Contract farming is typically considered an appropriate measure for small-scale farmers to solve their constraints and problems. However, despite positive effects, low participation in and high dropout rates from contract farming schemes remain challenges. Therefore, this study objects to evaluate preferences for contract attributes and attribute levels among contracting buyers, farmers, and government officials through data triangulation from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observations. Based on Henry Garrett Ranking, Rank Based Quotient, and Rank Based Sum methods, results indicate that the most important attributes were price options, payment, delivery arrangement, input provision, input-use requirements, and product quality standards. Despite a consensus on the ranking of the contract attributes, the preferences for the attribute levels among the stakeholders were heterogeneous. It is recommended that attributes and their levels should be pertinent in contract agreements. Thus, contract design with an adjusted or premium price, 50% of estimated payment before harvesting and the rest after delivery three to five days or lump-sum immediate payment, delivery after harvesting, inputs provision by the contractors through the representative branches or stores located at the local areas or cooperatives, banning active-ingredients or flexible use of inputs from the contractors to produce Good Agricultural Practices or organic products are considerable options.

Contract farming (CF) is considered a relevant measure to tackle the challenges to sustainable development from the serious effects of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the positive effects of CF, low participation and frequent breaching of contracts remain challenges. Several studies have mentioned the advantages and disadvantages of CF but little is known about their rankings and perceptions of CF from the involved stakeholders. To address these evidence gaps, this study surveys stakeholders, ranks the perceived advantages and disadvantages of CF, and investigates the problems and prospects of CF. The study utilizes data triangulation from three stakeholders: farmers, contractors, and government policymakers. Data include twenty-seven key informant interviews (KIIs), seven focus group discussions (FGDs), and two participant observations (POs). Data are analyzed by a mixed method approach with methods of constant comparison, content analysis, and Rank Based Quotient (RBQ). The results indicate that while the main perceived advantage of CF relates to the outputs, the top three disadvantages of CF relate to issues likely to cause a breach of contract. The results also reveal that there seems to be a difference in the perception of CF’s advantages and disadvantages among the stakeholders. Despite the problems such as breaching several contract terms, mistrust, or market manipulation from the local collectors, CF in Vietnam is overall promising.

Since 2002, Vietnam has implemented rice contract-farming policies to develop the linkage among stakeholders in the agricultural sector; however, there is very low participation of farmers. Therefore, this study aims to determine the perception on both advantages and disadvantages of rice contract farming (RCF); identify the reasons for non-participation and drop-out of rice contract farming; and indicate the typology of contract by using data from documentation, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. The results indicate that farmers considered the guaranteed output price and stable income as the most advantages of RCF while the main disadvantages were reducing the household’s freedom or losing flexibility in making decisions on-farm production, management, and selling product; possible delays in payments, in input delivery, in harvesting, and output delivery. In addition, farmers did not want to participate in RCF because of reducing the household’s freedom in making decisions, not complying with RCF, not trusting cooperatives as well as enterprises, and because selling paddy to middlemen is easier and simpler. Farmers dropped out of RCF because the contracting companies breached the contract provisions. Farmers mentioned many provisions of the contract but the most important to them were payment, price options, and delivery arrangement.