Farmer group such as the out-grower schemes are agricultural production carried out according to an agreement between a buyer or exporter and farmers. Developing out-grower nucleus schemes is the sure way to increase agriculture productivity of small-scale farmers by exporters.

This strategy may reduce competition and increase market share by using economies of scale. Typically, the farmers agrees to provide established quantities of a specific agricultural product, meeting the quality standards and delivery schedule set by the exporter. In turn, the exporter commits to purchase the product, often at a predetermined price. In some cases, the exporter also commits to support production through, for example, training, supplying farm inputs, land preparation, providing technical advice and arranging transport of produce to the exporter's premises. With this scheme, farmers often have improved access to assured markets and prices (lower risks) with relatively higher returns.

 The way you can measure this is using the opportunity cost of not being in the group.

I don't think that their bonding Social Capital, the Social Capital of their village, family or tribe can enhance the market access. Market access requires membership in the groups involved in trade, transport and governmental control. Why should these groups pay a fair or higher price to their supplier?

The only examples I know for fair pricing in agriculture is either the "fair trade" movement in Western countries (which works by "bridging" Social Capital e.g. altruism, solidarity and compassion) or guaranteed prices by the state such as in the European Union or in China, 

In this case the Social Capital of the society includes agriculture and farmers without any consideration to what group they belong, if they are cooperatives, slaves of banks and brands, families or freelancers.

Finally farmer groups need to build up bridging Social Capital - such as in fair trade - to achieve market access. But I know no single example for free trade of agricultural products, wherefore I couldn't calculate any opportunity costs.

In agriculture very often the total environmental and true labour costs are higher than the "market price" wherefore a society has to decide if they want to run their own agriculture or not.

So the most important thing for farmer groups is to advocating the public funding of agriculture like a communist group and not to accept the role of a supplier. And of course they should grow on their own land and not for a landlord. 

With this principles China reduced the number of poors from 800 to 250 million within less than two decades.

Agriculture even in Switzerland, the U.S. and the EU - not in Australia by the way - is a socialist part of economy, not a battlefield for "markets".

So why then in Indonesia?

I agree with Alexander Dill that increased market access is probably more depending on the "bridging" social capital. A typical aspect for bonding social capital is its relational redundancy which does not provide access to more remote "scarce" ressources (see also Merton on Locals and Cosmopolitans, R. Burt, or my paper on "Measuring the Social Capital of Brokerage Roles" in Cinnections). In order to have success on markets actors need to monitor these (typically via weak ties / bridges) and to find market niches (see also H. White on "Varieties of markets"). As mentioned before, one way to measure bridging social capital is to identify the broker relationsover which a company/person disposes.

In India direct access to market for agricultural produces is done through self help groups in rural areas and farmers club/ farmers cooperative organised by Nabard bank. They are provided by training, credit facilities, linkages with agricultural universities, time to time technical expertise etc.

I would recommend looking at Ron Burt's social contagion model as a starting point. The work on keiretsus can also suggest some avenues for research. 

Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence

Ronald S. Burt American Journal of Sociology Vol. 92, No. 6 (May, 1987), pp. 1287-1335

Social Capital and the Global Economy Francis Fukuyama Foreign Affairs

Vol. 74, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1995), pp. 89-103

Hello:

You can check this web: www.redbiocomercio.org.

 Is a beautiful experience about marketnet.

Regards.

In Indonesia the farmers must come forward and form their own groups, association or cooperative societies to market directly their agricultural produces. Besides, they should also provide other agricultural inputs such as scientific method of cultivation, credit facilities, training, transportation, agricultural implements etc. In such cases if you measure the farmers are more benefited in terms of their income and other social benefits like education, health, raising capital assets etc rather than the farmers selling their produces through traders/businessmen.

Dr.Lawrence Gomes