geacollege Faculty oi Entrepreneurship ADVANCES IN BUSINESS-RELATED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL (ABSRJ) ISSN 1855-931X Business environment for hospitality entrepreneurship Saša Zupan Korže, Sonja Sibila Lebe An Investigation into the price transmission between producers and retailers within the UK milk market David J Stubley, Dimitrios Paparas, Ourania Tremma, Luis De Aguiar Cost-benefit analysis as the most appropriate method for estimation of corporate financial support to sports clubs Vladimir Bukvič Entrepreneurial intentions among students in Slovenia Ajda Fošner, Mitja Jeraj ,s\n Bu»v IABSRJI \ ' / geacollege Faculty of Entrepreneurship BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT FOR HOSPITALITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP Saša Zupan Korže* Sonja Sibila Lebe GEA College, University of Maribor, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Economics and Business, Slovenia Slovenia sasa. zupan@vanadis.si sonjasibila.lebe@um.si Abstract Entrepreneurship penetrates all spheres of the economy and life in general. It develops in a particular business environment, which looks for developmental opportunities. Within this environment, a wide spectre of factors is at work: social, cultural and political. These factors can promote or discourage entrepreneurial activities. In this process, state mechanisms play an important role. The main purpose of this paper is to get insight into how the entrepreneurs in small hotels (SH) in Slovenia asses the business environment for running small hospitality businesses. Empirical research was conducted in Slovenia in 2014 and 2015. The data were collected from SH entrepreneurs and SH directors during 62 semi-structured interviews. We analysed data with qualitative methods: interpretation, comparison, grouping, quantification. The results of the research provide a clear insight about major issues that Slovenian entrepreneurs have to face in the business environment when running their SH. They are - at certain points - consistent with findings in other countries. The research can assist the state institutions to implement certain measures and mechanisms to improve institutional framework for entrepreneurship. Key Words Entrepreneurship; hospitality; small hotels; business environment. 'Corresponding Author INTRODUCTION In academic literature, there are different definitions of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs and enterprise. Some author (e. g. Ateljevic and Li, 2009; Lee-Ross and Lashley, 2009) state that the reason lies in their multidisciplinary nature. Cerovic (2010) advocates that those phenomena are interactively connected and form an interdependent whole. General Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) adopts the definition of entrepreneurship after Raynolds (1999; after GEM 2015, p. 17) in the context of understanding its importance for ensuring economic growth. How we define entrepreneurship also depends on the study being conducted. It can be understood differently when studied from the point of view of macro or micro economy (Antoncic et al.; 2002): a) in macroeconomic sense entrepreneurship is understood as a driving force of general social progress - in the search of global market equilibrium it creates developmental dynamics, growth, company development, the development of regional and national economies as well as the world economy; b) from microeconomic perspective it is understood in the sense of satisfying market needs - seeking market equilibrium in supply and demand for goods and services, which are offered by individual economic units. Entrepreneurship can be found in various forms (individual, collective, social) and in different areas of economic and non-economic activities; however, some forms are more popular in certain spheres that others. According to Sahut and Peris-Ortiz (2013) a small business provides by far the most conducive environment for entrepreneurship. Tourism and hospitality, for instance, depend on individuals who found business opportunities in accommodation, food services and tourism: they transform their ideas into businesses and realise their business ventures within small and medium sized enterprises - SMEs (Lee-Ross and Lashely 2009). Cerovic (2010) classifies them as entrepreneurs that belong to the so-called individual entrepreneurship. Within SMEs the same person unites ownership, entrepreneurial and managerial function. In practice, restaurants, tourist accommodation and small hotels with up to 50 rooms (apartments) belong to this group. Business ventures are influenced by various factors, which compose the business environment. It is determined by (Glas, 2002; Lee-Ross and Lashely, 2009; Hisrich et al. 2010): a) the environment that is external to the enterprise (macro: political, economic, socio-cultural and technological factors; micro: state and local authorities and institutions, suppliers, customers etc.); b) the environment that is internal to the enterprise (value system, organisational structure, physical assets etc.). With the term business environment in this research, we address the micro factors that are generally in focus when researching the external factors for running a business (e.g. in EU-lex, 2011; Ratten, 2014). We answer the following research question: how entrepreneurs who run small hotels (SH) asses the business environment in Slovenia for operating their hospitality business. The paper is organised as follows. First, we present theoretical framework on business environment for entrepreneurship development with emphasis on the role of the state mechanisms. We continue with the presentation of methodology and research results. The conclusions are summarised in the next section. At the end we compare the results of the study with findings in existing literature on applicability of the results. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Entrepreneurship comprises a complex and closely interwoven operation of many factors" (Rebernik et al., 2017). It develops differently within individual counties. Many macroeconomic and institutional causes can explain the differences in entrepreneurial intensity between countries and areas; they refer to what W. J. Baumol names "the rules of the game" (Adbesselam et al., 2017). For Glas (2000), a macroeconomic assumption for the development of entrepreneurship is effective market operations. Stable economic environment makes it possible for entrepreneurs to plan better and focus on the key advantages of their entrepreneurial activities (ibid). External environmental factors that influence entrepreneurs' actions during the initial phase seem to be more important for company growth than the so-called internal factors, which are mainly influenced by entrepreneurs themselves (Pšeničny et al. 2000). In the existing literature, the factors of business environment created by the state and its' mechanisms refer to institutional environment (Gupta et al., 2014) - mostly as regulatory, normative and cognitive institutional environment (e. g. Sambharya and Musteen, 2014; Volchek et al., 2014; Hadjimanolis, 2016; Fortwengel and Jackson, 2016). Rebernik et al. (2017) include some institutional factors for business environment in entrepreneurship ecosystem which consist on nine entrepreneurial framework condition categories (entrepreneurial finance, government policies, government entrepreneurship programmes, entrepreneurship education and training, R&D transfer, access to commercial and legal infrastructure, internal market dynamics and burdens or entry regulations, access to physical infrastructure, and cultural and social norms). Government policies and regulations play a key role in creating a more favourable entrepreneurial environment (Rebernik et al., 2017). They help entrepreneurship development in different ways: with well-formed and focused developmental programmes, through creating supportive culture for entrepreneurship, by encouraging collaboration, by giving recognition and respecting successful entrepreneurs etc. (OECD 1998). In favour of entrepreneurial development countries can ensure a healthy entrepreneurial climate by not interfering into business matters and economy, by respecting targets set by people, by ensuring legal frameworks for efficient market mechanisms, by implementation of sound financial policy and various incentive measures etc. (Žižek, 2000). States can also promote the development of entrepreneurship and SMEs by providing subsidized loans, tax reliefs during the initial phase, subsidies for new jobs etc. Other forms of state support are reflected in the development of entrepreneurial infrastructure that offers different forms of assistance, e.g. the development of specialised financial organizations for SMEs, advisory networks, education and training organisations, entrepreneurship zones, incubators, technology parks and the like (Glas, 2000). As entrepreneurial activity fluctuates together with the economic activity, the creators of state policy have to prepare such socio-economic programmes that will encourage economic development (Bosma and Levie 2010). Some examples of support measures are shown in Table 1. Table 1: State support frame for the promotion of entrepreneurship CONDITIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES DESCRIPTION Economic and professional infrastructure Presence of business, accounting, legislative services and institutions, which enable setting up new enterprises Government policy Taxes and similar payments that influence nascent enterprises Government entrepreneurial programmes Introduction and quality of direct programmes, which encourage setting up and growth of enterprises (on the state, regional and local level) Financial support Access to financial resources: ownership, debt and non-reimbursable aid Openness of domestic market Access to and exchange of business partners, and new contractual relationships when new companies enter the market Education Education related to setting up and managing small, new and nascent enterprises (in primary schools, secondary schools and HEIs) Cultural and social norms Incentives, awards given for novel business approaches Research and development The scope of research and developmental solutions leading to new economic opportunities Access to physical infrastructure The availability of communication channels, transportation, land, buildings at equal price for all Source: Bosma and Levie (2010, p. 33). The EU has also introduced some forms of support for entrepreneurship and SMEs. In order to encourage successful entrepreneurship, the eU adopted in 2008 (and updated it in 2011) Small Business Act. The main purpose of the act was to improve business environment for SMEs and help them in fulfilling their potential in the global economy (EUR-lex 2011a). METHODOLOGY We conducted the empirical research in SH of Slovenia in 2014 and 2015. Data were collected as part of a comprehensive research on hotel entrepreneurship in Slovenia. For the research purpose, we determined a SH as being a privately owned (entrepreneurial) small tourist accommodation (at least 10 and not more than 50 hotel rooms/units) that offers hotel services. We identified 125 SH in Slovenia, and subsequently 125 SH entrepreneurs. Data from SH entrepreneurs (SHE) and SH directors (SHD) were collected using the method of semi-structured interviews. This research method was selected as the most appropriate to achieve the research goal: a) to increase the sample of population of SH (people are reluctant to fill in questionnaires sent to them by mail or e-mail) with personal approach, b) to get better understanding of how interviewees think, react and to listen to their stories; c) to collect "the first-hand" experience. All SH entrepreneurs were invited to participate in the study and were asked to do so more than ones (with e-mail, with previous personal visits by the researcher, or/and by a phone call). If a SH was managed by a SH managing director and not by a SH entrepreneur her/himself, we first ask SH managers to participate; if they refused we invite SH directors. Participants were interviewed in their natural settings by the corresponding author. They were asked one question: how they asses the business environment for operating their SH, with pre-prepared sub-questions used when necessary. Qualitative data collected in semi-structured interviews were analysed through interpretation, finding patterns, comparing features and differences. Some interesting statements are presented in verbatim form (or paraphrased); some data are quantified. When making the analyses we took into the account the theoretical perspectives of the studied phenomena from existing findings in literature about entrepreneurship in general and hospitality entrepreneurship. The masculine form is used in text for male and female participants. RESULTS We interviewed 50 SH entrepreneurs and 12 SH managers (49,6% response rate). The structure of interviewees by gender is fairly uniform: 32 men and 30 women. Our interviewees were between 30 and 49 years old: SH entrepreneurs were between 40 and 49 years old (44 %), SH directors were, on average, ten years younger. More than half of SH entrepreneurs and SH directors had a college level of education or higher (Table 1). Table 1: Gender, age and level of education of interviewees SH SH ENTREPRENEUR DIRECTORS f f % f f % Male 29 58,0 3 25,5 GENDER Female 21 42,0 9 74,5 Less than 30 years 5 10,0 0 0,0 30-39 15 30,0 9 75,0 AGE 40-49 22 44,0 2 16,7 50-59 6 12,0 1 8,3 More than 60 2 4,0 0 0,00 years Secondary 21 42,0 4 33,3 LEVEL OF Higher 9 18,0 3 25,0 EDUCATION High/university 19 38,0 5 41,7 M.A./Ph.D. 1 2,0 0 00,0 Note: f = frequency (n = 62), f % = percentage. Source: Own calculations. The interviewees considered that legislation, numerous laws and regulations, »limits business activities« (SHE11), that they are frequently »impractical« (SHE8), »there are too many of them and they change too often« (SHE1, SHE3, SHE5, SHE7, SHE12, SHE19, SHE21), e.g. fire regulations, regulation regarding food safety, etc. Instead of being occupied with their guests, interviewees spend time studying laws and regulation (SHE5). »The state should work towards entrepreneurial freedom and enable space for people to be able to work« (SHE1). Above all, the state should not »change laws and regulations in the middle of the year«, as was done in the case of VAT (SHE5, SHE8): »prices in hotel industry are set for the next year«, thus the increase in the tax rate in the course of the years had a negative effect on financial results of SHs. »It is difficult to follow all the rules and regulations; I spend one fifth of my time for figuring out how to survive« (SHE35). Regulation on categorization of hotels unnecessary complicate the conditions of hotel business operations (SHE5, SHE7, SHE8, SHE20). Because of them some hotels have to lower their quality level, defined by the number of stars. »This did not influence our grade, but have an impact on our image; guests keep asking what is going on« (SHE5). Such regulation »guaranteed a job to government officials, but they do not contribute to tourism quality« (SHE5). Today, »when everything can be found on the Internet, the categorisation is senseless« (SHE8). It is thus not reasonable that the state forces SHEs »into a categorisation, because stars in Slovenia are not what they should be« (SHE20). SHE35 did not categorise his SH: »I don't need a categorisation, which is why I do not have it; my hotel is categorised by a high grade on Booking.com.« Each interviewee is marked with the number from 1 to 62. Business activities of SEHs are limited by too much administration, required by the state, by filling in the forms, by keeping records, statistics, etc. (e.g. SHE5, SHE7, SHE26, SHE27, SHE28, SHE45, SHD53, SHDD57, SHD62). Among the SHEs who were building their hotel (SHE10, SHE5, SHE12), only a few obtained the building permit without problems. »If bureaucrats had to earn their money on the market, everything would change; it is getting a bit better, but we are still light years behind« (SHE5). Work in SHs is too often disturbed by inspector controls (e.g. SHE25 SHE30, SHE54). Inspectors play a role of »money collectors« (SHE21) and are sometimes »more papal than the Pope« (SHE47); and there are too many of them. Interviewees suggested that the state should improve the tax policy instead of sticking to the punitive policy towards SHs; small enterprises are being »strangled« (SHE13, SHE20, SHE35), »small and large enterprises are in the same basket« (SHE14), »they are overseen« (SHE52) and »nobody cares for their development, as promised on the paper« (SHE55). »Large companies are a different story; in Slovenia it is different than abroad where small enterprises get their share of the cake« (SHD59). SHs are continuously burdened with »new requirements imposed by the state, which represent additional costs for the SHs « (SHE23). »Everything that has been introduced by the state, should be paid« (SHE3). The price for the »mandatory inspection of oil filter is 500 euros« (SHE23). There are too many state »parasites, who kill us by adding cost, e.g. SAZAS, IPF, RTV« (SHE5, SHE8, SHE14, SHE35, SHE53, SHE56). State requirements are among »the worst in Europe« (SHE23). The field of »flexible work« changes in a positive direction, but the existing solutions are not adapted to the needs of small employers (SHE20). »Being small, we cannot afford to employ someone, because the expense is too high; we are forced to illegally employ and risk paying a fine «(SHE13). According to interviewees the state should follow the example of the neighbouring Austria when planning incentives for the development of entrepreneurship. In Austria »you get a consultant when you enter the entrepreneurial path, who trains you for this sort of work« (SHE20). The state should also change the lending policy of Slovenian banks: »In Austria, you can get a loan for 50 years, in Slovenia you get a loan for ten or 15 years« (SHE26). Some interviewees rate poorly the relationship of the state towards tourism and the relationship of institutions responsible for tourism in Slovenia. They were unique in thinking - especially those who were well acquainted with tourism and former tourist workers - that Slovenia is unable to »position itself in tourism« (SHE15), »is unable to define its tourist products « (SHE49) or that we still »do not know, what we are and where we would like to go« (SHD62). »We play the game of high tourism in Slovenia, but we are unable to provide the right offer. We are a 3* destination and nothing more; which is reflected in the type of guests we have. If we want to raise the level of services, the state should help us, because individuals alone cannot fight for the development of tourism on their own. Subsidies for the development of tourist infrastructure were a promising incentive, but not sufficient. We need to take care of the development of the whole infrastructure and for the development of tourist offer. In practice, there have been examples of irrational use of state subsidies for failed projects. People believed that 'if we get something for free, we should take it', they were not thinking about the risks, long-term business operations, or if they would succeed or not« (SHE15). SHE37 shares this opinion. A number of interviewees believe that »on the state level there is no right direction or measures that would foster tourism« (SHE26), that »the state does not support tourism« (SHE13, SHE32, SHE39). SHE32 mentioned an example of good practice of state support for tourism in the past, namely the Association of small hotels. It worked until it was financed by the state. When the financing dried up »the project died«. There were »many words, but little done; the only thing that remained was a brochure about small hotels in Slovenia« (SHE32). The trend of accumulating projects in Slovenian tourism without any results in practice was mentioned by SHE49 and D51: »We waste money for numerous projects and strategies, which remain in drawers and which have no practical value. Someone thinks about a project, some people join it and everyone is happy, because they 'network'. There is no assessment if the project was successful. No one asks questions, which is a far cry from a healthy entrepreneurial logic. If you have a look at projects and strategies, you find out that everything is done in the same manner of 'copy - paste', the remaining part of the document being pure data« (SHD51). »Projects start and finish, but there are no responsible people, who would see to its implementation. In this way, we only plan a project after a project. Public tourism players, financed by the public money, operate as if they were working for themselves, and not for the effects seen in the real environment. Nobody measures the effects of invested money. There is no integrated approach, investments are dispersed, money is inefficiently spent« (SHE49). »In Slovenia, the slogan 'I feel Slovenia' is where everything starts and ends. The relationship between the state and tourism is the same as the relationship between the owner and me: he is not familiar with the tourism, so he cannot understand it, and I cannot discuss tourism with him« (SHD59). Marketing and promotion of Slovenia abroad is another topic that interviewees could not positively comment upon (SHE40, SHE45, SHE49). »Because there are so many tourists from abroad, Slovenia should present itself as one destination; each of us should not bring their own leaflet« (SHE49). »Individuals in Slovenia Tourist Organisation (STO) enjoy travelling to India and China, but we do not profit anything from this. Marketing within 500 kilometres from Slovenia is neglected, despite the fact that this is where the majority of our guests come from« (SHD51). »STO and local tourist organisations are full of people, who lead tourism, but do not understand it: it is either their out-dated mentality or their own benefits that play a decisive role« (HE48). Interviewees miss support for hotel entrepreneurship in the field of marketing. They cannot do it on their own, because »the expenses are too high for small enterprises« (SHE32), because they are »too small to be present on exchanges and fairs« (SHE9), and because »they do not have time« (SHE29). They also believe that »Slovenia should become connected with the rest of the world through better international air traffic routes« (SHE52), and within Slovenia we should »improve road infrastructure« (SHE5). On the local level, interviewees assess tourist players in a similar way as they assessed them on the state level. »Local scene«, including local tourist organisation, was assessed as »extremely poor« by SHE24 and SHE26. Both SHEs are bothered by the absence of quality offers and by the passivity of local tourist organisation in an established tourist destination. »There is nowhere to park and few opportunities to spend money. Tourists should be prepared in a diplomatic way to spend money« (SHE26). »For the New Years' day we organised ourselves and decorated the city« (SHE24). SHE37 is disappointed by the positioning of the destination by local tourist players, which, in his opinion, could be much better. He believes that the local authorities changed the location into »social destination, some sort of 'Disneyland', with events reminding one on 'utter emptiness'. The destination is not interesting for tourists who rarely stay more than two days«. Interviewees were critical about the negative attitude of the general environment towards entrepreneurship and about »the envy of people towards entrepreneurs« (SHE39, SHE41, S HE13). »People are envious; when we started, we were doomed to failure« (SHE43). »Everybody is so smart about what I should do about tourism, without saying anything how they could contribute towards the development of tourism in our city«. They miss collaboration in the local environment (SHE32): »Instead of being involved in collaboration, they all push in their own direction«. (SHE5): »By issuing building permits for holiday villages, local authorities transform the place into a ghost city«. (SHE11): »Instead of seeing a partner in you, they see you as a rival«. It is unclear to people that all should be involved in tourism, because the hotel without any other services cannot bring tourism to the place«. CONCLUSION The results of the research give answer to the question how SH entrepreneurs asses the business environment for running hospitality business in Slovenia. We summarise it in three key findings. SH entrepreneurs: 1. do not consider the business environment for hospitality entrepreneurship in Slovenia as supportive; 2. exposed several issues and disadvantages, but only few positive points; 3. understand the business environment generally from the stand point of institutional environment of the state and local public mechanisms; SH entrepreneurs: a) were particularly critical toward attitude of the state institutions towards entrepreneurship and consider it as »step-motherly«, »anti-entrepreneurial« or »demotivating«; b) expressed greatest dissatisfaction with: numerous regulations, too many changes in regulation, impractical solutions, extensive administrative tasks, frequent new obligations which brings additional cost, rigid labour laws, taxation burdens, frequent inspection controls and high fines, equal treatment of small and large enterprises; c) draw attention to the inadequate relationship of the state and its players toward tourism development and the obstacles they are faced with in their local environment; participants with previous experience in tourism were most critical towards the state and public tourist institutions; d) emphasise inefficiency of public tourism institutions: no right direction or measures that would foster tourism; accumulating projects in tourism without any results in practice; no assessment if the project was successful; no integrated approach; investments are dispersed; money is inefficiently spent; subsidies for the development of tourist infrastructure are not a sufficient measure; the whole infrastructure and tourist offer should be developed, care for the development of the whole infrastructure and for the development of tourist offer; the state should help, because individuals alone cannot fight for the development of tourism on their own; e) are not happy with: support of the local scene, passivity of local tourist organisation (assessed as »extremely poor); the absence of quality offers; negative attitude of the general local environment towards entrepreneurship (envious people); collaboration in the local environment. DISCUSSION The research on business environment for entrepreneurship in hospitality in Slovenia shows that some results are in consistence with existing theoretical and empirical findings about business environment for entrepreneurship in general; however, some findings contradict them. Among external factors of business environment for hospitality entrepreneurship the role of the state mechanisms was highlighted by the majority of respondents. This finding is in accordance with Lee-Ross and Lashely (2009) and Rebernik et al. (2017) who believe that the state mechanisms play an important role in providing opportunities for entrepreneurship development. In addition, the results of hospitality entrepreneurs support the findings of Rebernik et al. (2017) on entrepreneurship in Slovenia (for 2016). This research shows that most of the entrepreneurial framework conditions in Slovenia are still rated below the EU average (with few exception). The same research includes some recommendations for the improvements of government policies related to the profound tax reform, to the removal of administrative obstacles2, as well as to the simplification of bureaucracy. However, Slovenian hospitality entrepreneurs do not feel to be supported by the local population. This finding about the attitude of Slovenians towards entrepreneurs is not in accordance with the results of research of Rebernik et al. (2017). In their research two thirds of the population in Slovenia believe (results are for 2016) that successful entrepreneurs in society are well accepted and enjoying a good reputation. There are some limitations to be noted. Small hotels are representatives of entrepreneurial hospitality business in tourism accommodation sector, but not the only ones. However, other accommodation entrepreneurs (SMTES) run their hospitality business under similar conditions and in the same business environment. Secondly, some changes might have happened in the business environment during the data collection that lasted more than a year. Thirdly, there are general limitations related with the interview research methods: subjectivity at data collection and representation. Despite these limitations it is believed that the findings in this research are valid for the whole small accommodation sector. Results of the European Chamber research on the best economic environment in European countries - best European countries for business in 2016 - listed Slovenia on the 21st place from 46 countries (EuCham, 2017). We believe that this finding together with other findings mentioned in this paper strongly indicate that certain changes in institutional mechanisms should be implemented for the improvement of hospitality entrepreneurial business in Slovenia. REFERENCES Abdesselam, R., Bonnet, J.; Renou-Maissant, P.; Aubry, M. (2017) Entrepreneurship, Economic Development and Institutional Environment: Evidence from OECD countries. Retrieved 16 september 2017 from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean Bonnet/publication/313841992 Entrepreneurship Economic Development and Institutional Environment Evidence from OECD countries /links/58a9a85f4585150402ffc6bc/Entrepreneurship-Economic-Development-and-Institutional-Environment-Evidence-from-OECD-countries.pdf. Antončič, B., Hisrich R. D., Petrin T., Vahčič A. (2002). Entrepreneurship (Podjetništvo). Ljubljana: GV založba. Ateljevic, J., Li, L. (2009). Tourism Entrepreneurship - Concepts and Issues. In J. Ateljevič, J. Stephen (Editor), Tourism and Entrepreneurship. International Perspectives, pp. 9-31. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Bosma, N., Levie, J. (2010). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2009 Executive report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERa). Retrieved 6 Maj 2010 from http://www.gemconsortioum.org/download/12731528. Cerovič, Z. (2010). Hotel Management. Second Edition. Opatija: Faculty for tourism and hospitality management of University in Rijeka. 2 E. g., in research Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond (2009) 71% replied that there are too many administrative barriers for setting up a company. Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond (2009). Analytical report. Retrieved 18. August 2010 from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures- analysis/eurobarometer/fl283 en.pdf. Eucahm - European Chamber (2017). Best European countries for business. Retrieved 15 August 2017 from http://eucham.eu/charts. EUR-lex. (2011a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, Economic and social Committee and the Committee of the regions review of the "Small Business act" for Europe. Retrieved 3 July 2017 from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0078. Fortwengel, J.; Jackson, G. (2016) Legitimizing the apprenticeship practice in a distant environment: Institutional entrepreneurship through inter-organizational networks. Journal of World Business. Vol. 51, iss. 6, pp. 895-909. Retrieved 16 September 2017 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090951616300244. GEM. (2015): 2014 Global Report. Retrieved 4 July 2015 from http://www.gemconsortium.org/report. Glas, M. (2000). Entrepreneurship - challenge for 21th Century (Podjetništvo - izziv za 21. Stoletje). In M. Glas, V. Pšeničny (Editor), Podjetništvo - izziv za 21. stoletje. pp.1-5. Ljubljana: Gea College PIC d.o.o. Glas, M. (2002). Entrepreneurship: challenges for changes (Podjetništvo: izziv za spremembe). In S. Možina, (Editor), Management, new knowledge for success (Management, nova znanja za uspeh), pp.96-132. Radovljica: Didakta. Gupta, V. K; ChunGuo, C.; Canever, M.; Yim, H.R.; Sraw, G. K.; Liu, M. (2014): Institutional environment for entrepreneurship in rapidly emerging major economies: the case of Brazil, China, India, and Korea. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 367-384. Retrieved 16 September 2017 from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11365-012-0221-8. Hadjimanolis, A. (2016) Perceptions of the institutional environment and entrepreneurial intentions in a small peripheral country. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Vol. 28, iss. 1. Retrieved 16 September 2017 from http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJESB.2016.075679. Hisrich, R. D., Peters, M. P., Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Entrepreneurship. Eight Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Lee-Ross, D., Lashley, C. (2009). Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management in the Hospitality Industry. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. OECD (1998). Fostering entrepreneurship, The OECD Jobs Strategy. Paris: OECD Publications. Page, S. J., Connell, J. (2009). Tourism and a modern Synthesis. Third edition. Hampshire: Cengage Learning EMEA. Pšeničny, V., Berginc, J., Letonja, M., Pavlin, I., Vadnjal, J., Žižek, J. (2000). Entrepreneurship (Podjetništvo). Portorož: Gea College. Ratten, V. (2014): Future research directions for collective entrepreneurship in developing countries: a small and medium-sized enterprise perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Vol. 22, iss. 2. Retrieved 16 September 2017 from http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/full/10.1504/IJESB.2014.062505. Rebernik, M., Crnogaj, K.; Širec, K.; Bradač Hojnik, B.; Rus, M.; Tominc, P. (2017). Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Potential. GEM Slovenia. Maribor: University of Maribor Press. Retrieved 14 August 2017 from http://ipmmp.um.si/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/GEM 2016 web.pdf. Sahut, J. M.; Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014): Small business, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics. Vol. 42, iss. 4. pp. 663-668. Retrieved 16 September 2017 from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-013-9521-9. Sambharya, R.; Musteen, M. (2014). Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: An empirical study across countries. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Vol. 12, iss. 4, pp. 314-330. Retrieved 16 September 2017 from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10843-014-0137-1 Volchek, D.; Podmetina D.; Saarenketo, S.; Jantunen, A. (2014) To grow or not to grow: international growth of Russian SMEs in the context of a local institutional environment for entrepreneurship. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development . Vol 7, iss. 4. Retrieved 16 September 2017 from http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/JIBED.2014.064449. Žižek, J. (2000). Entrepreneurhip in economic theory (Podjetništvo v ekonomski teoriji). IN M. Glas, V. Pšeničny (Editor), Entrepreneurhip -chalenge for 21th Century (PodjetništVo - izziv za 21. Stoletje), pp.21-36). Ljubljana: Gea College. geacollege Faculty of Entrepreneurship AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRICE TRANSMISSION BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND RETAILERS WITHIN THE UK MILK MARKET David J Stubley Harper Adams University, United Kingdom 13217600@harper-adams.ac.uk Dimitrios Paparas* Harper Adams University, United Kingdom dpaparas@harper-adams.ac.uk Ourania Tremma Harper Adams University, United Kingdom otremma@harper-adams.ac.uk Luis De Aguiar Harper Adams University, United Kingdom ldeaguiar@harper-adams.ac.uk Abstract The main aim of this article is to investigate the price transmission of milk between the producers and the retailers within the UK to understand the influence of large retailers on the market. In recent times smaller dairy farms have been forced to close down because they believe that prices are not being conveyed from retailers to producers. The research interlinks well-established econometric tests, which are frequently used within vertical price transmission research to gain an understanding of the transmission from producer to retailer. These are unit root tests, cointegration tests and causality test. The main findings were that there is a unidirectional transmission of milk prices in the UK between producers and retailers. The Granger causality test shows that causality runs from the retailer to the producer and but not from the producer to the retailer. There was a significant break in 1994, which is when the MMB disbanded and has provided a new research gap. The direction of causality means that when producers are losing out to large retailers. The ECM results indicate that the prices are slow in recovering to a new equilibrium after a shock has occurred. Research specifically on the UK milk market is limited and therefore this research is a basis for future studies, which will help policy makers when moving forward post brexit. 'Corresponding Author Key Words Price transmission; retailer; producer; milk. INTRODUCTION This research is going to investigate the vertical price transmission of milk between producer prices and the retailer prices within the UK. Price transmission is the process, which measures the relationship of prices between two markets. The two types of price transmission are horizontal and vertical. Horizontal price transmission explores the relationship of prices across different markets for example across two countries. This provides a good comparison between two similar markets, which is useful for benchmarking. Vertical price transmission measures the relationship upstream and downstream within the specified market. It is used to assess where value is added within supply chains and particularly within agriculture to establish the relationship between producers and big retailers. Both horizontal and vertical price transmissions have been used effectively in econometrics to investigate the relationship of prices during fascinating and challenging financial times. Agricultural products are notoriously volatile in price and therefore econometric techniques are frequently used to investigate the relationships of prices. On average UK dairy farms are increasing in size and productivity is rising causing smaller dairy producers to struggle to cope with decreasing prices paid from retailers and increasing production costs on farm. The result of this is that many smaller producers have had to resign from milk production. The anger from producers is being directed at large retailers who hold massive bargaining power when it comes to negotiating prices. In order to protect the UK dairy industry in the future it is necessary to understand where the issues are. This dissertation will conduct a literature review, which will analyse current research in order to gain an understanding of what methods previous studies have used and what they have already found. This will establish a gap in the current literature where more research needs to be undertaken and expose which methods are successful and which methods have limitations. The methodology will then outline the details of how the research is going to be completed. From the literature review it should be possible to get a good interpretation of what econometric approaches will be useful and applicable. The methodology will outline what type of data is required and how it will be collected, what theories will be applied and what statistical tests will be used. Once the research has been undertaken the results will be displayed. Relevant comments will support the results and where applicable explanations will be provided for the findings. Lastly the research will be concluded, binding together the whole research proposal and listing any comparisons with previous research, any weaknesses and any strong findings. This will establish any areas for further research. LITERATURE REVIEW The Application of Price Transmission Agricultural markets are one of the most common areas of study for price transmission as a result Meyer and Cramon- Taubadel (2004) investigated how effective asymmetric price transmission actually is. They used a number of methods to examine possible causes of asymmetric price transmission and they investigated the empirical tests used to determine results. They found that research struggled to combine both the theoretical and methodological aspects of asymmetric price transmission. It was established that in particular the agricultural studies, which account for large proportions of this work, failed to link theory and methods together. As a result researchers in other fields of economics often overlooked these studies. They suggest that more emphasis needs to be put on the quality of the data, the relevance of the results in relation to the external economy and explanations behind the results. This led to modern research using techniques that could prove the validity and reliability of the data. Price transmission has been studied extensively and Conforti (2004) researched claims that there were as many as six factors affecting price transmission models. These were Transport and Transaction costs, Market Power, Increasing Returns to Scale in Production, Product Homogeneity and Differentiation, Exchange Rates and Border and Domestic policies. It was believed that these factors contribute to the behaviour of a vertical or horizontal price transmission model. These factors are important to understand, as they will have an influence on the results of future studies (Conforti, 2014). The research looked to provide support and point out weaknesses of price transmission within agriculture. The research was based on a range of countries all of which have a strong basic food commodity trade improving the significance of the studies results. Due to the scale of the investigation it is difficult to generalise the results however a geographical regularity was discovered providing evidence that the price transmission model is accurate. It was also found that transmission within a domestic market is more integrated than transmission between domestic and border prices. When analysing data for a given product it is more reliable to use figures from producers, retailers and wholesalers within a domestic market instead of incorporating world prices. The last finding was that price transmission arose for products that are regulated by public intervention, for example policies. Many of the potential pitfalls highlighted in this study would not affect data, which is contained within one country. The six factors Conforti (2014) identified as price transmission influencers are reciprocated in other studies. An et al (2016) found that boarder and domestic policies were key components to the volatility of wheat and flour market prices in Ukraine. In addition to this Assefa et al (2014) explained how market power affected the asymmetry of Dutch potato prices between retailers and farmers. Farm price decreases were not fully transmitted to the retailer price however farm price increases where almost perfectly transmitted to the retail price. The limited markets available for producers to sell their potatoes explained this. With few retailers, due to their colossal size, there isn't any alternative competition for producers to market their potatoes to. Parsley (2003) inspected the influence exchange rates have on both vertical and horizontal price transmission. The exchange rate pass-through was compared within world prices and within domestic prices. The results demonstrated that individual domestic markets are more responsive to currency rate changes, which isn't reciprocated at world price levels. This was expected as previous research from Goldberg and Knetter (1996) had mirrored these results, however this was on a larger scale and therefore more reliable. Research in to exchange rates and in particular the pass-through is imperative for policy makers within countries as decisions being made will affect the domestic market structure (Baldwin, 1988). This will therefore have an impact on the price of goods and influence the price transmission between producers and retailers. These findings are significant as it confirms that the six influencers Conforti (2014) found, hold true for a large number of markets and therefore need considering when analysing milk prices. Previous Empirical Results The nature of examining price transmission means that using secondary data is the most effective data to use (Lloyd, 2017). Slagboom et al (2016) conducted online surveys to collect primary data to explore the organic dairy industries production in comparison to conventional farmers. Using online surveys meant a large amount of surveys could be conducted however participants may not be motivated to answer appropriately and therefore the validity and reliability of the data is questionable. The study is limited because of the methods Slagboom et al (2016) used in collecting data. Similarly to this Tuckett (2012) used an interview technique to gather market information on financial markets. When using quantitative tests in research it has often been argued that this method of collecting data is unsuitable (Gray, 2013). However Tuckett (2012) found that interviews could be an effective tool for backing up finical data and give explanatory narrative to quantitative data. It has to be noted that this was based solely on one interview, which shows significant fragilities within the research. When conducting this research it will be possible to give qualitative explanations for the data by reading extensively around the topic. Having access to huge amounts of qualitative data online will give sufficient explanations to back up any findings. McLaren (2015) researched world markets and their effect on local agricultural markets asymmetry in price transmission. The consequences in local markets of a poorer price transmission could mean farmers going below the poverty line (Mosley and Suleiman, 2007). Mclaren (2015) found that where there was a bigger presence of large intermediaries, big powerful organisations like Cargill, then the asymmetry is stronger. Local agricultural markets can be harmed, particularly in poorer countries by a high degree of asymmetric price transmission when large intermediaries are present. This is also the case in recent years for UK milk producers who have seen their payments decrease to levels below the cost of production (AHDB. 2017). Investigating the relationship between the producer and retailer has become more interesting recently as it is claimed that retailers have obtained too much buying power (Acosta and Valdes, 2014). They suggest that a lack of communication between the milk sector and government organisations has lead to insufficient policies being used within dairy markets around the world. In view of this, econometric analysis has developed so that the relationships of the price between producers and retailers can be easily studied (Hassouneh et al., 2012). As a result it is possible to understand what causes the price fluctuations. Hassouneh et al's (2012) explored techniques where co-integration and whether unit roots did or did not exist. Unit roots signify whether data is stationary, which means it is reliable and valid for testing. Co-integration examines whether the data has a long run relationship. The methods they used to test for unit roots were the ADF test (Dickey and Fuller, 1979) and the PP test (Perron, 1997). They concluded that if the data had unit roots then it was applicable to test for co-integration. If unit roots are not present then instead use the vector error correction model for co-integration, with stationary data. Hassouneh et al (2012) tested co-integration using Johansen's (1988) approach. It was concluded that if there was co-integration and therefore there was a long run relationship between the two sets of pricing, then further in-depth analysis could be applied. This includes Threshold Vector Error Correction Model and the Smooth Transition Vector Error Correction Model (Hassouneh et al., 2012). If co-integration did not exist then it should be tested using prices in first difference. Weldesenbet (2013) used this methed to test the asymmetric price transmission of liquid milk in Slovakia. There were worries over the productivity of the milk market price transmissions as the country saw a divergence of prices. Johansen's (1988) co-integration test and Granger's (1969) causality test was used. It was proved that the wholesalers and producers prices were co-integrated, as were the retailers and producers prices. The direction of causality is from the producers to the retailers and to the wholesalers, which means that if the producer price changes it effects the retailer price and the wholesaler price and therefore it was concluded that the Slovakian milk market is asymmetric. The methods used were similar to the findings of Hassouneh et al (2012) and the asymmetric results coincide with a volatile milk price seen in Slovakia. Vertical and Horizontal Price Transmission The steps used by Hassouneh et al (2012) and Weldesenbet (2013) are used in much of the contemporary research on price transmission. Bakucs et al (2012) used the same steps, Unit Root test, Co-integration and Causality test to examine the price transmission in the milk sector. The thing that separated this study was that it was one of the first journals to consider the price transmission across two countries, being Poland and Hungary. After confirming cointegration exists they found that in Poland the causality runs from the retailer to the producer however in Hungary it runs from the producer to the retailer. In Poland the retailer price affects the producer's price whereas in Hungary, like Slovakia, the producer's price affects the retailer's price. This was explained by the high power of the dairy producers in Hungary, which does not exist in Poland. What it so effective about the methods used to analyse horizontal price transmission is that it can be applied to any country and any commodity and it is comparable, like in this instance, across two countries. By comparing two countries the study is not limited in the understanding of the speed and size of price adjustments as there is a direct comparison. The differences that arose between the countries gave evidence, which actually explained the speed and nature of price transmission. With a growing uncertainty around milk producers in Europe it is necessary to compare and contrast with similar countries in order to try and gain an understanding of the problems. Most theories suggest that the producer struggles are a result of increases in price from the retailers, which are not being transmitted down steam in the supply chain. In addition Bakucs et al (2012) also conducted the tests with structural breaks, which gives further confidence in the results that where obtained as it shows any shocks and spikes in the prices were considered. Asche et al (2007) used both vertical and horizontal techniques when examining market integration and price transmission of salmon. The usual unit root testing and cointegration tests were applied but the producer prices were from the UK and Norway and the retailer prices were from France. Having multiple countries provided the horizontal aspect of analysing price transmission. The benefits of this are that there is a direct comparison of the two producing countries and therefore the trade disputes that have arisen can be answered for and settled. The results show a high level of integration and price transmission in both UK and Norwegian Salmon. There was no competition between the two countries at producer level however having a high level of price transmission means that any restrictions or advantages across the whole Norwegian supply chain will benefit or harm the UK supply chain at the corresponding level. Therefore the effects of salmon companies in Norway becoming more international could put pressure on the price of the UK producers. While an obvious advantage is that Asche et al (2007) had access to data from 3 countries and 2 complete supply chains the data was only for a six year period. This is a relatively short-medium term period and therefore the data may not be valid in the long run. In addition the French retailer prices could not be separated for Norwegian producers or UK producers leading to more potential inaccuracies. While the horizontal and vertical approaches combined have yielded more functional results, the data restrictions appear to have a large influence on how reliable and creditable the research actually is. There is very little research about the price transition patterns of milk for the UK. Considering the recent hard times of UK milk producers it is surprising that this it has not been more thoroughly investigated. Franks and Hauser's (2012) research collected data using an online survey of UK milk producers, which it could be argued would give an imbalanced view. In addition using an on-line survey to gather data may be unreliable as only those who have a really biased viewpoint will take the time to answer it. The need for the research was because the UK's MMB was disbanded in 1994, which left a void between milk producers and milk retailers. Franks and Hauser (2012) recognised this gap and explored two titles in relation to milk prices; "marginal value in the least remunerative use" or whether "the market had put in place some other mechanism for raising the price upwards" following the MMB collapse. They found that a better transparency of prices would result in better prices for the producer. The producers achieving the best price were the ones selling direct to processors rather than selling to one of three main farmer owned cooperatives. Conclusions found that since the break up of the MMB there could have been more done to protect the prices producers were paid for their milk. While Franks and Hauser (2012) raise some interesting points, there methods mean that only milk producers have taken part in the research. For future research it would be important to get a balanced perspective by using data from both the producers and the retailers. Despite this pitfall, there is an obvious need to look in more depth at the price being paid to producers and whether it reflects the price retailers are receiving. The only current similar research to the price transmission of milk in the UK is for other products. Sanjuan, and Dawson (2003) examined price transmission between the retailer and producer for the prices of beef, lamb and pork. The purpose of this research was to investigate the affect the BSE crisis, which occurred in 1996, had on the meat industry. The methods used to examine the price transmission were the most common, unit root test, co-integration tests and causality tests. This is the same method, which Hassouneh et al (2012) discovered to be reliable when examining price transmission. By focusing on the UK Sanjuan and Dawson (2003) could investigate three different products. This differs to Franks and Hauser (2012) who compared across countries rather across different products. Both are successful and useful for looking at the explanation behind price transmission rather than just the theory. Sanjuan and Dawson (2003) found that the BSE crisis did not have any significant affect on the lamb or pork market. However there was a structural break in producer and retail prices of beef in 1996 in which the price transmission from producer to retailers was poor increasing the retailer's margin and benefitting them as a result. This is as expected, and is consistent with research that finds powerful retailers and intermediaries taking advantage of smaller producers (Dairy Co, 2011). Although Sanjuan and Dawson (2003) were using different products, there are many aspects of the methodology, which can be used to examine the price transmission of milk in the UK, particularly the use of structural breaks that may occur. By incorporating a break date in to the econometric tests Sanjuan and Dawson (2003) were able to judge whether this period of time (in 1996) had a big affect on the relationship between retailer and producer prices. A weakness of this study is that they could have gone further and examined the ECM, which would allow them to see the speed of recovery back to the equilibrium after the shock had occurred. The Common Agricultural Policy In 2003 there was a reform to the European CAP which changed how subsidies were distributed to dairy producers within the UK (Lelyon et al., 2008). This undoubtedly would have implications for the dairy sector as production costs are always increasing and therefore less subsidies would have a massive implication on producers. Zrakic et al (2015) investigated the implications of the 2003 CAP reform on the Croatian dairy industry. By using a simulation model and inputting policy, macroeconomic variables and producers pricing it is possible to forecast the future of the dairy industry. The results found that by 2025 productivity would increase by 25% and the dairy industry in Croatia would be in a more favorable position than before the 2003 reform (Zrakic et al., 2015). It was also suggested that in order to obtain the full benefits of the reform then dairy farmers would have to utilise funds from both the pillar 1 and pillar 2 CAP's. A limitation of using a simulation model like this is that the researchers are only predicting what is going to happen and they cannot allow for any external variables, which could have an effect on the dairy industry, for example Brexit. The data inputted in to the model is based on projections and therefore may be inaccurate and unreliable. Another general limitation of the CAP research is that there are very little studies on the 2003 reform in relation to the milk industry particularly for the UK, thus providing a gap for research. Dairy Retailers Within the UK 40% of raw milk sales are from four main supermarkets, which demonstrates the oligopolistic market (Dairy Co, 2011). A small number of large companies absorb a majority of national milk production. Dairy Co (2011) found that bargaining power, which works in relation to the size of firms, was one of the overriding benefits supermarkets could impose on producers. The main goal for the retailers is to satisfy the consumers, it means they do not proritise with producers (Dairy Co, 2011). The market failure of retailers not transmitting prices downstream to producers in some countries has lead to increased poverty and lower food security (Schroeder and Hayenga, 1987). Retailers offer contracts to producers however Dairy Co (2011) identified weaknesses within these contacts. These include no price certainty, long notice periods and no details on future negotiations. All these factors weaken the position of the producer and it is claimed that milk contracts are simply a "licence to supply" (Dairy Co, 2011). Dairy Producers British dairy farms have been struggling recently and their major concern is that retailers are not paying them a fair price. Farmers have been forced to close their businesses down or even go as far as pouring milk away because they are loosing so much money. Steffen and Spiller (2013) looked in to the efficiency of dairy producers and factors that could be hindering their performance. It was believed that if milk producers were not efficient then they would struggle to make appropriate returns. The results found that one of the main factors contributing to lack of efficiency of dairy farmers was their willingness to adapt techniques and unite together to achieve a targeted milk quota for the future. Steffen and Spiller (2013) believed that increased efficiency throughout the supply chain there would enable dairy producers to be more profitable, even with reduced prices. This suggests that the producer is at fault for recent hard times in the milk industry. de Fatima Oliveira et al (2014) originally opposed this view and believed the price paid to producers had a bigger influence on the milk industry than other factors such as efficiency. This was the reasoning behind their research in to the price transmission of milk within the Portuguese market. They found that when the price of the retailer changes the price paid to the producer did not. This suggests that in Portugal it is not the price that is causing hardship on farms and therefore theory that efficiency is to blame for poor milk price return that Steffen and Spiller (2013) proposed, seems feasible. Bor et al (2014) conducted research in a similar manor to de Fatima Oliveira et al (2014) but for Turkey instead of Portugal. The conclusions contrasted as Bor et al (2014) found that large retailers in Turkey act quickly when the input prices of milk increase but they are slower to react when the inputs decrease. This implies that in Turkey large retailers hold all the power shown by the asymmetric price transmission. It also means the retailers control the producer prices and consumer prices, which is the opposite to the Portuguese milk market. The differences between price transmissions across countries are expected because of the individual markets within the country. Bakucs et al (2014) found that policies, governance, laws, economies and power all bare an effect on a countries agricultural markets. This means that the differences across countries, even though evaluating the same product, are normal. Due to these differences occurring horizontally across countries much research starts by looking vertically initially. The Gap The need to look at the long run relationship of the price of milk between the producer and the consumer is more necessary in the UK due to the issues facing many dairy farmers. The 2003 CAP reform changed how subsidies were distributed to milk producers and there is little research in to the effects of this reform on the price of milk. In addition to this the UK has voted to leave the EU so now is an important time for the domestic milk market as the UK will be creating it's own agricultural policies. If British dairy farmers continue to lose out on price then it could have huge consequences on the whole milk industry. Dairy producers are going out of business and they are blaming it on powerful monopoly retailers for driving prices down and therefore it is necessary to assess how true these claims are. A lack of studies within the UK milk market means there is a need to create foundations which will be useful for policy makers, retailers and producers when moving forwards. In addition, there is significantly more research conducted on the milk markets within foreign countries, which gives them a competitive advantage over the UK. The varied and mixed results found from other countries in previous literature means there is a big gap for research within the UK. Research indicates there was a change in the milk market in 1994 when the MMB disbanded. There is a need to see if this is highlighted as a structural break and if it had any benefits to either party. Other studies researching the price transmission of milk have not considered breaks, which further confirms the need for the research to be conducted. The collection and availability of 'big data' means an appropriate data range is available which has been a limitation of previous studies. METHODOLOGY Research Title The Price Transmission between producers and retailers within the UK milk market. Research Objectives 1. Establish whether a long run relationship exists between producer and retailer milk prices. 2. Investigate the direction of causality between producer and retailer milk prices. 3. Investigate the effects of structural breaks within producer and retailer milk prices. Data Qualitative data is descriptive data, which can be collected via interviews, surveys or by using secondary data. The data is valuable for giving insight and explanation when conducting research. Many previous studies have successfully used qualitative data to provide great depth and reasoning to endorse their analysis. However qualitative data is not suitable for the econometric tests being used when analysising the price transmission of milk. Limitations of qualitative data are that it is hard to interpret and it is not easy to gather data over a large time scale (Silverman, 2011). These limitations rule out using qualitative data in this research. This research will benefit from using quantitative data, as this is suitable for the econometric tests, which will be used to examine vertical price transmission. Using quantitative data will mean objective results will be obtained. This will give a definitive answer to the research question proposed. In addition it will be possible to acquire a large range of data, which will be important for this research. Quantitative data however, does not give the level of insight and detail which qualitative data does, which is a limitation (Silverman, 2011). Primary data is collected first hand, which has the advantage of being tailored and personalised to exactly what is required. Collecting primary data is time consuming, which is a limitation of this research. Primary data is often expensive to collect and usually the results have to be manipulated to make the data usable, which can be time intensive. If the data is collected first hand then the researcher can be sure it is trustworthy or can add variables when collecting the data to make it adhere to features of the methodology. It is difficult to obtain a significant amount of observations in order to collect a suitable amount of data (Saunders, 2011). It will not be possible to collect a large range of time series data and because it is already available primary data is not suitable for this research. The benefits of conducting the analysis with secondary data are that it is easy to obtain a large amount of reliable prices for both the consumer and producer (Saunders, 2011). In addition to this with the time constraints of this research, using secondary is the only viable way to gather the range of data required. The data needed is readily available and is to be sourced from the Office for National Statistics, (2016) which is a trusted and accurate resource for secondary data. The milk prices will be collected for a range of 18 years, which is a sufficient length of time to be able to analyse the long run relationship. Time series data is discrete-time data, which will be used to give monthly increments from 1988 to 2016. The advantages of using time series data is that it allows a comparison of two variables at predetermined time intervals and therefore it is possible to see any correlations (Adams et al., 2014). An alternative would be panel data, which is data, which spans space as well as time. An advantage of panel data is that by combining two dimensions the data has more variation and more degrees of freedom (Saunders, 2011). However for this specific research panel data is harder to obtain and because the only variable we require are the retailer prices and the producer prices, time series data will be used. Testing for Non-stationary data The first step will be to check the data is stationary, which proves whether data is reliable and valid. This will be done by checking the data has unit roots, for both of the variables. The tests for this are the PP (1997) unit root test and the ADF (1979) unit root test. The tests will help establish if there is a trend in the data or whether there are any extreme values. The reason for using two tests is so that we can be absolutely sure the data is valid and reliable. Previous studies have used only one of these tests, which can raise questions over the quality of their data. DeJong et al (1992) argued that the PP test had less power in practice than the ADF test; therefore it is necessary to conduct both. Nonstationary variables mean that there could be statistical issues, like spurious regression or non-sense regression, when analysing a time-series (Cuthbertson and Nitzsche, 2005). This would mean that further statistical interpretation may seem in unity with theory, however the results are not valid and not reliable (Greene, 2012). For this reason it is vital to firstly prove stationarity. Stationary time series' can be described as having a constant mean, constant variance and constant autocovariances for each given lag (Brooks, 2014). Using Eviews econometrics software it is possible to conduct both the PP test and ADF tests for both the retailer prices and the producer prices to gain instant results (Griffiths et al., 2012). Firstly the data will be tested in level on Eviews, if the variables are nonstationary then the data will be tested for the first difference (Griffiths et al., 2012). In addition it will be important to run the unit root test with breaks, which are shocks within the data. This will confirm that the data is stationary even with the shocks included, which enhances the reliability. It will only be possible to move on to the cointegration tests once it is proved the data is stationary (Maddala and Lahiri, 2009). Bai-Perron Bai and Perron (2003) investigated structural change models for a range of different elements including the techniques used to select the quantity of breaks, the consistency of break dates and the tests involved in identifying structural changes. The Bai-Perron test can find multiple structural breaks using a bivariate analysis of a relationship. This will give an indication of whether there are structural breaks that occur as a result of the relationship between retailer and producer prices (Bai and Perron, 2003). It will also give up to 5 separate breaks, while other additional tests concerning breaks in the relationships can only show up to two breaks. This is a benefit when using such a large time series of data. Co-integration When it is proved that the variables are stationary then the second test will be to check if the two variables have a long run relationship. The initial analysis of cointegration is to investigate whether it actually exists within the data. The test to examine this is called Johansen (1988) and it tests for long run relationships regardless of breaks or shocks, which may occur within the data (Greene, 2012). Johansen (1988) test starts with the VAR model: Yt = p + A1Yt-1 + A2Yt-2 + ■■■ + ApYt-p + et (1) In equation (1) Yt simultaneously represents both the variables which are integrated in order I(1), producer prices and retailer prices. The VECM is then created: AYt = v + r1AYt-1 + r2AYt-2 + ■■■ + rp-1AYt-p+1 - nYt-± + £t, (2) where: rt = -I + A± + A2+-----+ Ai is the matrix for each differenced lag. For 1 = 1,2, ...,k- 1 and n = I - At + A2 + ■■■ + Ak Johansen (1988) uses two key statistics for testing for cointegration, the trace statistic and the maximum eigenvalue statistic. The likelihood ratio tests used to acquire the statistics are: Trace Statistic = -Tln(l - 1) (3) Maximum Eigenvalue Statistic = -Tln(l - ^r+1) (4) For equation (3) the null hypothesis tested is that there are at most r cointegrating vectors present. This means the number of cointegrating vectors is < r, when r equal to 0 or equal to 1. For both values of r the null hypothesis is examined against the general alternative hypothesis. For equation (4) the null hypothesis of r = 0 is tested against the alternative hypothesis of r = 1, then the null hypothesis of r = 1 is tested against the alternative hypothesis of r = 2. If Johansens (1988) test shows one cointegrating vector it means there is a long run relationship between the retailer prices and the producer prices and that one mutual trend is causing the comovement of the two price variables (Chang et al., 2004). The Johansen test can then be conducted with breaks, which ensures that spikes or shocks within the data are not affecting the cointegration. Engle-Granger Cointegration Engle-Granger (1987) is one of the most widely used and reputable cointegration tests (Maddala and Lahiri, 2009). Engle and Granger (1987) stated that after proving both variables (retailer prices and producer prices) are stationary in first levels I(1) we can estimate the cointegration regression by OLS. yt = C + axt + et (5) After identifying the residuals seen in equation (5), the second step is to examine them through a unit root test. This is done by using the PP (2003) test, and if the residuals are stationary then it can be concluded that there is a long run relationship between retailer prices and producer prices. Error Correction Model Cointegration indicates the presence of an ECM. This model establishes how long it takes for the variables to return to a new equilibrium after a shock has occurred (Maddala and Lahiri, 2009). This is used to understand the speed of recovery, which will provide further understanding about the relationship between the two variables. Additionally, it will enable suggestions to be made on how to improve future policies. Granger Causality Once the long run relationship is established it is necessary to check the relationship in the short run (up to 5 years), as it may not yield the same results as the long run relationship. The Granger, (1969) causality test will examine the short run relationship and test if there is: • Unidirectional causality - the price of the producer affects the price of the consumer. • Unidirectional causality - the price of the consumer affects the price of the producer. • Bilateral causality - both the price of the producer and the price of the consumer affect each other. • Independence - no relationship between the price of the producer and the price of the retailer. This will establish the direction of causality, which is necessary in this research to understand which variable, retailer or producer price, is having an effect on the other. Grasping this causality will enhance the ability to make future suggestions on the milk market. Momentum Threshold Autoregressive Enders and Granger (1998) and Enders and Siklos (2001) developed the M-TAR model, which tests for asymmetries. The MTAR model is given by equation (6). A|jt = ItPtA^t-i + (1 - /t)p2+ Ipi Yi*Ht-j + £t (6) p1 and p2 are the coefficients which signify the different speeds of adjustment when there is a divergence from the long run relationship (equilibrium). We test for the null hypothesis of no cointegration by using the equation p1=p2=0 in an F-test. The critical values come from Enders and Siklos, (2001). If a cointegration relationship exists then we apply an F-test to p1= p2 with the null hypothesis of symmetry to determine whether asymmetries exist. Empirical Data Figure 1: Natural Logarithms of the Producer and Retailer Prices, UK milk, 1988 - 2016 5.5 3.9 Ln in o o 5 o 59 o o 59 o o 59 o o 59 o o o o CTl