10

these broader based studies of agricultural marketing processes in less

developed countries (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). Mellor, et al. of Cornell

University have studied marketing in India. On the basis of extensive field

surveys they have challenged the validity of several widely held views

regarding the exploitive and unproductive activities of rural traders (12).

Lele could find little evidence in her field studies to support the view

that the monopolistic nature of private trade leads to excessively high

marketing margins or that wide seasonal price variations were caused by

speculative hoarding and profiteering practices of traders (13). Price

differentials among major wholesale centers were found to be closely related

to expected price patterns based upon transportation cost differences.

Indications are that entry into traditional trade is generally open and that

there is overcrowding and significant competition at each level of marketing.

Even in instances where a few traders are handling a large share of the

market volume it was observed they are unable to influence prices appreciably

through collusive action as long as there is effective market intelligence

and transportation among markets. Lele observes that public sector efforts

to facilitate efficiency in traditional trade is necessary as rural traders

perform a number of important functions that cannot be replaced by government

or cooperative agencies, without incurring substantially greater costs in

administrative manpower and finances than is implicit in allowing the private

sector to operate. A broad based and positive role for public sector

involvement in marketing was outlined by Lele in her paper presented to the

International Association of Agricultural Economists in 1976 (14).

 Jones and his colleagues at Stanford University have conducted extensive

studies of agricultural marketing in several African countries (15). The

characteristics of existing marketing systems were compared with the require-

ments of a purely competitive model and actual pricing relationships were