See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/355308614

Understanding the ease of doing agribusiness in emerging Asian economies:

evidence from world enterprises survey

Article in Journal of Enterprising Communities People and Places in the Global Economy · October 2021
DOI: 10.1108/JEC-03-2021-0037

CITATIONS READS

3 138

3 authors:

Waseem Khan Trilok Pratap Singh

GLA University 25 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
36 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Mohammed Jamshed
Jamia Hamdard University
17 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Waseem Khan on 30 October 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1750-6204.htm

World
Understanding the ease of doing enterprises
agribusiness in emerging Asian survey

economies: evidence from world

enterprises survey
Waseem Khan Received 17 March 2021
Revised 21 June 2021
GLA University, Mathura, India 31 July 2021
21 September 2021
Trilok Pratap Singh Accepted 21 September 2021

Madhav Institute of Technology and Science, Gwalior, India, and

Mohammed Jamshed
Department of Management, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the characteristics of agribusiness firms in India, China
and Pakistan, as well as the challenges they face in doing business.
Design/methodology/approach – This study is based on the World Bank’s Enterprises Survey (WBES)
data. The survey was carried out through a questionnaire survey from the owner and top managers of 716,
247 and 174 agribusiness from India, Pakistan and China, respectively. This enterprises survey has
comprised the information regarding the wide range of firms’ characteristics and 16 parameters of business
obstacles. Simple statistical tools such as chi-square and analysis of variance have been used to analyze the
data.
Findings – Chi-square test shows the statistically significance difference in firms’ characteristics across
agribusiness firms of India, China and Pakistan. Chinese firms are better in terms of having an international
quality certification, own websites and getting credit. In Pakistan, access to land for agribusiness is an
obstacle while for India and China, it is easy to acquire land for agribusiness purposes. In Pakistan, tax rate
and political stability is a moderate obstacle while in India and China, it is a minor obstacle in agribusiness.
Labor regulation does not perceive any considerable obstacle in doing business in India and Pakistan.
Practical implications – This study provides an understanding of differences in the agribusiness
environment in emerging economies such as India, Pakistan and China based on WBES data. This study can
be helpful for agribusiness managers and government policymakers for promoting agriculture-based
entrepreneurship.
Originality/value – It is the first attempt to compare the profile of agribusiness firms in growing Asian
economies such as India, Pakistan and China, as well as perceived business hurdles, using a comprehensive
enterprises survey data of World Bank.
Keywords Agribusiness, India, Pakistan, China, Investment, Business environment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The agri-food industry has been transformed globally (Vetter et al., 2019; Clapp and Isakson, Journal of Enterprising
2018; Popkin and Reardon, 2018). This transformation has taken place in two-phase, the first Communities: People and Places in
the Global Economy
phase, pre-liberalization, occurred primarily between the 1950s and 1980s. In this period, the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-6204
focus was on increase production by increasing the area under cultivation. The second DOI 10.1108/JEC-03-2021-0037
JEC phase, “Globalization/liberalization,” began in the early 1990s and continues till now
(Reardon et al., 2009). In this phase, the transformation was characterized by vertical
integration which is driven by various factors such as rising incomes and urbanization,
political changes and foreign direct investment (Handford et al., 2014; Meinke et al., 2009).
Investment is a key macroeconomic variable because of its power to drive the overall
economy (Haque, 2013; Basu and Guariglia, 2007; Reisen and Soto, 2001). Investment and
production decisions in agribusiness are heavily reliant on physical infrastructure and
services (Liu et al., 2020; Sharma, 2019). Global corporations will continue to invest in
agribusiness markets to remain competitive (Adenle et al., 2017). However, agribusiness
operations require various support services and infrastructure (Haggblade, 2011; Tschirley
et al., 2010; Ng, 2005).
Agribusiness plays a significant role in increasing the income of rural households in
India, China and Pakistan (Patel et al., 2020; Singh, 2019; Sargani, 2018; Schneider, 2017;
Acharya, 2007). Traditionally, agriculture has been recognized as a critical sector for
economic growth in India, China and Pakistan (Ansari and Khan, 2018; Zhang, 2012). Thus,
India, China and Pakistan are often referred to as the “Agriculture-Commanded Region”
(Ali, 2016; Iqbal et al., 2015). These economies attract major agriculture-based multinational
corporations to set up manufacturing plants (Choudhry and Elhorst, 2010). These three new
agribusiness markets are dominated by grain, dairy, fisheries and forestry.
Agribusiness growth creates new opportunities for rural youth, slows rural youth
migration to cities and enables farmers to increase their livelihoods through alternative
income sources in their hometowns (Qureshi et al., 2016; Goh et al., 2015; Magnan, 2015).
Because of globalization and integration, the scope and opportunities in agribusiness are
expanding. Planting, supply chain, product processing, marketing and other agribusiness
services are examples (Khan and Azam, 2016). Agribusiness is committed to understanding
and leveraging sustainable farming methods, market prospects across the business cycle
(Kumar, 2012; Kulkarni, 2019). The output of agri-business will produce excellent results in
rural areas in terms of food accessibility, availability, affordability and income enhancement
(Ravindran and Kalamkar, 2020).
In emerging economies such as India, China and Pakistan, the market size is already
massive and growing continuously. Business ties between farmers and food processing
companies have gained momentum (Raj et al., 2019; Singh, 2019). Demand for value-added
services and customer geography require marketing network expansion, but the lack of
rural infrastructure has slowed progress (Joshi et al., 2020). In periodic rural markets, active
exchange facilities are also nearly absent as small and marginal farmers do not get
remunerative prices for their produce (Negi and Anand, 2019; Babu et al., 2016). About 7%
of grain, 30% of fruit and vegetables and 10% of seed spices are lost before reaching the
market due to improper handling at the farm or village level. Owing to weak marketing
infrastructure and inefficient procedures, the processor faces significant losses every year.
In these emerging economies, the Agricultural Product Markets State Regulation (APMR)
hindered contract farming initiatives, which would otherwise be very useful in building
links between farmers and markets (Sharma et al., 2020). To create an efficient supply chain
network, there is a need to update the infrastructure as per the international standards
(Jacob, 2018).
The emerging economies have ample raw material and labor resources, but massive
investment is required to mobilize them. There is a burning need for investment from the
public and private sectors in agribusiness. Foreign direct investment can help in mobilizing
the resources and build the infrastructure in the agribusiness sector. However, investors are
more concerned about infrastructure availability before the investment in any economy.
Presently business environment is very dynamic and rapidly changing and the investment World
decision of any big private agency depends upon a clear understanding of this changing enterprises
business environment. There is a very limited study that suggests where could be invested
particularly in the agribusiness sector. It is imperative to understand the agribusiness
survey
environment before taking an investment decision. The present study is an attempt to
explore the agribusiness environment in emerging economies such as India, Pakistan and
China. The rest of the paper is as follows. The next section deals with the review of the
literature followed by research methodology. In the subsequent section, results and
discussion have been carried out followed by theoretical and practical implications. The last
section discussed the conclusion, limitations and future research.

Literature review
India, Pakistan and China are growing economies, however, COVID-19 has slow down the
pace of development (Siddiquei and Khan, 2020). Still, due to having the highest young
population and diverse climates that provide a unique ability to grow all the types of
agricultural commodities, South Asia has enormous potential to bounce back quickly
(Shehzad et al., 2020). Therefore, these emerging economies could be a powerhouse for
international agricultural trade and investment (Zeren and Akkus , 2020). Several foreign
firms are attracting to the Indian food market; they collaborate with Indian firms to expand
their business and look for development opportunities for themselves (Shah et al., 2020). The
researcher suggested that foreign direct investment (FDI) growth is driven by introducing
reform in business such as the simple approval process of various licenses, open restricted
sector for foreign investors and transparent tax administration system (Singh and Prajapati,
2020). With time, agribusiness marketing and trade dynamics have changed immensely
over the years; however, the extent of change that agribusiness has seen over the years has
not been able to match the desired level in countries such as India, China and Pakistan,
especially (McMichael, 2020; Rehman et al., 2015). Low-cost labor and a vast client base
make China and India attractive for “resource hunter” and “market seeker” investors (Zhang
et al., 2020; Schneider, 2017; Chen, 2014). The rapid income growth of the middle class in the
past few years has led to greater demand for processed food, and so both countries are
experiencing a rise in agro-based industries. China is the fourth-largest producer of grain
globally and feeds one-fifth of the world’s population with less than 10% of the world’s
arable land (Chen et al., 2017; Yao et al., 2016). The Government of India, China and Pakistan
also intend to promote and maintain agribusiness in capacity building, employment, market
demand and institutional growth.
Unregulated or less regulated financial markets influence foreign investors to invest in
the business (Mian and Sufi, 2018). Another significant predictor of FDI attraction is the
characteristics of countries, including political stability, population and culture (Zameer
et al., 2020). Location is an important attribute regarding the investment decision for the
investors (Hinson et al., 2019; Reardon et al., 2009). Cieslik and Goczek (2018) argued that
corruption negatively affects foreign direct investment and economic growth. According to
Kaur (2017), market size and growth, along with workforce level, were considered in an
attempt to boost FDI, but they are not enough on their own. Additionally, global
corporations enter the industry to save costs and gain a foothold in unexplored markets
(Rehman, 2016; Shah, 2014). The quantum of FDI is dependent on government regulations
because it is the only authority that can create a more business-friendly climate for investors
(Nayyar and Mukherjee, 2020). Foreign direct investment is unlikely to occur in any country
that has an excessively strict regulatory environment. For this reason, laws for businesses
are relevant from an investment perspective (Sengupta and Puri, 2020). Stable economy
JEC creates a favorable environment for business operations, encourages domestic and foreign
investment and enables businesses to anticipate and respond to government policy changes
through stable governance, smooth transition or political leadership (Kruja, 2020; Yu and
Wu, 2018).
India was ranked 63rd out of 190 economies in the most recent World Bank annual report
on ease of doing business. India has an extensive agribusiness network. Artisans and
farmers in rural locations have many options for obtaining loans, including government
programs and local community lenders. Indian smaller agricultural financial institutions
also finance and assist farmers (Prajapati and Singh, 2020). The ease of doing business in
China is ranked 31st in the world. The strategies of China’s agribusiness are intended to
increase farmer incomes and promote long-term food security. The Chinese Government has
interfered in the agribusiness sector by providing price subsidies. This move has led to a
price disparity between domestic and foreign prices for agricultural products (Fu et al.,
2020). In the latest global rankings for ease of doing business, Pakistan has moved up 28
places from 136 to 108, due to a shift in government regulatory structure. The business
climate in emerging economies has been studied extensively, but in the food and agriculture
sectors, we have discovered only one in-depth study. Based on that, this investigation looks
at how much it is easy to conduct agribusiness in India, Pakistan and China and how that’s
impacted by firm characteristics. To ascertain the distinctions in agriculture business
profiles and perceived difficulties in conducting business, the following null hypotheses are
developed:

H01. There is no significant difference in the characteristics of agribusiness firms across

India, Pakistani and China.
H02. There is no significant difference in perceived business obstacles by agribusiness
firms across India, Pakistani and China.

Research methodology
This study is based on the World Bank’s Enterprises Survey (WBES) data. Enterprises
Survey offers extensive data of 169,000 firms across 146 countries. WBES data was collected
through a well-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire covers a broad range of business
environment questions. Under these broad categories, questions related to business
obstacles were asked. There are a total of 16 obstacles, electricity, telecommunications,
transport services, access to land, access to finance, trade regulations and customs, tax rates,
tax administrations, business licensing and permits, labor regulations, crime, theft and
disorder, courts, practices of competitors, political instability, corruption and inadequately
educated workforce. Business obstacles are reported on a five-point scale from 1 to 5, where
1 denotes no obstacle while 5 indicates a very severe obstacle. In addition, this enterprises
survey comprises information regarding a wide range of firm characteristics such as firm
size, legal status, the main market of the firms, main product, quality certification, credit
status of the firms (loan from a financial institution); own website and technology licensed
from a foreign-owned company; the average year of managers’ education and experience
and, firms’ age.
This study uses data of 716, 174 and 247 agribusiness firms operating in India, China
and Pakistan, respectively. The international standard industry code uses to extract the
agribusiness firms from the data of total firms. The survey was carried out through face-to-
face interviews and questionnaires from owners and top managers of the manufacturing
firms.
Analytical approach World
The WBES data has been digitized using SPSS version 20. Simple statistical techniques enterprises
have been used to test the research hypothesis. Chi-square test has been used to analyze the
significant difference in the profile of agribusiness enterprises concerning firms and
survey
employees’ characteristics such as firm size, legal status, quality certification, the main
market of the enterprises, main product, credit status of the firms own website and
technology licensed from a foreign-owned company, average education and year of
experience of the managers and firms’ age across India, Pakistan and China.
The chi-square test examines frequency distribution under categorical variables across
the concerned variables. It calculates the existence of a significant variation in the frequency
distribution. Further, to explore the difference in perceived business obstacles of the
enterprises across these three countries, analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been used. The
ANOVA is a widely used approach to examine the difference between groups.

Results
Table 1 provides a summary of the firms’ profiles. Firms’ characteristics are the significant
determinants of investment decisions. Therefore, investors are more concerned about the
firms’ profile. The findings indicate that the majority of agriculture enterprises in India and
Pakistan are small and medium-sized, while in China, about 44.3% are large. A significant
difference is found across the countries by firm size ( x 2 = 86.26, p < 0.000). Regarding the
firms’ legal status, analysis reflected that most of the firms in all these emerging economies
are sole proprietorship firms. However, among these countries, the percentage of sole
proprietor firms is highest in Pakistan, followed by China and India. The chi-square test
( x 2 = 32.10, p < 0.000) shows that the statistically significant difference for the legal status
of the firms across India, Pakistan and China.
About women as the top manager is concerned, results demonstrate no difference in all
these countries’ patterns. However, in this regard, the situation is not satisfactory,
particularly in Pakistan and China, only 3.4% of firms have women as the top manager.
There is a distinction among the countries regarding to hold internationally recognized
quality certifications. It is statistically significant at 1% level ( x 2 = 98.37, p < 0.000). In total,
72% of Chinese firms have international quality certification, while in India and Pakistan,
only 33.4% and 29.1% of agribusiness firms possess international quality certification. As
far as the main market of product concern, 62.6% of Pakistani firms sell their product in the
local market and 34 sell in the national market. Pakistani firms sell a negligible share of their
products in the international market. However, the situation is not very promising for India
and China too. Only 4.3% of firms sell their product in the international market though the
market pattern shows the difference in local and national levels. In China, 71.8% of products
are sold in the national market. For institutional financial, the analysis reflects the difference
in institutional finance adoption ( x 2 = 32.25, p < 0.000). In total, 36% of Indian firms can
secure a loan from formal financial institutions. In the case of Pakistan, only 16.2% of
agribusiness firms adopt credit from financial institutions.
Digital representation of the firms has become necessary in this internet age. In total,
73.6% of Chinese firms have their websites, while in India and Pakistan, only 38% and 35%
of firms have their own websites, respectively. As far as technology licensed from the
foreign-owned company is concerned, the chi-square test ( x 2 = 30.14, p < 0.000) shows
differences across the countries. It shows that 24.1% of Chinese agribusiness firms are
having technology licensed from foreign-owned companies. In this case, India’s situation is
different; only 8.7% of firms have these licenses. It may be due to the fact that India is very
innovative in terms of technology, it does not require any license.
JEC Pakistan India China
Firms characteristics n (%) n (%) n (%) x2 Sig.

Firm’s size
Small >=5 and <=19 123 49.8 306 42.7 27 15.5 86.26* 0.000
Medium >=20 and <=99 76 30.8 288 40.2 70 40.2
Large >=100 48 19.4 122 17.0 77 44.3
Legal status
Sole proprietorship 173 70.0 364 50.8 96 55.2 32.10* 0.000
Partnership 61 24.7 272 38.0 67 38.5
Limited 9 3.6 66 9.2 10 5.7
Others 4 1.6 14 2.0 1 0.6
Firm with female top manager
Yes 10 4.0 44 6.2 6 3.4 3.02 0.22
No 237 96.0 670 93.8 168 96.6
Firm with internationally-recognized
quality certification
Yes 67 29.1 237 33.4 124 72.1 98.37* 0.000
No 163 70.9 473 66.6 48 27.9
Main product market
Local 127 62.6 243 38.9 39 23.9 60.40* 0.000
National 69 34.0 354 56.7 117 71.8
International 7 3.4 27 4.3 7 4.3
Loan from a financial institution?
Yes 37 16.2 256 36.3 57 33.5 32.25* 0.000
No 191 83.8 450 63.7 113 66.5
Has its own website
Yes 87 35.8 272 38.0 128 73.6 78.79* 0.000
No 156 64.2 444 62.0 46 26.4
Firm with technology licensed from
foreign-owned company
Yes 33 16.3 54 8.7 39 24.1 30.14* 0.000
No 170 83.7 568 91.3 123 75.9
Average year of education
<5 years 41 24.6 17 2.8 0 0.0 163.38* 0.000
6–10 years 107 64.1 526 85.7 106 67.1
>10 yyears 19 11.4 71 11.6 52 32.9
Avg year of manager exp
<5 years 37 15.8 125 17.5 9 5.2 52.76* 0.000
6–10 years 47 20.1 231 32.4 36 20.9
11–20 years 88 37.6 245 34.3 94 54.7
>20 years 62 26.5 113 15.8 33 19.2
Firm’s age
Table 1. <10 years 43 18.5 185 25.9 26 15.2 94.78* 0.000
Characteristics and 11–20 years 76 32.8 251 35.2 121 70.8
21–30 years 55 23.7 142 19.9 20 11.7
difference in
>30 years 58 25.0 136 19.0 4 2.3
Pakistani, Indian and
Chinese food and Note: *Indicates significant at 1%
agribusiness firms Source: Authors calculations based on World Enterprises Survey
About the education of the workforce, results show that 24.6% of Pakistanis firms’ World
workforce have less than five years of education. While in China, all workers have attained enterprises
education level more than five years. Analysis reveals a significant difference in an average
year of top managers’ experience across these emerging economies ( x 2 = 52.76, p < 0.000).
survey
Indian firms have less experienced top managers as compared to the other two countries. In
terms of business experience, the review of Table 1 reveals that Pakistani firms are more
established than Indian and Chinese firms.
To understand the agribusiness environment, obstacles in business has been explored
across the emerging economies i.e. India, Pakistan and China. Results show a significant
difference in electricity access as an obstacle (F = 251.33, p < 0.000) for India, Pakistan and
China. Access to power is a minor impediment in China, while it is the most significant
impediment in Pakistan. According to Dethier et al. (2011), 12% of food enterprises viewed
electricity as the most severe constraint and particularly for South Asia, he reported that
7.8% of entrepreneurs perceived electricity as the most severe constraint. ANOVA reflects
the significant mean difference in access to telecommunication services (F = 24.93, p <
0.000) of these emerging economies. The mean value indicates that it is a minor obstacle;
however, a degree is highest for Pakistan and lowest for China. For the developing countries,
Wang (2016) also found that telecommunication is a very minor obstacle. As far as
transportation is concerned, ANOVA (F = 54.39, p < 0.000) indicates a difference at 1%
across the given countries. In China, access to transportation is not an obstacle, while India
and Pakistan are a considerable obstacle.s
The mean difference for custom and trade regulations is significant (F = 37.86, p < 0.000)
for these emerging countries. Customs and trade laws are a barrier in Pakistan; nevertheless,
customs and trade procedures in India and China are simple. Similarly, in their study on
understanding the business environment in South Asia, Carlin and Schaffer (2012) found
that custom is a bigger constraint in Pakistan as compare to India. Access to land is a big
concern; results show a significant difference. In Pakistan, access to land for agribusiness is
an obstacle, while for India and China, it is easy to acquire land for agribusiness purposes.
As far as crime, theft and disorder, mean values show that crime is an obstacle in Pakistan,
while for India, crime is not such an obstacle for doing agribusiness. For access to finance,
there is a significant difference (F = 7.01, p < 0.000) across the countries. In all the countries,
access to finance is a minor obstacle. Relatively, in Pakistan it is an obstacle as compare to
India and China.
For the tax rate as a business obstacle, results reveal that it is a moderate obstacle in
Pakistan, while in India and China, it is a minor obstacle for agribusiness enterprises. In
contrast, some studies found access to finance is the biggest obstacle for Asian and African
countries (Fowowe, 2017; Dinh et al., 2012; Gelb et al., 2007). However, a comprehensive
study of the World Enterprises Survey about 123 countries by Dethier et al. (2011), reported
that only 12.2% of the food business firm perceived that it is a major obstacle. As far as tax
administration is concerned, in India and Pakistan, it is reported that tax administration is
an obstacle up to a considerable extent. Results are in line with the findings of Ndiaye et al.
(2018), who argued that in emerging and developing countries, tax administration is a big
constraint. Regarding business licensing and permits, ANOVA (F = 39.40, p < 0.000)
reflected the significant difference across India, Pakistan and China. In India and Pakistan, it
is a minor obstacle, while it is not an obstacle in China.
Political stability is perceived as a moderate obstacle in Pakistan, while it is a minor
obstacle in doing agribusiness in India and China. ANOVA (F = 145.26, p < 0.000) reveals a
significant difference in corruption across the studied nations, it is not such an obstacle in
China. However, Indian and Pakistani firms perceived corruption as a significant obstacle in
JEC doing agribusiness. A significant mean difference is found for the court’s system as an
obstacle across the given emerging economies (F = 66.67, p < 0.000). About labor regulation,
results reflect that it is a minor obstacle in doing business in India and Pakistan. For
inadequately educated workforce as an obstacle, results show that it is a minor obstacle for
all three countries equally (Table 2).

Discussion
Business regulation is not perceived as a big obstacle in all three countries. So, these
emerging economies could be a favorable destination for investors. Also, these three
countries are top rank countries in the production of various agricultural commodities.
Therefore, access to raw materials for agribusiness is easy in these Asian countries. As
findings suggest that tax administration is simple in Pakistan, India and China, so the
investors facing the constraints in tax administration in their own countries could shift their
agribusiness in these emerging economies. Moreover, getting a license for agribusiness is
relatively easy in China, followed by India and Pakistan. So, the new firm easily can enter
agribusiness in these countries comfortably. Factor requirements such as labor, land,
electricity and transport can easily fulfill these emerging economies. If foreign investors are
interested in investing in a small agribusiness firm, India and Pakistan could be better
destinations. In contrast, for a tie-up with large firms, China could be a good option.
Moreover, if an investor is looking for young and new firms, his search could end in India
and China.

Theoretical implications
Ease of doing business and constrains are have analyzes globally (Qazi et al., 2021; Doshi
et al., 2019; Pinheiro-Alves and Zambujal-Oliveira, 2012; Corcoran and Gillanders, 2015).
However, a particular understanding of the agribusiness environment has not been much
explored by using a comprehensive data set. Which can be useful for various stakeholders.
The study conducted by Carlin and Schaffer (2012) explains the constraint in business for

Business obstacle Pakistan India China F-value Sig.

Electricity 4.17 2.78 1.68 251.32* 0.000

Telecommunications 1.85 1.4 1.36 24.93* 0.000
Transport? 2.78 2.18 1.62 54.40* 0.000
Customs and trade regulations 2.26 1.78 1.31 37.86* 0.000
Practices of competitors in informal sector 2.25 1.97 1.94 6.01* 0.003
Access to land? 2.71 1.56 1.34 133.06* 0.000
Crime, theft and disorder 2.26 1.9 1.57 17.93* 0.000
Access to finance 2.28 2.17 1.87 7.01* 0.001
Tax rates 3.21 2.65 1.94 52.98* 0.000
Tax administrations 2.46 2.33 1.69 27.36* 0.000
Business licensing and permits 2.3 2.12 1.36 39.40* 0.000
Political instability 2.8 2.07 1.27 77.41* 0.000
Table 2. Corruption 3.2 3.07 1.28 145.27* 0.000
Perceived business Courts 2.39 1.69 1.26 66.67* 0.000
Labor regulations 2.24 2.15 1.52 27.32* 0.000
obstacles in
Inadequately educated workforce 2.16 2.12 1.94 2.41* 0.090
Pakistani, Indian and
Chinese agribusiness Note: *Indicates significant at 1%
firms Source: Authors calculations based on World Enterprises Survey
the South Asian countries in general. The present study was conducted particularly for the World
perspective of agribusiness firms of South Asian countries. This study provides a sound enterprises
theoretical background for understanding the agribusiness environment. The originality
and values of present research lie in considering the three main agricultural producing
survey
countries i.e. India, Pakistan and China using a comprehensive data set from World
Enterprises Survey that had not been used earlier.

Practical implications
This study provides an understanding of differences in the agribusiness environment in
emerging economies such as India, Pakistan and China based on WBES data. This study
can be helpful for agribusiness managers and government policymakers for promoting
region-based entrepreneurship. The results of the study can be evaluated by the investors; it
can provide a preliminary understanding of investment decisions. Access to resources is
better in China and India. So, foreign investors could consider these countries in horizontal
and vertical business expansion.

Conclusion, limitation and future research

Most of the developing counties are seeking foreign direct investment for economic
development. Empirical suggested that foreign funding help to improve a firm’s
performance. While on the other side investors are concern about a favorable business
environment at the firm and country level. This study examines the difference in firms’
characteristics and obstacles faced by agribusiness firms in Pakistan, India and China to
understand the agribusiness environment in these emerging economies. It will help
investors to take investment decisions in agribusiness. In addition, this study could provide
a base for policymakers, bankers, researchers to design business models in these emerging
economies. Results show that most of the agribusiness firms are small and medium in India
and Pakistan as compare to China and only less than 10% having women as a top
managers. Indian and Pakistan are lag behind in terms of having international quality
certification and similar is the case with technology licensed from the foreign-owned
company. The average experience of employees is higher in Pakistan and China. For
business obstacles, analysis reveals that access to resources is not such a big obstacle in
these countries. However, business regulations are relatively minor obstacles in India and
Pakistan as compare to China. In addition, India and Pakistan are struggling from
corruption being a moderate obstacle.
This research article is based on data extracted from the comprehensive enterprises
survey of the World Bank. The nature of data is secondary, therefore, it restricts the
researchers to adopt only available business obstacles. In addition, it confines the
researchers to develop a theoretical-based research model. Future research could be done by
collecting primary data from an in-depth survey of agribusiness enterprises by taking some
more business obstacles and other indicators. This may be helpful to future researchers to
examine the business environment by applying an advanced empirical technique. In
addition, future research could be done by taking other Asian countries such as Russia,
Japan, Bangladesh and Vietnam or a group of developing countries such as Brazil, Russia,
India, China and South Africa countries, where agribusiness has significant opportunities.

References
Acharya, S.S. (2007), “Agribusiness in India: some facts and emerging issues”, Agricultural Economics
Research Review, Vol. 20, pp. 409-424.
JEC Adenle, A.A., Manning, L. and Azadi, H. (2017), “Agribusiness innovation: a pathway to sustainable
economic growth in Africa”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 59, pp. 88-104.
Ali, J. (2016), “Performance of small and medium-sized food and agribusiness enterprises: evidence from
Indian firms”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 53-64.
Ansari, S.A. and Khan, W. (2018), “Relevance of declining agriculture in economic development of
South Asian countries: an empirical analysis”, AGRIS on-Line Papers in Economics and
Informatics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 3-14.
Babu, M.S., Bhaskaran, V. and Venkatesh, M. (2016), “Does inequality hamper long run growth?
Evidence from emerging economies”, Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 52, pp. 99-113.
Basu, P. and Guariglia, A. (2007), “Foreign direct investment, inequality, and growth”, Journal of
Macroeconomics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 824-839.
Carlin, W. and Schaffer, M. (2012), “Understanding the business environment in South Asia: evidence
from firm-level surveys”, Policy Research Working Paper (No. 6160), The World Bank.
Chen, A. (2014), “How has the abolition of agricultural taxes transformed village governance in China:
evidence from agricultural regions”, The China Quarterly, Vol. 219, pp. 715-735.
Chen, J.C., Zinda, J.A. and Yeh, E.T. (2017), “Recasting the rural: state, society and environment in
contemporary China”, Geoforum, Vol. 78, pp. 83-88.
Choudhry, M.T. and Elhorst, J.P. (2010), “Demographic transition and economic growth in China”,
Economic Systems, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 218-236.
Cieslik, A. and Goczek, Ł. (2018), “Control of corruption, international investment, and economic
growth–evidence from panel data”, World Development, Vol. 103, pp. 323-335.
Clapp, J. and Isakson, S.R. (2018), “Risky returns: the implications of financialization in the food
system”, Development and Change, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 437-460.
Corcoran, A. and Gillanders, R. (2015), “Foreign direct investment and the ease of doing business”,
Review of World Economics, Vol. 151 No. 1, pp. 103-126.
Dethier, J.J., Hirn, M. and Straub, S. (2011), “Explaining enterprise performance in developing countries with
business climate survey data”, The World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 258-309.
Dinh, H.T., Mavridis, D.A. and Nguyen, H.B. (2012), “The binding constraint on the growth of firms in
developing countries”, in Dinh, H.T. and Clarke, G.R.G. (Eds), Performance of Manufacturing
Firms in Africa: An Empirical Anal-Ysis, World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 87-137.
Doshi, R., Kelley, J.G. and Simmons, B.A. (2019), “The power of ranking: the ease of doing business
indicator and global regulatory behavior”, International Organization, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 611-643.
Fowowe, B. (2017), “Access to finance and firm performance: evidence from African countries”, Review
of Development Finance, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
Fu, H., Zhao, C., Cheng, C. and Ma, M. (2020), “Blockchain-based Agri-food supply chain management:
case study in China”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 667-679.
Gelb, A., Ramachandran, V., Shah, M.K. and Turner, G. (2007), “What matters to African firms? The
relevance of perceptions data”, Policy Research Working Paper 4446, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Goh, C.F., Rasli, A., Dziekonski, K. and Khan, S.U.R. (2015), “Market-based valuation multiples: evidence from
agribusiness sector”, Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 23 No. 1.
Haggblade, S. (2011), “Modernizing African agribusiness: reflections for the future”, Journal of
Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 10-30.
Handford, C.E., Dean, M., Henchion, M., Spence, M., Elliott, C.T. and Campbell, K. (2014), “Implications
of nanotechnology for the Agri-food industry: opportunities, benefits and risks”, Trends in Food
Science and Technology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 226-241.
Haque, S. (2013), “Effect of public and private investment on economic growth in Bangladesh: an
econometric analysis”, Research Study Series No-FDRS 05/2013, pp. 105-136.
Hinson, R., Lensink, R. and Mueller, A. (2019), “Transforming agribusiness in developing countries: World
SDGs and the role of FinTech”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 41, pp. 1-9.
enterprises
Iqbal, M.A., Iqbal, A., Afzal, S., Akbar, N., Abbas, R.N. and Khan, H.Z. (2015), “In Pakistan, agricultural
mechanization status and future prospects”, American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and
survey
Environmental Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 122-128.
Jacob, J.T. (2018), “The China–Pakistan economic corridor and the China–India–Pakistan triangle”, in
Blanchard, J.M. (Ed.), China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative and South Asia. Palgrave Studies in
Asia-Pacific Political Economy, Palgrave, Singapore, doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5239-2_5.
Joshi, S., Singh, R.K. and Sharma, M. (2020), “Sustainable Agri-food supply chain practices: few
empirical evidences from a developing economy”, Global Business Review, 0972150920907014.
Kaur, G. (2017), “Role of external sector in India’s growth: an empirical analysis”, Asian Journal of
Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1128-1136.
Khan, A. and Azam, M.K. (2016), “Factors influencing halal products purchase intention in India:
preliminary investigation”, IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 20.
Kruja, A. (2020), “Entrepreneurial orientation, synergy and firm performance in the agribusiness context: an
emerging market economy perspective”, Central European Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 56.
Kulkarni, V. (2019), “Emerging role of management education for growing and developing Agri-
business in Indian scenario: a review”, Journal of International Business, Economics and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 42-46.
Kumar, M.D. (2012), “Does corporate agribusiness have a positive role in global food and water
security?”, Water International, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 341-345.
Liu, Z., Schindler, S. and Liu, W. (2020), “Demystifying Chinese overseas investment in infrastructure:
port development, the belt and road initiative and regional development”, Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol. 87, p. 102812.
McMichael, P. (2020), “Does China’s ‘going out’ strategy prefigure a new food regime?”, The Journal of
Peasant Studies, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 116-154.
Magnan, A. (2015), “The financialization of Agri-food in Canada and Australia: corporate farmland and
farm ownership in the grains and oilseed sector”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 1-12.
Meinke, H., Howden, S.M., Struik, P.C., Nelson, R., Rodriguez, D. and Chapman, S.C. (2009), “Adaptation
science for agriculture and natural resource management – urgency and theoretical basis”,
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 69-76.
Mian, A. and Sufi, A. (2018), “Finance and business cycles: the credit-driven household demand
channel”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 31-58.
Nayyar, R. and Mukherjee, J. (2020), “Home country impact on outward FDI from India”, Journal of
Policy Modeling, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 385-400.
Ndiaye, N., Razak, L.A., Nagayev, R. and Ng, A. (2018), “Demystifying small and medium
enterprises’(SMEs) performance in emerging and developing economies”, Borsa Istanbul Review,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 269-281.
Negi, S. and Anand, N. (2019), “Wholesalers perspectives on mango supply chain efficiency in India”,
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 175-200.
Ng, E. (2005), “An empirical framework developed for selecting B2B e-business models: the case of
Australian agribusiness firms”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 20 Nos 4/5,
pp. 218-225.
Patel, P.K., Patel, C.R., Chaitra, G.B. and Patil, C. (2020), “Performance of agriclinics and agribusiness
centers progra in India–a case of Gujarat”, International Journal of Current Microbiology and
Applied Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1541-1549.
Pinheiro-Alves, R. and Zambujal-Oliveira, J. (2012), “The ease of doing business index as a tool for
investment location decisions”, Economics Letters, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 66-70.
JEC Popkin, B.M. and Reardon, T. (2018), “Obesity and the food system transformation in Latin America”,
Obesity Reviews, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1028-1064.
Prajapati, K.B. and Singh, R. (2020), “Enhancement of biogas production in bio-electrochemical digester
from agricultural waste mixed with wastewater”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 146, pp. 460-468.
Qazi, T.F., Niazi, A.A.K., Asghar, W. and Basit, A. (2021), “Ease of doing business: analysis of trade
facilitations of one hundred twenty-seven countries of the world”, Journal of Accounting and
Finance in Emerging Economies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Qureshi, M.I., Awan, U., Arshad, Z., Rasli, A.M., Zaman, K. and Khan, F. (2016), “Dynamic linkages
among energy consumption, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and agricultural
production in Pakistan: sustainable agriculture key to policy success”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 84
No. 1, pp. 367-381.
Raj, A., Kuznetsov, A., Arun, T. and Kuznetsova, O. (2019), “How different are corporate social
responsibility motives in a developing country? Insights from a study of Indian agribusiness
firms”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 255-265.
Ravindran, P.Y. and Kalamkar, S.S. (2020), “Organic agribusiness in India: status, potential, and
constraints”, Indian Journal of Economics and Development, Vol. 16 No. 2s, pp. 160-167.
Reardon, T., Barrett, C.B., Berdegué, J.A. and Swinnen, J.F. (2009), “Agrifood industry transformation
and small farmers in developing countries”, World Development, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 1717-1727.
Rehman, A. (2016), “Agricultural and economic development in Pakistan and its comparison with
China, India, Japan, Russia and Bangladesh”, Andamios. Revista de Investigacion Social, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 180-188.
Rehman, A., Jingdong, L. and Du, Y. (2015), “Last five years Pakistan economic growth rate (GDP) and
its comparison with China, India and Bangladesh”, International Journal of Technology
Enhancements and Emerging Engineering Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 81-86.
Reisen, H. and Soto, M. (2001), “Which types of capital inflows foster developing-country growth?”,
International Finance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Sargani, G.R., Deyi, Z., Magsi, H., Noonari, S., Joyo, A., Muhammad, S. and Kazmi, M. (2018), “An
empirical study of attitude towards entrepreneurial intention among Pakistan and China
agricultural graduates in agribusiness”, The International Journal of Business Management and
Technology, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 21-34.
Schneider, M. (2017), “Dragon head enterprises and the state of agribusiness in China”, Journal of
Agrarian Change, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Sengupta, P. and Puri, R. (2020), “Exploration of relationship between FDI and GDP: a comparison
between India and its neighbouring countries”, Global Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 473-489.
Shah, I.H., Dong, L. and Park, H.S. (2020), “Characterization of resource consumption and efficiency
trends in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan: economy-wide biotic and abiotic material flow
accounting from 1978 to 2017”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 250, p. 119554.
Shah, M.H. (2014), “The significance of infrastructure for FDI inflow in developing countries”, Journal
of Life Economics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Sharma, A., Monlai, S., Manpoong, C., Dey, P., Saha, D., Pandey, H., Singh, N.J. and Shi, Z. (2020),
“Agromart promotes agribusiness in India”, Biotica Research Today, Vol. 2 No. 5 Spl,
pp. 303-304.
Sharma, S.K. (2019), “Impact of globalization and liberalization on Indian democratic socialism”,
Journal of Global Economy, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 189-201.
Shehzad, K., Sarfraz, M. and Shah, S.G.M. (2020), “The impact of COVID-19 as a necessary evil on air
pollution in India during the lockdown”, Environmental Pollution, Vol. 266, p. 115080.
Siddiquei, M.I. and Khan, W. (2020), “Economic implications of coronavirus”, Journal of Public Affairs,
Vol. 20 No. 4, p. e2169.
Singh, R. and Prajapati, M.R. (2020), “An agribusiness perspective of demonetization in central region World
of the state of Gujarat in India”, Journal of Economic Structures, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
enterprises
Singh, S. (2019), “Examining global competitiveness of Indian agribusiness in the twenty-first-century
Asian context: opportunities and challenges”, Millennial Asia, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 299-321. survey
Tschirley, D.L., Ayieko, M.W., Hichaambwa, M., Goeb, J. and Loescher, W. (2010), “Modernizing
Africa’s fresh produce supply chains without rapid supermarket takeover: towards a definition
of research and investment priorities”, MSU International Development Working Paper, (No.
1096-2016-88465), p. 106.
Vetter, T., Nylandsted Larsen, M. and Bech Bruun, T. (2019), “Supermarket-led development and the
neglect of traditional food value chains: eeflections on Indonesia’s Agri-food system
transformation”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 498.
Wang, Y. (2016), “What are the biggest obstacles to growth of SMEs in developing countries?–An
empirical evidence from an enterprise survey”, Borsa Istanbul Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 167-176.
Yao, Q., Gong, S. and Wei, H. (2016), “Marketing capabilities drive competitive advantages: evidence
from China’s agribusinesses”, Agricultural Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 305-315.
Yu, J. and Wu, J. (2018), “The sustainability of agricultural development in China: the agriculture–
environment nexus”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 6, p. 1776.
Zameer, H., Yasmeen, H., Zafar, M.W., Waheed, A. and Sinha, A. (2020), “Analyzing the association
between innovation, economic growth, and environment: divulging the importance of FDI and
trade openness in India”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 27 No. 23,
pp. 29539-29553.
Zeren, F. and Akkus , H.T. (2020), “The relationship between renewable energy consumption and trade
openness: new evidence from emerging economies”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 147, pp. 322-329.
Zhang, Q.F. (2012), “The political economy of contract farming in China’s agrarian transition”, Journal
of Agrarian Change, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 460-483.
Zhang, S., Sun, Z., Ma, W. and Valentinov, V. (2020), “The effect of cooperative membership on
agricultural technology adoption in Sichuan”, China Economic Review, Vol. 62, p. 101334.

Further reading
Adekunle, A., Lyew, D., Orsat, V. and Raghavan, V. (2018), “Helping agribusinesses – small millets
value chain – to grow in India”, Agriculture, Vol. 8 No. 3, p. 44.
Azam, M. and Khan, A.Q. (2016), “Urbanization and environmental degradation: Evidence from four
SAARC countries – Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka”, Environmental Progress and
Sustainable Energy, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 823-832.
Godfrey, S.S., Ramsay, G.C., Behrendt, K., Wynn, P.C., Nordblom, T.L. and Aslam, N. (2018), “Analysis
of agribusiness value chains servicing small-holder dairy farming communities in Punjab,
Pakistan: three case studies”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,
pp. 1-18, doi: 10.22434/IFAMR2017.0122.
Gupta, R.K., Naresh, R.K., Hobbs, P.R., Jiaguo, Z. and Ladha, J.K. (2003), “Sustainability of post-green
revolution agriculture: the rice–wheat cropping systems of the indo-Gangetic plains and China”,
Improving the Productivity and Sustainability of Rice-Wheat Systems: Issues and Impacts, Vol. 65,
pp. 1-25.
Kashif, M., Awan, M.B., Nawaz, S., Amjad, M., Talib, B., Farooq, M., Nizami, A.S. and Rehan, M. (2020),
“Untapped renewable energy potential of crop residues in Pakistan: challenges and future
directions”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 256, p. 109924.
Kaur, A. and Singh, R. (2019), “Emerging use of social media tools in Indian agribusiness: an overview”,
Indian Journal of Economics and Development, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 626-632.
Khan, S.A. (2019), “Role of skill India initiative in Indian food processing industries”, Economic Affairs,
Vol. 64 No. 1, p. 295529.
JEC Lagakos, D. (2020), “Urban-rural gaps in the developing world: does internal migration offer
opportunities?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 174-192.
Negi, S. and Anand, N. (2018), “Factors leading to supply chain inefficiency in agribusiness: evidence
from Asia’s largest wholesale market”, International Journal of Value Chain Management, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 257-288.
Vermeulen, S.J., Aggarwal, P.K., Ainslie, A., Angelone, C., Campbell, B.M., Challinor, A.J., Hansen, J.W.,
Ingram, J.S.I., Jarvis, A., Kristjanson, P., Lau, C., Nelson, G.C., Thornton, P.K. and Wollenberg, E.
(2012), “Options for support to agriculture and food security under climate change”,
Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 136-144.

Corresponding author
Waseem Khan can be contacted at: waseemdbf42@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats