Cooperatives in Kyrgyzstan: Findings from a Survey of Cooperatives and Users

Zvi Lerman () and David Sedik

No 164527, Discussion Papers from Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management

Abstract: Most cooperatives in Kyrgyzstan are production cooperatives – successors of former collective farms. • There are hardly any “pure” service cooperatives, although production cooperatives partially fulfill the function of service cooperatives by providing farm services also to non-members.Cooperatives play a positive role in rural life: o sufficiency of services in any given area improves when cooperatives step in to provide the services; o farmers’ perceived wellbeing is higher for cooperative members than for outsiders. • Taxes are not perceived as a major issue by either cooperative managers or farmers. Tax code provisions exempting cooperatives from profit tax and VAT are generally respected. • Government support plays a minor role in agriculture: most cooperative managers and farmers surveyed report that they do not receive any support. This, however, has not led to a major outcry with demands for more government support in the survey. • Formal cooperation manifested in membership in cooperatives is very limited among the farmers surveyed. Informal cooperation is much more widespread, and the substantial gap between the frequency of formal and informal cooperation (8% and 22% of farmers surveyed, respectively) clearly suggests that there is a large potential for development and adoption of service cooperatives in Kyrgyzstan.Cooperatives play a positive role in rural life: o sufficiency of services in any given area improves when cooperatives step in to provide the services; o farmers’ perceived wellbeing is higher for cooperative members than for outsiders. • Taxes are not perceived as a major issue by either cooperative managers or farmers. Tax code provisions exempting cooperatives from profit tax and VAT are generally respected. • Government support plays a minor role in agriculture: most cooperative managers and farmers surveyed report that they do not receive any support. This, however, has not led to a major outcry with demands for more government support in the survey. • Formal cooperation manifested in membership in cooperatives is very limited among the farmers surveyed. Informal cooperation is much more widespread, and the substantial gap between the frequency of formal and informal cooperation (8% and 22% of farmers surveyed, respectively) clearly suggests that there is a large potential for development and adoption of service cooperatives in Kyrgyzstan.

Keywords: Crop Production/Industries; Livestock Production/Industries; Production Economics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 14
Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/164527/files/D ... 20Analysis_2_WEB.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:huaedp:164527

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.164527

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Discussion Papers from Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().