Inelastic Demand for Apples | My Assignment Tutor

44 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011Paradox of Plenty,with Special Reference toInelastic Demand for ApplesMonika Jain** Associate Professor, IILM College of Management Studies, 17 & 18 Knowledge Park, Greater Noida201306, India. E-mail: [email protected]© 2011 IUP. All Rights Reserved.Paradox of plenty in agriculture implies that a bumper crop reaped bythe farmers brings a smaller total income to them. The fall in the incomeor revenue of the farmer as a result of the bumper crop is due to the factthat with greater supply the prices of the crop decline drastically and inthe context of inelastic demand for them, bring about fall in the incomeof the farmers. Thus, bumper crop, instead of raising their incomes,reduces them. The reason for this lies in the elasticity of demand forfood stuff. The demand for food stuff is fairly inelastic. An increase intheir supply tends to lower their price. The lower price does not increasethe demand for it as per the law of demand or a normal price-demandrelationship. Thus large harvest tends to bring low revenue to the farmers.IntroductionThe agricultural sector is a very unique sector because it is characterized by demand forand supply of the goods. The principal characteristics of demand are that it is both incomeand price inelastic, and it is highly dependent on population and their tastes andpreferences, which cause demand to be static in both the short and long run. On the otherhand, supply is highly volatile in the short run due to extraneous factors because supplyis a biological process, though in the long run due to technological advances we tend toobserve an increasing trend. Also, because agricultural products are perishable and theirproduction time is long, supply will be inelastic, and so producers will have to supply inthe short run even at very low prices. Another characteristic of supply is its atomisticstructure and asset fixity. These basically imply that there are a large number of insignificantproducers and most agricultural assets are fixed. These have various implications forprices which are very unstable in the short run and in the long run show a declining trend.Similarly, farm incomes tend to be unstable in the short run and converge in the long run,Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference 45to Inelastic Demand for Applesthough it must be noted that this is also due to extensive government subsidization ofagriculture.In the short run, demand in the agricultural industry is affected by the fact that it isincome inelastic because of Engel’s law that basically states that as income rises, theproportion of income spent on food falls. In other words, the income elasticity of demandfor food lies between 0 and 1. At this point it must be noted that consumption is differentfrom expenditure unless all goods have the same price. In other words, the money aconsumer spends on food (i.e., expenditure) may increase, remain stable or even decrease,but his consumption will decrease.Apart from being income inelastic, demand is also relatively price inelastic. Priceelasticity of demand is the change in quantity demanded as a result of a change in pricewhich in the case of agricultural goods is relatively low. This is because after consumershave bought the amount of food they require, no matter how much producers lower theprices, they will not consume more because excess consumption would lead to lower or evennegative marginal utility. Also, the lack of substitutes and the fact that food occupies a lowbudget share will mean that consumers are even less sensitive to price changes, causingagricultural prices to be very volatile in the short run without having a great effect on demand.As a result, demand for goods in the agriculture industry is fairly stable mainly becauseof low price and income elasticity. Even though income and price elasticity are essentialstepping stones to determine the demand for agricultural products in the short run, thereare other factors that play a significant role in the long run. One of these factors ispopulation; the only way the demand for agricultural produce can increase is due to anincrease in population, as shown in Figure 1, which shows the dependency betweenpopulation and food.Figure 1: Dependency Between Population and FoodEconomicGrowthFoodProduction PopulationBy combining what affects demand in the short run and in the long run, we can deducethat demand for agricultural products is relatively stable in the long run, as the consumers,regardless of changes in price and income, will not demand above a fixed amount. Alsothe fact that food products do not have any substitutes implies that consumers will not beable to consume below a certain amount as they need a certain amount of food to survive.Thus, demand for food will converge in the long run and be relatively stable, as the only46 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011thing that can affect it in the long run is population increase or a change in their tastes andpreferences, which in most developed economies does not occur.On the other hand, we have supply of agricultural goods which is subject to the vagariesof weather and crop diseases in the short run, which are factors that cannot be controlledby the producer when deciding upon whether to supply or not. The above two factorsimply that supply will be highly unstable in the short run, leading to fluctuation in prices,and as a result, income in the agricultural sector will be very volatile, as illustrated byFigure 2.In Figure 2, we see that in a bad year when producers can get high prices for theirproduce, very few of them are able to produce. Thus, even though the desired price isachieved in the market, crop disease and weather hinder their ability to make profits fromhigher price, as shown by the shaded area in Figure 2. On the other hand, in a good yearwhen most of them can supply more, the price they get for their goods in the market is toolow and thus most make very low profits. From the above, we deduce that short-run supplyis relatively inelastic mainly because the goods are perishable and the production periodis too long. Also we see that farm incomes are usually very unstable, especially consideringthe atomistic structure of the market, which means that a single producer cannot affect themarket in any way. In other words, once a farmer has produced a certain amount of food hehas to sell it, otherwise it would perish and he would have to incur higher cost per unitproduced. At the same time, because agricultural goods take a relatively long time toproduce, once a farmer has decided to produce, he cannot withhold production if at theend the food prices are too low. Thus, he is unable to respond to changes in price either byincreasing or decreasing supply. This leads to the paradox of income in the agriculturalFigure 2: Demand and Supply of Agricultural GoodsPP3P2SupplyQQ Bad Year Q Good YearDemandParadox of Plenty, with Special Reference 47to Inelastic Demand for Applessector where profits in a bad year are greater than profits in a good year. However, thiswould not occur if the agricultural industry faced a relatively more elastic demand curve.Paradox of plenty in agriculture implies that a bumper crop reaped by the farmersbrings a smaller total income to them. The fall in the income or revenue of the farmer as aresult of the bumper crop is due to the fact that with greater supply, the prices of the cropdecline drastically and, in the context of inelastic demand for them, brings about fall in theincome of the farmers. Thus, bumper crop instead of raising their incomes reduces them.The reason for this lies in the elasticity of demand for food. The demand for food is fairlyinelastic. An increase in their supply tends to lower their price. The lower price does notincrease its demand as per the law of demand or a normal price-demand relationship.Thus, large harvest tends to bring low revenue to the farmers.In the case of the farmers, the key to their problem is that the demand curve for theirproducts is quite inelastic. This means that if the harvest is unusually good, a large drop inprice is necessary to encourage the consumers to use the additional grain. If the elasticitycoefficient is 0.5, for example, and the harvest is 10% larger than that of the preceding year,then a 20% drop in prices will occur (assuming that the many things that we keep constantin drawing the demand curve have remained constant) (see Figure 3). As this price reductionmore than offsets the effect of the larger harvest, the average income of the farmer drops.Review of LiteratureDeCola and Sanchez (2000) examined the factors which contributed to the decline in theprices of soybean at the Chicago Board of Trade in Illinois on December 12, 2001. Lauren(2009) reported on the state of the tart cherry industry in the US as on August 2009, whentons of unharvested fruit got rotten under a government program aimed at keeping theFigure 3: Inelastic Demand Curve of Agricultural Goods10%Supply 1Quantity20%PriceDemand Supply 2A largerharvest can cutfarm income48 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011prices stable. Tart cherry farmers were told by the processors to leave up to 40% of theircrop unharvested.Connor and Peterson (1992) discussed reports on tests of aggregation over consumerfood products and estimates of aggregate food demand elasticities. Their work presenteda simple model framework for quantitative multi-market agricultural sector policy analysis.Robinson (2006) focused on cost squeeze and its subsequent consequences faced by therice growers of the US. Although the initial yield of rice was respectable in the year 2005,the last half of the year saw farmers hit by the hurricane ‘Rita’. Farmers demand a higherprice as they think government programs will not be able to keep up if commodity pricesdo not improve. The overhead cost of rice producers in the mid-south was not being met.The young farmers were the worst hit, as they hardly had enough equity to fall back on. Onthe other hand, there was uncertainty as to how high the fertilizer and fuel prices wouldgo. Farmers had to spend on weed control as well. It was becoming more and morechallenging for farmers to work out the economic numbers for rice.Andreyeva et al. (2010) reviewed 160 studies on price elasticity of demand for majorfood categories to assess the mean elasticities by food categoryand variations in estimatesdue to study design. Price elasticitiesfor foods and nonalcoholic beverages ranged from0.27 to 0.81(absolute values), with food away from home, soft drinks, juiceand meat beingmost responsive to price changes (0.7-0.8).For example, a 10% increase in soft drink pricesreduces consumption by 8-10%.Demand for Apples in IndiaAlthough production and consumption are small in per capita terms, India is the sixthlargest producer and consumer of apples in the world. Growth in both production andconsumption has been sluggish despite rising incomes. Apple demand is responsive tochanges in both income and price, but the demand for domestic, and particularly, importedapples is low due to their high price relative to other fruits.The juicy fruit became 40% cheaper in both wholesale and retail markets in major citiesdue to its bumper crop in 2010. The wholesale price of apple grown in Himachal Pradesh—also known as the ‘apple bowl of the country’—declined to 1,000-1,100 a box of 20 kg in2010, against 1,600-1,700 a box in 2009. At times higher food grain prices lead farmers toincrease acreage and even use fallow land, better support services, and certified seeds andfertilizers, and as a result there is bumper crop. Favorable weather also helps improveproduction. This time, good and timely rainfall in Himachal Pradesh led to recordproduction of apple crop. The prices crashed within weeks of their arrival early in themonth of July. According to the traders a bumper crop in 2010 has turned out to be the pitsfor farmers, as the fruit failed to fetch remunerative prices like in the preceding year. On theone hand, bumper crop means the fruit is more affordable to most consumers, on the otherhand, it implies lower returns to the apple growers. The production in 2010 was about30-40% higher than the preceding year’s yield. As per the Himachal Pradesh’s Directorateof Horticulture, production in Himachal Pradesh was estimated to go up by more thanParadox of Plenty, with Special Reference 49to Inelastic Demand for Applestwo-and-a-half times to 6.35 lakh tons in the current season (July-October) from 2.8 lakhtons in the preceding season. Surplus production of apple in the bulk producing states ofHimachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir in 2010 on account of good rainfall andsnowfall lowered the price of the fruit. Besides the apple from Himachal Pradesh, applesfrom Nawgaon, Purola Belt of Uttarkashi and Chakrata area of Dehradun District havebeen pouring into the local markets. The prices dipped further when apples from Harshilstarted coming after September. As per trade estimates, the production in Jammu andKashmir increased to 11.2 lakh tons in 2010 from 7 lakh tons in the preceding year. Theregular spells of rain in Uttarakhand helped apple production and reports indicated thatproduction touched a record high in 2010. Apple-growers in Himachal Pradesh witnesseda sharp fall in their earnings, despite record production of the popular fruit in 2010.Lekhraj Chauhan, President of Himachal Apple Growers Association said,“Notwithstanding the bumper apple production in the state in 2010, tragically, applegrowers’ income has dropped by almost half due to sale of the fruit at a lower price in themarkets in Delhi and other places.” Metharam Kriplani, President of the Delhi-basedChamber of Azadpur Fruit and Vegetable Traders, opined, “A box of apples (of 22 kg) ispresently selling at 400-900 in Azadpur, the biggest fruit and vegetable market in Asia,compared to 900-1,600 a box last year.”Reasons for Fall in the Price of Apples and Inelastic Demand for ApplesThe same excessive rain which led to the bumper production of apples led to the frequentblockage of roads, crippled the transportation of the crop from the state to national markets,leading to a drop in the apple prices in local market. According to the traders, the price hadbeen pushed 40-50% lower than that of last year. The frequent landslides triggered byexcessive rain too forced the growers to sell the produce in local markets. The growersprefer to sell fresh fruit at reasonable price rather than waiting for the weather to improveand roads to open to take the fruit to other markets.Another reason for the relatively inelastic demand for apples is slow consumptiongrowth. India’s apple consumption has shown little growth in recent years. Consumptiongrowth has been negligible since the late 1980s, a period that corresponded to rapid gainsin income (see Figure 4). Despite rising incomes, India’s per capita apple consumption ofabout 1.35 kg per year is low relative to that of other major apple producing countries(see Figure 5). As apples are a relatively high-priced fruit in India, consumption is largelyconfined to the higher-income segments of the population. Per capita apple consumptionof about 3.5 kg in this segment of the population is still low in comparison to that of othermajor apple producing countries.Growth in per capita apple consumption remains sluggish despite high rates ofeconomic growth that create conditions strengthening the demand for apple and othernon-staple and higher-valued foods. Moreover, with continuous high income growth,50 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011there is also a maturing high-income segment of the population with the economic meansand desire to purchase high-value and processed foods.High prices of both domestic and imported apples, compared to that of otherdomestically available fruits, is a key reason for low per capita apple consumption. Althoughincomes are rising and poverty is declining, the bulk of the population still consists oflow- and middle-income consumers who are highly sensitive to prices when purchasingconsumer goods, including food. The average Indian household spends about 55% of itsincome on food, and consumer expenditure studies indicate that consumers readilysubstitute within and between food groups based on relative prices (Murty andRadhakrishna, 1981). For most Indian consumers, including much of the emerging middleclass, price remains an important factor in determining the contents of the food basket.Figure 4: Per Capita Apple Consumption in India01970-74Source: FAOSTAT1. 1980-841985-89Years 1990-94 1995-99 2002Per Capita Consumption (kg)Figure 5: Selected Countries Per Capita Apple Consumption403020100Turkey France China US Russia Japan Mexico Brazil S. Africa IndiaSource: FAOSTAT1991-93 Average2001-03 AveragePer Capita Consumption (kg)CountriesParadox of Plenty, with Special Reference 51to Inelastic Demand for ApplesApples are generally the most expensive of India’s major domestically produced fruitsin most regions and seasons. Other major fruits, including banana, mango and orange, areproduced and consumed in larger quantities than apple, and their wholesale prices aresignificantly lower than that of apple in all seasons (Table 1). Even in India’s peak appleharvest month of October, the apple price is higher than that of the other competing fruits.Banana, with the highest per capita consumption, has by far the lowest price. Mango andorange also have both lower prices and substantially higher per capita consumption thanapple. Grapes, with about the same low level of per capita consumption as apple, are alsoexpensive relative to the other fruits. Even after a fall in the price of apples by 40-50% fromthat in 2009, the apple price at 50 per kilogram (in the retail market) remains higher thanmost of the other fruits like banana, papaya, etc. MonthFruitBengaluruMumbaiKolkataDelhiChennaiJanuaryBananas5.225.873.575.144.65Mangoes–––––Grapes22.5421.4325.5927.9918.92Oranges20.9225.0613.9421.1318.71Apples31.7335.8725.6627.8359.49AprilBananas5.265.503.808.534.73Mangoes–16.4110.5219.3423.44Grapes23.5527.5324.0424.2121.57Oranges20.7727.1613.6720.8816.64Apples39.26–36.8428.4264.75JulyBananas5.366.013.445.085.22Mangoes22.0215.7815.3212.6513.87Grapes–––––Oranges–––––Apples–––––OctoberBananas5.285.873.264.104.74Mangoes–––––Grapes–––––Oranges–18.11–15.0211.25Apples34.7832.1523.8125.6836.40 Source: National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of IndiaTable 1: Wholesale Price Comparison of India’s Major Domestic Fruit, 2010( /kg)Note: – No price quoted.52 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011Apple ProcessingAlmost all apples produced in India are used for fresh consumption, with only smallquantities being used for processing into products, such as apple juice, jelly or jam. Theparadox would not have been there, if there was a proper processing channel for bumpercrops. In that case the increase in the supply could have been controlled. The price comesdown when there is an increase in supply without a simultaneous increase in demand.So, if we can control the supply, we will be able to control the fall in price.Lack of Integrated Supply ChainsAlthough there are a few government agencies and cooperatives, such as the HimachalPradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation (HPMC), involvedin apple marketing, most apples are sold through private marketing channels comprisingof a large number of small-scale brokers and merchants. Information collected during fieldresearch suggests that India’s apple marketing system entails significant marketing costs,and particularly, significant marketing margins for both domestic and imported apples.Most Indian apple production takes place in the hilly northwestern states, and about 70%of the crop are transported to and sold in India’s largest wholesale fruit and vegetablemarket at Azadpur in Delhi. The major marketing channels for apples are for growers toharvest and pack their crop and ship it in 1-2 days by unrefrigerated truck to the Azadpurmarket, where the consignment is then handled and sold by a commission agent. Growershave an option of selling at the prevailing market price or paying for storage in the hope ofgetting a higher price at a later time. When the produce is sold, all marketing costs, includingtransport, handling, and storage costs and the agent’s commission, are deducted and a netprice is paid to the grower. The difference between prices received by growers and thosepaid by consumers consists of marketing costs and marketing margins. Costs includepacking, handling, transport, storage, losses, establishment costs, fees and taxes and othercharges involved in moving the produce from farm to retail market. Marketing margins arethe portion of the difference between grower and consumer prices not accounted for bymarketing costs and include returns (or profits) of wholesalers, retailers, and otherintermediaries in the supply chain, as well as unaccounted costs. Investments in supplychain infrastructure and competition among firms tend to reduce marketing costs andmargins. But in emerging markets, such as India, factors, such as lack of investment andlack of competition may result in relatively high costs and margins. The high relativeprices for domestic apples in the Indian market reflect limited domestic supplies and theprevailing costs of domestic production. Significant marketing costs and trader marginsalso inflate apple prices, although it is not clear if these costs and margins are higher thanthose of other domestic fruits.Income- and Price-Responsiveness of Apple DemandTo project and analyze the trends in the Indian apple market, it is important to understandthe strength of the relationships between apple demand, income growth and apple prices.Available estimates confirm that apple demand is sensitive to changes in both income andParadox of Plenty, with Special Reference 53to Inelastic Demand for Applesprices. Sikka and Azad (1991) estimated income elasticities of demand for Indian fruit andfound that they range between 0.11 and 1.31. Mango consumption was most responsive tochanges in income, followed by apple consumption. Devadoss and Wahl (2004) reportedan income elasticity of demand for domestic apples in India of 1.05. Regression analysisbased on 26 years’ data on per capita apple consumption and real per capita incomeresults in an income elasticity of demand estimate of 1.06, consistent with the other findings.A few government cooperatives, most notably the ‘Safal’ fruit and vegetable marketingproject operated by the National Dairy Development Board in the Delhi region, have soughtto develop a more modern and integrated marketing chain for fruits and vegetables. Butthese account for only small shares of the market. While India’s apples and other fruits aremarketed almost entirely by the private sector, so far, there has been little private investmentin improving the quality of domestic apples to compete with the imported ones. There arecurrently no large-scale or integrated private firms that market apples or other fruits ateither regional or national level. Supermarkets and chain retailers, as well as the supplychain integration and efficiency they foster, remain nascent in India, accounting for lessthan 5% of total consumer food purchases.Poor Post-Harvest Handling PracticesStorageApples are ordinarily not held in cold storage in the producing areas. Apples not soldimmediately by growers and those held for later sale by wholesale merchants may bestored in cold storage in Delhi or other major markets. Although high-quality cold storageexists in most major markets, apples are generally stored in cold storages with cheaperfacilities with less control over temperature and atmosphere.Handling and TransportWith very few exceptions, domestic apples are transported throughout India inunrefrigerated trucks over poor roads, whether it is a 1-2 day trip from Jammu and Kashmiror Himachal Pradesh to Delhi or a 4-5 day trip to Chennai. Growers generally face shortagesof trucks during the peak harvest period, leading to periods of unrefrigerated storage inproducing areas. Trucks are often loaded beyond the stipulated legal and safe norms. Incombination with poor-quality packing materials, overloading leads to heavy pressure onthe fruit and causes damage during transport. Lack of refrigeration, long journey times,and poor packaging reduce the quality of domestic apples available in more distantmarkets, including Mumbai, Chennai and Bangalore.Limited Cold Storage InfrastructureProducers claim that limited availability of high-quality cold storages and refrigeratedcontainers restricts storage volumes. High investment requirements for such infrastructurecould pose a barrier to entry and contribute to the lack of competition. The significance ofthese factors is, however, unclear since repeated visits to the Azadpur market in Delhiindicated substantial unused capacity.54 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011ConclusionThe free market price of primary products tends to fluctuate much more than that of themanufactured goods or services. This is mainly due to supply-side influences. A bumpercrop will depress the prices, whilst crop failure will lead to higher prices. Bumper cropscan be disastrous for the farmers if the demand for the product is price inelastic; a large fallin price is needed to sell a little extra produce. One solution to this is buffer stock scheme,but buffer stock schemes have a mixed record of success. A buffer stock scheme (commonlyimplemented as intervention storage, the ‘ever-normal granary’) is an attempt to usecommodity storage for the purpose of stabilizing prices in an economy or, more commonly,in an individual (commodity) market. Specifically, commodities are bought when there isa surplus in the economy, stored, and are then sold from these stores when there is ashortage. Their usefulness is debated by economists. Also, a huge amount of money isrequired to buy the produce when the price is low. Administration and storage costs arealso involved. Diversification leading to food processing will eventually help. Thegovernment should take necessary steps in this direction. The continuing problem ofinternational food price instability needs to be carefully monitored in the future and therole of private versus public stockholding needs to be assessed. Reducing weather andprice uncertainties is an important task for food policy intervention. Dams and drainageditches can reduce the impact of rainfall variations; crop insurance can provide aguaranteed income floor even if heavy investments are wiped out; and research on moreadaptable but still high-yielding plant varieties can reduce the risks of new technology.Similarly, the government can reduce price uncertainty by providing better price forecastinginformation, by using import and export policy to provide a band of prices within whichdomestic price formation can take place, or by implementing a more aggressive floor andceiling price policy with a government-operated buffer stock program. But these efforts tostabilize prices must be visible in market operations, not just in press releases and legislativeactions. Most farmers have learned through painful experiences that simple statements ofgovernment intentions to stabilize prices or even to require them by law are ineffective. Thegovernment should take care of this situation in order to stabilize farmers’ incomes and toencourage them to continue farming whether there are bumper crops or droughts.Bibliography1. Andreyeva Tatiana, Michael W Long and Kelly D Brownell (2010), “The Impact ofFood Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticityof Demand for Food”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 100, No. 2,pp. 216-222.2. Belrose Inc. (2003), World Apple Review, Pullman W A Comptroller and AuditorGeneral of India (2004), Audit Report (Civil), Himachal Pradesh for the Year2003/04, available at Connor John M and Peterson Everett B (1992), ”Market Structure Determinants ofNational Brand-Private Label Price Differences of Manufactured Food Prices”,The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 40, pp. 157-171.Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference 55to Inelastic Demand for Apples4. DeCola Dyanna and Sanchez Marie (2000), ”Soybean Prices Drop as Bumper Cropis Predicted”, Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition, Vol. 236, No. 52, September 14.5. Deodhar Satish Y (2005a), “Trade Cost, Trade Policy and Trade Volume: A Study ofIndian Apple Market”, Working Paper No. 2005-08-01, Indian Institute ofManagement, Ahmedabad, August, available at Deodhar Satish Y (2005b), “What’s Keeping the Apples Away? Addressing theMarket Integration Issue”, Working Paper No. 2005-08-03, Indian Institute ofManagement, Ahmedabad, August 2005.7. Devadoss S and Wahl T (2004), “Welfare Impacts of Indian Apple Trade Policies”,Applied Economics, Vol. 36, No. 12.8. Dubey A K, Rai N and Yadav D S (2001), “Harnessing of Fruit Potential for Prosperityin Arunachal Pradesh”, ENVIS Bulletin: Himalayan Ecology & Development, Vol. 9,No. 20, ESRI, Redlands, CA.9. Lauren Petter (2009), ”Bumper Cherry Crop Turns Sour”, Wall Street Journal,Eastern Edition, Vol. 254, No. 45, August 22, p. A5.10. Manser E Marliyn (1976), ”Elasticities of Demand for Food: An Analysis Using NonAdditive Utility Functions Allowing for Habit Formation”, Southern Economic Journal,Vol. 43, No. 1.11. Murty K N and Radhakrishna R (1981), “Agricultural Prices, Income Distributionand Demand Patterns in a Low-Income Country”, in Robert E Kalman and J Martinez(Eds.), Computer Applications in Food Production and Agricultural Engineering, NorthHolland Publ. Co.12. Robinson Elton (2006), “Cost Squeeze Takes Shine Off Bumper Crops”, Vol. 33,No. 2, Southwest Farm Press.13. Sikka B K and Azad K C (1991), “Consumption Pattern and Demand Projections forFresh Fruit in India”, Acta Horticulturae, Vol. 270, pp. 231-236, available at # 21J-2011-05-04-01Copyright of IUP Journal of Managerial Economics is the property of IUP Publications and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.