’s alpha value of 0.541 suggests
a high level of internal consistency (54.1%). Also, the level of agreement among the constraints was seen to be a
weak one since Kendall’s W was estimated at 0.171. Although the level of agreement was observed as weak, it was
significant at a 1% level.

Table 8: Critical Constraints of Sweet Potato Traders

Constraints* Fanteakwa West Mamprusi Pooled
(N=50) (N=50) (N=100)
High transport cost 1.62 1.64 1.63
Inadequate storage facility 2.32 1.8 2.06
High post-harvest losses 2.52 1.76 2.14
Poor road network to produce source 1.94 2.38 2.16
Limited working capital 2.02 2.38 2.20
Inadequate market information 2.66 1.78 2.22
Long market distances 2.36 2.14 2.25
High market toll/tax 2.42 2.24 2.33
Poor linkage with value chain actors 2.74 1.92 2.33
Low demand for commodity 3.72 4.18 3.95
Kendall’s W=0.171 ;Chi-square=154.13; df=8, Sig. 0.000; Chonbach’s alpha = 0.541
* Ranking scale: 1=Strongly Agree; 2=Agree; 3=Neutral; 4=Disagree; 5=Strongly Disagree.
Source; Field Survey, 2015

11
 Wie and Aidoo, 2017

4.5.3 Constraints Faced by Sweet Potato Processors

Table 9 presents the constraints identified by processors along the sweet potato value chain. From the study,
limited working capital for business, limited access to credit, high perishability of raw materials, poor storage
facilities of products and high processing cost were identified as the most critical constraints facing processors along
the sweet potato value chain. This was not very surprising since working capital was mainly from equity sources
with very little access to external sources. It is however worth noting that, the cost of capital even if accessed was
high considering the level of risk involved in the business. There was a 0.324 level of agreement among processors
in their ranking of the constraints as seen from the Kendall’s W test which was significant at 1% level. The test of
reliability and internal consistency conducted revealed that the constraints were internally consistent with a
Chronbach’s alpha value of 0.569.

Table 9 Critical Constraints of Sweet Potato Processors

Constraints* Fanteakwa West Mamprusi Pooled (N=80)
(N=40) (N=40)
Limited working capital for business 1.625 1.10 1.36
Limited access to credit 1.875 1.20 1.54
High perishability of raw material 1.975 1.425 1.70
Poor storage facilities of products 2.2 1.625 1.91
High processing cost 2.8 1.20 2.00
Poor road network to produce source 2.875 2.025 2.45
High transport cost 2.875 2.10 2.49
Low product price 2.2 2.95 2.58
Inadequate storage facility 3.1 2.825 2.96
High market toll/tax 2.8 3.40 3.10
Low demand for processed product 3.75 3.45 3.60
Kendall’s W=0.324 ;Chi-square=284.759 ; df=11; Sig. 0.000; Chronbach’s alpha = 0.569
* Ranking scale: 1=Strongly Agree; 2=Agree; 3=Neutral; 4=Disagree; 5=Strongly Disagree.
Source; Field Survey, 2015

CONCLUSION
The study revealed that, whereas there was male dominance at the production stage, there was a female
dominance at the processing and marketing stages of the sweet potato value chain. Actors along the sweet potato
value chain were in the economically active age bracket of between 30 and 50years. With regards to the level of
education, chain actors had generally attained basic level or had never been to school. Sweet potato produced was
seen to pass through several actors (i.e. collectors, wholesalers, processors and retailers) with little value addition in
the form of sorting/grading, cleaning, packaging, storage and transportation before reaching the end-users. These
actors have the primary aim of ensuring that the produce is moved from the farm gate to the final consumer in its
demanded form since they are responsible in providing the needed information in terms of consumer preference and
specification to producers. The main point of the sweet potato physical transformation was performed at the
processor level of the chain where apart from the basic value addition of cleaning, storing etc. it is sliced and fried to
improve the convenience of consumption. This conformed to findings of Anandajayasekeram and Gebremedhim
(2009) who stated that, in the perspective of agricultural value chains, value addition comes in the form of bulking,
grading, cleaning, packaging, transporting, storing and processing. The absence of contract production, functional
farmer co-operatives and group marketing in the value chain has made the chain buyer-driven since traders virtually
dictate the price of sweet potato even though there is semblance of negotiation with producers. This was in tandem
with find of Fitter and Kaplinsky (2001) who found that, the power symmetry along the coffee value chain made the
chain buyer driven which was disadvantageous to the producers. This, they alluded was partly due to the better
informed and institutional advantage that traders usually poses over producers. Governance in the sweet potato value
chain was found to be weak since all the actors’ transacted business based on spot market arrangement with uneven
access to market information which leads to mistrust among trading partners. High cost of chemical inputs and low
commodity (sweet potato) price were the most critical production and marketing constraints respectively at the

12
 J. Agric. Food. Tech., 7(1)1-13, 2017

farmer level. Also, high transport cost and limited working capital were the most critical constraints respectively at
the trader and processor levels.
Formation of actor groups along the value chain to strengthen the level of coordination and integration which will
help enhance the development of the said value chain. Finally, policy interventions should be tailored towards
improving access to credit and capital sources of actors since these constraints run through all the levels of the value
chain.

REFERENCES

Babaleye, T., 2005. “Can Cassava Solve Africa’s Food Crisis?”: African Business, 314: 24-25.
Berga, S.L., Guzick, D.S. and S.J. Winters, 1993. Increased luteinizing hormone and alpha-submit secretion in
women with hyperandrogenic anovulation. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.,77, 895-901.
Burt, R. S., 1997. The Contingent Value of Social Capital: Administrative Science Quarterly, 42:339 – 365.
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), 2000.Effect of Women Farmers Adoption of Orange Fleshed Sweet
Potatoes: Stories From Fields: International Potatoes Center Annual Report 2000.
Coleman J.S., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Delhi Tata McGraw
– Hill. Delhi: Academic Foundation; Pp 22.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2002. FAO Statistics.Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy
[http:www.apps.fao.org].
Gereffi G., Humphrey J, and T. Strurgen, 2005. The governance of global value chains: Review of International
Political Economy. Vol. 12 (1) pp. 78-104
Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), 2005. Ghana Living Standards Survey Round 5 (GLSS5): GSS, Accra, Ghana.
Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), 2013. Statistics for Development and Progress. Provisional Gross Domestic
Product: GSS, Accra, Ghana. www.statsghana.gov.gh.
Gulati, R., 1998. Alliances and Networks, Strategic Management Journal 19: 293-317
Humphrey, J. and H. Schmitz, 2002. How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial
clusters? Institute of Development Studies: Brighton.
International Labour Organisation (ILO), 2000. Employment and social protection in the informal sector: First Item
on the Agenda, Committee on Employment and Social Policy. 277th Session, GB.277/ESP/1/1.
Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris , 2001. A handbook of value chain analysis. Working paper prepared for the IDRC,
Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.
Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris, 2000. A handbook for value chain research, IDRC. Ottawa, Canada.
KIT, Faida Mali and IIRR, 2006. Chain empowerment: Supporting African farmers to develop market. Royal
Tropical Institute, Amsterdam; Faida Market Link, Arusha; and International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction, Nairobi.
Kumar A, Singhi H, Sant K. and S. Mittal, 2011. Value Chains of Agricultural Commodities and Role in Food
Security and Poverty Alleviation-A Synthesis. Agricultural Economics Research Review 24: 162-181
Martin, G. O. Boualay and B. Julio, 2007. North Houaphanh bamboo value chain analysis. Netherland.
Orodho, A. B., Alela, B. O., & J. W. Wanambacha, 1995.Use of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) vines as starter
feed and partial milk replacer for calves.KARIKakamega, Kenya.
Rahko, J., 2012. Potato value chain in Tanzania. MSc. Thesis, University of Helsinki (Unpublished).
Thiele G., Lynam J., Lemaga B. and J. Low, 2009. Challenge theme paper 4: Sweetpotato value chains.
International Potato Centre (CIP): Lima, Peru.
Uzzi, B., 1997. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: the Paradox of Embeddedness. Journal of
Administrative Science, Vol. (42), pp.35-67.
Williamson, O., 1985. The Economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. The Free
Press, New York.
Williamson, O., 2002. The theory of the firm as governance structure: From choice to contract. Brookfield, VT.
Edward Elgar.

13

View publication stats