Before-and-After
Assessment of Per Capita Income: Poverty Status among Agricultural Cooperative
Members
Sandesh
Bidari
Ph.D. Scholar,
Department of Management
Sikkim
Professional University, Gangtok, Sikkim
Gmail:
bidarisandesh77@gmail.com
Orcid
Id:
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2357-176X
Vishnu
Khanal
Faculty
of Management
Tribhuvan
University-Nepal
Corresponding
author: Sandesh Bidari
Abstract
Agricultural cooperatives are substantial in enhancing
the livelihood of rural people and alleviating poverty in the developing
countries. This paper aims to make before-and-after assessment of per capita
income among agricultural cooperative members to determine their poverty status
in the Hetauda Sub-Metropolitan City of Makawanpur District, Nepal. The study
adopted a cross-sectional survey research design. It was conducted using
primary data that were collected through structured questionnaire in 2025 from
five agricultural cooperatives. A total of 123 members were randomly selected
from a population of 180 participants. The analysis of household
welfare changes with before and after strategy was based on indicators like per
capita income, per capita expenditure, membership period and household size.
The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, paired samples t-tests,
and correlation analysis. Findings indicate that the average household
income per capita grew by NPR 75,878 prior to the membership to NPR 124,946
upon joining the cooperative. The cooperative members were able to raise their
economic status. The study is significant as it evaluates the prominent role of
agricultural cooperatives in reducing poverty by comparing members’ per capita
income before and after participation.
Keywords:
Agriculture cooperatives, Poverty, Poverty status, per capita income, Household
income, Household expenditure
Introduction
Poverty has remained one of the most
fundamental development issues in many developing nations, especially in rural
agrarian economies where farming is a major source of livelihood for most
households (Christiaensen & Kuhl, 2011; Ellis
& Freeman, 2004)). In such settings, lack of access to financial
services, agricultural inputs, markets, and institutional support has often
been a major limiting factor for productivity and income creation among farming
households (Bhattarai
& Pandit, 2023; Joshi, 2024). Rural poverty has thus
remained a major problem in such settings due to inherent inequalities in
resource distribution and market participation (Bharadwaj, 2012).
Cooperative institutions have increasingly been identified as important
institutional solutions to such challenges, as they improve access to credit,
technology, and marketing opportunities for smallholder farmers (Risal,
2021; Dhakal, 2022). By promoting democratic ownership
and collective action, cooperatives provide farmers with an important platform
to improve their bargaining power and economic resilience (Chauguthi
et al., 2023).
In Nepal,
agriculture remains the backbone of the rural economy, employing a large
proportion of the population and providing the primary livelihood for most
rural households (Yogi et al., 2025).
Despite improvements in national poverty reduction over the past decades, many
rural communities continue to experience low agricultural productivity,
unstable incomes, and limited financial inclusion (Bhattarai & Dahal,
2022). As a result, the Government of Nepal has emphasized
cooperative development as an important strategy for rural development and
poverty alleviation (Ministry of Land
Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation, 2019).
The cooperative sector has expanded rapidly, particularly after the policy
reforms introduced in the early 1990s, with agricultural cooperatives playing a
significant role in providing credit services, agricultural inputs, training,
and market access to rural farmers
(Dhakal, 2022;
Risal, 2021).
These institutions help overcome market failures and enhance farmers’ ability
to participate in economic activities that improve household welfare (Bharadwaj, 2012; Chauguthi
et al., 2023).
Agricultural
cooperatives are member-owned entities that seek to enhance the socioeconomic
well-being of their members by facilitating joint production, savings, lending,
and marketing efforts (Bhattarai & Pandit, 2023). Various studies
carried out in Nepal have established that membership in cooperatives helps to
enhance agricultural practices, income generation, and livelihood security for
rural households (Dhakal, 2022; Dhakal, 2024). For example, studies on
farmers’ cooperatives have established that members of farmers’ cooperatives
usually enjoy better agricultural practices and access to agricultural inputs
and subsidies, which in turn improve productivity and the socioeconomic status (Neupane et al.,
2018) of
members. On the other hand, empirical studies have established that there is a
marked increase in the income of households that join cooperatives due to
improved financial literacy and access to credit and marketing services (Dhakal
& Mueser, 2023).
In addition to
income generation, cooperatives also play a role in other aspects of rural
development. Financial services offered through cooperatives enable households
to invest in agriculture and earn income from other sources, hence improving
their resilience to economic shocks
(Joshi, 2024; Parajuli, 2024).
Membership of cooperatives in Nepal has been shown to have a positive impact on
the economic well-being of members due to improved access to financial
services, market integration, and social networks in rural areas (Khadka,
2024; Bhattarai & Pandit, 2023). This is an important
role that cooperatives play in poverty reduction in developing countries (Joshi
et al., 2021).
However,
despite the rising importance of agricultural cooperatives in rural
development, there is a lack of empirical research on the impact of
agricultural cooperatives on household poverty, especially in relation to the
estimation of changes in welfare levels. Many studies have focused on
cross-sectional analysis between members and non-members of agricultural
cooperatives, which might not reflect the changing levels of household welfare
after membership (Verhofstadt & Maertens, 2015; Abate et al., 2013).
The before-and-after approach, using variables such as income, expenditure, and
size of household, provides a more complete analysis of the impact of
membership in agricultural cooperatives on poverty status. Income measures
productivity; expenditure measures welfare and living standards; while size of
household measures dependency ratios and allocation of household resources (Haughton
& Khandker, 2009).
The
Makawanpur District in the Bagmati Province provides a relevant context in
which to examine the impact of agricultural cooperatives on household poverty.
Hetauda, the district headquarters, is surrounded by agricultural communities
in which cooperatives are actively engaged in offering financial services,
agricultural inputs, and training for farmers. However, studies on cooperative
management in Makawanpur suggest that there are institutional challenges to
transparency, accountability, and member participation that could influence the
extent to which cooperatives actually make economic differences for their
members. Therefore, one of the important research questions in this field is
how membership in these cooperatives actually results in improvements in
household welfare.
Significance
of the Study
This study is
valuable as it provides empirical evidence on how agricultural cooperatives
contribute to poverty reduction among rural households in Nepal by enhancing
income, employment, and access to financial and agricultural services. Using a
before-and-after analysis of key household indicators, it offers deeper
insights into changes in welfare after cooperative membership. Focusing on
agricultural cooperatives in Hetauda Sub-Metropolitan City, the study also
holds practical and policy relevance by informing stakeholders and contributing
to research on cooperative-based rural development and sustainable poverty
reduction.
Objectives
of the study
General Objective:
- To
assess changes in poverty status among agricultural cooperative members
through a before-and-after analysis of per capita income.
Specific Objectives:
- To
measure the per capita income of cooperative members before and after
joining agricultural cooperatives.
- To
examine the per capita expenditure of members before and after joining
agricultural cooperatives.
These
are the intended objectives to provide empirical evidence on how agricultural
cooperatives can enhance the welfare of households and minimize poverty among
rural farming communities in Makawanpur District. The results will be
beneficial to the academic literature on the topic of cooperative-based rural
development and will help policymakers develop more effective cooperative
development policies in Nepal.
Hypotheses
of the study
The
agricultural cooperatives are supposed to affect the household welfare by the
means of better access to credit, agricultural inputs, training opportunities,
and collective marketing opportunities. Such institutional services will be
able to increase household income, consumption spending, and poverty reduction
in rural households. The hypotheses presented below are based on the objective
of the study.
H0₁:
There
is no significant difference in household income before and after joining the
agricultural cooperatives.
H0₂:
Household
expenditure has no considerable difference between pre-membership and
post-membership of agricultural cooperatives.
This
is the type of objective-hypothesis structure that is prevalent among the
econometric and impact assessment researches investigating the manifestations
of poverty and cooperative participation (Haughton
& Khandker, 2009; Gujarati & Porter, 2009).
In this context,
the current study examines the impact of membership in an agricultural
cooperative on household poverty in Hetauda, Makawanpur District, Nepal. The
study focuses on changes in the welfare of households before and after
membership in cooperatives, based on key indicators such as income,
expenditure, and household size. Using a before-and-after method, the study
aims to provide empirical insights into the extent to which agricultural
cooperatives can help reduce rural poverty and improve the standard of living.
The findings are expected to contribute to the existing body of knowledge on
rural development through cooperatives.
Literature
Review
Agricultural cooperatives
are well known as such significant institutional arrangements to promote the
rural development and alleviate poverty in the developing world (Kwapong & Hanisch, 2013; Verhofstadt & Maertens, 2015).
Cooperatives in agrarian economies help smallholder farmers to surmount the
market imperfections, such as access to credit, inputs, and markets (Birchall, 2004). These institutional provisions
improve productivity, generation of incomes and diversification of livelihoods
which provide vital channels of reducing poverty. The concept of cooperatives
has been actively advocated as a form of development in Nepal, especially since
the 1990s, and with a preponderance of advancing agricultural commercialization
and rural livelihoods (Dhakal, Brien & Mueser,
2021).
The
empirical evidence in Nepal demonstrates that households with cooperative
membership have positive impacts on economic outcomes of the household.
Indicatively, Dhakal (2022) discovered that
the rural household income, savings, and employment enhanced considerably when
they participated in farmers cooperatives (Dhakal,
2022). The paper notes that cooperative services like credit access, and
collective action has a positive impact on the welfare of the household though
the magnitude of the benefits may differ among the members. On the same note,
Risal (2021) also came out with the findings
that cooperative activities, especially savings mobilization, lending, and
creation of employment opportunities are instrumental in promoting sustainable
livelihoods and mitigating poverty in Bagmati Province.
Chauguthi
et al. (2023) noted that cooperatives help
to address poverty through financial inclusion, self-reliance, and
income-generation opportunities. According to the findings, they argue that
cooperative participation contributes to the sustainability of households and
contributes to sustainability in livelihood strategies especially in the rural
areas with economic limitations. These results are in line with the evidence in
the rest of the world that cooperatives are effective instruments in inclusive
economic development and poverty reduction.
Along
with the income impacts, agricultural cooperatives also have impact on the
agricultural output and agricultural practices. Neupane et al. (2018) discovered that cooperative members in
Nepal had more chances of using better agricultural practices and technologies
than non-members did, resulting in increased productivity and better
socio-economic status. High productivity leads to an increase in the household
income and consumption expenditure which are major signs of poverty reduction.
Better
econometric studies give more information on the effect of cooperative
membership. Dhakal and
Mueser (2023), based on the
propensity score matching, Cooperative membership significant raises the level
of farm income, but that effect on overall household income might be contingent
on structural characteristics such as landholding size and access to markets.
This implies that cooperatives possess positive effects on the economy, but
their effects are context-dependent and dependent on other institutional and
infrastructural phenomena.
In
addition to economic achievements, cooperatives also help to achieve social
empowerment and inclusion. Bharti (2021)
have investigated that small cooperatives in Nepal contribute to the
empowerment of women by increasing their access to credit and decision-making.
These social welfares supplement economic wealth and lead to the decrease of
multidimensional poverty.
Nevertheless,
there are also various issues that the literature recognizes as limitations to
the efficacy of cooperatives. Joshi
(2024) highlighted poor
governance, inaccessibility of capital, and poor management in Nepalese
cooperatives, which may negatively affect their performance to provide
anticipated economic gains to the members. Such limitation can decrease the net
effects.
Nepal’s
Poverty status
According
to the National Statistics Office Nepal, the Nepal Living Standards Survey IV
2022–23 defines the national poverty line based on per capita annual
consumption expenditure. An individual in Nepal is considered poor if their
annual per capita consumption expenditure is less than NPR 72,908. Using this
new poverty threshold, the survey estimates that about 20.27% of Nepal’s
population lives below the poverty line in 2022–23. Poverty is higher in rural
areas (24.66%) than in urban areas (18.34%), indicating that rural households
remain more vulnerable to poverty. The survey also reports additional poverty
indicators, including a poverty gap index of 4.52% and a poverty severity
(squared poverty gap) of 1.48%, which measure the depth and inequality of
poverty among poor households.
Research Gap
Although many
studies have examined the role of agricultural cooperatives in improving
livelihoods and financial inclusion, few have used before-and-after analyses to
measure their direct impact on household poverty. Most research relies on
cross-sectional comparisons, which do not clearly capture changes in welfare
after membership. Additionally, limited studies in Nepal, particularly in
Hetauda Sub-Metropolitan City—use combined household-level indicators such as
per capita income, expenditure, and household size. This study addresses this
gap by providing clearer empirical evidence on how cooperative membership
influences poverty reduction.
Theoretical
Framework
The
association between agricultural cooperative membership and household poverty
is explicable under a number of theoretical viewpoints that show the
institutional participation and its impact on the outcome of household welfare.
Cooperatives in rural economies are collective organizations aimed at giving
access to smallholder farmers by offering financial services, agricultural
inputs and markets. These institutional processes can be used to boost income
generation, household consumption, and economic stability. The three theories
have been selected as the foundation of this research since the Capability
Approach, Social Capital Theory, and Theory of Cooperation in Economies. are
considered complementary as they explain how cooperative participation could
lead to reduction of poverty among rural households.
Capability
Approach
The
Capability Approach, as formulated by Amartya Sen also defines poverty as
deprivation of the ability to earn a decent standard of living besides income.
These strengths are access to education, economic, financial and social
participation. The agricultural cooperatives are able to improve these
abilities through giving credit, training, farming inputs, and group marketing.
Through such services, the farmers can boost productivity, enhance income and
consumption capacity thus enhancing welfare of households (Sen, 1999; Birchall, 2004).
Social
Capital Theory
Social
Capital Theory focuses on social networks, trust and collective action in
advancing economic growth. Becoming a member of cooperatives enhances social
relationship among members which promotes information sharing, cooperation and
mutual support. These networks enhance access of farmers to knowledge, finances
and market. Consequently, cooperative membership may lead to an increase in the
welfare of households because of better access to credit, information as well
as collective marketing arrangements (Putnam, 1993;
Woolcock and Narayan, 2000).
Cooperative
Economic Theory
Cooperative
Economic Theory is used to describe the functioning of cooperatives as
institutions which are member-owned and democratically controlled to enhance
the economic wellbeing of members. Cooperatives contribute to solving market
failures, cutting transaction costs, and economies of scale by means of
collective ownership and pooling resources to farmers. The benefits enhance
productivity, bargaining power, raise income and consumption levels within the
member households. Agricultural cooperatives in Nepal are relevant to rural
farmers because they assist in accessing the financial market and financial
inclusion that result in poverty reduction and economic resilience (Birchall, 2004; International Labour Organization, 2015).
Application
to the Study
According
to these theoretical views, agricultural cooperative membership will have an
effect on household welfare in the form of better access to financial services,
inputs, and markets. These advancements are able to raise the household income,
consumption /expenditure and the overall living standard which in the long run
influences the status of household poverty. This paper will study how
cooperative membership in agricultural cooperatives can alleviate house hold
poverty by comparing the changes in this indicator before and after membership
in the cooperatives in the Hetauda Sub-Metropolitan City, Makawanpur District,
Nepal.
Review
of Empirical Literature
Yang and Hung (2014) explored the
role of tourism cooperatives in poverty alleviation in Yuhu Village, China,
using a qualitative case study approach. Based on interviews with villagers and
cooperative managers, the study found that tourism cooperatives reduced poverty
by enhancing material and social resources and empowering local residents. It
concluded that such cooperatives are effective when poverty is viewed
multidimensionally, though the study did not address long-term economic impacts
or comparisons with other approaches.
Lal (2018) examined the impact of
financial inclusion through cooperative banks on poverty alleviation in
northern India using a quantitative approach. Based on data from 540
beneficiaries analyzed through techniques such as CFA, ANOVA, t-test, and SEM, the
study found that improved access to financial services, savings, credit, and
insurance, significantly reduced poverty and enhanced rural socio-economic
conditions. However, the study was limited in geographical scope and did not
include perspectives from other stakeholders.
Zhang et al. (2021) investigated the
impact of cooperative irrigation schemes on poverty reduction in Tanzania using
a quantitative approach. Based on survey data analyzed through regression and
poverty measurement techniques, the study found that participants achieved
higher productivity, increased income, and reduced poverty compared to
non-participants. It concluded that irrigation cooperatives significantly
improved livelihoods, though the study was limited to irrigation schemes and
did not address broader forms of agricultural cooperatives.
Gava et al. (2021) examined the role
of agricultural cooperatives in alleviating rural poverty in Konjic, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, using a mixed-method case study design. Data from cooperative
members and stakeholders, collected through questionnaires, interviews, and
secondary sources, showed that cooperatives enhanced market access, increase
farm income, and strengthen farmer collaboration. The study concluded that
cooperatives contributed significantly to rural development, though it lacked
large-scale quantitative comparisons between members and non-members.
Zou and Wang (2022) examined the
impact of farmer cooperative membership on household income and inequality in
China using a quantitative approach based on data from 1,945 rural households.
Applying PSM and regression techniques, the study found that cooperative
members had higher average income, though benefits were less significant for
low-income groups. It concluded that while cooperatives increase income, they
do not necessarily reduce inequality, and other influencing factors were not
fully considered.
Khairil et al. (2025) investigated
the role of sharia cooperatives in alleviating poverty in Aceh using a
qualitative descriptive literature review based on over 25 academic sources.
The findings showed that sharia cooperatives reduced poverty by offering
inclusive financial services, generating employment, supporting micro and small
enterprises, and enhancing social solidarity, highlighting their potential to
improve community welfare and achieve sustainable development goals.
Sari et al. (2026) examined the role
of agricultural cooperatives in farmer empowerment and poverty reduction
through a qualitative literature review of 157 Scopus-indexed articles
(2005–2024) using PRISMA guidelines. The study found that cooperatives enhanced
farmers’ income, social networks, and access to markets, finance, and
technology, thereby contributing to poverty reduction.
Materials
and Methods
Study
Area
The research was
conducted in Hetauda Sub-Metropolitan City, an agricultural area of central
Nepal. The region practices mixed farming, including crop cultivation,
livestock rearing, and vegetable production. Agricultural cooperatives in this
area provide services such as savings and credit, farm inputs, technical
training, and marketing support to smallholder farmers. These services enhance
productivity and market access, making the area suitable for examining the
impact of cooperative membership on household poverty.
Research
Design and Data Sources
This
study employed a cross-section survey research design which used
before-and-after comparative approach to make before-and-after
assessment of per capita income among agricultural cooperative members to
determine their poverty status in the Hetauda Sub-Metropolitan City of
Makawanpur District, Nepal. It
compared household economic conditions before and after joining cooperatives, a
common approach in development economics to measure institutional effects on
welfare (Haugh & Khandker, 2009). Both primary and secondary data were
used. Primary data were collected from cooperative members in 2025 through
structured questionnaires covering household income, expenditure, and size
before and after membership. Secondary data included cooperative records, government
publications, and relevant academic literature on cooperatives and poverty.
Sampling
Technique and Sample Size
The study sample
consisted of members from five agricultural cooperatives operating in Hetauda
Sub-Metropolitan City. Respondents were selected using simple random sampling
from the membership lists of the targeted cooperatives. A total of 123 members
participated in the survey out of 180 members.
Measurement
of Variables
Household
poverty was measured using three key indicators: income, expenditure, and
household size. Household income reflects earnings from agricultural and
non-agricultural activities, while expenditure indicates consumption and living
standards. Household size serves as a demographic factor influencing resource
allocation and dependency (World Bank, 2009). These indicators were assessed
both before and after cooperative membership to evaluate changes in household
welfare.
Data
Analysis and Statistical tools
The collected data
were analyzed using SPSS with both descriptive and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistics, including frequency, mean, percentage, and standard
deviation, summarized respondents’ socio-economic characteristics and changes
in household income, expenditure, and size. To test whether cooperative
membership significantly influenced household welfare, a paired sample t-test
was applied, comparing income and expenditure before and after joining the
cooperatives (Gujarati & Porter, 2009).
Table 1
Description of Minimum, Maximum, Mean and Standard
Deviation
|
Variables |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std.
Deviation |
|
Cooperative membership
duration of the respondents |
1 |
15 |
7.32 |
3.972 |
|
Number of household member |
3 |
9 |
5.13 |
1.708 |
|
Now, your family annual income in Rs. |
100000 |
2000000 |
627398.37 |
310493.62 |
|
Now, your family annual expenditure in Rs. |
150000 |
1500000 |
435284.55 |
200312.56 |
|
Your Family annual income before involving in
agriculture cooperatives in Rs. |
100000 |
1000000 |
361300.81 |
139837.19 |
|
Your Family annual expenditure before involving in
agriculture cooperatives in Rs. |
100000 |
5000000 |
293780.49 |
440051.851 |
|
Current Per capita income of household members |
25000.00 |
250000.00 |
124946.18 |
48563.29 |
|
Current Per capita expenditure of household members |
33333.33 |
187500.00 |
87518.48 |
33902.59 |
|
Per capita income of household members before
membership |
12500.00 |
233333.33 |
75878.56 |
33905.72 |
|
Per capita expenditure of household members before
membership |
11111.11 |
714285.71 |
59215.35 |
64641.05 |
|
Valid N (listwise) 123 |
|
|
|
|
Above descriptive
statistics shows that the average per capita annual income and expenditure,
before and after membership of cooperative was increased from NPR Rs.124946 to
NPR Rs.75856. Per capita average expenditure of household members also
increased which indicate that consumption capacity and living standard of
cooperative members were improved.
Examine
the (H01) household income before and after joining the agricultural
cooperatives.
Table 2
Comparison of Per
capita income After and before membership
|
Variable |
Mean |
N |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
Per capita income
of household members after membership |
124946.1866 |
123 |
48563.29229 |
4378.80460 |
|
Per capita income
of household members before membership |
75878.5650 |
123 |
33905.72528 |
3057.17629 |
According to
descriptive statistics, average household per capita income significantly
increased but there was variation in income level but the relatively small
standard error of mean indicate that the sample mean estimates were reliable.
On the whole,
descriptive statistics indicate that the agricultural cooperatives membership
played the role of increasing the per capita income of the household members
which justifies the point that cooperatives are significant in improving the
livelihood of the rural people and alleviating poverty.
Table 3
Pair Samples T-Test
of Before and After per Capita Income
|
|
Paired Differences |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
||||
|
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference |
|||||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||
|
Current Per capita income of household members - Per
capita income of household members before membership |
49067.62 |
48637.76 |
4385.51 |
40386.04 |
57749.19 |
11.189 |
122 |
.000 |
The results show that
the average current per capita household income was NPR 124,946.19, which was
much higher than the average income before joining agricultural cooperatives
(NPR 75,878.57). This suggests that the income level of members improved after
they joined the cooperative.
The standard
deviation values indicate that income levels varied among households in both
periods. However, the relatively small standard error means the sample averages
were reliable.
Overall, these results suggest that agricultural
cooperative membership helped increase the per capita income of households,
supporting the idea that cooperatives contribute to improving rural livelihoods
and reducing poverty. It rejected the null
hypothesis. It means there was a significant difference in household
income before and after joining the agricultural cooperatives.
Table 4
Comparison of Per
Capita Expenditure After and Before Membership
|
Variables |
Mean |
N |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
Per capita expenditure of household members after
membership |
87518.48 |
123 |
33902.59 |
3056.89 |
|
Per capita expenditure of household members before
membership |
59215.35 |
123 |
64641.05 |
5828.48 |
The
results show that the average per capita household expenditure after joining
the cooperative was NPR 87,518.48, which was higher than the average
expenditure before membership (NPR 59,215.35). This suggests that household
spending increased after becoming cooperative members. The standard deviation
indicates that expenditure varies among households in both periods. Overall,
the increase in average expenditure suggests an improvement in the living
standards of cooperative members after joining the cooperative.
Table
5
Pair Samples T-Test
of Per Capita Expenditure After and Before Membership
|
Variables
|
Paired Differences |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
||||
|
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference |
|||||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||
|
Current Per capita expenditure of household members -
Per capita expenditure of household members before membership |
28303.13 |
64071.19 |
5777.10 |
16866.77 |
39739.49 |
4.899 |
122 |
.000 |
The results show that the average increase in per capita
household expenditure after joining the cooperative was NPR 28,303.13. The
t-value (4.899) with 122 degrees of freedom was statistically significant (p
< 0.001), which means the increase was not due to chance. The 95% confidence
interval (16,866.77 to 39,739.49) also confirms that expenditure increased
after membership. Overall, this suggests that households spent more after
joining agricultural cooperatives, indicating an improvement in their living standards.
It rejected the null hypothesis. It shows that household
expenditure had considerable difference between pre-membership and
post-membership of agricultural cooperatives.
Results and Discussion
The results show that the mean per
capita income of respondents increased from 75,878.565 before membership to
124,946.186 after membership. The paired samples t-test value (p = .000)
indicates that this increase was statistically significant, suggesting that
cooperative membership had a strong positive effect on improving income.
Similarly, the mean per capita
expenditure rose from 59,215.35 before membership to 87,518.48 after
membership. The paired samples t-test value (p = .000) also shows a
statistically significant difference. It indicates that respondents’ spending
capacity improved after joining the cooperative.
This
result is consistent with the findings of Sari et al. (2026), who reported that
agricultural cooperatives enhanced farmers’ income and reduce poverty through
improved access to markets, finance, and technology. Similarly, Khairil et al.
(2025) supported these findings by highlighting that cooperative improved
community welfare through financial inclusion and employment generation.
The
increase in income observed in this study also aligned with Lal (2018) and
Zhang et al. (2021), who found that access to financial services and
cooperative participation significantly improved income and livelihoods.
Likewise, Gava et al. (2021) reported that cooperatives increased farm income
and strengthen rural economies, which corresponds with the observed rise in
both income and expenditure in this study.
However,
while Zou and Wang (2022) found that cooperative membership increased income
but did not equally benefit all income groups, the present study generally
shows an overall positive effect without differentiating across income levels.
In addition, Yang and Hung (2014) emphasized multidimensional poverty reduction
through empowerment and social resources, which complements the present
findings by suggesting that increased income and expenditure may also reflect
broader socio-economic improvements. Furthermore, Bhattarai and Pandit (2023)
highlighted the supportive role of cooperatives in agricultural development,
although they lacked empirical income evidence, which the present study helps
to substantiate.
The
present findings strongly support previous studies, confirming that cooperative
membership significantly improves income, expenditure, and overall economic
well-being, while also contributing empirical evidence to the existing
literature.
Conclusion
The study analysis has revealed that
agricultural cooperative membership has helped in bettering the economic status
of households in Hetauda Sub-Metropolitan City, Makawanpur District. The
descriptive statistics, paired sample tests indicate that per capita household
income, as well as per capita household expenditure, has risen significantly
following membership of agricultural cooperatives. The statistically
significant findings imply that collaborative membership has been key in
enhancing the financial ability and standards of living of member households.
As can also be seen in the correlation analysis, poverty status pre- and
post-membership in the cooperative has a positive and significant correlation,
which is to say that poor households at the time of membership are slightly
more likely to keep being poor even after membership. Nevertheless, the
correlation is moderate which means that there were households who managed to
gain better economic status having become cooperative members. The outcome also
indicates that the household size was significantly related to poverty status
prior to cooperative membership but did not relate with poverty status after
cooperative membership, which implies that cooperative membership can be used
to minimize the adverse economic effects of having a large household. Besides
this, the length of time of the membership of the respondents does not indicate
any significant relationship with poverty status, meaning that the longer one
is a member the more likely that the poverty status will be reduced. The
results indicate that agricultural cooperatives are beneficial in increasing
household income, consumption level, and maintaining livelihoods of rural
communities, yet it might not fully alleviate poverty among all the members.
Thus, empowering agricultural cooperatives by providing better financial
services, training and market access would help to further increase
contribution of agricultural cooperatives to poverty reduction and rural
development in Nepal.
References
Abate, G. T.,
Francesconi, G. N., & Getnet, K. (2013). Impact of agricultural cooperatives on smallholders’ technical
efficiency: Evidence from Ethiopia. Food Policy, 38, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.10.003
Bharadwaj,
B. (2012). Roles of cooperatives in poverty
reduction: A case of Nepal. Administration and Management Review, 24(1), 120–139. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AMR/article/view/7237
Bharti, N. (2021). Role
of cooperatives in economic empowerment of women: A review of Indian
experiences. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, 17(4), 617-631.
Bhattarai,
R., & Pandit, M. (2023). Cooperatives
as pillar of economy to improve agriculture production and marketing. Nepal
Public Policy Review, 3(1), 221-238. https://doi.org/10.59552/nppr.v3i1.61
Birchall, J.
(2004). Cooperatives and poverty reduction: Evidence from Sri Lanka and
India. International Labor Organization. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-50239-8
Chauguthi,
R., Nandni, J., & Pandit, R. (2023). Impact
of cooperatives on poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods: Insights from
Bhaktapur District, Nepal. International Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 16(12), 197–205.
Christiaensen,
L., Demery, L., & Kuhl, J. (2011). The (evolving) role of agriculture in
poverty reduction: An empirical perspective. Journal of Development
Economics, 96(2), 239–254. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.10.006
Dhakal,
C. P. (2022). Economic impacts of farmers
cooperatives in Nepal: A study of Chitwan district. NUTA
Journal, 9(1–2), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.3126/nutaj.v9i1-2.53831
Dhakal, C. P. (2024). Role of
farmers’ cooperatives in income generation: A study of Chitwan district.
International Research Journal of
MMC, 5(3), 140–148.
https://doi.org/10.3126/irjmmc.v5i3.68513
Dhakal, D., & Mueser, P. (2023). Agricultural
cooperatives and the failure to achieve commercialization of agriculture in
Nepal: A case study of Chitwan district. Research in Globalization, 7,
100165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2023.100165
Dhakal, D., O’Brien, D., & Mueser, P. (2021).
Government policy and performance of agricultural cooperatives: A case study in
Chitwan District, Nepal. Sustainability, 13(21), 12282. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112282
Ellis, F., & Freeman, H. A. (2004). Rural livelihoods and poverty
reduction strategies in four African countries. The Journal of Development
Studies, 40(4), 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380410001673175
Gava, O., Ardakani, Z., Delalić, A., Azzi, N.,
& Bartolini, F. (2021). Agricultural cooperatives contributing to the
alleviation of rural poverty. The case of Konjic (Bosnia and
Herzegovina). Journal of Rural Studies, 82,
328-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.034
Haughton, J., & Khandker, S. R. (2009). Handbook on poverty and
inequality. World Bank
Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7613-3
Joshi,
J. R. (2024). Challenges and opportunities
in cooperatives development in Nepal. Journal of
Durgalaxmi, 3(1), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.3126/jdl.v3i1.73854
Joshi, S.,
Devkota, N., & Puri, V. (2021). Gendered impact of financial inclusion on
climate change adaptation among rural farmers in Nepal. Nepal Public Policy
Review, 2(1), 209-234. https://doi.org/10.3126/nppr.v2i1.48403
Khadka, K. K.
(2024). Determinants of economic wellbeing among cooperative members in Rolpa
District, Nepal. Journal of Musikot Campus, 2(1), 74–97. https://doi.org/10.3126/jmc.v2i1.70840
Kharel, T. R.
(2024). The role of cooperative on the socio-economic growth and stability. Journal
of Durgalaxmi, 3(1), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.3126/jdl.v3i1.73884
Kwapong, N. A.,
& Hanisch, M. (2013). Cooperatives and Poverty Reduction: A Literature
Review. Journal of Rural Cooperation, 41(2), 114-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.249620
Lal,
T. (2018). Impact of financial inclusion on poverty alleviation through
cooperative banks. International
Journal of Social Economics, 45 (5), 808-828, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-05-2017-0194
National Statistics Office. (2024). Nepal Living Standards Survey IV 2022–23: Official Poverty Line and
Poverty Estimates. National Statistics Office. https://giwmscdnone.gov.np/media/pdf_upload/Nepal%20Living%20Standard%20Survey%204th%202022-23_da9a3ia.pdf
Neupane, H., Adhikari, M., & Rauniyar, P. B. (2018). Farmers’ perception on role of cooperatives in
agriculture practices in western Terai of Nepal. Journal of the Institute of Agriculture and Animal
Science, 33, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.3126/jiaas.v33i0.20701
Parajuli,
R. (2024). An exploration on success and
failure of cooperatives and microfinance. The Journal of Economic Concerns, 15(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.3126/tjec.v15i1.70245
Risal,
N. (2021). Role of cooperatives for
sustainable livelihood in Bagmati Province, Nepal. International
Research Journal of Management Science, 5(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.3126/irjms.v5i1.35862
Sari, I. M., Nidar, S. R., & Komaladewi, R.
(2026). The role of agriculture cooperatives for farmer empowerment: A
literature review and its implications on poverty. Al Qalam: Jurnal
Ilmiah Keagamaan dan Kemasyarakatan, 20(2), 1213-1230. DOI
: 10.35931/aq.v20i2.6440
Sharma,
M. (2020). Role of cooperatives in poverty
alleviation of small holding rural farmers of LDCs: A case of Nepal.
6(1), 5-10. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Shrestha, A., Acharya, S., Basnet, S., & Pradhan, M. (2023). Agro-cooperative-based commercialization and rural
livelihoods in Nepal. New
Angle: Nepal Journal of Social Science and Public Policy, 9(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.53037/na.v9i1.124
Umuri, K., Gunawan, E., Syahriyal, S., &
Halim, H. (2025). How Can Sharia Cooperatives Alleviate Poverty In Aceh?. Jurnal
Bisnis Dan Kajian Strategi Manajemen, 9(2), 91-104. https://jurnal.utu.ac.id/jbkan/
Verhofstadt, E., & Maertens, M. (2015). Can agricultural cooperatives reduce poverty? Heterogeneous impact of
cooperative membership on farmers’ welfare in Rwanda. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 37(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppu021
Yang, X., & Hung, K. (2014). Poverty
alleviation via tourism cooperatives in China: The story of Yuhu. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(6), 879-906.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2013-0085
Yogi, L. N., Thalal, T.,
& Bhandari, S. (2025). The role of agriculture in Nepal's economic
development: Challenges, opportunities, and pathways for modernization. Heliyon, 11(2),
1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41860
Zhang, C. H., & Benjamin, W. A. (2021). The
contribution of cooperative irrigation scheme to poverty reduction in
Tanzania. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 20(4),
953-963. doi:10.1016/S20953119(21)63634-1
Zou, Y., & Wang, Q. (2022). Impacts of
farmer cooperative membership on household income and inequality: Evidence from
a household survey in China. Agricultural and Food Economics, 10(1),
1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00222-x
