Brooker, John R.

Eastwood, David B.

Estes, Edmund A.

Hall, Charles R.

Stegelin, Forrest E.

Woods, Timothy A.

English

Research Papers in Economics

 191
Public Markets and the Development of the Fresh-produce 
Industry
David Eastwood, Charlie Hall, John Brooker, Edmund Estes, Timothy Woods, 
and Forest Stegelin
reveal the importance of the inherent simultaneity 
associated with market development and the syn-
ergy associated with having a variety of marketing 
activities occur at centralized locations. 
 Neither Kentucky nor Tennessee have public 
outlets for produce marketing other than retail. 
Hence there is little incentive for growers to pro-
vide adequate supply to attract stakeholders who are 
involved in other market channel activities, such as 
brokering, wholesaling, and repacking. Georgia and 
North Carolina have created facilities that permit 
many elements of the distribution channel to operate 
in close proximity at selected public farmers= mar-
kets. The variety of marketing activities that occurs 
encourages production. Growers have alternative 
outlets available at centralized locations. Similarly, 
wholesalers, brokers, and repackers can operate on 
their own and have the retail markets as backups 
to fill unexpected orders. The breadth and scale of 
operations tends to be self-sustaining.
One characterization of the dichotomy between 
the successful versus less successful states in terms 
of produce market development seems to be that the 
primary focus in Georgia and North Carolina is on 
wholesale activity, with retail (farmers= markets) 
added as a secondary element. Wholesale rental fees 
help to offset losses incurred by the retail markets. 
Another notable difference is that market managers 
and other employees in Georgia and North Carolina 
are state employees, whereas markets in Kentucky 
and Tennessee are not supported by the state. 
Eastwood, Hall, and Brooker are professors, University of 
Tennessee; Estes is a professor, North Carolina State University; 
Stegelin is an associate professor, University of Georgia; and 
Woods is an associate professor, University of Kentucky.
Four states (GA, KY, NC, and TN) collaborated in 
a USDA/IFAFS project to develop a description of 
public-sector involvement in produce-market de-
velopment, describe the types of marketing firms 
operating within each state, and identify grower at-
titudes and perceptions of marketing opportunities. 
Managers in the four-state region of all the public 
produce markets for which there were permanent 
buildings and utilities on the sites were surveyed 
during 2001. Information was gathered about the 
operations of the markets with respect to types of 
activities, presence of advertising budgets, fees 
charged growers, number of employees, extent of 
public financial support, number of growers, and 
the number of shoppers at the markets.
Kentucky had no such markets in 2001, although 
there were seasonal tailgate community markets 
in the state. Six, five, and five farmers= markets in 
Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, respec-
tively, were included. Wide disparities in the scale 
of operations were present within the Georgia and 
North Carolina markets. With the exception of one 
market in Tennessee that only focused on assembly/
shipping, all the markets had retailing activity.
All of the public markets surveyed required pub-
lic financial support. They spanned a range in terms 
of the scales of operation. None was completely 
self-supporting. However, the success of the mar-
kets with respect to fostering the development of the 
produce industry from the farm through the retail 
levels varied by state. The results of these interviews 

PUBLIC MARKETS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRESH-PRODUCE INDUSTRY

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics