POL 447 Term Paper Fall 2012 Dr.

. Andrea Migone Social Capital and Development: Rural Producer Cooperatives in Ethiopia By Gian-Paolo Mendoza - 301 154 165 November 27, 2012.

Development Theory and Social Capital: Producers Cooperatives in Ethiopia The question of the roles that non-governmental organizations play in economic development has gained prominence in recent years following the global economic crisis and the increased awareness of the shortcomings of a liberalized global economy. A prominent example of the role of non-state organizations can be found in Ethiopia, where agricultural producers cooperatives play a distinct role in the scheme of national development. While the cooperative structure in Ethiopia may not reflect a pure and complete separation from various levels of government, the framework has been constructed in a way that offers a pragmatic balance between both increasing the capacity for civil society to organize at a grassroots level, while at the same time focusing on maintaining market competitiveness for the export of goods produced with state support. This paper will analyze the mainstream concept of economic development and expose both its strengths and its limitations in terms of how it has driven policy implementation on a global level. The paper will then examine an alternative concept of development, namely that of the role of the community, social capital, and social connections as characterizations and foundations of economic growth. This report will argue that a new narrative for development is needed to promote a focus not so much on the role of the market in driving the economy, but with an increased focus on the role of social ties and community in measuring, evaluating, and formulating development policies. The paper will focus on the role of cooperative agricultural production in Ethiopia; more specifically on the role that social capital plays in sustaining and driving these agricultural cooperatives and empowering the lives of their members. The focus will not be honed in specifically on coffee cooperatives; other cooperative organizations

will be discussed when appropriate. Challenges that the cooperative movement faces will also be discussed, in evaluating their capacity to be a driving force in a new development paradigm for rural livelihoods in Ethiopia. Development Concepts: Mainstream and Social Capital The Neo-Liberal development paradigm is one that is predominately centered on market competition, economic growth, and a reduction of the size of the state in the economy. Neo-liberals emphasize self-interest, rational maximization, and comparative advantage in free trade as being the underlying principles driving the global economy today.1 The economic inefficiencies associated with state-centered models of development largely prompted an ideological shift towards free-market policies in both industrialized and developing nations in the early 1970s, with factors of gross domestic product (GDP), income per capita, and levels of employment broadly encompassing some of the methods used by international financial institutions and banks to measure economic development in various countries. However, the notion that the neo-liberal approach to economic development has rather perpetuated states of underdevelopment and poverty in developing nations is not new. Decades of levying top-down development policy by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have been met with a consistent decline in the capacity of developing states to provide for the needs of their marginalized and disadvantaged peoples. Throughout the developing world, the reduction in the role and size of the state in the market has taken form in policies involving the privatization of formerly stateowned enterprises, cutbacks in spending on welfare and social services, the elimination of

M. Shamsul Haque, The Fate of Sustainable Development under Neo -liberal regimes in developing countries, International Political Science Review 20, no. 2 (1999): 203.

import restrictions, as well as the elimination of subsidies.2 These measures have also hindered the market accessibility of small scale producers through policies designed to attract transnational capital, mainly through the removal of protectionist barriers designed to support national industries. While measures to protect domestic production have opened developing economies to a wider variety of consumer goods and imports, liberalized trade policies have placed domestic rural producers at a disadvantage, competing with the often lower-priced imports of similar products produced in industrialized nations. Given the limitations of the Neo-Liberal approach to economic development, an alternative vision for economic growth would place more substantial focus on the social elements embodied in individual relations. The problems associated with the Neo Liberal approach to development stem largely from discordance in terms of economics and the social elements of culture. The model advocated by mainstream economics is associated with what Matthews refers to as the post-World War II development project. Being prominently rooted in the Western concept of capitalism, Matthews states that, several of the assumptions which are core to the (Post World War II) development project are far from universal, and that their lack of universality results in the rejection of the Post World War II development project by communities who do not share these supposedly universal assumptions.3 In other words, the pro-capital nature of the Neo-Liberal development approach often lacks synthesis with modes of thought and values across the developing world. This would suggest that solutions to the social issues evident in these countries should be derived from within, requiring an understanding and interpretation of
2 3

Haque, The Fate of Sustainable Development, 204. Sally Matthews, Post-development theory and the question of alternatives: a view from Africa, Third World Quarterly 25, no. 2 (2004): 381.

surviving cultural institutions, for the purpose of incorporating their values and prescribed ways of living into a fundamentally unique development program.4 The cooperative model in Ethiopia provides a more favorable institutional arrangement for the facilitation of this model to be carried out, as it provides an arguably more inclusive arrangement for both producers and service providers to carry out their businesses, through the development and refining of an element often over-looked and undersupplied by the role of the market in Neo Liberal economics: interpersonal relations. Why The Cooperative Model for Social Capital? This alternative development paradigm is centered on the idea that civil society possesses the power to reduce the poverty affects resulting from neo-liberalism through the development of their social capital. For Ben Fine (2004), social capital is defined as, the idea that (inter) personal connections can be favourable for outcomes. He further argues that through the creation of formal and informal associations between people by non-market means, the development of social capital reveals a number of other organizations upon which can be used in a development capacity.5 These sources of social capital can include the institutions of families, communities, the public sector, ethnicity, and gender. Dhesi states that, social capital can be considered as an enabling resource that improves the effectiveness of other inputs in development.6 Expanding on the role of social capital in economic development, its productive value comes through the empowerment of local communities to recognize the capacity they possess through

Erik Berg, Post-Development Theory in Africa, Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 19, no. 4 (2007): 545-546. 5 Ben Fine, Social Capital for Africa? Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 53, (2004): 33. 6 Autur S. Dhesi, Social capital and community development, Community Development Journal 35, No. 3, (July 2000): 201.

their shared values, norms and understandings, to achieve their collectively envisioned objectives. These concepts play a key role in contributing to the successful economic performance of cooperatives in Ethiopia, in that membership and association with these organizations has proven to provide numerous benefits to producers through an institutional arrangement that establishes a clear method through which goods can be sold and services delivered. History of Cooperatives and Development in Ethiopia Imperial and Socialist Era Cooperatives Cooperatives during the Imperial era under Emperor Haile Selassie were created primarily to support the production of higher value exports such as coffee. Membership often consisted of more wealthy farmers with larger holdings of land, and tended to exclude smaller scale farmers.7 The government was instrumental in giving birth to the institution of the cooperative, as it would stand through various regime changes in the following decades. The inequalities present in the imperial form of cooperatives saw a rapid change in image under the socialist Derg regime from 1974 to 1987. Cooperatives under the Derg were primarily instruments of government administration with distinctly political objectives. Membership was compulsory, with these organizations being used to direct and coordinate national development policies on a more regional and local level. Cooperatives in rural areas were classified as either one of two types: producer (PCs) or service cooperatives (SCs). Producer cooperatives consisted of collective farms and were designed to alleviate the shortage of inputs through the pooling of resources, while service cooperatives were organized to provide basic services such as the selling of
7

Tanguy Bernard, David J. Spielman, Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse, and Eleni Z. Gabre-Madhin, Cooperatives for stable crop marketing: Evidence from Ethiopia, International Food Policy Research Institute 164 (2010): 15.

farming inputs, consumer items (which were often rationed), loans, and education.8 Quotas were a key feature of these cooperatives, which were subject to much discipline from the central government, for the purposes of keeping their objectives in line with the Dergs socialist ideology. With the fall of the regime in the early 1990s, many of the resources of rural cooperatives were misused or looted by members, causing a period of stagnation for the cooperative movement during the transition to a more liberal regime in Ethiopia. Cooperatives and Contemporary Development in Ethiopia The transition to a market-led economy posed many challenges for smallholder farmers and rural organizations under the beginning years of the EPRDF. The government recognized the relatively low bargaining power of smallholder producers in competition with more developed nations in the world market, and sought a development strategy to allow Ethiopias smaller scale producers to retain a level of competitiveness to shoulder the potentially adverse impact a liberalized economy would have on their social well-being and economic livelihood. Despite a sour association with the socialist period, the cooperative development concept regained prominence on a national level in the mid-1990s during the postsocialist agricultural and rural development regime, under the direction of the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). The Cooperative Proclamation No. 147/1998 set forth a more comprehensive legal framework for the formation of cooperative associations in Ethiopia by providing clearer social and economic goals that would require cooperation and mutual assistance. The 1998 Proclamation sets out
8

Mulatu Wubneh, Development Strategy and Growth of t he Ethiopian Economy: A Comparative Analysis of the Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Period, in The Political Economy of Ethiopia, ed. Marina Ottaway, New York: Praeger Publishers (1990): 204-205.

provisions for the registration of cooperatives, the rights and duties of members, the management of cooperatives, management of assets and funds, as well as audit procedures for cooperatives.9 Four of the nine regional states of Ethiopia have also put forth their own proclamations for the promotion of cooperative formation, these being Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and the Southern Nations and Nationalities Peoples Region (SNNPR). The concept of organizing formal cooperatives for the purpose of empowering workers and residents in rural communities to play a greater role in the national development process, working closest to where their economic interests lie. The role of social capital in expanding the individual role in the development process will be discussed further below. Coffee Farmers and Cooperative Structure: Economic Elements of the Model The Ethiopian Federal Cooperative Authority (FCA) currently recognizes the existence of over 40,000 cooperatives in the country, the members of which constitute approximately 7 million people; approximately 10,000 of these organizations have a specific focus on agriculture.10 Cooperatives are classified on the basis of what activities they specialize in. There currently exist a number of consumer, producer, housing, construction, mining, social services, savings and credit operators, and handcrafts cooperatives in Ethiopia, among others. Given the importance of the export of coffee to the Ethiopian economy, the focus of analysis here will be on coffee farmers cooperatives, how they are structured, and some of the benefits they (as well as other forms of cooperatives) provide to their members, both economically and socially. The primary

Emana Bezabih, Cooperatives: a path to social and economic empowerment in Ethiopia. COOP Africa (International Labour Organization): Working Paper no. 9 , (2009): 3. 10 Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Authority, Cooperatives, par. 2, accessed via: http://www.ata.gov.et/programs/system-programs/cooperatives/

purpose of agricultural cooperatives is to provide a platform for the collective management of resources and inputs amongst farmers, due to the fact that smallholder farms tend to face a comparative disadvantage in the world market for the sale of their output, attributed mostly to high transaction costs.11 Cooperatives also provide social protection to their members through buying the products of their members at fair prices during harvest, in order to sell them in the off-season when prices recover. This helps to provide insurance for cooperative farmers who fear that the value of their produce will not fall below a particular limit.12 Proclamation No. 147 / 1998 establishes the hierarchical structure of cooperative organizations. Cooperatives in Ethiopia can have up to four layers, each one at a level higher than the other. The basic structure, starting from the bottom up, consists of primary cooperatives, cooperative unions, cooperative federations, and cooperative leagues, although only cooperatives at the union level have been achieved so far.13 Primary cooperatives operate closest to the producers, and are composed of individual farmers and smallholder producers in smaller community or municipalities. Their responsibilities include the cleaning and quality control of the products they produce. In the case of coffee cooperatives, another responsibility is also transporting the goods to and from the cooperative union. Certain primary cooperatives also provide consumer goods and postal services for their members.14 Next in the framework are cooperative unions, which consist of two or more primary cooperatives. They are managed by a
11

Tanguy Bernard and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse, Returns to Scope? Smallholders Commercialisation through Multipurpose Cooperatives in Ethiopia. Journal of African Economies 21 no. 3 (2012): 441. 12 Emana, Cooperatives, 20. 13 Yuka Kodama, New Role of Cooperatives in Ethiopia: The Case of Coffee Farmers Cooperatives, African Study Monographs, 35 (March 2007): 89. 14 Alisha Myers, Old Concepts Revisited: Are Cooperatives the Way Forward for Smallholder Farmers to Engage in International Trade? London School of Economics & Political Science, London (2004): 36.

general assembly elected by the members, and are charged with managing the warehousing and shipping functions in the export of their members products.15 In Ethiopia, coffee cooperative unions currently manage the sale of coffee to international dealers (Notably VOLCAFE, Starbucks, and Nestle Japan), to coffee exporters operating in the Addis Ababa auction system, and occasionally through Fair Trade routes.16 Following the issuing of Proclamation No. 147, six coffee producers cooperative unions were established. The Oromiya, Sidama, Yirgacheffe, Kafa Forset, Tepi, and Bench Maji unions were established by the Ethiopian government in response to a major decline in world coffee prices, as well as to provide a formal infrastructure for the managing of a number of business problems between coffee auction traders and cooperatives during the period following 1998.17 The dividends paid out to cooperatives from the sale of coffee through these channels are calculated following the audit procedures set out in the regulations. Thirty percent of net profit is reserved for primary cooperatives, whereas the remaining seventy percent is distributed to farmers after the auditing process is complete. Proclamation No. 402/2004 provides that the mode of distribution of the remaining dividends is left to the responsibility of the individual cooperatives general assembly to decide.18 Collectively, the coffee industry carries with it significant weight in the Ethiopian economy. Citing data from the Central Statistical Authority of Ethiopia in 2006, Emana Bezabih notes that, Four unions (the Oromia, Yirga-Chefe, Sidama, and Yeka-Chaka coffee farmers unions) have generated a total

15 16

Myers, Old Concepts Revisited, 36-37. Kodama, New Role of Cooperatives in Ethiopia, 91. 17 Kodama, New Role of Cooperatives in Ethiopia, 90. 18 Kodama, New Role of Cooperatives in Ethiopia, 92.

10

104,154,838 (USD) through the export of over 35,000 tonnes of coffee between 200 and 2008, equivalent to around 0.9 percent of Ethiopian GDP in 2006.19 Given the globally renowned quality and rich history of coffee farming in Ethiopia, the cooperative model here illustrates an appropriate model for both the distribution of economic benefits to the actors involved, as well as a framework through which members at the primary cooperative level can receive support and assistance. Social Capital: The Social Elements of the Cooperative Model According to Bezabih, The social role of cooperatives is promoted through voicing of common goals, enhanced participation in value chains, and protection of producers from unfair pricing. Cooperatives also create opportunity for networking and working in partnership with other agencies.20 Rural cooperatives in particular play a significant role here, through their capacity to assist in providing benefits such as productive employment, education, sanitation, health care, and market access. The key concept in this sense is the role of the networking benefits of cooperative membership in expanding individual members access to social services and facilities. Cooperatives accomplish this through providing an environment in which social capital can be accumulated and refined amongst members alongside their economic goals. Relationships that are formed both within and between these organizations provide members with the opportunity to form and nurture inter-personal connections that can be favorable for development outcomes, such as greater access to services such as health services, savings and credit services, and social support through relationships both in and between cooperative associations and members.

19 20

Emana, Cooperatives, 15. Emana, Cooperatives, viii.

11

Networking between cooperatives widens the capacity for members of smaller and more specialized cooperatives to gain access to services provided by other cooperatives. These are features embedded in a heterodox theoretical framework known as the Solidarity Economy Model, a concept that was first discussed at the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001. While the model discussed at the WSF focused largely on solidarity movements in Brazil and other Latin American countries, the core element that it shares with the cooperative model being discussed here is the role of social capital. Giegold and Embshoff state that, the Solidarity Economy covers types of economic activities which satisfy human needs on the basis of voluntary cooperation, selforganization and mutual support. The principle of solidarity stands in contrast against the business competition orientation, cynical individual responsibility, and profit maximization of capitalist market societies. Solidarity within the economy means orientation to the needs of the cooperating partners.21 The cooperative model in Ethiopia reflects these principles of solidarity, in that they provide the space through which members concerns can be voiced, participation can be facilitated, and economic goals can be framed. A study conducted by Getnet and Anullo on the livelihood development and poverty reduction capacity of cooperative organizations in Ethiopia note that cooperative membership paralleled high levels of trust in cooperative associations for promoting saving and the provision of credit in producers livelihoods. The study also found that this was occurring alongside significant increases in individual household income, savings, consumption on food and social goods, as well as ownership of productive assets
21

Sven Giegold and Dagmar Embshoff, Solidarische konomie im globalisierten Kapitalismus. in Solidarische konomie im globalisierten Kapitalismus, eds. Sven Giegold and Dagmar Embshoff. Hamburg (2008): 12. Authors Translation.

12

such as land and livestock.22 An example of how cooperative associations in Ethiopia continue to improve individuals access to these services was found in a series of surveys conducted by the World Bank in 2004. The study found that the values of cooperation and collaboration were prominent in the workings of burial associations and savings and credit cooperatives: two types of groups that are primarily concerned with both sudden, necessary expenditures (such as funerals) and larger, long-term expenditures (such as those associated with housing).23 Kebede and Butterfield further state that, social networks as community assets have a particular value in participatory or strengths-based approaches to community planning and capacity building, citing the possibility of incorporating inherent social network features such as communication and mutual support into new efforts to encourage the strengthening of community associations.24 Furthermore, the capacity-building elements that exist in the organizational structure of cooperatives help to foster a sense of personal empowerment through collective participation; a more grassroots approach to economic development in contrast with the market-focused policies advocated by global financial institutions. Challenges that Cooperative Organizations Face Alongside the economic and social benefits that the cooperative development framework has brought to rural agricultural producers in Ethiopia, there still exist a number of realities that the cooperative movement as a whole faces.
22

Kindie Getnet and Tsegaye Anullo, Agricultural Cooperatives and Rural Livelihoods: Evidence from Ethiopia, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 83, vol. 2 (2012): 193. 23 Ann Muir, Building Capacity in Ethiopia to Strengthen the Participation of Citizens Associations in Development: A Study of the Organizational Associations of Citizens, INTRAC for the World Bank, (June 2004): 23. 24 Wassie Kebede and Alice K. Butterfield, Social Networks among poor women in Ethiopia, International Social Work 52, no. 357 (2009): 370.

13

One significant challenge relates to the relationship of cooperatives with Ethiopian governing institutions. The majority of cooperatives work closely with local levels of government in administrative and financial capacities, which often causes their operations to overlap with those of the government itself. In terms of roles and responsibilities, it is this blurring of lines that results in unclear responsibilities between the community and the kebele (municipal) and woreda (district, broader-based) levels of government. This in turn brings up the question of the role of the government in building organizations for the development of civil society. Part of the rationale for government involvement within cooperative associations stems from the fact that the majority of rural cooperatives at the kebele level suffer from financial constraints that inevitably require the resorting to the aid of the government, foreign donors or NGOs. Emana further notes that many primary cooperatives lack access to long-term financial services, thus inviting strategies from woreda-level governments to support their development through working to facilitate access to these services.25 Furthermore, the leadership of cooperatives at the local level further consolidates these links, in what Spielman calls interlocking leadership between formal and informal governance systems in cooperatives, as well as the local government.26 An effective balance between the importance of the role of civil society, in addition to the technical capacity of the government to enable the environment for which it can flourish, is needed to be able to ensure that rural-based cooperative associations can play their appropriate roles in the setting of economic and social priorities. Muir states that the kebele and woreda levels are the most important places for this distinction to be clearfor here the most common organizations and institutions
25 26

Emana,Cooperatives, 28. David Spielman, Mobilizing Rural Institutions for Sustainable Livelihoods and Economic Development Final Report, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. (2008): 15.

14

of the citizenry are to be found.27 The level of economic activity by a select few cooperatives, notably including the Oromia and Sidama coffee cooperative unions, operate at a scale large enough to provide them with a foothold in dealing with the Ethiopian government (both have offices and run their operations in Addis Ababa), but for the majority of cooperatives in rural regions of the country, these closely-linked relationships with the government serve as both a present obstacle, as well as a sphere of promise, in terms of the role that more coordinated partnerships between the two actors could hold for the future. Education about the structure and organization of cooperatives themselves, as well as a lack of human resource capacity, are two additional challenges that reveal some limitations of their functioning. Muir points out a list of significant capacities that cooperatives currently lack, most of which are related to the building of administrative structure and internal governance. She notes that across thirty-six cooperatives surveyed, eleven associations responded that increasing cooperative representation in kebele cabinets or woreda governments was important for strengthening participation in the development process. Twelve organizations in her study also referred to a need for greater consultation between the government and the cooperative institutions to improve government responsiveness. Conversely, responses from both government representatives and NGOs that were also surveyed highlighted the need for cooperative members to better understand the workings of government as a route to improve civic engagement.28 It can be inferred from this that more education, avenues for communication, and greater transparency between cooperative groups and local governments may help to strengthen

27 28

Muir, Building Capacity in Ethiopia, 41. Muir, Building Capacity in Ethiopia, 38.

15

ties between these two partners, whose joint participation in the development process will be undoubtedly inseparable in the future. The challenge of adequate human resources and technical skills is another obstacle to mention. This is an issue currently being tackled through the recent introduction of formal educational programs in cooperative operation, management, planning, and marketing through universities such as Ambo College, Hawassa University, and Mekelle University.29 Emana also notes that certain NGOs such as ActionAID Ethiopia and Oxfam America also contribute to this learning process by arranging experience sharing among cooperatives locally and internationally, which helps the cooperatives to widen their perspectives.30 However, some further challenges faced by these formal education programs for cooperatives stem from the reality that most are highly dependent on donor funding and are often not of long duration. Conclusion In the face of a global economy largely driven by the market-oriented principles of neo-liberalism, the concept of social capital, as evidently seen in the cooperative movement in rural Ethiopia, serves as a model that illustrates a promising capacity to become a more balanced approach to socioeconomic development. While the institution of the producers cooperative itself has evolved over time from being an instrument of state control to an executive body through which national development policy has been carried out, the composition and structural framework for cooperative associations in rural regions of the country serve to facilitate the accumulation of social capital amongst members, an aspect of development that is given more weight to exist alongside the economic goals of cooperative associations. In terms of economics, the hierarchical

29 30

Emana, Cooperatives, 21-22. Emana, Cooperatives, 23.

16

structure of coffee cooperatives in rural regions of Ethiopia have proven to bring numerous employment opportunities alongside an environment through which individual smallholder farmers can have a voice in expressing their interests over cooperative marketing and planning operations. The social elements of cooperatives are embedded in the manner in which these organizations act as an enabling environment for the development of social capital, notably through networking capabilities, as well as the voicing of concerns and interests amongst members. The challenges faced by the cooperative movement stem largely from the unclear sharing of roles and responsibilities with local and regional governments, as well as a lack of communication between local governments and cooperatives and a general shortage of skilled human resources. The approaches to tackling these constraints have been characterized by a general consensus on the need to improve consultation and communication with the government as a partner economic development, as well as through the relatively new process of establishing formal training programs for cooperative management and operation; solutions which, if developed, would help to further promote producers cooperatives as an alternative, more grassroots based model for operations in the global economy.

17

Works Cited Berg, Erik. Post-Development Theory in Africa. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 19, no. 4 (2007): 541 554.

Bernard, Tanguy., Spielman, David J., Taffesse, Alemayehu S. and Gabre-Madhin, Eleni Z. Cooperatives for stable crop marketing: Evidence from Ethiopia. International Food Policy Research Institute 164 (2010).

Bernard, Tanguy., and Taffesse, Alemayehu S. Returns to Scope? Smallholders Commercialisation through Multipurpose Cooperatives in Ethiopia. Journal of African Economies 21 no. 3 (2012): 440-464.

Dhesi, Autur S. Social capital and community development, Community Development Journal 35, No. 3, (July 2000): 199-214.

Emana, Bezabih. Cooperatives: a path to social and economic empowerment in Ethiopia. COOP Africa (International Labour Organization): Working Paper no. 9, (2009).

Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Authority, Cooperatives, accessed via: http://www.ata.gov.et/programs/system-programs/cooperatives/

18

Fine, Ben. Social Capital for Africa? Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 53, (2004): 29-52. Getnet, Kindie., and Anullo, Tsegaye. Agricultural Cooperatives and Rural Livelihoods: Evidence from Ethiopia, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 83, vol. 2 (2012): 181-198

Giegold, Sven., and Embshoff, Dagmar. Solidarische konomie im globalisierten Kapitalismus. In Solidarische konomie im globalisierten Kapitalismus, edited by Sven Giegold and Dagmar Embshoff. Hamburg (2008).

Haque, Shamsul M. The Fate of Sustainable Development under Neo-liberal regimes in developing countries. International Political Science Review 20, no. 2 (1999): 197-218. Jenaa, Pradyot R., Bezawit Beyene Chichaibelub, Till Stellmachera, Ulrike Grotea. The impact of coffee certification on small-scale producers livelihoods: a case study from the Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 43 (2012): 429440.

Kebede, Wassie., and Butterfield, Alice K. Social Networks among poor women in Ethiopia. International Social Work 52, no. 357 (2009): 357-374.

Kodama, Yuka. New Role of Cooperatives in Ethiopia: The Case of Ethiopian Coffee Farmers Cooperatives. African Study Monographs 35 (March 2007): 87-108.

19

Matthews, Sally. Post-development theory and the question of alternatives: a view from Africa. Third World Quarterly 25, no. 2 (2004): 373 - 384.

Muir, Ann. Building Capacity in Ethiopia to Strengthen the Participation of Citizens Associations in Development: A Study of the Organizational Associations of Citizens. INTRAC for the World Bank, (June 28 2004).

Myers, Alisha. Old Concepts Revisited: Are Cooperatives the Way Forward Smallholder Farmers to Engage in International Trade? London School of Economics & Political Science, London (2004).

Spielman, David. Mobilizing Rural Institutions for Sustainable Livelihoods and Economic Development Final Report, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. (2008).

Wubneh, Mulatu. Development Strategy and Growth of the Ethiopian Economy: A Comparative Analysis of the Pre- and Post-Revolutionary Period. in The Political Economy of Ethiopia. Edited by Marina Ottaway. New York: Praeger Publishers (1990).

20