Why Can a Farmer Not Set a Price? Somebody Else Already Did
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
A seller too small to affect the market price has to accept whatever that price is, and that single condition explains most of what is distinctive about farming as a business.
What the position means
A seller supplying a tiny fraction of a market for an identical product has no pricing decision to make. Asking above the going rate means selling nothing, since buyers have identical alternatives, and asking below it is pointless, since everything offered would sell at the going rate anyway. The seller therefore faces a single price set by the market as a whole and decides only how much to produce. That is the defining condition of the model economists call perfect competition, and while no real market matches it exactly, several come close enough for the analysis to be useful.
What the condition requires
Several things have to hold together for it to apply:
- •Many sellers, each small relative to the total
- •A product that buyers regard as identical between sellers
- •Buyers who know what the going price is
- •Freedom to enter and leave the market
- •No seller able to move the price by changing output
- •Consequently no advertising, since there is nothing to distinguish
Why it is uncomfortable
Being in that position is not a neutral technical description and the consequences are hard. The seller carries all the risk of a price fall and captures none of the benefit of being better than the competition, since the product is identical. Costs are the only variable under control, which forces relentless attention to them. Profit above the bare minimum attracts new entrants, who increase supply and push the price back down, so unusual returns are temporary by construction. And the seller cannot pass on a cost increase, since the price is not theirs to move, so a rise in fuel or fertiliser comes straight out of the margin.
The buyer's version
The same position exists on the other side of a transaction and is far less discussed. A buyer too small to affect the price pays whatever is asked and has no negotiating position, which describes an individual consumer facing almost any large supplier. The reverse, a single dominant buyer facing many small sellers, is a different situation again and gives that buyer substantial power over the price paid, which is the structure of several agricultural supply chains where a handful of processors or supermarket groups buy from very many producers. That combination, many small sellers facing few large buyers, is the least comfortable position of all.
How sellers escape it
Most of what businesses do can be read as an attempt to stop being in this position, which is the practical use of the idea. Differentiating the product, by variety, origin, certification or brand, means buyers no longer regard it as identical and the seller regains some pricing discretion. Selling direct removes the intermediary setting the price. Combining into a cooperative aggregates enough supply to negotiate. Moving into processing captures a stage where the product is distinctive. Contracts agreed in advance transfer the price risk elsewhere. Every one of those is a move away from the condition and towards some degree of market power.
The takeaway
A seller too small to move the market price cannot ask more without selling nothing and gains nothing by asking less, so the only decision left is how much to produce. That forces relentless cost control, prevents passing on cost increases and guarantees that unusual profits attract entrants who compete them away. Differentiation, direct selling and cooperatives are all attempts to escape it.