Abstract

The Dutch agricultural sector finds itself in a complex economic position where farmers primarily function as commodity suppliers rather than direct food suppliers to consumers. This article analyzes the economic mechanisms underlying this position, with specific attention to oligopsonistic market structures and the influence of Engel’s law on food expenditure. Through a synthesis of recent insights and academic literature, it is demonstrated how farmers are trapped in a market structure with many suppliers and few buyers, resulting in limited bargaining power and price pressure. Simultaneously, Engel’s law ensures that consumers in affluent countries spend an increasingly smaller percentage of their income on food, further increasing pressure on the primary sector.

Introduction

The romantic portrayal of farmers as direct food suppliers to consumers stands in stark contrast to the economic reality of modern agriculture. In reality, most Dutch farmers, growers, and livestock farmers function as anonymous ingredient suppliers in a complex food chain [1]. This position brings specific economic challenges that are deeply rooted in the market structure of the agricultural sector.

The economic position of farmers is characterized by two fundamental economic principles that structurally pressure their income position. On one hand, farmers find themselves in oligopsonistic markets, where many suppliers (farmers) face few buyers (food factories, wholesalers) [2]. On the other hand, Engel’s law ensures that consumers in affluent countries spend an increasingly smaller percentage of their income on food, increasing demand for cheap raw materials [3].

This article examines how these economic mechanisms determine farmers’ position as commodity suppliers and what implications this has for the sustainability and profitability of the Dutch agricultural sector.

The Economic Reality: Farmers as Commodity Suppliers

From Food Supplier to Ingredient Supplier

The transformation of farmers from direct food suppliers to commodity suppliers has been a gradual process that has gone hand in hand with the industrialization of the food chain. The share of agricultural products that goes directly from the farm to the consumer has become marginal [1]. Most vegetables are repackaged, processed, or standardized before reaching the consumer. Consider the transformation from loose iceberg lettuce to pre-packaged salad mixes, or from raw milk to a wide range of dairy products.

This development has fundamental consequences for the economic position of farmers. Where they previously maintained direct relationships with local consumers and thus had influence on pricing and product differentiation, they have now become part of an industrialized chain in which they function as suppliers of standardized raw materials [4]. In this new reality, farmers have often become “interchangeable,” where the lowest price is the most important criterion for purchase by the next link in the chain.

The exceptions to this rule are rare but illustrative. Companies like Tasty Tom, Koppert Cress, and international brands like Chiquita have succeeded in making their products recognizable to consumers and thereby escaping the commodity trap [1]. These examples show that it is possible for primary producers to build a brand position, but they simultaneously confirm how exceptional this is in the current market structure.

The Commodity Trap and Market Dynamics

The position of farmers as commodity suppliers brings specific economic challenges that are characteristic of commodity markets. In such markets, price is primarily determined by supply and demand for standardized products, with individual producers having little influence on price formation [5]. This dynamic is reinforced by the fact that agricultural products often have low price elasticity of demand, meaning that small changes in supply can lead to large price fluctuations.

A crucial aspect of this market dynamic is the phenomenon of overproduction. As analyzed by De Heij, the main cause of structurally low prices in agriculture is the fact that farmers collectively produce “just a bit too much” [2]. This overproduction, often only a few percent above demand, can lead to dramatic price drops that fall far below cost price. This phenomenon is reinforced by the limited possibilities to quickly adjust production to market conditions, a characteristic of agriculture known as the “cobweb theory.”

The consequences of this market dynamic are far-reaching. Farmers are forced to draw on their own capital or accept compensation for labor that is lower than the minimum wage [2]. This situation leads to a vicious circle where farmers are forced to intensify their production or increase scale to maintain their income, further exacerbating overproduction.

Oligopsony: The Market Structure that Disadvantages Farmers

Definition and Characteristics of Oligopsonistic Markets

Oligopsony, the mirror image of oligopoly, describes a market structure in which many suppliers face few buyers [6]. In the context of agriculture, this means that thousands of farmers must sell their products to a limited number of large buyers such as food processors, wholesalers, and supermarket chains. This asymmetric market structure gives buyers considerable bargaining power, while individual farmers have little influence on price formation.

Academic research has extensively documented how oligopsonistic structures affect farmer welfare. Sexton (2012) shows that oligopsonistic markets do not automatically lead to higher prices for farmers, even compared to fully competitive markets [7]. This contrasts with the intuitive expectation that less competition between buyers would lead to better prices for suppliers.

The characteristics of oligopsonistic markets in agriculture are further reinforced by specific properties of agricultural products. First, many agricultural products are perishable, forcing farmers to sell quickly and weakening their bargaining position [8]. Second, agricultural products often require specific processing facilities or distribution channels, increasing farmers’ dependence on specific buyers.

Empirical Evidence for Oligopsony in Agriculture

Empirical research into oligopsonistic market power in agriculture has provided consistent evidence for the existence of these market structures worldwide. Rogers (1994) identified in his groundbreaking study various characteristics of agricultural markets that lead to non-competitive behavior by buyers [9]. This study, cited more than 280 times, laid the foundation for further research into market power in the agricultural sector.

More recent research by Hamilton (2021) shows how food processors simultaneously exercise oligopsonistic power in the upstream market (against farmers) and oligopolistic power in the downstream market (against consumers) [10]. This dual market power enables food processors to realize both low purchase prices and maintain high selling prices, at the expense of both farmers and consumers.

International research confirms that oligopsonistic structures are not limited to developed countries. Twine (2023) documented oligopsonistic market power in Uganda’s rice market, where traders use their position to depress prices [11]. This shows that oligopsony is a global phenomenon affecting farmers at different stages of economic development.

The Role of Vertical Integration

An important development that reinforces oligopsonistic structures is increasing vertical integration in the food chain. Large food corporations not only control processing and distribution but are increasingly extending their influence to primary production. This development reduces the number of independent buyers and increases the market power of remaining players [12].

Vertical integration also has consequences for innovation and product differentiation in agriculture. When food processors control multiple links in the chain, they have fewer incentives to invest in innovations that would improve the position of independent farmers. Instead, they focus on efficiency improvements that strengthen their own market position.

Engel’s Law and Pressure on Food Prices

Historical Context and Modern Relevance

Engel’s law, formulated by German statistician Ernst Engel in the 1850s, states that as household income rises, the percentage of that income spent on food decreases [13]. This observation, though more than 170 years old, remains one of the most robust empirical regularities in economic science and has direct implications for farmers’ position in modern economies.

Modern empirical studies confirm the validity of Engel’s law in various contexts. Anker (2011) shows that the income elasticity of food expenditure is consistently below 1.0, meaning that food expenditure rises less than proportionally with income [14]. This finding has far-reaching consequences for the agricultural sector, as it means that relative demand for food decreases as societies become more prosperous.

In the Netherlands and other developed countries, households spend on average only 10-15% of their income on food, compared to 50-70% in the world’s poorest countries [15]. These dramatic differences illustrate how economic development changes the relative position of food production in the economy. For farmers, this means they operate in a sector whose relative economic importance decreases as society becomes more prosperous.

Implications for Price Formation and Farm Income

Engel’s law has direct consequences for price formation in agriculture and farmers’ income position. Because consumers in affluent countries spend an increasingly smaller portion of their income on food, they have become relatively price-sensitive to food products [16]. This price sensitivity is transmitted throughout the food chain and ultimately results in pressure on the prices farmers receive for their products.

Clements and Si (2018) show that while absolute food expenditure increases with income, the quality of the food basket increases only modestly [17]. This means that while consumers are willing to pay more for food, these additional payments mainly go to processing, marketing, and distribution, not to primary producers.

A paradoxical consequence of Engel’s law is that precisely in the richest countries, where farmers theoretically have the highest productivity, the relative appreciation for food is lowest. This creates a situation where farmers in developed countries compete in a market where their product is considered a commodity with minimal added value, despite the high investments in technology and sustainability they make.

The Disconnect between Consumer Price and Farm Price

A crucial insight from De Heij’s analysis is that there is no direct relationship between what consumers pay in the supermarket and what farmers receive for their products [2]. This disconnect is reinforced by Engel’s law, because consumers pay relatively little attention to food prices and are therefore little aware of the prices farmers receive.

This situation is illustrated by the example of FrieslandCampina, where falling milk prices for farmers coincided with rising profits for the processing company [2]. When commodity prices fall, processing companies benefit from higher margins, while consumers often see no price reductions. Conversely, rising commodity prices do not automatically lead to higher consumer prices, because food processors and retailers want to protect their margins.

This asymmetry in the transmission of price changes illustrates farmers’ weak position in the value chain. They bear the full risk of price volatility, while other links in the chain can protect their margins through their market power.

Consequences for the Dutch Agricultural Sector

Financial Pressure and Business Closure

The combination of oligopsonistic market structures and the effects of Engel’s law has led to structural financial pressure on Dutch farmers. This pressure manifests in various forms: declining profit margins, increasing debt burden, and a growing number of business closures [18]. The sector finds itself in a situation where traditional business models are no longer economically viable without external support.

Financial instability in the sector has far-reaching consequences that extend beyond individual businesses. When farmers are forced to close their operations, not only is production capacity lost, but also knowledge, experience, and local economic activity. This process of “silent death” in agriculture undermines food sovereignty and the resilience of the Dutch food system [19].

Moreover, financial pressure leads to a vicious circle where farmers are forced to make short-term decisions that undermine their long-term sustainability. Investments in sustainable production techniques, soil management, and biodiversity are postponed or cancelled because the direct financial return is insufficient to justify the investments.

Impact on Innovation and Sustainability

Economic pressure on farmers also has negative consequences for innovation and sustainability in the sector. When farmers primarily compete on price and operate with minimal margins, they have limited resources available for investments in new technologies or sustainable practices [20]. This creates a paradox where society sets increasingly higher demands for agricultural sustainability, while the economic structure of the sector discourages investments in sustainability.

Research shows that innovation in agriculture is often driven by the ability to reach premium markets or realize cost savings [21]. However, in oligopsonistic markets where farmers function as commodity suppliers, opportunities to realize premiums are limited. This leads to a focus on cost-saving innovations, which do not always coincide with sustainability objectives.

The limited innovation capacity of individual farmers is reinforced by sector fragmentation. Small and medium-sized enterprises often lack the scale or resources to make significant investments in research and development. At the same time, they have limited access to innovations developed by large agribusiness companies, because these companies often protect their innovations as competitive advantages.

Social and Spatial Consequences

Economic pressure on the agricultural sector also has important social and spatial consequences for the Netherlands. The decrease in the number of agricultural businesses leads to changes in the rural landscape and the social structure of rural communities [22]. Traditional agricultural communities lose their economic base, leading to aging, decline in services, and loss of cultural heritage.

These developments also have consequences for the management of the Dutch landscape. Farmers play a crucial role in maintaining the cultural landscape, managing natural areas, and protecting against water damage. When agricultural businesses disappear, this function must be taken over by other parties, often leading to higher costs for society.

Moreover, the concentration of agriculture contributes to spatial inequality. While some regions develop into intensive agricultural areas with large businesses, other regions completely lose their agricultural function. This polarization can lead to social tensions and loss of regional identity.

Possible Solutions

Collective Action and Volume Control

One of the most promising solution directions for the farmer problem lies in collective action and volume control. De Heij argues that farmers themselves must “turn the volume knob” to address the structural overproduction that underlies low prices [2]. However, this requires a fundamental change in how the sector is organized and makes decisions.

Academic research supports the effectiveness of collective action in agriculture. Xia (2018) shows that farmer organizations and cooperatives can play an important role in strengthening farmers’ bargaining position [23]. By working together, farmers can increase their market power and realize better prices for their products.

However, implementing effective volume control requires more than just cooperation between farmers. It also requires support from policymakers, financial institutions, and other stakeholders in the food chain. Moreover, volume control must be accompanied by quality improvement and product differentiation to prevent it from simply leading to higher prices for identical products.

Ingredient Branding and Product Differentiation

A second solution direction lies in developing ingredient branding and product differentiation. De Heij points to successful examples like Intel and GoreTex, which have succeeded in making their ingredients recognizable to end consumers [1]. In the food context, farmers can learn from companies like Ojah, which developed the ingredient Beeter for meat substitutes.

However, ingredient branding requires significant investments in marketing, quality assurance, and brand building. For individual farmers, these investments are often too large, underscoring the need for collective action. Moreover, ingredient branding requires a long-term perspective and consistent quality delivery, which can be challenging in a sector characterized by seasonal influences and weather dependence.

Product differentiation can also be achieved by focusing on sustainability, local production, or specific quality characteristics. Dutch products can be positioned as “most sustainable, tasty, and animal-friendly,” which can create a premium market [2]. However, this approach requires consumers to be willing to pay more for these characteristics, which is not always guaranteed.

Vertical Integration and Direct Marketing

A third solution direction lies in vertical integration and direct marketing. By processing themselves and selling directly to consumers, farmers can retain a larger share of the added value in the chain [24]. However, this approach requires farmers to develop new skills in processing, marketing, and sales.

Direct marketing can take various forms, from farmers’ markets and web shops to community-supported agriculture (CSA) models. These approaches enable farmers to build direct relationships with consumers and realize premiums for their products. However, the scale of these markets is limited and cannot accommodate all farmers.

Vertical integration also brings risks. Farmers who invest in processing and marketing take on additional financial risks and must compete with established players in these markets. Moreover, vertical integration often requires significant capital investments that are not accessible to all farmers.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

Competition Policy and Market Regulation

The analysis of oligopsonistic structures in agriculture raises important questions about the role of competition policy and market regulation. Traditional competition policy primarily focuses on preventing monopolies and cartels on the supply side, but pays less attention to oligopsonistic structures on the demand side [25]. This while oligopsony can be equally harmful to economic efficiency and welfare.

Policymakers should consider tightening competition rules to counter oligopsonistic practices. This may involve more critical assessment of mergers and acquisitions in the food chain, with specific attention to effects on farmers and primary producers. Moreover, transparency requirements can be introduced to make price formation in the food chain more transparent.

An important aspect of effective competition policy is recognizing the specific characteristics of agricultural markets. The seasonal nature, perishability, and geographical spread of agricultural production require adapted approaches that differ from traditional industrial markets [26].

Support for Collective Action

Policymakers can play an important role in facilitating and supporting collective action by farmers. This may involve removing legal barriers to cooperation between farmers, providing financial support for establishing cooperatives, and facilitating knowledge exchange [27].

Specific policy measures may include providing start-up capital for farmer cooperatives, offering training and guidance for collective bargaining, and creating platforms for knowledge exchange between successful cooperatives. Moreover, policymakers can ensure that collective action by farmers is not hindered by competition rules intended for other sectors.

International examples show that effective support for collective action can yield significant benefits for farmers. In countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, strong cooperative traditions have contributed to a better position for farmers in the food chain [28].

Innovation and Sustainability Policy

Policy for innovation and sustainability in agriculture must take into account the economic reality in which farmers operate. Subsidies and support for sustainable innovations must be designed in such a way that they are also economically attractive for farmers under financial pressure [29].

This may involve linking sustainability innovations to market mechanisms that enable farmers to realize premiums for sustainable products. Moreover, policymakers can invest in research and development of technologies that are both cost-saving and sustainable.

An important aspect of innovation policy is ensuring knowledge transfer and accessibility of innovations for small and medium-sized enterprises. This can be achieved through public investments in research, facilitating knowledge networks, and supporting demonstration projects [30].

Conclusion

The economic position of Dutch farmers as commodity suppliers is the result of fundamental market structures and economic principles that structurally pressure their income position. The combination of oligopsonistic markets, where many farmers face few buyers, and the effects of Engel’s law, where consumers spend an increasingly smaller percentage of their income on food, creates a challenging economic environment for the primary sector.

This analysis shows that problems in the agricultural sector cannot simply be solved by technological innovations or efficiency improvements alone. The underlying market structures require fundamental changes in how the food chain is organized and how value is distributed between different links.

The solution directions discussed in this article – collective action, ingredient branding, vertical integration, and policy interventions – offer perspective for improvement, but require coordinated effort from farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders in the food chain. No single solution will be sufficient on its own; a combination of measures is needed that addresses different aspects of the problem.

For the future of Dutch agriculture, it is crucial to recognize that farmers are more than just commodity suppliers. They play an essential role in food security, landscape management, biodiversity protection, and rural economies. Maintaining a vital and sustainable agricultural sector therefore requires not only economic solutions, but also broader societal appreciation for agriculture’s multifunctional role.

The challenge for the coming years is to find a new balance where farmers receive fair compensation for their products and services, while simultaneously meeting societal demands for sustainability, animal welfare, and environmental protection. This requires a fundamental revision of how we think about food production, value creation, and the distribution of risks and returns in the food chain.

Only by jointly addressing these complex challenges can we ensure that Dutch agriculture continues to make an important contribution to food security, economic prosperity, and societal objectives in the future. The time for non-commitment is over; concrete actions are needed to transform farmers’ position as commodity suppliers toward a more sustainable and equitable future.

References

[1] De Heij, W. (2012). Boeren zijn geen voedselleveranciers. Ze produceren bulkingrediënten. Sommige hebben potentie om goede ingrediëntleveranciers te worden. Foodlog Blog. https://wdeheij.blogspot.com/2012/10/boeren-zijn-geen-voedselleveranciers-ze.html

[2] De Heij, W. (2015). Boeren zijn ingrediënt-leveranciers en ze dienen zelf aan de volumeknop te gaan draaien om prijzen te controleren. Food4Innovations Blog. https://food4innovations.blog/2015/10/18/boeren-zijn-ingredient-leveranciers-en-ze-dienen-zelf-aan-de-volumeknop-te-gaan-draaien-om-prijzen-te-controleren/

[3] De Heij, W. (2024). De Invloed van de Wet van Engel op Moderne Economieën en Landbouw: “hoe rijker hoe minder inkomen er naar voedsel gaat”. Food4Innovations Blog. https://food4innovations.blog/2024/01/15/de-invloed-van-de-wet-van-engel-op-moderne-economieen-en-landbouw-hoe-rijker-hoe-minder-inkomen-er-naar-voedsel-gaat-een-introductie-op-een-wet-uit-1850/

[4] De Heij, W. (2023). Artikel I – Het Boeren-Probleem (of uitdaging): Het Verkennen van Oligopsonie en Beleidsoplossingen voor Boeren. Food4Innovations Blog. https://food4innovations.blog/2023/06/11/artikel-i-het-boeren-probleem-of-uitdaging-het-verkennen-van-oligopsonie-en-beleidsoplossingen-voor-boeren-een-algemene-inleiding-op-de-wereldwijde-uitdagingen-waarmee-alle-boeren-worden-geconfr/

[5] Myers, R.J., Sexton, R.J., & Tomek, W.G. (2010). A Century of Research on Agricultural Markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(2), 376-402.

[6] Rubens, M. (2023). Market Structure, Oligopsony Power, and Productivity. American Economic Review, 113(9), 2382-2410.

[7] Sexton, R.J. (2012). Market Power, Misconceptions, and Modern Agricultural Markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(2), 209-219.

[8] Rogers, R.T. (1994). Assessing the Importance of Oligopsony Power in Agriculture. University of Massachusetts Working Paper.

[9] Rogers, R.T. (1994). Assessing the Importance of Oligopsony Power in Agriculture. University of Massachusetts Working Paper. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/bitstreams/6dd1e78a-867f-45d9-ac87-f8a7a4dca435/download

[10] Hamilton, S.F. (2021). Joint Oligopsony‐Oligopoly Power in Food Processing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(4), 1427-1447.

[11] Twine, E.E. (2023). Estimating oligopsonistic market power in Uganda’s rice market. Agrekon, 62(3), 234-251.

[12] Grau, A., & Hockmann, H. (2017). Estimating oligopsony power on two vertically integrated markets. Agricultural Economics, 48(6), 711-722.

[13] Zimmerman, C.C. (1932). Ernst Engel’s Law of Expenditures for Food. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 27(179), 78-81.

[14] Anker, R. (2011). Engel’s Law Around the World 150 Years Later. Political Economy Research Institute Working Paper, 247.

[15] Ritchie, H. (2023). Engel’s Law: Richer people spend more money on food but a smaller share of their income. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/engels-law-food-spending

[16] Chen, M. (2022). Engel’s law in China: Some new evidence. Review of Development Economics, 26(2), 1089-1108.

[17] Clements, K., & Si, J. (2018). Engel’s Law, Diet Diversity and the Quality of Food Consumption. University of Western Australia Business School Working Paper. https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/files/36280645/Clements_Si_2018_Engel_s_Law_Diet.pdf

[18] Cirera, X., & Masset, E. (2010). Income distribution trends and future food demand. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365(1554), 2821-2834.

[19] Goodwin, B.K., & Schroeder, T.C. (1994). Oligopsony Power. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(5), 1088-1095.

[20] Xia, T., & Sexton, R.J. (2018). Interaction between buyer power in agricultural procurement and retail markets. Agricultural and Food Economics, 6(1), 1-23.

[21] Hamilton, S.F., & Stiegert, K.W. (2000). Vertical coordination, antitrust law, and international trade. Journal of Law and Economics, 43(1), 143-156.

[22] Swinnen, J.F., & Vandeplas, A. (2010). Market power and rents in global supply chains. Agricultural Economics, 41(s1), 109-120.

[23] Xia, T., & Sexton, R.J. (2018). Interaction between buyer power in agricultural procurement and retail markets. Agricultural and Food Economics, 6(1), 1-23.

[24] Hendrikse, G.W., & Bijman, J. (2002). On the emergence of new growers’ associations: self-selection versus countervailing power. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 29(2), 255-269.

[25] Dobson, P.W., & Inderst, R. (2007). Differential buyer power and the waterbed effect: Do strong buyers benefit or harm consumers? European Competition Law Review, 28(7), 393-400.

[26] Sexton, R.J. (2000). Industrialization and consolidation in the US food sector: Implications for competition and welfare. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(5), 1087-1104.

[27] Bijman, J., Muradian, R., & Schuurman, J. (2016). Cooperatives, economic democratization and rural development. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[28] Chaddad, F.R., & Cook, M.L. (2004). Understanding new cooperative models: An ownership-control rights typology. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26(3), 348-360.

[29] Zilberman, D., Lu, L., & Reardon, T. (2019). Innovation-induced food supply chain design. Food Policy, 83, 289-297.

[30] Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860.