Determinants of market participation and intensity of marketed surplus of smallholder chickpea producers in Este woreda

In Ethiopia, chickpea is an important legume crop, particularly in Este district. It is a source of food and provides cash income for majority of smallholder farmers. To commercialize chickpea producers, selecting an appropriate market channel is important for participation. Hence, this study aimed to identifying factors affecting chickpea market participation and volume of marketed surplus of chickpea. Both primary and secondary sources of data were used. Moreover, both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from primary and secondary data sources. Primary data were collected directly from chickpea farmers through semistructured questionnaire. Focus group discussion and field observations were undertaken during primary data collection in the study area. Combination of data analysis methods like descriptive analysis and econometric models were employed. Heckman model result indicated that market participation decision was significantly affected by age, family size, lagged price, and distance to the market and market supply by frequency of extension contacts, quantity produced, transport ownership, and distance to the market. Based on the findings, government and concerned stakeholders need to focus more on enhancing accessibility of infrastructures facilities to promote marketing of chickpea and increase marketed surplus as well as expanding market access and improving yield through strengthening extension service in order to accelerate market chain development.


| INTRODUCTION
In the rural areas of Ethiopia, farmers do not have the opportunity to sell their crop at competitive prices. Important inputs, such as improved seed, fertilizer, and chemical, are either unavailable or their prices are usually high making them very costly and unbeneficial to farmers to use. Limited resources, low levels of adoption of new variety, lack of use of enhanced technologies, lack of adequate road and rail network, and institutions that support agricultural development are the major reasons behind low productivity of small-scale agriculture in Ethiopia that lead to production patterns dominated by the satisfaction of continuation requirements and food insecurity at both household and national levels (Jemberu, 2017). Different types of legume are grown in Ethiopia with different intensities in terms of land and other input allocation, purpose of production, and marketability. Among which chickpea is an important food legume in Ethiopia that provides sources of livelihood for millions of smallholder farmer. Currently, it has become an important high value crop that promotes commercialization. Current evidences showed that there has been a significant upswing in the trends of local chickpea prices both in nominal and real terms since the last 8 years. As a result, chickpea has become an important cash crop in high potential major chickpea growing areas where farmers dispose the largest proportion of their chickpea production (82%) for marketing purpose (Setotaw et al., 2018).
Ethiopia is the leading producer, consumer, and seller of chickpea among Africa country and is the sixth most important producer in the world. Ethiopian chickpea production is shifting from traditional cultivars to improved varieties and from desi variety to the kabuli variety.
Kabuli is high yield with relative to desi varieties. Other progressive shifts include the use of market-oriented cultivars and enhanced adoption of production packages recommended by research, among which pulling back planting time to late July to early August depending on soil drainage helped much in increasing productivity through provision of longer growing time (Mekasha, 2013).
Este woreda is endowed with diverse natural resource and has the capacity to grow different annual and perennial crops. Legume production in the woreda is mainly for consumption and market. The production is very fragmented and uncoordinated where all growers produce similar type of crop resulting in glut typically in harvest season mainly chickpea, bean, and Guaya. Chickpea production is increasing and is one of the sources of food in Este woreda (Este Woreda Office of Agriculture [EWOA], 2019). But producers are not selling their produce in an organized manner, and they are not benefited and need to be further investigated thoroughly, and alternative solution has to be recommended and implemented so as to benefit producers and other marketing agents involved in the chickpea market. Hence, this study was aimed at analyzing chickpea market chain in Este woreda so as to come up with important information to improve the livelihood and income level of farmers. mango, banana, and avocado, which are significant organic products.
Crop sales make the largest contribution to the household income together with sheep and goat for their cash earnings.

| Method of data collection and sampling techniques
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from primary and secondary data sources. The primary information was gathered on farmers (sampled households, collectors, district retailers and wholesalers) through semistructured questionnaires. Center gathering conversation and field perception were likewise attempted during essential information assortment in the examination territory. Farmers and extension agents were interviewed through focus group discussion using a checklist. Optional information was gathered from office of farming, woreda exchange office, review report, yearly report, and sites. Two-phase inspecting technique was utilized for the determination of test family heads. At the first stage, from a total of 11 chickpea-producing Kebles in the district, four chickpea-producing Kebles were selected randomly. In the second stage, from the four selected Kebles, about 122 sample households were selected by using a simple random sampling technique taking into account the probability proportional to size of each sample Keble. The example size of rustic families was dictated by utilizing the accompanying equation created by Yamane (1967).
where n is the sample size 122, N is the total population 8690, and e is the error term 0.09.
Information from traders likewise was gathered. As indicated by the data acquired from the exchange office, there were just four authorized wholesalers. In this way, evaluation overview was lead for wholesalers. However, because of the absence of clear information in the locale about the number of retailers engaged with chickpea exchange, a market evaluation review was led to think of clear pictures of retailers occupied with chickpea exchanging action the investigation territory. Then, seven retailers from district market, five retailers from village market, and nine collectors were selected purposively during the market day, constituting a total of 25 traders interviewed.

| Descriptive analysis
Expressive measurements like recurrence, rate, mean, and standard deviation were utilized to examine the qualities of the example families and merchants. Moreover, the limitations that influence chickpea creation and showcasing were investigated utilizing illustrative insights. Furthermore, inferential measurement of chi-square test (χ 2 test) and T test was used to show the association between dummy (categorical) and continuous variables with the outcomes respectively.

| Econometric analysis
The main dependent variables that will be included in the model are The appropriate econometric models for this study are Heckman two-step models, double-hurdle model, and tobit model (Komarek, 2010). Tobit model is a statistical model proposed by Tobin (1958) to describe the relationship between nonnegative dependent variable and independent variable, and it assumes that the participation and sales volume decisions are made simultaneously, and hence, factors that affect the participation decision and the sales volume decision are the same. Hence, this model is not appropriate for this study.
A Heckman two-step model relaxes the tobit model assumption by allowing different method to examine the discrete probability of participation and level of participation Heckman (1979). Double-hurdle model is not appropriate in this study because of sample selection problems, and more precisely, in the case of incidental truncation, some part of the dependent variable is not observed because of the outcome of another variable. To eliminate the problem of selectivity bias and to relax the assumptions in the tobit model, separate the effect of variables on the probability of market participation from the effect on the volume of chickpea that can be sold (Heckman, 1979).
Therefore, the study used a Heckman two-step procedure.
The two equations for the two steps are specified in the following model specification: (1) likelihood of household's heads to participating supplying of chickpea was given as sents 1 if the household heads participate and 0 if the household heads do not participate, β i is the parameters in the model, x i is the independent variable, ε i is the error term observed, and it is assumed to bivariate and normally distributed (in the correlation coefficient, ρ).
(2) The volume of chickpea including inverse Mills ratio (λ j ) is represented as where ε i $ N 0,δ2 ð Þ; Y j is the amount of chickpea marketed surplus when the household participated in the chickpea market; β ј is the unknown parameters; X ј is the independent variable that affects the amount of chickpea surplus; λ is the correction factor for selection bias (inverse Mills ratio) λ ¼ f Yi ð Þ 1Àf Yi ð Þ ; and ε i is the error term, assumed to be bivariant, and normally distributed with correlation coefficient, δ2.

| RESULT AND DISCUSSION
3.1 | Descriptive statistical analysis 3.1.1 | Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of chickpea producers As Table 1  As per the study result, about 91 (74.6%) of families have their own vehicle office, and about 31 (25.4%) have no vehicle office. Also, the outcome shown that the principle method for transport was pack creature. Because of the absence of street access, the majority of the makers did not utilized vehicles to move chickpea either to the locale level or different business sectors. Thus, accessibility of well-working vehicle offices to the region is fundamental because it makes place utilities of the item. Explicitly, the outcomes show that 84.4% of market members own a vehicle whereas 15.6% did not possess. Then again, 38.5% of nonmarket members own a vehicle whereas 61.5% did not claim. The chi-square outcome shows that the vehicle proprietorship was measurably huge at 1% demonstrating that a greater amount of market members claimed transport than nonmarket members. The transport ownership greatly boosts the morale of the farmer to participate in the market because it convenient the farmers on the place of marketing and the time. An examination on market access by Sigei et al. (2014) shows that the responsibility for methods for transport, for example, vehicle, is decidedly identified with market investment.
In wording market data, about 73.1% of nonmarket member had no admittance to showcase data and 26.9% approached market data from various sources. The chi-square outcome shows that admittance to showcase data was measurably critical at 1% importance level, which demonstrate that a greater amount of market members get market data than nonmarket members. There is no satisfactory and coordinated progression of data about market to chickpea makers of the investigation territory. Admittance to horticultural advertising data is fundamental factor in empowering cutthroat business sectors. Solid market data assist ranchers with selling their chickpea produce openly by interfacing with dealers and can pick a beneficial method of T A B L E 1 Characteristics of chickpea producers (dummy and categorical variables)  Regarding the distance of the closest market, vast majority tested that chickpea maker ranchers need to walk a significant distance from home to the closest market to sell their chickpea and other farming items. Admittance to actual market transportation is genuinely low in the country local area; along these lines, ranchers move products into the closest market. The outcome demonstrates that the mean of distance to the closest market for market member was 74.17 min, whereas for nonmarket member, it was 92.5 min. The general mean of distance to the closest market for test respondents was 78.07 min.
The consequence of t test shows that distance to the closest market was measurably huge at 5% importance level. This show the mean distance to the closest market for market members were not exactly nonmarket members. The distance to the market has been found to negatively affect market cooperation. The outcome is comparative with the finding of Sigei et al. (2014) who affirmed that the biggest distance to the market builds exchange expenses and promotes expenses and this obstructs the level of market support.
In terms frequency of extension contact that out of a total chickpea producers sample households, the mean extension contact frequency provided for chickpea producing farmers who are participate in market was found to be 3.18 day/month and Non-market partici-

| Factors affecting market participation
To determine the factors influencing market participation of chickpea in Este district, probit model was estimated in the first step of the Heckman two-step procedure. The results presented in Table 3

Age squared
As it was hypothesized, the variable is found to have nonlinear (parabolic) relationship in market participation of chickpea. Moreover, the negative sign of the variable indicates that up to some stage of the earlier period of the chickpea producers of household age, the relation was positive as it was shown by positive sign of the coefficient of age variable, but later on, as the household gets older, the participation of household in chickpea market declines as chickpea production is the function of active labor (Table 3).

Family size
Family size of the household head significantly and positively influenced market participation at 5% significance level. When the family size increases by one, the probability of participating in the chickpea market increases by 2.6%; all other factors held constant.
This can be explained by the fact that a farmer who has more family size has more family labor which is the major source of labor force for better management of chickpea production and directly related to engagement in production and marketing activities of chickpea in the study area. Therefore, those farmers who have access to more family labor are likely to produce more quantity of chickpea, which in turn increases the probability of farmers to participate in chickpea marketing. This is in line with Mirie and Zemedu (2018) who illustrate that if teff producer had more family labour, provides a greater opportunity for the farmers to participate in the teff market.

Distance to the nearest market
This variable was significant at 10% and negatively associated with the probability of participating in the chickpea market. The Heckman two-step selection equation result indicated that as the distance of the producer residence from the nearest market increases by one walking minute, the participation of the household decreases by 0.034%. Since chickpea producer farmers reside far from the nearest market decrease market participation because of more costly and time consuming to move with output forcing smallholder producers to hold more output mostly which is common in rural areas where transportation facility is poorly developed and those producers near to the market can easily supply without incurring high cost. Therefore, due to increase transportation cost, producers discourage participation to the market. This result is similar with Geremewe (2019) who found that distance to the nearest market declines the probability of participation in the wheat market by 2.4%.

Lagged price
Lagged price (previous year price in that production year) significantly and positively influenced market participation at 1% probability level.
An increased price of chickpea by one birr per kilogram increases the probability of participating in the chickpea market by 1.8%; all other factors held constant. This implies that as the lagged price increases, market participation also increases. This is in line with the findings of Mezgebu (2018) who illustrate that if one Birr increases in previous year market prices lead to 0.035 increases in the volume of marketed.
This suggests that higher price provides a greater opportunity for the farmers to participate in the chickpea market.

Factors affecting amount of chickpea marketed surplus
To determine the factors affecting the extent of market participation in chickpea marketing, the OLS estimation was used to estimate in the second stage of the Heckman outcome equation. As the survey result shown in Table 4, four variables (frequency of extension contact, quantity of produced, transport ownership, and distance to the market) were significant to the extent of market participation positively and negatively at different significance level. In addition to this, the coefficient of inverse Mills ratio (lambda) in the Heckman two-step estimation is significant at less than 5% significance level and affects positively. This implies that sample selection bias, existence of some unobservable producer factors determine producer participation in chickpea market and affecting marketed surplus. As depicted in Table 4, the chi-square was statically significant at 1% probability level indicating the goodness of fit of the Heckman two-step model to explain the relationships of the chickpea market participation of the variable.

Quantity of produced
As the result show that the chickpea quantity produced was positively and significantly affecting farmer market supply of chickpea

Distance to the nearest market
This variable affected the quantity of chickpea supplied to the market negatively and significantly at 5% probability level. The Heckman twostep outcome equation result indicated that as the distance of the producer residence from the nearest market increase by one walking minute, the quantity of chickpea supplied decreases by 0.02 quintal.
Since chickpea producer farmers reside far from the nearest market increase marketing cost because of increase transportation cost and those producers near to the market can easily supply without incurring high cost. Therefore, due to the increase transportation cost, producers discourage selling high quantity of chickpea product to the market. This result is similar with Ayalew (2015) and Mebratu (2014) who found that distance to the nearest market decline marketed surplus.

| Conclusion
The examination showed that 95.8% of market member of ranchers had market data before they deal yet casually. This implied that there is no formal system of market information dissemination that beneficiary the actors.
The aftereffect of the Heckman test determination model shows that marketing participation of farmers' was altogether and emphatically influenced by age, family size, distance to showcase, and slacked cost in the chickpea market and promotes that excess of chickpea was essentially influenced by recurrence of augmentation contact, amount of created, transport proprietorship, and distance to advertise.
All of these variables affect marketed surplus positively except distance to market. Accordingly, these factors need unique consideration to expand maker advantage.
Finally, the implication of the study is targeting the producers' enhancement of education level, improving extension and credit services, establishing transport facility so as to increase the producers bargaining power and accessing better production methods are a means for better in market participation as well as chickpea market supply and would be accelerated chickpea market development.

| Recommendations
The result revealed that transport facility positively and significantly affect the amount of chickpea supply. Therefore, the government should also invest in rural infrastructure, especially on the road network to ease conveyance of the chickpea produced from the area of production to marketing point in order to lower transaction costs and to motivate market participation.
There is a need to build the capacity of producer to increase their knowledge and technical skill gap trough extension education in order to increase delivery of chickpea produce across chickpea market chain. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen extension service in order to give continuous training and information to chickpea producers, to provide necessary agricultural inputs at a right time to improve production and marketing system of chickpea in the district.
Due to long distance for the woreda market and lack of market access in the district, special attention needs to be given to expand accessibility of infrastructures such as transportation facilities, road, and rural market accessibility to promote production and marketing of chickpea.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors read and approved final manuscript.