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

net/publication/358410325

Vegetable Trade Flows and Chain Competitiveness Linkage Analysis Based on

Spatial Panel Econometric Modelling and Porter’s Diamond Model

Article in Agronomy · February 2022

DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12020411

CITATIONS READS

28 404

6 authors, including:

Marius Constantin Mihail Dumitru Sacală

Bucharest University of Economic Studies Bucharest University of Economic Studies
53 PUBLICATIONS 423 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mihai Dinu Maria Pistalu

Bucharest University of Economic Studies Bucharest University of Economic Studies
42 PUBLICATIONS 212 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marius Constantin on 11 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 agronomy
Article
Vegetable Trade Flows and Chain Competitiveness Linkage
Analysis Based on Spatial Panel Econometric Modelling and
Porter’s Diamond Model
Marius Constantin 1, * , Mihail-Dumitru Sacală 2 , Mihai Dinu 1 , Maria Pis, talu 1 ,
Simona Roxana Pătărlăgeanu 1 and Irina-Denisa Munteanu 2

1 Department of Agri-Food and Environmental Economics, Faculty of Agri-Food and Environmental

Economics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest, Romania;
mihai.dinu@eam.ase.ro (M.D.); maria.pistalu@eam.ase.ro (M.P.); rpatarlageanu@eam.ase.ro (S.R.P.)
2 Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Faculty of Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, Bucharest
University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest, Romania; mihai.sacala@csie.ase.ro (M.-D.S.);
irinadmunteanu@gmail.com (I.-D.M.)
* Correspondence: marius.constantin@eam.ase.ro

Abstract: The vegetable sector plays an important role in ensuring food security. Vegetable trade
flows in Romania have become a major concern due to constant trade balance deficits despite the
country’s agricultural potential. Taking into account the paradox between what could be considered
an abundance of factor endowments and poor trade balance results, the objective of this research
was to study the linkage between vegetable trade flows and chain competitiveness. Spatial panel




econometric methods were used to study the impact of the international vegetable market on the

 demand in Romania, while the Balassa index and Porter’s diamond modelling techniques were
Citation: Constantin, M.; used to study the competitiveness of the vegetable chain at both county and national levels. By
Sacală, M.-D.; Dinu, M.; Pis, talu, M.; applying the spatial regression method to the international trade and national production panel
Pătărlăgeanu, S.R.; Munteanu, I.-D. data, it was found that an increase in the quantity of vegetables imported into Romania would
Vegetable Trade Flows and Chain
cause an even greater decrease in national vegetable production. The results show that Romanian
Competitiveness Linkage Analysis
vegetable production is highly and negatively influenced by the growing appetite for imports—
Based on Spatial Panel Econometric
therefore leading to a national dependence on the global vegetable chain. Porter’s diamond model
Modelling and Porter’s Diamond
results confirm that: (a) growing vegetables is profitable in Romania and the average profit margin
Model. Agronomy 2022, 12, 411.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
is higher in this economic sector than in many others; (b) there is a lack of competitiveness caused
agronomy12020411 by the post-communist excessively fragmented agrarian land structure and poor performance of
the irrigation, warehousing, and transportation sectors; (c) the national production of vegetables is
Academic Editor: Peter J. Batt
generally self-sufficient with the exception of three counties that resort to importing and account
Received: 13 January 2022 for more than 70% of Romania’s total vegetable imports; (d) factor endowments cannot be fully
Accepted: 4 February 2022 harnessed, and this contributes to the deepening of the trade balance deficits. Improvement is possible
Published: 6 February 2022 by fostering competitiveness through increasing the performance of supporting industries and the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
logistics infrastructure, as well as removing market access barriers for the many small farmers.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- Keywords: agricultural performance; Balassa index; economic competitiveness; food security;
iations. Porter’s diamond model; competitive advantage; trade balance; vegetable production

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. 1. Introduction

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Vegetable consumption is continuously increasing in the EU, while the production of
This article is an open access article
vegetables in Romania has been decreasing [1]. The agricultural sector makes a significant
distributed under the terms and
contribution to the Romanian economy, especially when considering its share in the national
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
gross domestic product. Moreover, this industry plays a key role in Romania’s international
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
trade and acts as one of the pillars in ensuring food security nationally, as well as in the
4.0/).
EU and other countries. However, there is an urgent need for sectorial convergence in

Agronomy 2022, 12, 411. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020411 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 2 of 27

the sense of harnessing the national agricultural potential in order to achieve high levels
of competitiveness, especially on international markets. Subsistence-based small-scale
farming is a common vegetable production pattern that goes hand-in-hand with the lack
of competitiveness in the vegetable global value chain, mainly due to the small quantities
of vegetables produced nationally [2–4]. Romania’s natural resources act as the premise
for generating competitiveness in terms of agricultural production, both economically and
qualitatively [5,6]. If properly taken into account, national production could cover the
domestic demand and even allow farmers to obtain additional profit by exporting surplus
agri-food products to the international market [7,8]. However, the current situation is rather
different: the national food market depends on the import of agri-food products, vegetables
being no exception [9,10]. Even though Romania’s cereal production is significant when
compared to other players in the global market, the export of raw materials is offset by the
growing import of processed foods which have led to a steady increase in Romania’s trade
deficit for agri-food products.
Regarding food production capabilities, Romania is one of the EU’s leading producers
of cereals [11,12]. Romania reached a national production peak of 31.5 million tons of
cereals in 2018 [13]. As far as the vegetable sector is concerned, the temperate continental
climate is beneficial for Romania, which has a variety of factor endowments to facilitate the
production of a wide range of vegetables. In 2020, Romania had more than 400,000 hectares
in vegetable production [13], and, although the area dedicated to growing vegetables has
not significantly decreased during the last decade, the production volumes have decreased
at an exacerbated rate. The production of soybeans, early potatoes, autumn potatoes, sugar
beet, white cabbage, tomatoes, dried onions, peppers, eggplants, and dried garlic was
4.1 million tons in 2011, which decreased to 3.5 million tons in 2020. On the other hand, the
demand for vegetables has increased worldwide during the last decade, with a significant
increase in vegetable imports, especially into Romania [14,15].
Generally, vegetables are an important part of the diet for most Romanians, although
females tend to consume more than males [16]. The diet of Romanians is rather diverse,
and it ensures nutrition security, although low levels of income have been observed in
a handful of regions [17], which influences food purchasing behaviors. The Romanian
post-communist fragmented agricultural landscape with millions of smallholders has seen
the emergence of subsistence agriculture and poor dietary diversity in the rural areas of
Romania [18]. In these areas, income is a crucial factor impacting dietary diversification,
a factor that constrains the rural population to resort to self-consumption of agricultural
products grown on subsistence farms [19,20]. Besides the income factor, dietary preferences
are also influenced by other factors, such as age, gender, and educational level, as studied
by Muresan et al. [21], whose research focused on explaining an increased preference for
sustainable food in more wealthy Romanian regions. In the urbanized areas of Romania,
the increasing consumption of fast-foods is rapidly becoming a major health issue [22],
while rural areas face a completely different type of issue—that of low levels of food
affordability and, in some rare cases, even availability [23]. However, the daily calorie
intake per capita in Romania has seen a constant increase, and Romanians tend to consume
increasing volumes of carbohydrates [24], which also includes vegetables.
Romanian horticulture is a traditional activity of great economic importance [25,26],
which has developed over time as a consequence of many favorable natural conditions [27].
However, Romania’s chronic trade balance deficits for agri-food products, including veg-
etables, was demonstrated by research carried out over a ten year span: 2007–2016 [28].
Food security is a complex topic that can be approached from different angles, but one
of the most recurrent approaches in the literature is that of agricultural production—as
significant volumes of domestic production are crucial to a country’s independence from
external sources [29,30]. It is widely considered that achieving food security objectives
is possible by implementing a model of sustainable agricultural production at the level
of local communities [31]. Additionally, even though food security has been achieved
in Romania, at least in terms of quantity [32], there is room for some components to be
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 3 of 27

consolidated in order to improve the food security level, such as: fostering the national
production of processed agri-food products instead of selling raw agricultural products.
Based on a review of other empirical studies, Table 1 identifies the convergence points of
multiple studies on the topic of the international vegetable trade.
Encouraging the production of vegetables at a national level in Romania calls for
efficient horticulture, with high levels of competitiveness, in the context of an increasing
globalization of agricultural markets [33,34]. Stimulating Romanian agricultural exports
and international relationships in this sector are just a few efficient methods for spurring
national agricultural production and the economic activities in rural areas of Romania.
The economic growth generated by agriculture is influenced by international commercial
activities, and Romania should pursue it and respond to the requirements of a global
agri-food market. The road to agricultural competitiveness, the vegetable chain included,
is paved with a healthy commercial policy regarding agri-food products, fully harmonized
with the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy and other specific international
trade requirements for agri-food products [35,36].
The global exchange of vegetables makes a significant contribution to the added
value of the national agri-food value chain, which includes the large, medium, and small
vegetable producers. While it is true that such international exchanges can generate profit,
it is important not to neglect the requirements for ensuring a high level of food security [37].
Considering both the COVID-19 pandemic, its negative effects on food supply chains, and
Romania’s competitive advantage, the Romanian government decided to stop exporting
cereals outside the European Union, right after the outbreak of the pandemic in the early
spring of 2020, in order to ensure high levels of food security [38]. This decision was meant
to last for as long as the COVID-19 state of emergency was in force. However, public
policies such as these can act as a brake in the face of sustainable development, more
specifically, Sustainable Development Goal 1—Zero Hunger [39–41].
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 4 of 27

Table 1. Empirical studies on the international commercial trade in vegetables and their connection with the Romanian context.

Author(s) & Publication Year Method Findings Observations Findings in Relation to the Romanian Context
The authors highlight the essential role of local
Innovation is needed to improve the Romanian
Case study on the export-oriented fresh fruit institutions, innovation systems, and R&D in This research was focused on the fresh fruit
Park and Gachukia, 2021 [42] supporting industries and ensure the integration
and vegetable sector supporting the local links and their integration in and vegetable sector in Kenya
of small farmers in the vegetable value chain
the vegetable global value chain
Domestic political economy dynamics has played
The role of the state is important in harnessing the
Historically grounded form of political a central role in horticultural success. The state’s The authors focused on the main success
Tyce, 2020 [43] horticultural potential in terms of economic
settlement analysis regulatory role is crucial in regard to vegetable stories in sub-Saharan Africa
income
taxation and export licensing.
All the external resources included in the
The Romanian vegetable market needs more time
production and distribution of foods, including Another topic tackled by this research is the
The critical control points method; in order for the initial chain links to put the final
Martindale et al., 2020 [44] vegetables, should be re-evaluated from the resilience of the global food supply through
multi-indicator methods experience of consumers at the top of their priority
perspective of their impact on the final experience the lens of food security and sustainability
ranking
of the consumers, the last chain link
In the context of the rapid evolution of agri-food
exports in the global value chain, the main The research was focused on the The Romanian vegetable value chain demands
Feyaerts et al., 2020 [45] Review of empirical evidence challenge remains to enhance and increase the relationship between the global and local more attention in terms of its integration on the
efficiency along the links of the local food value food value chains in Africa global market
chains
Along the Japanese regional vegetable supply
chains, the vegetables are not delivered to a
market but are instead discarded in the field. This The authors of this research focused on the Food waste is an issue encountered due to high
Wakiyama et al., 2019 [46] Footprint analysis issue is mitigated by governmental measures regional Japanese agri-food products price volatility during peak harvesting seasons,
correlated with the relationship between the supply chains, including vegetables which causes a loss of competitiveness.
regional supply chains and the vegetable global
value chain.
The Romanian agri-food sector is marked by
The Romanian small farms are in the
subsistence and semi-subsistence farms, and,
Correlation of statistical data and national & spotlight of this research and, in particular,
von Oppenkowski et al., 2019 [47] because of that, the authors argue that informal Not applicable
international policies their lack of contribution to the global
markets must be included in the global agri-food
agri-food value chain
value chain and the global production networks
The mix of the existing institutional framework,
The authors focused on Nigeria’s
infrastructure, and logistics issues, on the one side, Some areas of Nigeria are facing the same issues
A single-case, embedded research design was contribution to the global horticulture
and market penetration issues and stakeholders’ noticed in Romania concerning competitiveness
Olaitan et al., 2019 [48] applied, with a total of 26 participants value chains, restricting the research to five
incompetence, on the other side, are prominent loss: (a) poor infrastructure and logistics,
(including farmers) key stakeholder groups situated upstream
barriers that require viable resolutions if (b) market integration issues.
in the supply chain
horticultural product exports are to increase
Traditional Indonesian food retail appears not to
This research is specific to Indonesia’s
A mix of qualitative and quantitative research be in complete demise but rather adaptive and Agri-food sector tends to be resilient, but it does
Vetter et al., 2019 [49] agri-food system and its integration in the
methods resilient to its modern competitors in the global not mean that it is internationally competitive
global agri-food value chains
agri-food value chains
It is possible to design a mechanism for increasing
The relationship between the global Ensuring food security is a priority, but the
the supply of fruits and vegetables in developing
Thow and Priyadarshi, 2013 [50] Qualitative and quantitative methods vegetable value chain and public health economic competitiveness of the vegetable sector
countries, contribute to achieving food security,
issues was emphasized. should not be neglected
and to mitigating health issues.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 5 of 27

Table 1. Cont.

Author(s) & Publication Year Method Findings Observations Findings in Relation to the Romanian Context
Responsibilities for preventive consumer
protection constantly change in the case of Considering the high price volatility in Romania
international commercial trade in fruits and The authors concentrated on elaborating an in the case of vegetable production, a risk
A range of qualitative and quantitative
vegetables, just like any other food chain. As a instrument—a proactive risk management management system is needed in order to mitigate
Raab et al., 2013 [51] methods and tools: tree diagram, failure
result, the authors designed a proactive risk system in the global fruit and vegetable the negative effects of the poor performance of the
mode, and effects analysis
management system for the selection of suppliers value chains supporting industries and the decoupling of small
and the evaluation of risks in the international farmers from the global market
trade in fruits and vegetables
Increased high-value exports from the horticulture
The uniqueness of this study resides in the The vegetable sector can contribute more
sector and the modernization of export supply
fact that the horticulture export activities in efficiently to the welfare of the Romanian economy
chains cause important positive welfare effects on
Maertens et al., 2012 [52] Mix of research methods sub-Saharan Africa were approached from if decision-makers adopt strategies designed to
the economy. This can occur in various ways
the perspective of various regional supply support the day-to-day agricultural activities of
through the effects of the product or the labor
chains farmers
market—directly or indirectly
Because of the demand for vegetables, the UK puts
a great deal of pressure on the global agri-food This research contributes to the field of
Romania should strive to properly integrate small
value chain. Through its high demand, the UK international vegetable trade with a unique
farmers in the global agri-food value chain and
Interview, empirical research review, short influences the chain over all its stages, from the perspective regarding the governmental
Dolan and Humphery, 2004 [53] focus on findings solutions to connect the national
statistical analysis way crops are grown to their processing and actions concerning the trade in fresh
production capabilities with UK’s demand for
storage, even though the UK does not take vegetables between Africa and the United
vegetables
ownership of the products until they are delivered Kingdom
to regional distribution centers.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 6 of 27

Regarding the nexus of national economic competitiveness–vegetable production–

trade balance results in the case of Romania, the literature does not abound with papers
tackling this topic, especially not in an econometric manner. In this regard, there is a gap
in the literature. However, there are some studies that touch on this subject. For example,
Enache [54] constructed a vector autoregressive econometric model to highlight the impact
of economic shocks on the import activities of agricultural products, hinting at Romania’s
lack of competitiveness and risk of becoming dependent on the global agri-food chain. By
constructing vector autoregressive and co-integration models, Dinu et al. [55] carried out
an econometric study of the causality links between the Romanian imports of agricultural
products, on the one hand, and the domestic absorption and exchange rate dynamics, on
the other hand, signaling once again policy dysfunctions: Romania has the potential to
be competitive in the global agri-food chain by processing raw materials and exporting
processed food, but the economic reality shows the opposite. Dragos and Mare [56] used
the ordered logit and binary logit econometric models to identify the factors influencing
the agricultural insurance policy in Romania, signaling that, among all Romanian agri-food
producers, only the vegetable producers were fully aware of the economic importance
and necessity of crop insurance. The short-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the
agri-food value chains were studied by Ignat and Constantin [57], who noticed significantly
more impulsive purchasing behaviors caused by the sanitary crisis and hinted at Romania’s
dependence on imports in order to meet the national food demand in an economically
competitive manner. However, in the context of the Just Transition in the EU [58], trading
in agri-food products on the global market calls for more than economic competitiveness:
it calls for security and sustainability [59].
This research was aimed at covering the identified gap in the literature regarding the
lack of econometric studies of Romania’s dependence on international vegetable imports
in relation to the national production capabilities. Moreover, the goal was to bring con-
tributions to the literature regarding the linkage between the production, trade balance,
and competitiveness. Considering Romania’s potential factor endowments in the agri-food
industry and its vital role in ensuring food security—not only nationally [15] but also in
the EU [60]—it is important to explore the mix of actions that could efficiently contribute to
the transformation of Romania’s agricultural sector.
Therefore, the main objective of this research was to analyze the commercial flows of
fresh vegetables in the case of Romania in relation to local production patterns and identify
the reasons why this country with specific factor endowments is lacking competitiveness in
the case of the vegetable chain. Thus, an econometric analysis was conducted with respect
to the spatial relationship between the variation in Romanian vegetable production and
the variation in international commercial flows of vegetables. Afterwards, with respect
to the competitiveness of Romanian vegetables chains, Porter’s diamond model [61] was
adapted to the research data with the purpose of identifying local weaknesses in the chain,
as well as at a national level. Lastly, the ultimate goal of these comprehensive analyses was
to assist and support finding the best solutions specific to mitigating the negative impact of
Romania’s international trade flows on vegetable chain competitiveness.
The novelty factor of this research resides in the mix of research methods used to
assess the competitiveness of the Romanian vegetable chain in relation to the country’s
international trade flows—(a) the spatial panel econometric methods were used to study the
reactions of the global vegetable market in relation to Romania’s market demand; (b) the
Balassa index and Porter’s diamond model were used to study the competitiveness of the
Romanian vegetable chain at county and national levels.
Structured in four sections, this research paper began with Section 1, in which an
extensive literature review was developed on the papers regarding the global vegetable
chain—approached in various manners and in relation to relevant topics, such as the
production and consumption of agri-food products. Section 2 sets the methodological
ground for Section 3, which includes the main findings of the research. Finally, the authors
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 7 of 27

highlight the conclusions of this study, without overlooking its limitations, which are
presented in the Conclusions (Section 4), together with future research directions.

2. Materials and Methods

In order to meet the research objectives, import and export data were extracted from
Romania’s National Institute of Statistics database, TEMPO Online, for the selected period:
2011–2020. In order to observe a broad time interval, the longest period available was
selected. Data were collected at county-level and then aggregated. Additionally, at the
moment of carrying out this research, most recent data related to the Romanian companies
and their financial results corresponding to the fiscal year 2020 were extracted from Top-
Firme (https://www.topfirme.com/; accessed on 18 January 2022), an online aggregator
platform that extracts and processes Romanian Ministry of Public Finance data.
In certain situations, a simple regression model is not enough because of the spatial
dependencies between observations, in which case the hypothesis on the independence
of errors would not be observed. Lately, the spatial model has been extended towards
panel data sets, such models taking into consideration both spatial dependencies and
dependence-based errors or dependencies caused by the temporal lag of the chronological
series [62]. Authors such as Kapoor et al. [63], Baltagi et al. [64], and Lee and Yu [65] have
developed and generalized models that contain dependencies, spatial errors, and fixed or
random effects, also proposing a series of tests for choosing the most adequate model for
eventual estimates (e.g., the Hausmann test). One of the best-known such models, often
used in empirical studies, is the one created by Baltagi and Li [66].
As for the spatial interactions, there are three types that can be taken into considera-
tion [67]. The first one measures the extent to which the dependent variable in unit depends
on the dependent variable in unit j (j being different from i). This effect is calculated
with the help of a spatial weight matrix WYit , which illustrates the structure of the spatial
dependencies among the observations of the endogenous variable. Such a model (SAR) is
observed in Equation (1) [68]:

Yit = ρWYit + Xit β + Uit (1)

ρ represents the spatial autoregressive parameter, while Ut is another vector measuring

the well-behaved disturbances. A second model measures the effect of the correlations
among the error terms with the help of a spatial weight matrix Wµt , which illustrates
that the units may have similar behavior due to an unnoticed characteristic. Such a SEM
model is represented in Equation (2). λ represents the intensity of the residual spatial
correlation, while Ut represents the vector measuring the well-behaved disturbances. A
model including both effects, called SARAR, looks like that observed in Equation (3) [67]:

Yit = Xit β + Uit , Uit = λWUit + ε it (2)

Yit = ρWYit + Xit β + Uit , Uit = λWUit + ε it (3)

The ρ and λ parameters measure the power of these spatial dependencies. For panel
data, the model includes the fixed or random effects, as in Equation (4) [67].

Yit = ρWYit + Xit β + µi + Uit , Uit = λWUit + ε it (4)

µ is a vector of spatial fixed or random effects.

In order to test which of these dependencies should be included in the regression
model, the following tests must be performed: LM test for a spatial lag with H0 : there
is no spatial lag dependence of the independent variable (the classical regression model
is adequate) and H1 : there is a spatial lag dependence of the independent variable (the
spatial regression model is the adequate one); LM robust test for spatial lag and spatial
errors with H0 : there are no spatial lag dependencies or spatial errors and H1 : there are
spatial lag dependencies or spatial errors. Moreover, in order to use such a model, it is
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 8 of 27

necessary to validate it using the following tests: Baltagi, Song, and Koh SLM2 marginal
test with H0 : there is no spatial autocorrelation (the classical regression model is adequate)
and H1 : random effects; Hausman test for spatial models with H0 : the two models produce
similar coefficients and H1 : the two models do not produce similar coefficients (the fixed
effects model is the best choice).
After having obtained the test results, the most appropriate model was chosen that
could best explain the relationship between the endogenous and exogenous variables and
offered an interpretation of the resulting coefficients. Access to these models has increased
as new types of software were developed that can be used to perform the necessary tests.
The two types of software used in this study were Geoda (dedicated software for spatial
econometrics) and the splm package for the R software. They offer an ideal environment
due to the already existing tools and infrastructure for panel data analysis. The package
for the R software is a comprehensive and important tool in estimating these econometric
models by integrating both the spatial components between observations and the ones
that appeared between errors, as well as various methods for estimating the regression
coefficients [69]. Additionally, both fixed and random effects models can be implemented.
The Geoda software helps create the spatial weight matrix, which is then introduced into
the R to create the spatial models [70].
Considering that national vegetable production is measured in physical units (tons)
and the imports and exports are measured in thousands of EUR, the physical quantities
have been transformed into values by multiplying them by the average product price. At
the end, the values were divided by the average exchange rate. The available data extracted
from the TEMPO Online database are limited to the following vegetables: soybeans, early
potatoes, autumn potatoes, sugar beet, white cabbage, tomatoes, dried onions, peppers,
eggplants, and dried garlic.
In order to analyze the relationship between the two variables, production, and import,
the R and Geoda software were used, creating a spatial regression model. The produc-
tion variable was the dependent one, while the import variable was the one considered
independent. Data were studied in the panel-type structure with a view to capturing the
individual characteristics, alongside the structural adjustment dynamics. In this way, the
efficiency and consistency of the econometric estimates are enhanced. Thus, the observa-
tions were divided by the 42 Romanian counties and by several successive periods of time
over a 10-year time span (2011–2020). In order to integrate the spatial link between the
observations regarding each county into the model, a spatial weight matrix of the queen
type was created, which indicates any proximity between observations. Because the model
includes spatial coefficients, it was only used to assess the relationship between the two
variables of interest and not for making estimates.
Regarding the competitiveness assessment of the Romanian vegetable chain, a county-
level approach (N = 40 counties) was adapted to Porter’s diamond model [37], with the
exception of Bucharest and Ilfov—two Romanian counties with little to no agricultural
potential [71–73] yet generators of more than half of Romania’s deficit for vegetables. The
population densities in these two counties are among the highest of those recorded in
Romania [74]. The following variables were included in the model, as explained in Table 2,
per Porter’s diamond attributes [61]. Data were normalized according to a zero (least
favorable) to one (most favorable) scale by reporting the difference between the data at
county level and the least favorable situation at a national level to the difference between
the most favorable situation and the least favorable one at national level, which made
it possible to determine the competitiveness levels between counties based on the four
analyzed attributes and variables.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 9 of 27

Table 2. Description of the variables considered in the construction of Porter’s diamond model.

Porter’s Diamond Attributes Variable Code Variable Name Rationale

Firm Strategy,

Profit of the companies registered under The 0331 NACE code consists of activities dedicated to the
and Rivalry

C1.1
Structure

0331 NACE Code growing of vegetables and melons, roots, and tubers. Values
closer to one signal highly performant Romanian counties based
Profit margin of the companies registered
C1.2 on the economic and financial results of the companies
under 0331 NACE Code
growing vegetables.
C1.3 Profit per hectare of vegetable crops
Nowak and Kaminska [75] assessed agricultural
C2.1 Area cultivated with vegetables
Conditions

competitiveness in the EU at country level by resorting to many

Factor

Share of area cultivated with vegetable variables, including agricultural area. The literature is rich in
C2.2 similar research [76–78]. Moreover, machinery used in
from total agricultural area
Combines for potato harvesting and other agricultural activities is essential in the assessment of
C2.3 agricultural competitiveness [79,80].
similar machinery
The 5210 NACE code consists of activities dedicated to
Profit of the companies registered under
Related and
Supporting

C3.1 warehousing and storage. As studied in Refs. [81–84], storage

Industries

5210 NACE Code facilities, warehousing, and efficient logistics management are
Profit margin of the companies registered essential for ensuring high levels of economic competitiveness
C3.2 in the agri-food sector, as well as a performant transportation
under 5210 NACE Code
C3.3 Length of public roads infrastructure [85].
A comprehensive assessment model of agricultural production
also includes evaluating the state of agricultural trade flows
Conditions

C4.1 Value of imported vegetables

Demand

[86,87]. High volumes of deficit signal possible food security

threats [88] and poor agri-food sector resilience [89]. However,
Value of imported vegetables reported to they can also contribute to market development [90]. Regarding
C4.2 income, it is a variable of great importance in evaluating
the value of exported vegetables
C4.3 Average monthly nominal net earnings demand conditions [91].

Porter’s diamond model represents a framework that facilitates the exploration of the
reasons why certain economic sectors within a nation are competitive internationally, as
well as the reasons why they are less competitive [92]. The analysis requires data at the level
of four attributes that are displayed in the form of a diamond: (1) Firm Strategy, Structure
and Rivalry; (2) Factor Conditions; (3) Related and Supporting Industries; and (4) Demand
Conditions. The first attribute refers to the national context in which enterprises are
active and how different managerial approaches can foster innovation and competitiveness.
Domestic rivalry is an essential instrument to ensure international competitiveness, forcing
enterprises to develop economically efficient and sustainable business strategies. Factor
conditions refer to the natural capital and other types of resources: financial, technological,
labor, etc. This diamond attribute puts into the spotlight how different factor endowments
contribute to achieving competitiveness internationally. The third diamond attribute is
dedicated to the analysis of the foundation on which the focal economic sector within a
nation can excel internationally. The fourth diamond attribute considers the rest of the
attributes that connect with the market.
With the aim of providing a multidimensional analysis of the competitiveness of the
Romanian vegetable sector, the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) was also calculated,
as defined by Balassa [93] and explained in Equation (5), by reporting Romania’s vegetable
export share from Romania’s total exports to the world’s vegetable export share from total
world’s exports.
Xij Xnj

RCAij = (5)
Xik Xnk
where: X represents the export value, i represents Romania, j represents the analyzed prod-
uct/group of agri-products (vegetables in the case of this research), k represents all traded
goods, while n represents the world. RCA values greater than one denote an advantageous
competitive situation, while an RCA lower than one signals poor comparative advantage.
Moreover, the evolution of the Balassa index was studied in this paper.

3. Results
3.1. Spatial Panel Econometric Modelling
The impact of the Romanian trade balance concerning the vegetable chain in the
national trade balance for agri-food products was considerable, especially in 2020, charac-
 3. Results
3.1. Spatial Panel Econometric Modelling
The impact of the Romanian trade balance concerning the vegetable chain in the na-
tional trade balance for agri-food products was considerable, especially in 2020, charac-
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 10 of 27
terized by a deficit of 391,059 thousand EUR, the fourth-most important source of Roma-
nia’s trade balance deficit for agri-food products. With respect to the structure of the trade
balance deficit in Romania in 2020 in the case of the 24 agri-food product categories as
terized by a deficit of 391,059 thousand EUR, the fourth-most important source of Romania’s
defined in the Combined Nomenclature [94], Figure 1 was elaborated with the aim of
trade balance deficit for agri-food products. With respect to the structure of the trade bal-
showing theinmost
ance deficit affected
Romania agri-food
in 2020 in the casechains
of the in
24 the face of
agri-food national
product market
categories as demand
defined and
current productionNomenclature
in the Combined conditions. Of [94],the 24 categories,
Figure half ofwith
1 was elaborated them,the which accounted for
aim of showing
almost 90% of Romania’s agri-food trade balance deficit in 2020, were included
the most affected agri-food chains in the face of national market demand and current pro- in Figure
1. duction
Vegetables are at the
conditions. top24ofcategories,
Of the the ranking halfofofdeficit sources.
them, which accounted for almost 90% of
Romania’s agri-food trade balance deficit in 2020, were included in Figure 1. Vegetables are
at the top of the ranking of deficit sources.

Meat and edible offal

Other agri-food products 715,303 Edible fruit

625,475 Milk and dairy products, eggs,

Fish and crustaceans
396,491 honey

441,781

175,796 Edible vegetables, roots and

Cocoa and cocoa preparations
391,084 tubers
226,765

227,917
359,350
241,523 Miscellaneous edible
Sugar and sugar confectionery
preparations
345,051
311,874
341,421 341,951

Coffee, tea, spices Preparations of cereals

Preparations of vegetables and Residues and waste from the food

fruits industry
Alcoholic and non-alcoholic
beverages

Balance of Trade Deficit Vegetable Balance of Trade Deficit

Figure 1. Romania’s national agri-food products deficit, expressed in thousand EUR, per agri-food
category,
Figure in 2020. Source:
1. Romania’s authors’
national own graphical
agri-food products representation.
deficit, expressed in thousand EUR, per agri-food
category, in 2020. Source: authors’ own graphical representation.
Regarding the national production of vegetables, the most productive Romanian
county was Suceava, accounting for 9.1% of the total production. A visual representation
of Romanian national vegetable production was elaborated based on the situation from
the year 2020—Figure 2 (the values are measured in thousands EUR). The highest import
level was reached in the Bucharest–Ilfov region, which experienced a substantial increase
of 4.65 times (2020 reported to 2011), reaching 157,007 thousand EUR in 2020. On the other
hand, the highest values of exported vegetables were observed in Bihor County, both in
2011 (12,098 thousand EUR) and in 2020 (24,474 thousand EUR), reaching 26.1% of the total.
The county-level deficits for vegetables can be observed in Figure 3.
 of Romanian national vegetable production was elaborated based on the situation from
the year 2020—Figure 2 (the values are measured in thousands EUR). The highest import
level was reached in the Bucharest–Ilfov region, which experienced a substantial increase
of 4.65 times (2020 reported to 2011), reaching 157,007 thousand EUR in 2020. On the other
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411
hand, the highest values of exported vegetables were observed in Bihor County, both in
11 of 27
2011 (12,098 thousand EUR) and in 2020 (24,474 thousand EUR), reaching 26.1% of the
total. The county-level deficits for vegetables can be observed in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Romania’s national vegetable production, per county, in 2020. Source: authors’ own graph-
Figure
ical 2. Romania’s national vegetable production, per county, in 2020. Source: authors’ own
representation.
graphical representation.

Another significant value besides that of the imports and exports is that of the deficit
in the trade balance for vegetables registered in each county. To be more specific, in 2011,
the total trade balance deficit for vegetables was 99,187 thousand EUR, whereas, in 2020,
this value was four times higher. In both years, the Bucharest–Ilfov region had the largest
trade balance deficit for vegetables, especially due to very high volumes and values of
vegetable imports, a situation that is similar for each of the years included in the time
interval of this study. In all 10 years, the maximum trade balance deficit for vegetables was
seen in this region. In the year 2011, the trade balance deficit was worth 71,021 thousand
EUR, while, in 2020, it stood at 262,639 thousand EUR, representing 67% of the total. The
situation of the Bucharest–Ilfov region is similar to that of the Prahova and Timis counties.
Bucharest, Ilfov, Prahova, and Timis are the four counties most affected by the dependence
on vegetable imports, lack of exports, and, inherently, national vegetable production. These
Romanian counties act as pressure points on the global vegetable value chain in terms of
the Romanian demand. With regard to the production, export, and import of vegetables,
the correlation matrix is presented in Table 3 based on county-level data. The correlation
matrix indicates that there is a moderate and reverse link between production and imports.
Following the spatial dependence and model validation tests, spatial dependence was
confirmed, both by the spatial lag and the spatial errors. Thus, the results show that, for
both tests, we had to accept the alternative hypothesis with 95% of the results guaranteed,
and the spatial regression model was the appropriate one. The test results can be seen
in Table 4.
Agronomy 2022, 12,
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1312of
of 30
27

Figure 3. Romania’s trade balance deficit for vegetables, per county, in 2020. Source: authors’ own
Figure 3. Romania’s trade balance deficit for vegetables, per county, in 2020. Source: authors’ own
graphical representation.
graphical representation.
Another significant value besides that of the imports and exports is that of the deficit
Table 3. Correlation matrix between vegetable production, imports, and exports.
in the trade balance for vegetables registered in each county. To be more specific, in 2011,
the total trade balance deficitProduction
for vegetables was 99,187 thousand EUR, whereas,
Imports Exportsin 2020,
this value was
Production
four times higher. In
1
both years, the Bucharest–Ilfov
−0.19
region had the largest
−0.10
trade balance
Imports deficit for vegetables,
−0.19 especially due to very
1 high volumes and
0.38 values of
vegetable imports, a situation −
Exports that
0.10is similar for each0.38of the years included 1in the time
interval of this study. In all 10 years, the maximum trade balance deficit for vegetables
was seen in this region. In the year 2011, the trade balance deficit was worth 71,021 thou-
Table 4. Tests for checking the spatial lag dependence. Source: own calculations based on the raw
sand EUR, while, in 2020, it stood at 262,639 thousand EUR, representing 67% of the total.
data taken from Ref. [13].
The situation of the Bucharest–Ilfov region is similar to that of the Prahova and Timis
counties. Bucharest, Ilfov, TestPrahova, and Timis are the four counties most affected
Test Value p-Value by the
dependence on vegetable imports, lack
LM test for spatial lag dependence
of exports, and, inherently,
105.01
national vegetable
2.2e−16
pro-
duction. These
LM testRomanian counties
for spatial error act as pressure points103.88
dependence on the global vegetable
2.2e−16 value
chain in robust
Locally terms LM
of the
testRomanian demand.
for spatial lag With
and spatial regard to 3.9148
error the production, export, and im-
0.04786
port of vegetables, the correlation matrix is presented in Table 3 based on county-level
data. The correlation matrix indicates that there is a moderate and reverse link between
After developing the three spatial regression models for the panel data, the SARAR
production and imports. Following the spatial dependence and model validation tests,
model, which contains both spatial dependence effects, was validated. The resulting
spatial dependence was confirmed, both by the spatial lag and the spatial errors. Thus,
coefficients and their validation can be seen in Table 5.
the results show that, for both tests, we had to accept the alternative hypothesis with 95%
The SARAR model is the one validated, and all the parameters are statistically sig-
of the results guaranteed, and the spatial regression model was the appropriate one. The
nificant. The Baltagi, Song, and Koh tests also indicate the fact that this model has solved
test issue
the resultsofcan be seen
spatial in Table 4. Thus, the analyzed data show a spatial dependence
autocorrelation.
both between dependent observations and between errors. The coefficient on the spatially
Table 3. Correlation matrix between vegetable production, imports, and exports.
correlated errors (lambda) is added as an additional indicator. It has a positive effect, and it
is highly significant. As a result, the general model fitImports
Production is improved. Exports
Production 1 −0.19 −0.10
Imports −0.19 1 0.38
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 13 of 27

Table 5. Model parameters. Source: own calculations based on the raw data taken from Ref. [13].

SAR SEM SARAR

Vegetables Import −0.00093286 −0.058453 −0.170650 a
Spatial Parameters
Lambda Not applicable 1.20047 a 1.25529 a
Rho 0.45306 a Not applicable −0.999 a
a Significant for 0.05.

Besides the link between national production and imports, this case study also illus-
trates the fact that the spatial dependencies among the data are an important aspect that
requires an adapted methodology. Otherwise, the results may be compromised. The spatial
econometric analysis allows us to state that the production in each county is closely linked
to what is happening in the neighboring counties (illustrated by rho coefficient: −0.999)
and that the interaction with imports is also triggering a dependence. Considering that the
rho coefficient is statistically significant in the SARAR model, an increase in production in
a county will determine a decrease in a neighboring county. The model also validates a link
between changes in the national vegetable production and imports of this type of agri-food
(import coefficient: −0.17). Including these spatial dependencies shows that the negative
impact of imports over national production is higher, leading to a significant reduction in
production if the imported quantity increases. This offers new perspectives regarding the
measures that should be adopted in order to encourage and increase the productivity of
this nationally important economic sector.

3.2. Competitiveness Analysis: Balassa Index and Porter’s Diamond Model

From the spatial panel econometric modelling results (Section 3.1) to the Balassa index
results (Table 6), Romania’s dependency on vegetable imports was noted once more. The
Balassa import dynamic index scored a value of 1.14, justifying a loss of competitiveness in
the case of the vegetable chain. In this regard, the same unfavorable situation for Romania
was also noted in the case of the Balassa export dynamic index (0.84), which proved that,
over the course of ten years, Romania lost a part of its export advantage due to: (a) a
decrease in the exported vegetables, on the one hand, and (b) aiming to meet the national
market demand by resorting more frequently to importing vegetables, on the other hand.

Table 6. Balassa index of export and import with vegetables.

Export Import
Year 2011 Year 2019 Dynamic Index Year 2011 Year 2019 Dynamic Index
Romania—Vegetable share from total 3.88 3.27 0.84 4.30 4.90 1.14
World—Vegetable share from total 2.95 2.97 1.01 3.19 3.18 1.00
Balassa index 1.32 1.10 0.84 1.35 1.54 1.14

As import intensity increased and export intensity decreased, this has caused the loss of
national competitiveness in the case of the Romanian vegetable chain. Since three counties
(Bucharest, Ilfov, and Prahova) accounted for more than 70% of the country’s vegetable
deficit, Romania cannot mitigate its market needs by resorting to national production.
Paying more attention to local deficits, Table 7 includes the results of the trade balance with
vegetables in the case of each Romanian county, as well as an indicator (Ii )—as calculated
in Equation (6), which expresses the mean dynamic of the vegetable deficit from one year
to another in each Romanian county during the period of analysis.
r
∏t=2012 Iit/t−1
9 2020
Ii = (6)
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 14 of 27

Table 7. County-level trade balance results with vegetables and the mean dynamic (Ii ).

Romanian Vegetable Trade Balance Result a b

No. Ii
County (Unit of Measurement: Thousand EUR)
1 Alba −488 1.112
2 Arad −9.228 −1.608
3 Arges, −5.224 1.078
4 Bacău −2.135 1.164
5 Bihor −1.886 −1.033
6 Bistrit, a-Năsaud −294 1.229
7 Botos, ani −214 1.114
8 Brăila −222 0.966
9 Bras, ov −6.533 1.105
10 Buzău −648 1.033
11 Călăras, i −93 1.079
12 Caras, -Severin −272 1.390
13 Cluj 361 1.022
14 Constant, a −5.775 1.194
15 Covasna −4.083 1.077
16 Dâmbovit, a −1.092 −1.666
17 Dolj −1.086 −0.954
18 Galat, i −70 −0.900
19 Giurgiu −193 0.893
20 Gorj 3.661 −1.794
21 Harghita 3.137 −1.261
22 Hunedoara 3.804 1.031
23 Ialomit, a −168 1.027
24 Ias, i −1.049 0.999
25 Ilfov −110,588 1.109
26 Maramures, −1.332 1.039
27 Mehedint, i −123 1.048
28 Bucures, ti −152,051 1.210
29 Mures, −4.161 1.049
30 Neamt, −478 1.133
31 Olt −402 1.051
32 Prahova −59,634 1.368
33 Sălaj 6.217 −1.511
34 Satu Mare −652 1.087
35 Sibiu −1.200 1.070
36 Suceava −1.725 1.078
37 Teleorman −266 1.174
38 Timis, −28,845 1.110
39 Tulcea −1.819 1.157
40 Vâlcea −2.910 1.154
41 Vaslui −1.043 −1.370
42 Vrancea −257 1.382
a Positive values represent the surplus in the trade balance with vegetables at county-level, while negative values
represent the deficit in the trade balance. b This indicator is not significant due to the fact that the trade of balance
result reported in the year 2011 has a different sign (i.e., excedent vs. deficit or deficit vs. excedent) reported to the
result registered in 2020.

During the 2011–2020 period, there were seven Romanian counties that suffered
transformations at the level of the vegetable trade balance result: from surplus to deficit,
which is an unfavorable local and national situation, most specifically in the case of Arad
County, with a reported deficit of 9 228 thousand EUR in 2020. Out of the 42 Romanian
counties, only two of them (Gorj and Sălaj) successfully managed to recover and generate a
favorable situation regarding the vegetable trade balance, from deficit to surplus. Thus,
in 2020, Gorj recorded a surplus of 3 661 thousand EUR, while Sălaj outranked Gorj with
2556 thousand EUR. Regarding the rest of the counties, only three of them registered a
decrease in the deficit. For the remaining 30 counties, the deficit increased year by year,
therefore marking the signs of vegetable import dependency. Based on the amplitude of
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 15 of 27

the deficit, the most significant increase was observed in the case of Prahova County—
36.76% year by year. On top of that, in 2020, the value of the vegetable imports registered
by Prahova represented 12.63% of Romania’s total vegetable imports. In the top three net
importing counties, together with Ilfov and Bucharest, those three counties accounted for
70% of Romania’s total imports of vegetables. The statistics are similar in the case of the
trade balance with respect to Bucharest, Ilfov, and Prahova: they are the main generators of
the vegetable trade deficit.
Considering the economic implications of the commercial flows of fresh vegetables
in the case of Romania, as well as the country’s production patterns, the linkage between
competitiveness and factor endowments was analyzed by resorting to Porter’s diamond
model [61]. In this context, the model was used to assess the competitiveness of the
Romanian vegetable chain in relation to the four traditional attributes of the diamond
model, as defined by Porter: (a) Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry; (b) Factor Conditions;
(c) Demand Conditions; (d) Related and Supporting Industries.
With respect to the research methodology (as described in Section 2), the diamond
modelling was conducted at a county-level (N = 40 Romanian counties) in accordance
with the EU’s nomenclature of territorial units. As explained in Section 2, Bucharest and
Ilfov counties were excluded from Porter’s diamond modelling since these two counties
have almost no agricultural potential yet accounted for 55% of Romania’s total vegetable
import value in 2020. This situation is a constant caused by many factors, such as: high
population density (Bucharest is Romania’s capital) [95], higher levels of income [96], the
local structure of the economies in Bucharest and Ilfov is significantly different than the
ones from the majority of other Romanian counties [97,98] and these two counties do not
rely on agricultural activities [99,100], dietary preferences [101], consumer behavior [102],
and other factors. Thus, Figure 4 is a graphical representation of Porter’s diamond at a
national level by averaging the county-level results per research variables, corresponding
to the diamond attributes described in Table 2 and quantified in Table 8.
Through Figure 4, Romania’s unfavorable situation regarding the competitiveness of
the vegetable chain is highlighted. At a national level, the main findings explained per
diamond attributes as follows:
• Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry: At this level of the economic sector, the concentra-
tion of highly profitable Romanian companies involved in growing vegetables showed
that most counties are not competitive and that only a handful of them are actually
competitive in this agri-food chain. Yet, the national average profit margin for growing
vegetables is rather high: 15.7%. From the perspective of the profit margin, despite
the success of the active companies in this field, the vegetable sector does not succeed
in attracting farmers or entrepreneurs to increase the intensity of the commercial
activity. Growing vegetables contributed only 0.05% to the generation of the turnover
registered by Romanian companies in 2020 from all economic sectors.
• Factor Conditions: The analysis of Romania’s position with respect to the factors of
production is problematic. There were more than 400,000 hectares dedicated to veg-
etable production in Romania in 2020—a favorable situation nationally—but land use
is different at the county-level and does not favor all Romanian counties. Regarding
the machinery used in vegetable growing, the results confirm an uneven distribu-
tion of those at the county-level. Other research showed that the machinery is old,
often lacking, and only mildly efficient [103,104]. On top of that, about half of the
cultivated area belongs to subsistence farming, where the production is dedicated
to self-consumption [105]. Given that Romania is in the EU top ranking regarding
the percentage of subsistence farms [106], the post-communist fragmented agrarian
structure acts as a brake in the face of the natural capital endowments.
• Related and Supporting Industries: The poor performance of the storage and transporta-
tion industries also has a significant negative impact in not achieving the full potential
of the agri-food sector. The lack of efficient infrastructure affects most farmers by
‘forcing’ them to sell their production immediately after harvesting, when price volatil-
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 16 of 27

ity is increased due to the high volumes entering the market [107–109]. Besides the
lack of development in these supporting industries, irrigation is another factor that
prevents Romania from reaching its full potential in the agri-food sector due to the
lack of investments in this regard [110].
• Demand Conditions: What might appear to be a favorable situation regarding market
demand is actually not because the 0.66 score recorded by this diamond attribute
showed that a significant proportion of Romanian counties do not rely on high volumes
of vegetable imports, but those that do cause major deficits at a national level. This
result signals potential food security threats and the poor management of factor
endowments at a national level. While the averages of A4.1 (0.91) and A4.2 (0.82)
scored high values due to the considerable number of observations with minor deficit
issues, the average of A4.3 is low (0.26)—therefore signaling that consumer purchasing
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW power is rather weak. This is happening especially in counties with 20 of lower
30 deficit
volumes. The opposite was observed regarding the top deficit-generating counties:
the consumer purchasing power was stronger there. This could partially explain the
depth of the deficit.

Firm Strategy,
Structure and Rivalry
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 0.17
0.1
Demand Conditions 0.66 0 0.28 Factor Conditions

0.28

Related and
Supporting Industries

Figure 4. Porter’s diamond model applied at the level of Romanian counties—average per diamond
Figure 4. Porter’s diamond model applied at the level of Romanian counties—average per diamond
attribute.
attribute. Source:
Source: authors’
authors’ own calculations
own calculations based
based on on data
data from from
Table 8. Table 8.

As farFigure
Through as the4, best performing
Romania’s counties
unfavorable are regarding
situation concernedthefrom the perspective
competitiveness of of each
theofvegetable
Porter’schain
diamond attributes,
is highlighted. Atthe data were
a national level,graphically represented
the main findings in Figure
explained per 5. Sălaj
County
diamond is a leader
attributes in terms of two attributes—Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry and
as follows:
• Related Supporting
Firm Strategy, Industries.
Structure With respect
and Rivalry: to the
At this level offirst attribute,sector,
the economic Sălaj County makes double
the concen-
thetration
profitofcompared to the next county and three times the profit per
highly profitable Romanian companies involved in growing vegetables hectare from growing
showed that most counties are not competitive and that only a handful of
vegetables. On top of that, there is a correlation with the supporting infrastructure forthem are
theactually competitive
vegetable chain. inInthis agri-food
Sălaj County, chain.
thereYet, the intense
is an national economic
average profit margin
activity dedicated to
for growing vegetables is rather high: 15.7%. From the perspective
warehousing and storage. As one of the most competitive Romanian counties of the profit mar- in terms
ofgin, despite productivity,
vegetable the success of the active
Sălaj companies
County, in this
has the field, the vegetable
capabilities to producesector
anddoes
distribute its
not succeed in attracting farmers or entrepreneurs to increase the intensity of the
vegetable production more efficiently than other Romanian counties. However, on the
commercial activity. Growing vegetables contributed only 0.05% to the generation of
demand side, Sălaj County has a lower import/export ratio and consumers show the signs
the turnover registered by Romanian companies in 2020 from all economic sectors.
•
ofFactor
weak Conditions:
purchasing power based on their average monthly nominal net earnings.
The analysis of Romania’s position with respect to the factors of
production is problematic. There were more than 400,000 hectares dedicated to veg-
etable production in Romania in 2020—a favorable situation nationally—but land use
is different at the county-level and does not favor all Romanian counties. Regarding
the machinery used in vegetable growing, the results confirm an uneven distribution
of those at the county-level. Other research showed that the machinery is old, often
lacking, and only mildly efficient [103,104]. On top of that, about half of the cultivated
area belongs to subsistence farming, where the production is dedicated to self-con-
sumption [105]. Given that Romania is in the EU top ranking regarding the percent-
age of subsistence farms [106], the post-communist fragmented agrarian structure
acts as a brake in the face of the natural capital endowments.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 17 of 27

Table 8. Porter’s diamond model attributes and variable coefficients at county level. Source: authors’ own calculations.

Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry Factor Conditions Related and Supporting Industries Demand Conditions
No. County
A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A4.1 A4.2 A4.3
1 Sălaj 1.000 0.195 1.000 0.166 0.301 0.044 0.025 1.000 0.934 0.907 0.995 0.154
2 Galat, i 0.488 0.372 0.180 0.669 0.684 0.014 0.049 0.184 0.552 0.947 0.981 0.259
3 Bihor 0.465 0.287 0.351 0.263 0.132 0.243 0.185 0.178 0.666 0.571 0.979 0.095
4 Covasna 0.421 0.162 0.289 0.302 0.722 1.000 0.003 0.006 0.208 0.912 0.908 0.076
5 Ialomit, a 0.354 0.249 0.188 0.426 0.395 0.003 0.003 0.327 0.282 0.999 0.860 0.133
6 Timis, 0.287 0.398 0.154 0.423 0.129 0.070 0.262 0.072 0.580 0.518 0.000 0.835
7 Bacău 0.287 1.000 0.327 0.131 0.135 0.015 0.017 0.065 0.590 0.965 0.622 0.271
8 Giurgiu 0.265 0.252 0.174 0.320 0.453 0.000 0.038 0.048 0.488 0.999 0.830 0.324
9 Mures, 0.243 0.314 0.185 0.258 0.186 0.152 0.262 0.163 0.473 0.916 0.886 0.390
10 Cluj 0.160 0.157 0.109 0.307 0.211 0.210 0.111 0.340 0.741 0.909 0.983 1.000
11 Dâmbovit, a 0.140 0.112 0.054 0.624 1.000 0.991 0.005 0.277 0.880 0.977 0.922 0.193
12 Neamt, 0.143 0.561 0.065 0.517 0.711 0.074 0.108 0.043 0.520 0.993 0.844 0.085
13 Olt 0.129 0.281 0.054 0.567 0.438 0.002 0.011 0.173 0.752 0.995 0.683 0.302
14 Constant, a 0.094 0.102 0.023 1.000 0.604 0.003 1.000 0.333 0.499 0.895 0.793 0.345
15 Tulcea 0.089 0.296 0.055 0.346 0.327 0.000 0.146 0.113 0.000 0.969 0.753 0.268
16 Gorj 0.082 0.079 0.097 0.124 0.233 0.001 0.008 0.066 0.690 0.979 1.000 0.297
17 Suceava 0.080 0.132 0.021 0.920 0.991 0.607 0.089 0.352 0.580 0.955 0.943 0.129
18 Harghita 0.076 0.443 0.081 0.147 0.091 0.416 0.015 0.112 0.431 0.974 0.998 0.000
19 Satu Mare 0.069 0.366 0.074 0.146 0.158 0.069 0.369 0.139 0.639 0.974 0.965 0.137
20 Ias, i 0.062 0.130 0.030 0.472 0.432 0.019 0.169 0.899 0.823 0.972 0.948 0.669
21 Brăila 0.056 0.193 0.038 0.306 0.255 0.010 0.000 0.008 0.251 0.998 0.856 0.098
22 Dolj 0.053 0.043 0.013 0.963 0.543 0.013 0.111 0.113 0.473 0.968 0.953 0.384
23 Buzău 0.053 0.076 0.026 0.457 0.386 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.790 0.988 0.910 0.128
24 Prahova 0.051 0.027 0.053 0.157 0.233 0.002 0.138 0.435 0.874 0.000 0.000 0.427
25 Caras, -Severin 0.049 0.490 0.068 0.086 0.031 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.261 0.989 0.978 0.132
26 Arad 0.047 0.214 0.028 0.361 0.204 0.035 0.068 0.302 0.465 0.760 0.938 0.220
27 Hunedoara 0.040 0.291 0.032 0.237 0.327 0.493 0.029 0.040 0.908 0.978 1.000 0.106
28 Arges, 0.036 0.210 0.049 0.091 0.071 0.017 0.148 0.227 1.000 0.866 0.937 0.444
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 18 of 27

Table 8. Cont.

Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry Factor Conditions Related and Supporting Industries Demand Conditions
No. County
A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A4.1 A4.2 A4.3
29 Sibiu 0.036 0.268 0.058 0.057 0.060 0.320 0.003 0.035 0.417 0.979 0.847 0.541
30 Alba 0.033 0.156 0.037 0.140 0.144 0.062 0.037 0.121 0.921 0.970 0.973 0.288
31 Călăras, i 0.024 0.372 0.016 0.303 0.214 0.006 0.051 0.369 0.294 0.996 0.890 0.227
32 Vâlcea 0.022 0.045 0.030 0.095 0.180 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.678 0.953 0.104 0.098
33 Botos, ani 0.020 0.217 0.009 0.484 0.426 0.082 0.142 0.082 0.997 0.997 0.931 0.149
34 Bras, ov 0.016 0.105 0.038 0.000 0.000 1.004 0.085 0.130 0.406 0.880 0.801 0.498
35 Bistrit, a-Năsăud 0.013 0.443 0.015 0.140 0.173 0.134 0.008 0.046 0.390 0.989 0.966 0.044
36 Teleorman 0.011 0.060 0.004 0.546 0.346 0.021 0.112 0.044 0.307 0.997 0.778 0.044
37 Vaslui 0.009 0.317 0.010 0.139 0.080 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.715 0.984 0.625 0.151
38 Mehedint, i 0.007 0.703 0.003 0.415 0.540 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.637 1.000 0.716 0.161
39 Vrancea 0.004 0.676 0.007 0.103 0.176 0.000 0.014 0.071 0.576 0.998 0.759 0.062
40 Maramures, 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.233 0.281 0.378 0.032 0.062 0.348 0.958 0.956 0.089
Agronomy 2022,
Agronomy 12, 12,
2022, x FOR
411 PEER REVIEW 22 of1930of 27

Firm Strategy, Structure Sălaj County (Best Performing in

Firm Strategy, Structure and
and Rivalry
Rivalry and Related and
1
Supporting Industries)
0.9 Dâmbovița County (Best
0.8 0.73 Performing in Factor Conditions)
0.7
0.6
Cluj County (Best Performing in
0.5
Demand Conditions)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.96 0.87
Demand Conditions 0 Factor Conditions

0.65

Related and Supporting

Industries
Figure 5. Best-performing
Figure Romanian
5. Best-performing counties
Romanian in relation
counties to Porter’s
in relation diamond
to Porter’s model
diamond attributes.
model attributes.
Source: authors’ own graphical representation and design based on data from Table 8.
Source: authors’ own graphical representation and design based on data from Table 8.

Firm Strategy, Structure

Another best-performing Maramureș
county is Dâmbovit, a County County
based on(Worst
the Factor Conditions
diamond attribute. Even though there are multiple Performing
and Rivalry land areasincultivated
Firm Strategy,
with vegetables
Structure and Rivalry)
in Dâmbovit, a County, there is little support from Argeș
1 related industries and firms are not
County (Worst Performing
competitive when comparing 0.9 their economic and financial results to those of the companies
in Factor Conditions)
0.8
active in different Romanian counties.
Based on the Demand 0.7 Conditions diamond attribute, theCounty
Covasna performance
(Worst of Cluj County
0.6 Performing in Related and of vegetables;
is the best due to a series of reasons: (a) it imports moderate volumes
0.5
(b) its vegetable import/export ratio is significantlySupporting
lower than Industries)
those of other Romanian
0.4 Prahova County (Worst
counties; and (c) the consumer 0.29 purchasing power is the highest in Cluj County. Besides
0.3 Performing in Demand
Cluj, Dâmbovit, a, and Sălaj Counties, which are the Conditions)
most competitive Romanian counties,
0.2
as described per Porter’s diamond attribute, the least competitive counties in the same
0.1
regard were graphically represented in Figure 6.
Demand Conditions 0.75 0 0.67 Factor Conditions
The four least competitive Romanian counties according to Porter’s diamond attributes
are Maramures, , Arges, , Covasna, and Prahova. These counties registered low scores with
respect to two or even three variables. A weak entrepreneurial spirit was noticed in the
vegetable sector of Maramures, , Arges, , Covasna, and Prahova Counties. Regarding the
supporting industries—they do not favor the agri-food sector. For example, in Covasna,
there are very few companies 0.48 that are involved in warehousing and storage. Moreover,
their profit margin was barely 0.28%, which might not attract entrepreneurs to invest in
this direction. Although these four counties are the least competitive based on the research
methodology, Covasna County is rich in machineries dedicated to growing vegetables and
Arges, has the greatest potential to increase its exporting potential.
Since Porter’s diamond
Related model demonstrated rather divergent perspectives regarding
and Supporting
the Romanian vegetable Industries factor endowments, and trade flows, another element
chain,
considered relevant to broaden the perspective on competitiveness was the moment of
Figure 6. Worst-performing
import Romanian
and export [111,112]. counties in relation
Additionally, to Porter’s
horticulture diamond
is highly model attributes.
dependent on climate
Source: authors’ own graphical representation based on data from Table 8.
in order to be competitive [113], making it more important to study the relation between
vegetable imports and exports monthly—exactly what was done in Figure 7.
The four least competitive Romanian counties according to Porter’s diamond attrib-
utes are Maramureș, Argeș, Covasna, and Prahova. These counties registered low scores
 Related and Supporting
Industries
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 20 of 27
Figure 5. Best-performing Romanian counties in relation to Porter’s diamond model attributes.
Source: authors’ own graphical representation and design based on data from Table 8.

Firm Strategy, Structure Maramureș County (Worst

and Rivalry Performing in Firm Strategy,
Structure and Rivalry)
1
Argeș County (Worst Performing
0.9
in Factor Conditions)
0.8
0.7 Covasna County (Worst
0.6 Performing in Related and
0.5 Supporting Industries)
0.4 Prahova County (Worst
0.29
0.3 Performing in Demand
0.2 Conditions)
0.1
Demand Conditions 0.75 0 0.67 Factor Conditions

0.48

Related and Supporting

Industries
Figure
Figure6.6.Worst-performing
Worst-performing Romanian
Romanian counties
countiesinin
relation toto
relation Porter’s diamond
Porter’s model
diamond attributes.
model attributes.
Source: authors’
Source: own
authors’ owngraphical representation
graphical representationbased
basedonondata
datafrom
fromTable
Table8.8.

Thefour
The climate
leastof Romania isRomanian
competitive temperatecounties
continental, makingtoitPorter’s
according easier todiamond
grow vegetables
attrib-
during
utes summer and
are Maramureș, early Covasna,
Argeș, autumn. andTaking this into
Prahova. consideration,
These one canlow
counties registered notice that
scores
when import volumes are high, exports volumes are low and vice versa. The highest
values regarding vegetable exports were registered in summer and early autumn, when
the vegetable production is intense in Romania. In the same period, starting from May to
September, the import volume showed a tendency to decrease because the national demand
was covered by national production. The highest import volumes were registered in the
winter, highlighting that Romania does not have storage facilities, energy, and irrigation
potential to produce vegetables all throughout the year.
These findings support the lack of competitiveness identified based on Porter’s dia-
mond model. Romania has some factor endowments, but their full potential is not reached
because of major limitations regarding the performance of supporting industries, market
access barriers in the case of small farmers [114,115], poor transportation infrastructure,
increased price volatility (especially after harvesting), low income from agricultural ac-
tivities (three times lower than the average [13]), little entrepreneurial interest, and many
others. Thus, in order to solve these issues, the following measures and strategic directions
are proposed: (i) partially finance the construction of greenhouses and provide energy
subsidies to farmers, especially during the cold season, when the import volumes reach
the maximum level; (ii) co-finance performing field technologies needed by farmers to
boost their productivity; (iii) ensure proper transportation infrastructure and ease of access
for farms to sell their products in dedicated local markets instead of them resorting to
either self-consumption or throwing products away (i.e., food waste); (iv) improve the
legal framework and provide benefits for farms that are associated in cooperatives—highly
essential in the context of Romania being a post-communist country where farms still fear
joining cooperatives [116]; (v) improve the national vegetable productivity by implement-
ing modern, innovative, and digital technologies in the production of vegetables—as also
suggested by Torky and Hassanein [117]; (vi) decision-makers from the public sector should
 supporting industries—they do not favor the agri-food sector. For example, in Covasna,
there are very few companies that are involved in warehousing and storage. Moreover,
their profit margin was barely 0.28%, which might not attract entrepreneurs to invest in
this direction. Although these four counties are the least competitive based on the research
methodology, Covasna County is rich in machineries dedicated to growing vegetables
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 and Argeș has the greatest potential to increase its exporting potential. 21 of 27
Since Porter’s diamond model demonstrated rather divergent perspectives regarding
the Romanian vegetable chain, factor endowments, and trade flows, another element con-
sidered relevant to broaden the perspective on competitiveness was the moment of import
collaborate
and export with small Additionally,
[111,112]. farmers and horticulture
ensure theirismarket integration,
highly dependent onatclimate
least in
inthe national
order
vegetable value chain [118], if not in the global value chain [119]; and (vii)
to be competitive [113], making it more important to study the relation between vegetable encourage
automation
imports and in exports
agriculture with the aimwhat
monthly—exactly of increasing
was done inlabor and
Figure 7. crop productivity [120].

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000
Thousand EUR

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

Import 2018 Import 2019 Import 2020 Export 2018 Export 2019 Export 2020

Figure
Figure 7. The
7. The vegetable
vegetable Romanian
Romanian importand
import andexport
exportvolumes
volumesper
permonth.
month.Source:
Source:authors’
authors’ own
own design.
design.
4. Conclusions
The climate of Romania is temperate continental, making it easier to grow vegetables
Most studies regarding Romania’s trade balance deficit with agri-food products point
during summer and early autumn. Taking this into consideration, one can notice that
to the same conclusion: with the exception of cereals, Romania is a net importing country
when import volumes are high, exports volumes are low and vice versa. The highest val-
with a constantly
ues regarding decreasing
vegetable exportslevel
were ofregistered
competitiveness
in summer inand
most agri-food
early autumn,sectors.
when theTaking
into consideration the identified literature gap regarding the linkage between
vegetable production is intense in Romania. In the same period, starting from May to Sep- vegetable
trade flows and chain competitiveness, this research aimed at bringing
tember, the import volume showed a tendency to decrease because the national demand its contribution
to was
this covered
field bybyresorting to a mix ofThe
national production. research
highestmethods to assess
import volumes the
were competitiveness
registered in the of
thewinter,
Romanian vegetable
highlighting chain in does
that Romania relation to the
not have country’s
storage international
facilities, energy, and trade flows for
irrigation
potential toSpatial
vegetables. producepanel
vegetables all throughout
econometric the year.
methods were used to study the reactions of the
global vegetable market in connection with Romania’sidentified
These findings support the lack of competitiveness based on Porter’s
market demand, while thedia-
Balassa
mond model. Romania has some factor endowments, but their full potential
index and Porter’s diamond model were used to study the competitiveness of the vegetable is not reached
because
chain of major
at county andlimitations
national regarding
levels. the performance of supporting industries, market
The fact that the spatial panel regression model is valid confirms that vegetable imports
and national production are structurally correlated at the level of the 42 Romanian counties.
The model also validates a relationship between the change in national vegetable production
and imports of this agri-food category. Including such spatial dependencies indicated that
the negative impact of imports on national production is higher, thus triggering a significant
drop in production where the imported quantity increases. This sheds new light on the
necessity to consider measures designed to stimulate the national productivity of this sector,
as well as its efficient integration into the global vegetable market.
Based on Porter’s diamond modelling method, the lack of competitiveness was demon-
strated in the case of most Romanian counties from the perspective of the diamond’s
four attributes: (i) Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry; (ii) Factor Conditions; (iii) Related
and Supporting Industries; and (iv) Demand Conditions. Taking the selection of variables
into account, the following research findings emerged: a significant share of Romanian
counties do not rely on high volumes of vegetable imports, but those few that actually do
is because they need high volumes of produce in order to meet the local market demand,
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 22 of 27

causing major vegetable deficits at a national level, which raises food security concerns.
There are very few counties highly efficient in terms of profit generation from growing
vegetables, while the rest only take pride in their higher profit margins than those registered
by other companies active in completely different economic sectors. Although Romania had
more than 400,000 hectares planted with vegetables in 2020, they were mostly used for sub-
sistence farming, and the production was dedicated to self-consumption. Taking these into
account, it becomes clear why natural capital endowments cannot be properly harnessed.
The authors acknowledge that this research has limitations, mostly residing in the
fact that only three variables were included in each of Porter’s diamond model attributes.
With more variables integrated into the model, more facets of competitiveness could have
been further explored. On the same note, future research avenues include: (i) expanding
the Balassa index analysis in relation to the main vegetable exporters with trade flows
in Romania—not only in the case of vegetables as a whole but per type of vegetable;
(ii) adding more variables in attributes of Porter’s diamond model and testing different
facets of competitiveness; and (iii) integrating vegetable consumption data into the spatial
panel econometric model and studying the production–consumption–trade balance nexus
in relation to the competitiveness of the Romanian vegetable chain.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, all authors; methodology, M.-D.S., I.-D.M. and M.C.;
software, M.-D.S. and I.-D.M.; validation, all authors; formal analysis, M.C.; investigation, all authors;
resources, all authors; data curation, all authors; writing—original draft preparation, all authors;
writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, M.-D.S., I.-D.M. and M.C.; supervision, S.R.P.;
project administration, S.R.P.; funding acquisition, M.C., M.-D.S., M.D., M.P. and S.R.P. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was covered by the authors.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Generally, data used in developing this research are available here:
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/ (Romania’s National Institute of Statistics, TEMPO
Online database; accessed on 4 January 2022). Data regarding company-specific economic and
financial results per NACE codes used in this research are available here: https://www.topfirme.com/
(TopFirme database; accessed on 18 January 2022).
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the academic editor for the constructive feedback and constant
guidance provided during the reviewing process, as well as the three anonymous reviewers for their
valuable comments and suggestions. This article is a result of research project “Studiu privind balant, a
comercială cu produse agroalimentară a României în perioada 2015–2020” (Study on the Romanian
Trade Balance with Agri-Food Products during 2015–2020), conducted at the Bucharest University of
Economic Studies and financed by REWE Romania.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Soare, E.; Dobre, I.; David, L. Economic Analysis in Vegetable Sector of Romania. Scientific Papers Series Management. Econ. Eng.
Agric. Rural. Dev. 2016, 16, 333–338.
2. Kostov, P.; Lingard, J. Subsistence farming in transitional economies: Lessons from Bulgaria. J. Rural Stud. 2002, 18, 83–94.
[CrossRef]
3. Abele, S.; Frohberg, K. Subsistence Agriculture in Central and Eastern Europe: How to Break the Vicious Circle? Studies on the Agricultural
and Food Sector; Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO): Halle, Germany, 2004.
4. Mincyte, D. Subsistence and Sustainability in Post-industrial Europe: The Politics of Small-scale Farming in Europeanising
Lithuania. Sociol. Rural. 2011, 51, 101–118. [CrossRef]
5. Pawlak, K.; Smutka, L.; Kotyza, P. Agricultural Potential of the EU Countries: How Far Are They from the USA? Agriculture 2021,
11, 282. [CrossRef]
6. Petrescu, D.C.; Petrescu-Mag, R.M. Valuing Land as a Finite and Precious Resource: Citizen Perceptions on Foreign Land Property
Safety Limits in Romania. Qual. Access Success 2018, 19 (Suppl. 1), 386–391.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 23 of 27

7. Galli, F.; Grando, S.; Adamsone-Fiskovica, A.; Bjørkhaug, H.; Czekaj, M.; Duckett, D.G.; Almaas, H.; Karanikolas, P.; Moreno-
Pérez, O.M.; Ortiz-Miranda, D.; et al. How do small farms contribute to food and nutrition security? Linking European small
farms, strategies and outcomes in territorial food systems. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 26, 100427. [CrossRef]
8. Brumă, I.S.; Ulman, S.-R.; Cautisanu, C.; Tanasă, L.; Hoha, G.V. Sustainability in the Case of Small Vegetable Farmers: A Matrix
Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10320. [CrossRef]
9. Andrei, J.V.; Chivu, L.; Constantin, M.; Subić, J. Economic Aspects of International Agricultural Trade and Possible Threats to
Food Security in the EU-27: A Systematic Statistical Approach. In Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Trade: The Protectionism Outbreak
and Food Security; Erokhin, V., Tianming, G., Andrei, J.V., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 229–261, ISBN 9789811632600.
[CrossRef]
10. Stefan, B.; Imre, F. Export competitiveness of the European Union in fruit and vegetable products in the global markets. Agric.
Econ. 2016, 62, 299–310. [CrossRef]
11. Popescu, A. Maize and Wheat—Top Agricultural Products Produced, Exported and Imported by Romania. Scientific Papers
Series Management. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2018, 18, 339–352.
12. Kruzslicika, M. Effects of CAP Measures for Increasing Competitiveness on the Cereal Chain in Romania. Agric. Econ. Rural. Dev.
2019, 16, 91–107.
13. The Romanian National Institute for Statistics. The Romanian National Institute for Statistics Database, TEMPO Online; INS:
Bucharest, Romania, 2022. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed
on 4 January 2022).
14. Dias, J.S.; Ortiz, R. New Strategies and Approaches for Improving Vegetable Cultivars. In The Basics of Human Civilization; CRC
Press: London, UK, 2021; pp. 349–381. [CrossRef]
15. Pătărlăgeanu, S.R.; Miclea, A.; Sacală, M.-D.; Teodor, C.; Dinu, M.; Pis, talu, M.; Constantin, M.; Lazăr, V. Study on the Romanian
Trade Balance with Agri-Food Products during 2015–2020; Editura ASE: Bucharest, Romania, 2020; ISBN 978-606-34-0355-2. Available
online: https://www.ceeol.com/search/book-detail?id=917212 (accessed on 1 December 2021).
16. Ladaru, G.-R.; Ilie, D.; Diaconeasa, M.; Petre, I.; Marin, F.; Lazar, V. Influencing Factors of a Sustainable Vegetable Choice. The
Romanian Consumers’ Case. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9991. [CrossRef]
17. Luca, L.; Alexandri, C.; Pǎuna, B. Demand for Food Diversity in Romania. Available online: https://www.igi-global.com/
chapter/demand-for-food-diversity-in-romania/www.igi-global.com/chapter/demand-for-food-diversity-in-romania/2329
89 (accessed on 31 January 2022).
18. Varga, M. Resistant to change? Smallholder response to World Bank-sponsored “commercialisation” in Romania and Ukraine.
Can. J. Dev. Stud. 2019, 40, 528–545. [CrossRef]
19. Tudor, M.M. The Role of Small-Scale Agriculture in Romanian Context. In Proceedings of the Agrarian Economy and Rural
Development—Realities and Perspectives for Romania, 6th Edition of the International Symposiumm, Bucharest, Romania, 15
November 2015; pp. 279–285.
20. Ion, R.A. The Influence of People Income on Vegetables Consumption in Romania. In Proceedings of the Agrarian Economy and
Rural Development—Realities and Perspectives for Romania, 9th Edition of the International Symposium, Bucharest, Romania,
18 November 2018; pp. 298–302.
21. Muresan, I.C.; Harun, R.; Arion, F.H.; Brata, A.M.; Chereches, I.A.; Chiciudean, G.O.; Dumitras, D.E.; Oroian, C.F.; Tirpe, O.P.
Consumers’ Attitude towards Sustainable Food Consumption during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania. Agriculture 2021,
11, 1050. [CrossRef]
22. Bîlbîie, A.; Druică, E.; Dumitrescu, R.; Aducovschi, D.; Sakizlian, R.; Sakizlian, M. Determinants of Fast-Food Consumption in
Romania: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Foods 2021, 10, 1877. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Bacârea, A.; Bacârea, V.; Cînpeanu, C.; Teodorescu, C.; Seni, A.; Guiné, R.; Tarcea, M. Demographic, Anthropometric and Food
Behavior Data towards Healthy Eating in Romania. Foods 2021, 10, 487. [CrossRef]
24. Nica, M.; Petre, I.L. Nutritional Security in Romania. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Economics and Social
Sciences, Bucharest, Romania, 16–17 April 2018; pp. 68–74.
25. Grigoras, M.A. Trends in Romania’s Agricultural Production; Scientific Papers Series. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2016,
16, 183–192.
26. Burghelea, C.; Bălan, M.; Volintiru, A.M.; Aceleanu, M.I. Trend in Producer Prices for Agricultural Products in Romania and EU.
In Proceedings of the 25th International Business Information Management Association Conference—Innovation Vision 2020:
From Regional Development Sustainability to Global Economic Growth, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 7–8 May 2015; pp. 9–17.
27. Lato, K.; Popa, M.; Lato, A.; Corches, M.; Radulov, I.; Berbecea, A.; Crista, F. Economic Efficiency of Main Soil Types from West
Region of Romania for Various Agricultural Crops. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2019, 20, 1022–1028.
28. Andrei, J.V.; Popescu, G.H.; Nica, E.; Chivu, L. The impact of agricultural performance on foreign trade concentration and
competitiveness: Empirical evidence from Romanian agriculture. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020, 21, 317–343. [CrossRef]
29. Tolmachev, M.; Tsypin, A.; Barashov, N. Statistical Study of Dynamics of the Agricultural Production of Post-Soviet Countries
in the Context of Food Security. In Proceedings of the International Science and Technology Conference “FarEastCon 2019”,
Vladivostok, Russia, 1–4 October 2019; pp. 699–711. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 24 of 27

30. Chivu, L.; Constantin, M.; Privitera, D.; Andrei, J.V. Land Grabbing, Land Use, and Food Export Competitiveness: Bibliometric
Study of a Paradigm Shift. In Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Trade: The Protectionism Outbreak and Food Security; Erokhin, V.,
Tianming, G., Andrei, J.V., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 143–164. [CrossRef]
31. Pătărlăgeanu, S.R.; Constantin, M.; Strat, G.; Deaconu, M.E. Best Practices of Circular Activities in the Agri-Food Sector from
the Netherlands and Romania; ASE Publishing House: Bucharest, Romania, 2021; ISBN 978-606-34-0375-0. Available online:
https://www.ceeol.com/search/book-detail?id=949510 (accessed on 4 January 2022).
32. Istudor, N.; Ion, R.A.; Sponte, M.; Petrescu, I.E. Food Security in Romania—A Modern Approach for Developing Sustainable
Agriculture. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8796–8807. [CrossRef]
33. Jerzak, M.A.; Śmiglak-Krajewska, M. Globalization of the Market for Vegetable Protein Feed and Its Impact on Sustainable
Agricultural Development and Food Security in EU Countries Illustrated by the Example of Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 888.
[CrossRef]
34. Chiripuci, B.; Todirica, I.; Toderasc, A. The Impact of Globalization Phenomena on Food Safety. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Economics and Social Sciences, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, 16–17 April 2018;
Volume 1, pp. 21–27.
35. Teimoury, E.; Nedaei, H.; Ansari, S.; Sabbaghi, M. A multi-objective analysis for import quota policy making in a perishable fruit
and vegetable supply chain: A system dynamics approach. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2013, 93, 37–45. [CrossRef]
36. Gramzow, A.; Batt, P.J.; Afari-Sefa, V.; Petrick, M.; Roothaert, R. Linking smallholder vegetable producers to markets—A
comparison of a vegetable producer group and a contract-farming arrangement in the Lushoto District of Tanzania. J. Rural Stud.
2018, 63, 168–179. [CrossRef]
37. Kruse, H. Food safety in an international perspective. J. Consum. Prot. Food Saf. 2015, 10, 105–107. [CrossRef]
38. Bloomberg. Food Supply Fears Are Growing as Romania Bans Grain Export; Bloomberg: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
39. Navarro-Pabsdorf, R.M.; Martínez-Alcalá, C.; Moral-Pajares, E. Can International Trade Help Africa’s Least Developed Countries
Achieve SDG-1? Sustainability 2020, 12, 4470. [CrossRef]
40. Xu, Z.; Li, Y.; Chau, S.N.; Dietz, T.; Li, C.; Wan, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Li, Y.; Chung, M.G.; et al. Impacts of international trade on
global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 964–971. [CrossRef]
41. Scown, M.W.; Nicholas, K.A. European agricultural policy requires a stronger performance framework to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals. Glob. Sustain. 2020, 3, e11. [CrossRef]
42. Park, E.; Gachukia, M.K. The Role of the Local Innovation System for Inclusive Upgrading in the Global Value Chain: The Case of
KenyaGAP in the Kenyan Horticultural Sector. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2020, 33, 578–603. [CrossRef]
43. Tyce, M. A ‘Private-sector Success Story’? Uncovering the Role of Politics and the State in Kenya’s Horticultural Export Sector. J.
Dev. Stud. 2020, 56, 1877–1893. [CrossRef]
44. Martindale, W.; Swainson, M.; Choudhary, S. The Impact of Resource and Nutritional Resilience on the Global Food Supply
System. Sustainability 2020, 12, 751. [CrossRef]
45. Feyaerts, H.; Broeck, G.V.D.; Maertens, M. Global and local food value chains in Africa: A review. Agric. Econ. 2019, 51, 143–157.
[CrossRef]
46. Wakiyama, T.; Lenzen, M.; Faturay, F.; Geschke, A.; Malik, A.; Fry, J.; Nansai, K. Responsibility for food loss from a regional
supply-chain perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 373–383. [CrossRef]
47. Von Oppenkowski, M.; Hassler, M.; Roesler, T. Informal markets and global value chains—The disembedding of Romanian dairy
smallholders. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 995–1012. [CrossRef]
48. Olaitan, O.F.; Hubbard, N.; Bamford, C.G. The potential for the participation of Nigeria in global horticulture value chains. Int. J.
Emerg. Mark. 2019, 15, 93–110. [CrossRef]
49. Vetter, T.; Larsen, M.N.; Bruun, T.B. Supermarket-Led Development and the Neglect of Traditional Food Value Chains: Reflections
on Indonesia’s Agri-Food System Transformation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 498. [CrossRef]
50. Thow, A.M.; Priyadarshi, S. Aid for Trade: An opportunity to increase fruit and vegetable supply. Bull. World Heal. Organ. 2012,
91, 57–63. [CrossRef]
51. Raab, V.; O’Hagan, J.; Stecher, F.; Fürtjes, M.; Brugger, A.; Bratzler, M.; Wibbe, B.; Petersen, B. A preventive approach to risk
management in global fruit and vegetable supply chains. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 170, 147–158. [CrossRef]
52. Maertens, M.; Minten, B.; Swinnen, J. Modern Food Supply Chains and Development: Evidence from Horticulture Export Sectors
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Dev. Policy Rev. 2012, 30, 473–497. [CrossRef]
53. Dolan, C.; Humphrey, J. Changing Governance Patterns in the Trade in Fresh Vegetables between Africa and the United Kingdom.
Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2004, 36, 491–509. [CrossRef]
54. Enache, C. An Econometric Analysis of Romania’s Agricultural Foreign Trade with Developing Countries. J. East. Eur. Res. Bus.
Econ. 2015, 2015, 1–11. [CrossRef]
55. Dinu, T.; Enache, C.; Condei, R.; Niculae, I.; Stoian, E. Romania’s Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products Measurement Methods
and Techniques. J. East. Eur. Res. Bus. Econ. 2015, 1–11. [CrossRef]
56. Dragos, S.L.; Mare, C. An econometric approach to factors affecting crop insurance in Romania. E+M Èkon. Manag. 2014, 17,
93–103. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 25 of 27

57. Ignat, R.; Constantin, M. Short-Term Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Agri-Food Value Chains in Romania. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Economics and Social Sciences, Bucharest, Romania, 15–16 October 2020; pp. 578–588.
[CrossRef]
58. Voicu-Dorobant, u, R.; Volintiru, C.; Popescu, M.-F.; Nerău, V.; S, tefan, G. Tackling Complexity of the Just Transition in the EU:
Evidence from Romania. Energies 2021, 14, 1509. [CrossRef]
59. Chevallier-Chantepie, A.; Batt, P.J. Sustainable Purchasing of Fresh Food by Restaurants and Cafes in France. Agronomy
2021, 11, 2357. [CrossRef]
60. Dragoi, M.C.; Andrei, J.V.; Mieila, M.; Panait, M.; Dobrota, C.E.; Ladaru, R. Food Safety and Security in Romania—An Econometric
Analysis in the Context of National Agricultural Paradigm Transformation. Amfiteatru Econ. 2018, 20, 134–150. [CrossRef]
61. Porter, M. Competitive Advantage of Nations; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
62. Salima, B.A.; Julie, L.G.; Lionel, V. Spatial Econometrics on Panel Data. In Handbook of Spatial Analysis: Theory and Practical
Application with R; Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 179–203.
63. Kapoor, M.; Kelejian, H.H.; Prucha, I.R. Panel data models with spatially correlated error components. J. Econ. 2007, 140, 97–130.
[CrossRef]
64. Baltagi, B.H.; Bresson, G.; Pirotte, A. Panel unit root tests and spatial dependence. J. Appl. Econ. 2007, 22, 339–360. [CrossRef]
65. Lee, L.-F.; Yu, J. Some recent developments in spatial panel data models. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2010, 40, 255–271. [CrossRef]
66. Baltagi, B.H.; Li, D. Prediction in the Panel Data Model with Spatial Correlation. Adv. Spat. Econom. 2004, 283–295. [CrossRef]
67. Elhorst, J.P. Spatial Panel Data Analysis. Encycl. GIS 2017, 2050–2058. [CrossRef]
68. Debarsy, N.; Ertur, C. Testing for spatial autocorrelation in a fixed effects panel data model. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2010, 40, 453–470.
[CrossRef]
69. Millo, G.; Piras, G. splm: Spatial Panel Data Models inR. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 47, 1–38. [CrossRef]
70. Anselin, L.; Syabri, I.; Kho, Y. GeoDa: An Introduction to Spatial Data Analysis. In Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 73–89. [CrossRef]
71. Ciutacu, C.; Chivu, L.; Andrei, J.V. Similarities and dissimilarities between the EU agricultural and rural development model and
Romanian agriculture. Challenges and perspectives. Land Use Policy 2015, 44, 169–176. [CrossRef]
72. Chivu, L.; Andrei, J.V.; Zaharia, M.; Gogonea, R.-M. A regional agricultural efficiency convergence assessment in Romania—
Appraising differences and understanding potentials. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104838. [CrossRef]
73. Gavrilescu, C. The Romanian Agri-Food Trade: In a Permanent Deficit? An Analysis of the Last Two Decades. In Proceedings
of the Agrarian Economy and Rural Development—Realities and Perspectives for Romania, 9th Edition of the International
Symposium, Bucharest, Romania, 15 November 2018; The Research Institute for Agricultural Economy and Rural Development
(ICEADR): Bucharest, Romania, 2018; pp. 16–22.
74. Stoicescu, A.; Alecu, I.N.; Tudor, V. Demographic Analysis of Bucharest-Ilfov Region. Procedia Econ. Finance 2013, 6, 392–398.
[CrossRef]
75. Anna, N.; Agnieszka, K. Agricultural competitiveness: The case of the European Union countries. Agric. Econ. 2016, 62, 507–516.
[CrossRef]
76. Delgado, M.; Ketels, C.; Porter, M.E.; Stern, S. The Determinants of National Competitiveness; Working Paper Series; National Bureau
of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [CrossRef]
77. Jambor, A.; Babu, S. Understanding the Factors Behind Agricultural Competitiveness. Compet. Glob. Agric. 2016, 131–149.
[CrossRef]
78. Hochuli, A.; Hochuli, J.; Schmid, D. Competitiveness of diversification strategies in agricultural dairy farms: Empirical findings
for rural regions in Switzerland. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 82, 98–106. [CrossRef]
79. Zhao, L. Determinants of Food Industry Competitiveness in China from the Perspectives of Porter’s Diamond Model. In
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Judicial, Administrative and Humanitarian Problems of State Structures and
Economic Subjects (JAHP 2018), Domodedovo, Russia, 1–4 April 2018; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 281–286.
80. Jiang, Z.; Jing, G.; Lijiao, X. Analysis on the Competitiveness of High-End Agricultural Industry in Beijing by Diamond Model. In
Proceedings of the Information Science and Management Engineering III, Wuhan, China, 7–8 October 2015; SCITEPRESS Science
and Technology Publications: Sanya, China, 2015; pp. 36–41.
81. Khaengkhan, M.; Hotrawisaya, C.; Kiranantawat, B.; Shaharudin, M.R. Comparative Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) Approach in Warehouse Location Selection of Agricultural Products in Thailand. Int. J. Supply Chain. Manag.
2019, 8, 168–175.
82. Toming, K. The Impact of EU Accession on the Export Competitiveness of the Estonian Food Processing Industry. Post-Communist
Econ. 2007, 19, 187–207. [CrossRef]
83. Berti, G.; Mulligan, C. Competitiveness of Small Farms and Innovative Food Supply Chains: The Role of Food Hubs in Creating
Sustainable Regional and Local Food Systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, 616. [CrossRef]
84. Kherbach, O.; Mocan, M.L. The Importance of Logistics and Supply Chain Management in the Enhancement of Romanian SMEs.
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 221, 405–413. [CrossRef]
85. Herciu, M. Measuring International Competitiveness of Romania by Using Porter’s Diamond and Revealed Comparative
Advantage. Procedia Econ. Finance 2013, 6, 273–279. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 26 of 27

86. Bojnec, Š.; Fertő, I. Agro-food trade competitiveness of Central European and Balkan countries. Food Policy 2009, 34, 417–425.
[CrossRef]
87. Bojnec, Š.; Fertő, I. Complementarities of trade advantage and trade competitiveness measures. Appl. Econ. 2012, 44, 399–408.
[CrossRef]
88. Smith, V.H.; Glauber, J.W. Trade, policy, and food security. Agric. Econ. 2020, 51, 159–171. [CrossRef]
89. Puma, M.J. Resilience of the global food system. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 260–261. [CrossRef]
90. Bojnec, Š.; Fertő, I. Determinants of agro-food trade competition of Central European countries with the European Union. China
Econ. Rev. 2009, 20, 327–337. [CrossRef]
91. Christiaensen, L.; Rutledge, Z.; Taylor, J.E. Viewpoint: The future of work in agri-food. Food Policy 2020, 99, 101963. [CrossRef]
92. Rugman, A.M.; Verbeke, A. How to operationalize porter’s diamond of international competitiveness. Int. Exec. 1993, 35, 283–299.
[CrossRef]
93. Balassa, B. Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage. Manch. Sch. 1965, 33, 99–123. [CrossRef]
94. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff ;
Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 1987.
95. Ianoş, I.; Sorensen, A.; Merciu, C. Incoherence of urban planning policy in Bucharest: Its potential for land use conflict. Land Use
Policy 2017, 60, 101–112. [CrossRef]
96. Ion, R.A.; Popescu, C.G. Income Influence on Diet and Health. Qual. Access Success 2018, 19, 254–259.
97. Török, I. Competitiveness of Romanian Regions in the Spatial Structure of the EU. IOP Conf. Series Earth Environ. Sci. 2017,
95, 52013. [CrossRef]
98. Neagu, O.; Neagu, M.-I. Regional Specialisation and Economic Concentration in Romania. Stud. Univ. “Vasile Goldis” Arad Econ.
Ser. 2016, 26, 1–17. [CrossRef]
99. Constantin, M.; Strat, G.; Deaconu, M.E.; Pătărlăgeanu, S.R. Innovative Agri-Food Value Chain Management Through a Unique
Urban Ecosystem. Manag. Res. Pract. 2021, 13, 5–22. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354161934_
Innovative_Agri-food_Value_Chain_Management_Through_a_Unique_Urban_Ecosystem (accessed on 1 December 2021).
100. Grădinaru, S.R.; Triboi, R.; Iojă, C.I.; Artmann, M. Contribution of agricultural activities to urban sustainability: Insights from
pastoral practices in Bucharest and its peri-urban area. Habitat Int. 2018, 82, 62–71. [CrossRef]
101. A Petrovici, D.; Ritson, C. Factors influencing consumer dietary health preventative behaviours. BMC Public Health 2006, 6, 222.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
102. Alexandri, C.; Luca, L. Food and Nutrition Security in Romania in the Post-Accession Period. Food Nutr. 2016, 16, 11–18.
103. Buliga-S, tefanescu, A. Realities and Perspectives on the Mechanization of Romanian Agriculture. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 51, 39–48.
104. Agarwal, B.; Dobay, K.M.; Sabates-Wheeler, R. Revisiting group farming in a post-socialist economy: The case of Romania. J.
Rural Stud. 2020, 81, 148–158. [CrossRef]
105. Burja, V.; Tamas-Szora, A.; Dobra, I.B. Land Concentration, Land Grabbing and Sustainable Development of Agriculture in
Romania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2137. [CrossRef]
106. Alexandri, C.; Luca, L.; Kevorchian, C. Subsistence Economy and Food Security—The Case of Rural Households from Romania.
Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 22, 672–680. [CrossRef]
107. Alexandri, C. Agricultural Price Volatility—Effects on Food Security. Lucr. Sci. Manag. Agric. 2016, 18, 5.
108. Vasile, A.J.; Andreea, I.R.; Popescu, G.H.; Elvira, N.; Marian, Z. Implications of agricultural bioenergy crop production and prices
in changing the land use paradigm—The case of Romania. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 399–407. [CrossRef]
109. Alboiu, C. Romanian Vegetable Volatility and Comparisons with Other EU Countries. Lucr. Sci. Manag. Agric. 2016, 18, 5.
110. Florea, N.V.; Duică, M.C.; Ionescu, C.A.; Duică, A.; Ibinceanu, M.C.O.; Stanescu, S.G. An Analysis of the Influencing Factors of
the Romanian Agricultural Output within the Context of Green Economy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9649. [CrossRef]
111. Levshin, A.; Ivashova, O.; Gasparyan, I.; Gasparyan, S.; Deniskina, N. Competitiveness of Early Potato Production in Two-Crop
Culture. In Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Policies and
Economics Measures for Agricultural Development, Voronezh, Russia, 25–26 May 2020; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2020; pp. 208–212.
[CrossRef]
112. Vlad, I.-M.; Beciu, S.; Ladaru, G.-R. Seasonality and Forecasting in the Romanian Trade with Live Animals. Agric. Agric. Sci.
Procedia 2015, 6, 712–719. [CrossRef]
113. Hoehn, D.; Margallo, M.; Laso, J.; Ruiz-Salmón, I.; Batlle-Bayer, L.; Bala, A.; Fullana-I-Palmer, P.; Aldaco, R. A Novel Composite
Index for the Development of Decentralized Food Production, Food Loss, and Waste Management Policies: A Water-Climate-Food
Nexus Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2839. [CrossRef]
114. Rahoveanu, A.T.; Zugravu, A.G.; Soare, I.; Hassan, A.A.M.; Saleh, K.M. Rural Development—Necessity for Reducing Regional
Gaps in Romania. In Proceedings of the International Conference “Risk in Contemporary Economy”, Galati, Romania, 19
March–20 May 2016; Editura Universităt, ii “Dunărea de Jos”: Galat, i, Romania, 2016; pp. 564–569.
115. Borychowski, M.; St˛epień, S.; Polcyn, J.; Tošović-Stevanović, A.; Ćalović, D.; Lalić, G.; Žuža, M. Socio-Economic Determinants of
Small Family Farms’ Resilience in Selected Central and Eastern European Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10362. [CrossRef]
116. Fraser, E.D.; Stringer, L.C. Explaining agricultural collapse: Macro-forces, micro-crises and the emergence of land use vulnerability
in southern Romania. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 45–53. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2022, 12, 411 27 of 27

117. Torky, M.; Hassanein, A.E. Integrating blockchain and the internet of things in precision agriculture: Analysis, opportunities, and
challenges. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 178, 105476. [CrossRef]
118. Boboc, D.; Popescu, G.; Stoian, M.; Lădaru, G.-R.; Petrache, D.C. Best Practices for Integrating the Romanian Small Farmers into
the Agri-Food Chain. Amfiteatru Econ. 2017, 19, 315–326.
119. Henson, S.; Humphrey, J. Understanding the Complexities of Private Standards in Global Agri-Food Chains as They Impact
Developing Countries. J. Dev. Stud. 2010, 46, 1628–1646. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
120. Jha, K.; Doshi, A.; Patel, P.; Shah, M. A comprehensive review on automation in agriculture using artificial intelligence. Artif.
Intell. Agric. 2019, 2, 1–12. [CrossRef]

View publication stats