Agricultural mechanization is a necessary condition for agricultural intensification and modernization since it improves production capacity and land output rates (Devkota et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2022). Mechanization transforms the traditional labor-based agriculture to modern technology-based agriculture and improves input-use efficiency (Kusz, 2014; Devkota et al., 2020). Fischer et al. (2021) and Zhang et al. (2017) reported that mechanization creates a division of labor, enhances specialization and reduces drudgery. Others have argued that mechanization also stimulates smallholder farmers to scale up their production activities for commercialization and competition (Pingali, 2007; Li et al., 2021; Liao et al., 2022).

Maize is one of the dominant crops in Ghana in terms of area cultivated and volume of production (MoFA, 2022) which has attracted the attention of researchers, development practitioners, and policy makers with regards to mechanization (Houssou et al., 2013; Diao et al., 2014; Darfour and Rosentrater, 2016). Mostly contributed by smallholder farmers, Ghana’s annual maize production has reached over 3 million metric tons since 2019 (MoFA, 2022) which has been difficult to achieve without mechanization. However, the maize value chain is mostly mechanized in pre-harvest activities such as land preparation while postharvest activities have been given marginal attention (Houssou et al., 2013; Diao et al., 2014; Darfour and Rosentrater, 2016). While maize shelling is the most power-intensive postharvest activity which entails mechanization, it is often done manually (using hand and sticks; Darfour and Rosentrater, 2016). The most challenging aspect of manual maize shelling is that it is laborious and time-consuming while labor is getting scarcer among smallholder farmers in SSA (Pingali, 2007; Baudron et al., 2019; Fischer et al., 2021). Moreover, manual shelling reduces grain quantity and quality (Gebeyehu, 2023), causes burning sensation in the palm and fingers as well as impaired functioning of some arm muscles and joints and may affect the body posture due to continuous sitting, thereby leading to a poor musculoskeletal health (Joshi et al., 2018).

Despite these limitations of the manual maize shelling method and the potential of mechanization to address those issues, smallholder farmers have limited access to mechanization services (Fischer et al., 2021; Gebeyehu, 2023; Kotu et al., 2023). While mobile commercial service providers for maize shelling operate in limited locations of farming communities in northern Ghana, mostly they target large and medium scale maize farmers due to better economies of scale. Moreover, smallholder farmers are not attractive customers for commercial shelling service providers because of their small quantities of produce and financial constraints to pay for rental services.

Collective action is one way to overcome the limited resource constraint confronting smallholders and the diseconomies of scale associated with small volumes of production among smallholders (Poteete and Ostrom, 2004; Fraser et al., 2019). Collective action helps farmers to pull their resources, talents, skills, knowledge and power to fulfill goals that cannot be achieved individually (Poteete and Ostrom, 2004; Fraser et al., 2018; Ureña et al., 2019). Collective action also increases recognition and feelings of self-worth and reduces exclusion (Dong et al., 2018). Nevertheless, some collective actions may also lead to negative sociocultural consequences, such as humiliation and conflict, especially in groups with poor group dynamics or cohesiveness (Ureña et al., 2019; Van de Brake et al., 2020). For instance, the unequal ability of group members to contribute to collective tasks, free-riding and appointment of ineffective leaders may reduce cohesiveness and lead to potential conflict (Gençer, 2019; Bakir et al., 2020).

The success, vis-a-vis the sustainability, of collective action groups depend on the set of principles or institutions guiding the interaction of participants and associated factors including member characteristics and institutional support (Bowles and Gintis, 2002; Rodrik et al., 2004; Skoog, 2005; Bartolini and Santolini, 2017). Ombogoh et al. (2018) observed among smallholder farmers in Kenya and Uganda that farmer groups that practiced the ‘inclusive decision making’ principle were less likely to collapse. This model of decision making includes all members’ views and opinions in decision making, which in turn increases their self-worth. Ochieng et al. (2018) found in Central Africa that farmers’ groups that adopted the ‘participatory market research’ principle had high market performance due to their abilities to penetrate high-value markets. In Japan, working in small groups and having frequent meetings were the two leading factors that enhanced the success of collectively managed irrigation systems (Takayama et al., 2018). While most of the group principles are often organized locally by group leaders and their members, sometimes other rules are devised at the higher level by government agencies. An example is Ghana’s ‘Plants and Fertilizer Act’, which presented farmer groups and individual farmers, especially maize farmers, an unlimited choice of improved seed varieties (Poku et al., 2018).

Despite acknowledging the importance and potential benefits of collective action in overcoming resource constraints and achieving better economies of scale, there is a scarcity of empirical evidence and comprehensive studies focusing on the conditions essential for the success of these collective initiatives, particularly in the domain of agricultural mechanization within smallholder farming communities. The existing literature provides insights into the advantages of mechanization in transforming agriculture and highlights the challenges faced by smallholder farmers in accessing mechanization services (Houssou et al., 2013; Diao et al., 2014; Fischer et al., 2021; Hodjo et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2022; Kotu et al., 2023). However, the specific factors that contribute to the success or failure of collective efforts in adopting mechanized maize shellers among these farmers remain underexplored. This gap in research hampers the comprehensive understanding needed to design effective interventions and support mechanisms for enhancing agricultural mechanization within smallholder farming contexts, limiting the development of sustainable collective business models in this domain.

The objective of this study was to examine the collective action efforts of smallholder farmers with regard to mechanical maize shellers and the conditions that contribute to their successes. Based on the theory of collective action and the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), the study identified the possible contextual factors that can enhance the success of the group business model adopted by smallholder farmers in northern Ghana. The cases considered are farmers’ groups which were organized and supported by the Africa RISING project¹ around mechanical maize shellers (MMS) (see details of MMS groups in Section 3.1). The MMS were organized based on the assumption that, in the presence of financial scarcity among smallholder farmers in northern Ghana and the low scale production by these farmers, the group business model would be attractive to more farmers than the individual business model. This assumption is supported by studies elsewhere in Africa (Fischer et al., 2021; Kotu et al., 2023). For instance, Kotu et al. (2023) found that about 65% of smallholder farmers in their sample were willing to invest in mechanized maize shelling within the group business model while only about 10% of them would like to do so within the individual business model.

The study contributes to the limited evidence around business models in smallholder agriculture in general and agricultural mechanization in particular. From a managerial perspective, this research contributes to stakeholders recognizing the aspects necessary and sufficient to achieving better group goals in a collective action, given the empirical results from the MMS groups. Furthermore, our study adds to the few but growing applications of the QCA in empirical studies in Agriculture (Florea et al., 2019; Ndimbo et al., 2023) which is useful to make scientifically valid comparisons of cases in the context of small sample size (Ragin, 2000; Rihoux and Ragin, 2009; Blackman, 2013).

This study adopts Olson (1965) theory of collective action to explain the conditions under which a smallholder maize farmer would participate in a mechanical maize sheller (MMS) group, with the willingness to shell a greater percentage, if not all, of the harvested produce using the group’s mechanized sheller instead of any other service, and ensure its sustainability. The hypothesis is that a farmer incurs cost (C) by joining the MMS group. This cost consists of a fixed cost of the sheller (A), variable cost for operating and maintaining the sheller (B) and the rate (r) corresponding to quantity of maize shelled by the farmer. The total cost per person is thus a function of the rate: C = f ( r ) = A + B r .

Further, the study assumes that the only benefit to the farmer is r. Therefore, total group benefit ( B g ) depends on the group size ( N g ), such that B g = N g r . The share of benefit for the farmer ( P i ) is the ratio of the farmer’s benefit ( B i ) to the total group benefit ( i . e . , P i = B i B g ) . A rational farmer will consider his/her individual absolute advantage, A i = B i − C , and if it is positive, the farmer will join the MMS group. A profit-maximizing farmer will compare changes in the individual’s absolute advantage ( A i ) to changes in the rate ( r ) , as specified in (1) below:(1) d A i d r = d B i d r − d C d r = 0

Thus, a profit-maximizing farmer will join the MMS group up to the point where the additional benefit of shelling an extra unit of maize equals the additional cost, as specified in (2) below.(2) d B i d r = d C d r

The sustainability of the MMS group depends on the additional collective benefit with respect to the extra unit of maize shelled. Noting that in (2), B i = P i B g , the expression becomes as specified in (3) below. d P i B g d r = d C d r P i ( d B g d r ) = d C d r (3) d B g d r = 1 P i ( d C d r )

Therefore, the MMS group will be utilized and sustained if the additional collective benefit of the group is equal to 1 P i times the additional cost of joining the group (i.e., at an optimal condition). The group will also be sustainable if the ratio of collective benefit to the cost is greater than the ratio of collective benefit to individual benefit ( i . e . , B g C > B g B i ) (increasing condition). More members patronizing the group sheller implies a greater group benefit, including higher revenue to run and maintain the group sheller. For high usage to happen, there should be a set of conditions that foster collective action in the MMS group.

The arduous task of manual maize shelling prompts farmers to seek mechanized solutions through collective action (Fischer et al., 2021; Kotu et al., 2023). Factors influencing collective action success are intricate; some conditions aiding success in one context may lead to failure in another (Poteete and Ostrom, 2004). For instance, Gavrilets (2015) discusses free-riding problems and within group heterogeneities, while others point to the adverse implications of group size on collective action success (Ostrom, 1986; Esteban and Ray, 2001; Fujiie et al., 2005). Contextual aspects, such as demographics, collective goals, and guiding institutions, shape collective action outcome (Abdul-Rahaman and Abdulai, 2020; Zang et al., 2022). This study assesses contextual factors for sustaining a mechanical maize sheller intervention among smallholder farmers in northern Ghana using QCA. The study’s main hypothesis centered on MMS usage as pivotal for sustainability, generating funds for operational costs and future investments.

Five key conditions–group cooperation, member relationships, individual contributions, rule adherence, and meeting notifications–emerged as essential pathways to increase usage of the group sheller. These findings support existing literature emphasizing cooperation’s significance in collective action success (Dong et al., 2018; Ureña et al., 2019; Nayak et al., 2020; Van de Brake et al., 2020).

High levels of cooperation often stem from a strong sense of trust among group members, and this remains crucial for successful collective action (Bakir et al., 2020). Cooperation encourages active participation in group activities, including the use of the group sheller for maize processing. This synergy innures to learning among group members, as argued by Orsi et al. (2017), and demonstrates effective collaboration and inclusive decision-making, valuing diverse opinions and shared responsibilities (Bakir et al., 2020). Conversely, low cooperation, as noted by Jagers et al. (2020), can lead to defection and negative impacts on group performance. Moreover, positive member relationships foster a sense of belonging, motivating individuals toward collective goals rather than individual gains (Fraser et al., 2019).

Group financial contributions play a pivotal role in boosting group funds and maintaining the operational efficiency of the mechanical group sheller, thereby ensuring sustained functionality and productivity. Regular maintenance of the sheller prevents frequent breakdowns, mitigating farmer disillusionment and discouragement from utilizing the group sheller, potentially resorting to manual shelling. Willer (2009) notes that groups reward an individual’s financial sacrifices to the group, while Fischer and Qaim (2014) concludes that reciprocity motivates individuals to contribute to group goals. Individuals acknowledging the value of their contributions to group capital formation is essential for group capital formation, providing instrumental capacity to the group’s sheller maintenance.

Compliance with constitutional rules within the group context plays a pivotal role in stimulating various aspects that are fundamental to sustained collective action. As highlighted by Markelova et al. (2009), adherence to these rules increases group security by establishing a structured framework that promotes orderliness, consistency, and predictability within the group’s operations. By strengthening credibility, obedience to group rules increases the trust and reliability members have in the group’s functioning, thereby consolidating their commitment to collective initiatives such as the utilization of the group sheller. Moreover, observing these rules fosters uniformity among members, creating a common ground and shared understanding of expected behaviors and responsibilities. This harmonization of conduct cultivates a cohesive environment where members are aligned in their approaches and actions, ultimately contributing to the pursuit of collective objectives. In essence, general adherence to group rules not only signifies a high level of cooperation but also acts as a catalyst for promoting harmonious interactions, facilitating equitable access to shared resources, and consolidating efforts toward achieving collective goals within the group context.

Providing advance information to members about forthcoming group meetings is a crucial factor in nurturing increased usage of the group sheller. Poteete and Ostrom (2004) highlight the significance of adequate information dissemination, emphasizing that a lack of such communication tends to impede coordination and obstruct the attainment of shared objectives within collective endeavors. Offering advance notice of meetings underscores the value placed on members’ participation and contributions to collective decision-making aimed at achieving common goals. This proactive communication serves as a foundation for fostering an inclusive environment where each member feels valued and engaged in the collective decision-making process. By informing members beforehand, it acknowledges their importance and encourages active involvement in shaping the direction of the group’s initiatives. Consequently, this practice not only cultivates a sense of ownership and accountability among participants but also reinforces a shared commitment toward the group’s objectives, such as sustaining the use of the group sheller. Ultimately, prior information dissemination plays a pivotal role in enhancing collaboration, cohesion, and the collective success of the group’s endeavors (Poteete and Ostrom, 2004).

In human interactions, conflict can scarcely be ruled out (Rahim, 2023). The absence of conflict within the group setting emerges as a significant factor encouraging the utilization of the group sheller. Conflict, as highlighted by Roskosa and Rupniece (2016), tends to undermine cooperative efforts, ultimately impeding the group’s ability to effectively execute shared tasks. Therefore, a low level of conflict becomes a necessary condition for fostering an environment conducive to utilizing the group sheller. Reduced conflict levels signify an atmosphere characterized by mutual respect, peace, and cooperation among group members. This harmonious environment promotes a sense of belonging and unity, motivating individuals to engage positively and actively in collective activities, such as utilizing the group sheller. As the saying goes, “you go where you are celebrated rather than tolerated,” indicating that a conflict-free environment encourages active participation and support for shared initiatives.

Furthermore, while individual contributions to group decisions indicate an interest in achieving collective goals, an excessive number of contributions, particularly those that are repetitive or irrelevant are costly (Zhang et al., 2019) and may impede progress. It may lead to extended meeting durations, hindering the establishment of cohesive and forward-moving collective goals within stipulated timeframes. In response, members might choose to limit their active participation in decision-making processes, allowing the constitutional rules to guide proceedings, thereby streamlining discussions and ensuring productive outcomes within the group. Hence, the absence of conflict, balanced participation in group decisions, and a reduction in manual shelling of maize emerge as essential conditions that promote a conducive environment for the successful utilization of the group sheller among the collective.

The necessity of reducing manual shelling of produce cannot be overstated in ensuring the sustainability of the intervention. The continuous reliance on manual shelling practices poses a significant threat to the viability of the group maize sheller. Should farmers persist in manually shelling their produce, the maize sheller within the collective could lose its relevance or even face potential disuse. Consequently, the identification of a low proportion of total output being shelled manually as a vital condition for high utilization of the group sheller is reassuring. Low reliance on manual shelling signifies a higher adoption rate of the mechanized sheller among group members (Kotu et al., 2023). This increased utilization is pivotal as it directly influences the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the shelling machine. When a substantial portion of produce is manually shelled, it compromises the efficiency gains offered by the shelling machine. This situation may hamper the generation of sufficient funds required for servicing and maintaining the sheller. Ultimately, this could lead to a decrease in the quantity shelled by the machine, further exacerbating the sustainability concerns surrounding its functionality within the collective.

Summarizing, the crucial combination of conditions that collectively ensure high usage of the group sheller, thereby securing its sustainability, includes several key factors: strong group cooperation, minimized manual shelling of produce, adherence to constitutional rules by members, fostering positive relationships within groups, limited contributions to group decisions by members, and reduced conflicts within groups. With these conditions coexisting, the future prospects for the sustainability and potential expansion of the group sheller intervention appear promising.

While the results underscore the impacts of certain conditions on group sheller usage and sustainability, one caveat is the failure of QCA to clarify correlation between variables, hence its inability to quantify how changes in the independent variable (i.e., the causal conditions) affect the dependent variable (Cunha et al., 2023). Nevertheless, QCA explains the logical relationships between the conditions, determining whether they are necessary or sufficient to produce the outcome. Secondly, due to low case counts in the QCA methodology, subjectivity in case selection, conditions and indicator choices could exist (Rihoux et al., 2013). This study preselected cases from the collective action groups, thus precluding theory-based case selection. Accordingly, the claims for generalizability cannot be guaranteed. Nevertheless, the survey design was adequately informed by the collective action theory. The study sample was also randomly generated, thus reducing the risk of subjectivity. Additionally, a 156-farmers sample is comparatively large in QCA context. These strategies are expected to minimize the subjectivity and small sample size risks potentially affecting the results. While QCA does not establish direct cause-and-effect relationships in the traditional sense, its ability to identify necessary and sufficient conditions offers a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay of factors contributing to observed outcomes within specific contexts. This depth of analysis provides valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of social phenomena, contributing to a more holistic understanding of causal mechanisms.

This paper uses the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) methodology and data from the Africa RISING project to highlight the contextual conditions that enhance the success of smallholder maize shelling mechanization through a collective business model. The study used the proportion of maize output harvested in 2020 cropping season that was shelled using the mechanized maize sheller as the explained variable, and eight other causal conditions as the explanatory variables. Findings of the study indicate that group cooperation is the single most important sufficient condition that can foster increased usage of the group MMS. Additionally, good relationships among members, payment of financial contributions, provision of prior notice to group meetings and obedience to group rules are important complementary sufficient conditions.

These findings suggest that group members need to understand and respect individual differences, value the opinions of other members and assume shared responsibilities in order to improve cooperation and establish better relationship for a sustainable collective action. Also, the fulfillment of financial obligations is key in augmenting group capital that can be used for maintenance of the mechanized sheller and onboarding of other important interventions that may strengthen their membership and foster the sustainability of the group.

The role of proactive leadership in collective action is key; therefore, it is important that group leaders take proactive steps to always provide prior notice to all members before major group decisions. Further, reduced manual shelling is very necessary for group sheller usage. Hence, leaders must ensure that the mechanical maize sheller remains in well-functioning modes to discourage farmers from manually shelling their produce, as this would retard group success in terms of usage of the group sheller. Finally, as the findings reveal that the absence of conflict enhances success and sustainability of collective action, it is further suggested that group leaders as well as members desist from engaging in actions that may generate conflicts.

In addition to the caveats already outlined, this study requires further cross-validation to improve the reliability and confidence of the empirical findings. Currently, studies addressing this topic are limited, which restricted the depth of discussion. A complementary study applying econometric procedures to assess the QCA-identified configurations might allow the results to be comprehensively scrutinized. These limitations notwithstanding, this study provides valuable insights into the factors influencing group sheller usage. Future research should consider the importance of socioeconomic variables and explore other analytical procedures that can help increase the understanding of the collective actions and their outcomes.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving humans were approved by International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because most of the participants in the interviews were illiterate to provide written consents. However, they have provided oral consents.

IA: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing–original draft, and writing–review and editing. BK: conceptualization, data curation, and writing–review and editing. BB: data curation and writing–review and editing. JB: writing–review and editing and formal analysis. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.