CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Economics of Agriculture and Food MarketsAgricultural economics and policiesMerger and Competition Analysis

Concentration and market power in the food chain

Open access
Koen Deconinck·2021·OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers
DOI 10.1787/3151e4ca-en
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Concerns about market power and competition in the agri-food sector are widespread, with commentators regularly suggesting that farmers are in a structurally weaker position than other actors, who therefore benefit at their expense. The evidence reviewed in this paper indicates that downstream segments of agri-food chains are indeed typically more concentrated than farm-level production. Nevertheless, while competition problems were found in some instances, the current evidence does not support the claim that stronger actors in the chain systematically abuse their stronger position at the expense of farmers. An in-depth understanding of how value chains are organised is essential, as many widely used indicators provide little relevant information. In many areas, further research would be welcome, as current evidence does not cover all countries and sectors equally well.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1787/3151e4ca-en

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data limitations and complexities in some of these markets make it difficult to numerically assess the extent to which the widespread and systematic exercise of buyer power takes place in food systems, especially with respect to small-scale producers.

    “Data limitations and complexities in some of these markets make it difficult to numerically assess the extent to which the widespread and systematic exercise of buyer power takes place in food systems, espe­ cially with respect to small-scale producers (Hernandez et al. 2023; Deconinck 2021).”

    From Corporate concentration and power matter for agency in food systems (2025) · cites this paper as Deconinck 2021

    Section 2.6 (Conclusion; page unavailable) says public-domain data are often insufficient to uncover competition problems in specific markets and that indirect measures do not accurately show competitive conditions. Section 2.2 notes uneven sectoral and geographic coverage, supporting the difficulty of assessing buyer power broadly. The paper does not identify a particular measurement difficulty for small-scale producers, and its conclusion says the available evidence does not support buyer-power problems being common and large. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Crespi, J. and T. Saitone (2018), "Are Cattle Markets the Last Frontier? Vertical Coordination in Animal-Based Procurement Markets", http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource. · DOI
  2. Falkowski, J. (2017), "The Economic Aspects of Unfair Trading Practices: Measurement and Indicators", in Di Marcantonio, F. and P. Ciaian (eds.), Unfair Trading Practices in the Food Supply Chain: A Literature Review on Methodologies, Impacts and Regulatory Aspects.
  3. Lan, H. and X. Wang (2019), "Estimating market power in the Chinese pork-packing industry: a structural approach", China Agricultural Economic Review, Vol. ahead-of-print/ahead-of-print, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CAER-03-2018-0046. · DOI
  4. McCorriston, S. (2014), "Background Note", in OECD (ed.), Competition Issues in the Food Chain Industry, OECD Publishing, Paris.
  5. Mccorriston, S., C. Morgan and A. Rayner (2001), "Price transmission: the interaction between market power and returns to scale", European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 28/2, pp. 143-159.
  6. Ménard, C. (2017), "Summary and Conclusions: The Many Challenges of Unfair Trading Practices in Food Supply Chains", in Di Marcantonio, F. and P. Ciaian (eds.), Unfair Trading Practices in the Food Supply Chain: A Literature Review on Methodologies, Impacts and Regulatory Aspects.
  7. Saitone, T. and R. Sexton (2017), "Concentration and consolidation in the US food supply chain: The latest evidence and implications for consumers, farmers, and policymakers", Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev/econrevarchive/2017/si17saiton esexton.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2019).
  8. Scalco, P. and M. Braga (2014), "Measuring the Degree of Oligoposony Power in the Brazilian Raw Milk Market", International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 17/2.
  9. Sexton, R. (2017), "Unfair Trade Practices in the Food Supply Chain: Defining the Problem and the Policy Issues", in Di Marcantonio, F. and P. Ciaian (eds.), Unfair Trading Practices in the Food Supply Chain: A Literature Review on Methodologies, Impacts and Regulatory Aspects.
  10. Swinnen, J. and S. Vandevelde (2017), "Regulating UTPs: Diversity versus Harmonisation of Member State Rules", in Di Marcantonio, F. and P. Ciaian (eds.), Unfair Trading Practices in the Food Supply Chain: A Literature Review on Methodologies, Impacts and Regulatory Aspects.
  11. Swinnen, J. and S. Vandevelde (2017), "Unfair trading practices -the way forward", in Di Marcantonio, F. and P. Ciaian (eds.), Unfair Trading Practices in the Food Supply Chain: A Literature Review on Methodologies, Impacts and Regulatory Aspects.
  12. US Department of Justice (2012), Competition and Agriculture: Voices from the Workshops on Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement in our 21st Century Economy and Thoughts on the Way Forward, http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-100312.html. (accessed on 29 November 2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Deconinck, K.
Affiliations
Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques (FR)
Corresponding author
Koen Deconinck
Venue
OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers
Publisher
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
Published
2021-02-17
ISSN
1815-6797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1787/3151e4ca-en
OpenAlex
W3132528232
Cited by
53
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
OECD food, agriculture and fisheries working papers (publishedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economics of Agriculture and Food Markets
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Merger and Competition Analysis
Keywords
market power, market concentration, agri-food chain, value chain, competition, farmers, abuse of dominant position, food supply chain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review