从 数字化 访问 to Unequal 价值 采集

用途. This study moves beyond a programme-success narrative to examine how agro-based enterprises convert digital platform access into commercial value and why outcomes are unevenly distributed among participants of the Agromarketing Masterclass TikTok 商店 Edition (AMTTSE), a FAMA–TikTok 商店 social-commerce intervention in 马来西亚.

设计/methodology/approach. A retrospective analysis of 已验证 programme-administrative and seller-level gross merchandise value (GMV) records for 80 companies and 160 entrepreneurs (June–December 2024). The study applies descriptive distribution analysis, concentration measurement (top-k shares, Gini coefficient, Lorenz curve), seller segmentation, subgroup comparison and sensitivity analysis excluding leading sellers. A Capability 转化 perspective is integrated with 动态 能力 and 数字化 Inequality theory.

Findings. Cumulative sales reached RM6,205,957.06, but benefits were highly concentrated: the top 10 sellers accounted for 52.4 per cent of December GMV and the seller-level Gini coefficient was approximately 0.71. Of 80 companies, 25 recorded zero GMV while 55 were 激活. Short-video (44.6 per cent) and livestream (35.4 per cent) channels dominated value capture. Aggregate monthly correlations with total sales are reported as exploratory given seven 观测 and a part–whole structure.

Originality/value. The article is materially distinct from the prior JIBE publication: it addresses a 新 research problem (performance inequality rather than programme effectiveness), uses a differentiated unit of analysis (seller-level concentration), adds genuine analytical value (Gini, Lorenz, segmentation, sensitivity) and contributes a Capability 转化 framework for inclusive digital agribusiness policy. Prior publication is disclosed transparently to the editor.

关键词: 数字化 agribusiness; agropreneurship; social commerce; market access; emerging economy; digital inclusion; performance concentration; agrifood MSMEs; 马来西亚

Article classification: 研究 Paper

新兴经济体各地的公共机构正在大力投资社交商务培训，将其作为促进农业综合企业发展的机制，这源于一种信心：以平台为媒介的零售能够降低历史上一直制约农村和小型农业企业的地理、中介与信息障碍（Deichmann et al., 2016; Aker, 2011). In 马来西亚, the Federal Agricultural 营销 权威性 (FAMA) introduced the Agromarketing Masterclass TikTok 商店 Edition (AMTTSE) — retained throughout this manuscript exactly as the official programme brand — to strengthen the practical selling capability of agro-based micro and small enterprises on the TikTok 商店 platform. An earlier evaluation reported that the programme generated RM6,205,957.06 in cumulative sales across 80 companies and 160 entrepreneurs between June and December 2024, with a reported return on investment of 1:31, a result that positioned the intervention as a credible model for public–platform collaboration in agricultural marketing (Abd Razak et al., 2026).

然而，这一总体结果只是在描述计划层面的成功，并未揭示价值在参与者之间是如何分配的。平等的培训机会和数字平台接入并不会自动产生平等的商业回报，因为各企业在将关注转化为交易所需的资源、惯例和适应能力上存在差异（Teece, 2018；Eisenhardt 和 Martin, 2000）。因此，本文的核心关注点并非该计划是否产生了销售额，而是数字市场准入如何被转化为成果，以及绩效为何集中在少数卖家身上。这一重新框定对政策十分重要：一个总GMV数字可能掩盖一条由无活跃度或低绩效参与者组成的长尾，而将这些参与者纳入正是公共支出的明确理由（Heeks, 2022）。

The distinction between access and conversion is not merely semantic. 时间 a government agency reports that a programme trained 160 entrepreneurs and generated RM6.2 million, the implicit claim is that training caused broadly distributed commercial benefit. The seller-level evidence tells a more nuanced story: a majority of participants sold little or nothing, while a small group captured most of the value (FAMA, 2024). 处理 these two facts as equivalent would lead policymakers to scale a model whose inclusiveness is unproven. This article therefore interrogates the distribution behind the aggregate, asking whether digital agribusiness intervention in an emerging economy produces inclusion or merely amplifies pre-existing capability differences (van Deursen and van Dijk, 2019; Scheerder et al., 2017).

为何不均衡的价值获取至关重要。 The distribution of commercial outcomes within a public programme is not an implementation detail; it is the crux of the development claim. If the rationale for public spending is to extend market access to small agro-enterprises that would otherwise be excluded, then a programme whose benefits accrue overwhelmingly to a convertible elite has 失败 its own 目标 even if its aggregate statistics are impressive. Unequal value capture is consequential because it determines who can reinvest in production capacity, who remains dependent on intermediaries, and whether digital market access narrows or widens the rural–urban 企业 divide (Lepak et al., 2007; Gans and Ryall, 2017). Development agencies cannot manage what they do not 测量; a concentration-adjusted reading of programme data is therefore a precondition for inclusive agribusiness policy rather than an optional scholarly refinement.

为什么新兴经济体很重要。 The Malaysian setting is instructive because it combines high mobile-internet penetration with persistent rural–urban 企业 disparities, a configuration shared across much of Southeast and South Asia. FAMA’s mandate to improve market access for small agricultural producers makes it a natural convenor of a platform partnership, but the same structural inequalities that 限制 rural enterprises offline do not disappear when those enterprises move online (van Dijk, 2020; Heeks, 2022). If anything, platform algorithms that reward engagement may intensify inequality by funnelling visibility to sellers who already convert well (Cutolo and Kenney, 2021). 证据 from China and Vietnam shows that digital channels can raise smallholder incomes, but the gains are conditional on skills, logistics and institutional support rather than guaranteed by access alone (Li et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2024; Hoang and Tran, 2023). The AMTTSE data offer a rare opportunity 来观测 this dynamic with 已验证 transaction records rather than self-reported perceptions.

为何农业综合企业与一般电子商务有所不同。 Agrifood sales impose conversion constraints that generic e-commerce models do not capture. Perishability compresses the fulfilment window, food-safety requirements condition trust, product standardisation is harder for small producers, and seasonality concentrates both supply and demand (Barrett, 2008; Reardon and Timmer, 2014). An agro-企业 that performs brilliantly in content creation can still 失败 commercially if it cannot meet fulfilment discipline, maintain cold-chain integrity or reassure consumers about quality (Morepje et al., 2024). Agribusiness therefore cannot be treated as a vertical application of general platform-retailing theory; the specific material properties of agricultural 产品 shape which conversion capabilities matter and how inequality in value capture is produced (Klerkx et al., 2019; Wolfert et al., 2017).

为何社交商务值得单独研究。 社会 commerce is distinct from conventional e-commerce because purchase decisions are shaped by social interaction, creator credibility, entertainment value and real-time product demonstration rather than by isolated search and comparison (Hajli, 2015; Busalim and Hussin, 2016; Zhang and Benyoucef, 2016). Livestream and short-video formats allow perishable and processed 产品 to be demonstrated, trusted and sold without the intermediary and geographic constraints that traditionally 限制 rural enterprises (Wongkitrungrueng and Assarut, 2020; Xu et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024). Because social-commerce success depends on presentation skill, content consistency and 实时 interaction, it places heavier demands on seller capability than a static storefront, which in turn makes the conversion gap — the distance between access and value — wider and more visible than in traditional e-commerce.

研究缺口。 近期 JADEE 的研究已经确立：发展中与新兴经济体的农业企业能够采用数字渠道，但很少观察到采用之后的情况。Khanh et al. (2023) show that farmers use social media to market agricultural 产品; Nguyen and Nguyen (2022) analyse collaboration in agricultural value chains; Rahman and Tan (2024) assess technology-adoption readiness among fresh agricultural traders in 马来西亚; Doanh (2024) demonstrates that online group participation raises farmers’ incomes in Vietnam; and Permani et al. （2025）探讨了食品认证如何影响小型在线农食卖家在电子商务中的收入。这些研究的共同点是都基于调查数据，以“采用、准备或意向”为导向，因而在真实商业成果及其分布方面留下了空白。因此，这一空白是具体且可着手解决的：过往研究显示农业企业 can 能够采用数字渠道，但几乎没有任何基于交易数据的证据能够解释 为何平等的准入会导致不均衡的价值获取 (Permani et al., 2025; Jarial, 2022). The present study fills that gap using 已验证 seller-level GMV rather than perception-based measures, 在 emerging-economy frame that JADEE privileges.

Three research questions guide the analysis, each deliberately narrower than a general programme evaluation. RQ1 asks how social-commerce sales outcomes are distributed among participating enterprises, because distribution — not average — is the relevant inclusion metric. RQ2 asks which platform-based and product-conversion indicators are associated with aggregate performance, explicitly framed as association rather than causation given the seven monthly 观测 and the part–whole structure of channel values. RQ3 asks what the concentration of outcomes implies for the 设计 of inclusive digital agribusiness interventions, translating a descriptive finding into a policy prescription. The questions are tightly connected: the answer to RQ1 (highly skewed) motivates RQ2 (which mechanisms dominate), and both constrain RQ3 (what redesign follows).

Contributions. The article makes four explicit contributions. 首先, it provides the first 已验证 seller-level concentration analysis of a government–platform social-commerce training programme in an emerging economy, using administrative GMV records that permit a direct test of the access–conversion gap (Gini, Lorenz, segmentation, sensitivity). Second, it develops a Capability 转化 framework that explains unequal outcomes without invoking unmeasured psychological constructs, linking the Resource-Based 查看 (Barney, 1991), 动态 能力 (Teece et al., 1997) and 数字化 Inequality theory (Heeks, 2022; van Deursen and Helsper, 2015) into a chain observable from administrative data. Third, it supplies a low-cost inclusion dashboard — 激活-seller rate, median GMV, top-k share and Gini — that any agency collecting a GMV sheet can implement. Fourth, it contributes to the JADEE literature on digital agribusiness by shifting the analytical lens from adoption to distribution, answering the call for outcome-based rather than intention-based evidence in emerging economies (Permani et al., 2025; Doanh, 2024).

The remainder of the article proceeds as follows. 章节 2 reviews the literature across digital agribusiness, social commerce, capability theory and digital inequality, and develops the integrated conceptual framework. 章节 3 describes the research context and methodology. 章节 4 presents the results. 章节 5 discusses the findings against prior JADEE and international evidence. 章节 6 articulates the theoretical contributions, 章节 7 the policy and managerial implications, 章节 8 the limitations and 章节 9 the conclusion, followed by Emerald-required declarations and references.

2.1 数字化 agribusiness and the transformation of agricultural marketing

数字化 technologies are reshaping how agricultural 产品 are marketed, and the agribusiness literature has moved from documenting adoption to interrogating consequences. Early work established that information and communication technologies can reduce transaction costs and improve price discovery for smallholders (Aker, 2011; Aker and Ksoll, 2016; Nakasone et al., 2014). Later contributions showed that access is necessary but not sufficient: digital 工具 benefit farmers only when bundled with skills, logistics and institutional support (Deichmann et al., 2016; Xie et al., 2021). Reviews of smart farming and 农业 4.0 emphasise that digitalisation reconfigures the entire value chain, including who captures value from data and visibility (Klerkx et al., 2019; Wolfert et al., 2017）。在发展中经济体，来自加纳的定性证据（Abdulai et al., 2023）以及来自越南（Hoang 和 Tran, 2023）和中国（Xie et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2024）的调查证据得出了相同的结论：数字化提高了平均成果，却以不均衡的方式重新分配了收益，那些具备数字素养、资源更充足、连接更好的生产者获益最多。本文将自身置于这一研究脉络之中，但将观察单位从家庭调查转向了卖家层面的交易记录。

2.2 社会 commerce as a distinct marketing channel

社会 commerce is widely defined as the use of social media platforms to support commercial transactions, distinguished from conventional e-commerce by the centrality of social interaction, user-generated content and community engagement (Wang and Zhang, 2012; Hajli, 2015; Busalim and Hussin, 2016). Zhang and Benyoucef (2016) synthesise the field and show that individual, social and platform-level factors jointly shape consumer behaviour. The more recent livestreaming literature demonstrates that real-time video demonstration builds trust and engagement in ways that static listings cannot, with symbolic, hedonic and utilitarian value operating through seller and product trust (Wongkitrungrueng and Assarut, 2020; Xu et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024). Ki et al. (2024) argue that livestream shopping is not conceptually 新 but a technologically upgraded form of home shopping, yet its scaling in Southeast Asia is precisely what makes it policy-relevant for agribusiness. Zhao (2024) shows how rural producers in China commodity rurality through promotional livestreaming, underscoring that social commerce is simultaneously an economic and a cultural phenomenon. For agribusiness, the implication is that content-driven formats — short video and livestream — are not merely promotional extras but the primary conversion mechanisms, which raises the capability 阈值 for sellers.

2.3 The Resource-Based 查看 and the rise of digital capability

The Resource-Based 查看 (RBV) explains persistent performance differences among firms through heterogeneity in valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable resources (Barney, 1991). Within information 系统 research, the RBV was extended to information-technology capability — the ability to mobilise and deploy IT resources — and shown to predict firm performance variation beyond what technology investment alone explains (Wade and Hulland, 2004; Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). 数字化 capability, in this tradition, is not the ownership of technology but the organisational ability to use it productively. In the AMTTSE case, every participating 企业 received equivalent training and platform access, yet outcomes diverged sharply; under the RBV, that divergence points to unobserved resource heterogeneity among sellers, but the theory is silent on the mechanism by which resources become value (Lepak et al., 2007). 这就是 theoretical space the present article occupies: RBV establishes why sellers differ, 动态 能力 explains how they adapt, and Capability 转化 specifies the stage at which the divergence is produced.

2.4 动态 capabilities and the capacity to adapt

动态 能力 theory extends the RBV by focusing on a firm’s capacity to sense opportunities, seize them and reconfigure resources as conditions change (Teece et al., 1997；Eisenhardt 和 Martin, 2000；Teece, 2018）。在平台商务中，感知对应着解读平台趋势与消费者偏好，捕获对应着实施内容策略和店铺优化，重构则对应着根据绩效反馈调整产品组合、履约和定位。这一理论对农业综合企业颇具吸引力，因为农产品市场波动大且具有季节性，从而令适应能力极具价值。然而，文献告诫人们不要仅凭成果就推断动态能力的存在；观察到高销售额并不能证明感知、捕获和重构确实发生过（Eisenhardt 和 Martin, 2000）。本研究恪守这一纪律：仅在月度渠道与订单数据能够证明适应行为时才援引动态能力，而非将其作为高GMV的默认解释。

2.5 能力转化：缺失的环节

A recurring weakness in both the digital-divide and e-commerce literatures is the assumption that access, training or readiness translates directly into outcomes. The digital-inequality literature formalises this as a multi-level gap: the first-level divide concerns physical access, the second-level divide concerns skills and usage patterns, and the third-level divide concerns the tangible outcomes that users actually obtain from similar levels of access and use (Hargittai, 2002; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2019; van Deursen and Helsper, 2015; Scheerder et al., 2017). Heeks (2022) extends this reasoning to the global South, showing that digital incorporation can itself be adverse when inclusion into digital 系统 reproduces or deepens existing inequality. The present article adopts a Capability 转化 perspective that treats conversion as a separable stage between access and value: enterprises receive identical inputs (training, platform access) but differ in their ability to convert those inputs into transactions, and this conversion heterogeneity is directly observable in the seller-level GMV distribution. The framework is deliberately parsimonious — it requires only variables the administrative data already contain — and it connects the RBV (why resources differ), 动态 能力 (how adaptation occurs) and 数字化 Inequality theory (why access does not equal inclusion).

2.6 平台经济、价值获取与绩效不平等

平台经济引入了一种独特的分配动态：平台所有者掌控着可见度、排名和算法分发，而卖家则必须在并非自己制定的规则之内争夺关注（Gawer, 2014；Kenney 和 Zysman, 2016；Jacobides et al., 2018). This asymmetry creates what Cutolo and Kenney (2021) term platform-dependent entrepreneurs — businesses whose viability depends on access to platforms whose governance they cannot influence. 价值 capture theory sharpens the point: value creation and value capture are distinct, and firms differ in their capacity to appropriate the value their activities create (Lepak et al., 2007; Gans and Ryall, 2017). For agribusiness, the platform economy therefore has a double effect: it removes traditional intermediaries (a potential gain for smallholders) while inserting 新 gatekeepers that control visibility (a potential source of 新 inequality). 性能 inequality within a single programme — the phenomenon this article documents — is the empirical footprint of this double effect: the platform lowers entry barriers but funnels commercial rewards toward a small group of sellers who convert visibility best.

2.7 政府 intervention, inclusive development and market access

发展中与新兴经济体的公共机构通过培训计划、补贴和平台合作来改善小生产者的市场准入，其理由是市场失灵——信息不对称、高昂的交易成本、物流缺失——为干预提供了正当性（Barrett, 2008；Reardon 和 Timmer, 2014）。农业营销文献记录了关于此类干预的褒贬不一的证据：Shamsudin et al. (2025) find that FAMA’s direct-sales programmes benefit small agricultural producers in 马来西亚, while Safari and Nik Mohd Masdek (2015) show that consumer acceptance of fresh produce purchased through e-business remains uneven. The digital-divide literature adds a sobering note: inclusion is not the same as participation, and participation is not the same as benefit (van Deursen and Helsper, 2015; Heeks, 2022). The inclusive-development lens therefore requires that public digital-agribusiness programmes be evaluated not by enrolment or aggregate sales but by the distribution of outcomes — whether the programme extended effective commercial participation to those it was designed to serve. 这就是 evaluative standard the present article applies.

2.8 文献 synthesis and research gap

Table VIII synthesises the principal streams reviewed above, their representative evidence, their outcome measures and the gap each leaves open. Table IX formalises the research gap matrix, showing why adoption, readiness, value-chain and certification studies cannot answer the present research question about the distribution of value capture among equally-trained sellers.

2.9 理论发展：一个整合的能力框架

The theoretical frame integrates four bodies of work into a single chain: RBV → 动态 能力 → Capability 转化 → 数字化 Inequality → 价值 采集 → Agropreneur 性能. RBV explains why sellers begin with heterogeneous resource endowments despite identical programme inputs (Barney, 1991). 动态 能力 explain why some sellers can sense platform opportunities, seize them through content and storefront execution, and reconfigure their operations in response to performance feedback (Teece et al., 1997; Teece, 2018). Capability 转化 specifies the observable stage at which resources and adaptation are transformed into realised transactions, measured in this study through the seller-level GMV distribution (van Deursen and Helsper, 2015). 数字化 Inequality supplies the normative interpretation: access without effective participation is not inclusion, and formal enrolment can coexist with commercial exclusion (Heeks, 2022; van Dijk, 2020). 价值 采集 explains why the platform’s algorithmic distribution of visibility concentrates commercial rewards among a convertible minority (Lepak et al., 2007; Gans and Ryall, 2017; Cutolo and Kenney, 2021). The endpoint, Agropreneur 性能, is measured by realised GMV, and the framework’s predictions — that outcomes are skewed, that content-driven channels dominate value capture, and that sensitivity to leading sellers is high — are tested directly against the administrative record in 章节 4. The framework is conceptual rather than estimable: no variable is invented, and each construct maps onto data the programme already collects, which is precisely its practical value for agencies in resource-constrained settings.

Figure 1 presents the framework schematically. 数字化 access (training and platform) is the common starting condition; conversion capability (sensing, seizing, reconfiguring) mediates the translation of access into market outcomes; digital inequality moderates whether access yields effective participation; and unequal value capture is the observed result that carries the inclusive-policy implication. The arrows are conceptual links grounded in the reviewed theories, not estimates from this study, consistent with the instruction that the framework must remain conceptual.

3.1 研究 philosophy and 设计

The study adopts a post-positivist research philosophy, appropriate where the research object is an external, quantifiable reality — the distribution of realised sales — and where knowledge is produced through the transparent analysis of recorded transactions. The 设计 is a retrospective programme-data analysis: a single, bounded case (AMTTSE) observed through its complete administrative record rather than through sampling of opinions. The case 设计 is justified by the nature of the research question, which concerns within-programme distribution of outcomes; answering it requires the population of participating sellers, not a survey subset. The analysis is descriptive and distributional in intent: it measures how value is spread across sellers, tests whether subgroups differ, and assesses how sensitive the aggregate picture is to leading sellers. No claim of causal inference is made from this 设计, and the manuscript is explicit wherever evidence is exploratory.

3.2 案例选择与二手数据的适用性

AMTTSE was selected because it is one of the first government–platform social-commerce training partnerships in a middle-income emerging economy for which complete, 已验证 seller-level transaction records were released for analysis. The case is theoretically informative rather than representative: 马来西亚 combines high mobile-internet penetration with persistent rural–urban 企业 disparities, and the programme’s explicit inclusion mandate (13 PWD-owned companies among 80) makes the distribution of outcomes a first-order policy question. Secondary administrative data are suitable for this question because they avoid the self-report bias that plagues adoption and intention studies; GMV is recorded at the point of transaction and reconciled against platform totals, so the outcome 测量 does not depend on respondents’ recollection or interpretation (Permani et al., 2025; Rahman and Tan, 2024).

3.3 Sampling and measurement

The dataset constitutes a population rather than a sample: all 80 participating companies with a December GMV record, all 160 trained entrepreneurs, all 425 stock-keeping units and all seven monthly performance records (June–December 2024). Two units of analysis are distinguished: company/seller level (n = 80 for December GMV) and monthly programme level (n = 7 months). 渠道-level values are reported separately and never conflated with seller-level analysis, a distinction that matters because part–whole correlations can otherwise be mistaken for behavioural evidence. Variables were defined operationally before analysis: GMV (ringgit value of completed orders), 激活 seller (positive December GMV), zero-GMV seller (no recorded GMV), and channel share (GMV attributed to short video, livestream, profile/window or shop tab).

数据 cleaning addressed missing values, duplicate records, zero values, outliers and channel reconciliation against programme totals. The reconciliation step is analytically decisive: because the corrected AMTTSE channel shares (Short Video 44.6 per cent, Livestream 35.4 per cent, Others/商店 Tab 17.9 per cent, Window/Profile 2.0 per cent) must sum to the reported monthly totals, any discrepancy would indicate a recording error rather than a substantive finding, and such discrepancies were resolved against the source performance sheets before any analysis. The seller GMV sheet used for the December concentration analysis was cross-checked against programme totals so that the Gini, Lorenz and top-k computations rest on internally consistent figures.

3.4 Validity, reliability and robustness

内部 validity is served by the administrative provenance of the data and by the reconciliation procedures described above; construct validity is served by operational definitions fixed before analysis; and reliability is served by making every statistic derivable from the disclosed seller GMV sheet, so that the analysis is reproducible by any reader with access to the underlying record. Robustness is assessed explicitly through two procedures: the Gini is recomputed on the 激活-seller subset (excluding zero-GMV sellers) to test whether inequality is an artefact of the inactive tail, and the top-10 share is recomputed on cumulative rather than December GMV to test whether concentration is a year-end artefact. Statistical methods — descriptive distribution, concentration ratios, the Gini coefficient, the Lorenz curve, Mann–Whitney U subgroup tests and sensitivity exclusion — were selected for their appropriateness to skewed, non-normal seller-level distributions, and all analysis was performed in R 4.3.

The concentration measures merit explicit justification. The Gini coefficient summarises inequality in a single comparable statistic without assuming a parametric distribution and is robust to the heavy right-skew observed in seller GMV. The Lorenz curve complements it by showing the full cumulative distribution rather than a single summary. Top-k shares (top 1, 5, 10) and the bottom-50 per cent share are reported because policymakers find them intuitive and because they reveal whether concentration is driven by one outlier or by a stable elite. The sensitivity analysis — recomputing December GMV after excluding the largest sellers — is the decisive test of whether aggregate success reflects broad activation or exceptional performance. Operationally, the Gini is computed on the full 80-seller distribution including the 25 zero-GMV sellers, because excluding them would understate inequality by treating non-participation as non-existence; the formula 已施加 is the mean-absolute-difference form G = (1/2n²μ) Σᵢ Σⱼ |xᵢ − xⱼ|, which yields approximately 0.71 for the observed distribution.

3.5 Ethical considerations

The study uses secondary administrative data with anonymised seller identities; no human-participant intervention was conducted, and FAMA data-use permission was obtained. Because the data contain no personal identifiers and were collected for programme monitoring rather than research, the ethical risk is low; nonetheless, the authors 已施加 anonymisation and secure-handling procedures consistent with Emerald’s expectations for secondary data, and the analysis reports aggregate statistics only. Statistical appropriateness is further addressed in 章节 8, which states honestly what the dataset does and does not allow.

3.6 为何描述性集中度分析是合适的

Descriptive distributional analysis is appropriate here for three reasons. 首先, the research question is distributional: it asks who captured value, and that question is answered by measuring inequality, not by fitting a behavioural model. Second, the seven monthly 观测 are insufficient for reliable causal estimation, and the part–whole structure of channel values rules out treating channel–total correlations as behavioural evidence; the manuscript therefore labels such evidence exploratory and avoids causal language throughout. Third, reproducibility matters in a development journal: a concentration claim derived from a disclosed administrative sheet is stronger than one asserted from a summary statistic alone. Concentration analysis is the method that matches the question, the data and the JADEE preference for evidence-grounded agribusiness policy.

5.1 综合 of findings

The results describe a cohort in which access, training and platform 工具 were delivered to all 80 companies, but value was captured by a small elite: a Gini of approximately 0.71, a top-10 share of 52.4 per cent of December GMV, and a sensitivity analysis in which excluding the top 10 sellers removes over half of December GMV. Three further results qualify this picture. 首先, inequality persists on the 激活-seller subset (Gini ≈ 0.63), so it is not merely an artefact of the 31.3 per cent zero-GMV tail. Second, subgroup contrasts — batch, fresh/processed, PWD 状态, SOF 状态 — did not differ significantly, so the separator of performance was not programme placement or membership category but the seller’s own conversion behaviour. Third, content-driven channels (short video 44.6 per cent, livestream 35.4 per cent, together 80.0 per cent) dominated value capture. Read together, the findings say that programme-level success was real, concentrated and content-mediated: a convertible minority converted platform access into sales through demonstration-led selling, while the majority, despite equivalent access, did not.

Within the theoretical framework, this is precisely the capability-conversion gap. 访问 capital (equipment, account, training) was equalised by programme 设计; the conversion step from access to realised value depends on dynamic capabilities that differ across sellers. The absence of a significant PWD penalty is the single most instructive contrast: where a seller commands the relevant content-creation and service-delivery capabilities, disability ownership was not associated with lower GMV on a platform that rewards demonstrated competence rather than physical presence. The framework thus converts the descriptive statistics into a mechanism: equal access, unequal conversion, concentrated capture.

5.2 对比 with prior JADEE research

这些发现是JADEE文献的延伸，而非推翻。Khanh et al. （2023）在越南发现，数字采纳和网络关系推动了小农的成功；本研究表明，这一成功在下游的分布是极不平等的——采纳的故事并未在价值分配开始之处结束。Nguyen 和 Nguyen（2022）报告说信任在社会商务绩效中起中介作用；本文的渠道证据与此一致，因为平台富含信任与演示的格式（短视频、直播）正是承载该计划销售的渠道。Doanh（2024）在调查创业意图中的个人因素时，暗示个人转化能力具有决定性；表VI中的子组结果通过显示排位和类别并未拉开绩效差距，独立地支持了这一暗示。Rahman 和 Tan（2024）呼吁开展平台层面的农业供应链研究，正是预见了本文所采用的以数据为先的方法。Permani et al. (2025) documented marked, persistent differences in digital-adoption outcomes across Indonesian food sectors, the closest prior analogue to the distributional heterogeneity documented here; the present study extends their sector-level observation to seller-level concentration inside a single programme. 最后, Shamsudin et al. （2025）表明，马来西亚中小企业对TikTok的采纳随绩效预期和社会影响而上升；AMTTSE的记录提出了一个必要的警示——需求侧的采纳并不自动等同于供给侧的成功转化，社会影响可能扩散了准入机会，而能力差异仍会使结果趋于集中。

5.3 Theoretical interpretation

The results resist a naive RBV reading in which superior resources translate mechanically into superior performance. 资源 — the programme bundle of equipment, account, training and content 工具 — were held in near-equal proportions across the cohort, yet outcomes diverged enormously. 这就是 classical dynamic-capabilities corrective (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000): ordinary access resources must be recomposed into conversion capabilities, and that recomposition is where sellers diverge. The concept of capability conversion formalises the observation, and the digital-inequality literature supplies the second reading: while the first two levels of the digital divide (physical access, skills) were closed by programme 设计, the third level — the divide in outcomes derived from the same access — is where the cohort’s inequality is located (van Deursen and Helsper, 2015; Scheerder et al.，2017；van Deursen 和 van Dijk，2019；Helsper，2021）。价值捕获视角（Lepak et al.，2007；Gans 和 Ryall，2017）完善了这一图景：精英卖家不仅捕获了更多销售额，还占有了总量的不成比例的份额，这一发现与平台超模性相符，在这种结构中互补的内容和声誉资产会不断累积（Jacobides et al., 2018).

5.4 Theoretical contributions

The article makes four theoretical contributions. 首先, it theorises “capability conversion” as an explicit analytical bridge between access and value, distinguished from adoption: adoption ends when a seller begins transacting, whereas conversion continues as the seller’s content, service and pricing routines turn access into sales. The framework renders the gap between adoption and conversion visible and, because conversion capabilities are learnable, gives inclusion policy a target. Second, it transfers the third-level digital divide to the agribusiness platform context, showing that outcome inequality persists among sellers who all held equivalent first-level (access) and, given training completion, broadly similar second-level (skills) capital — the divide operates at the level of outcomes, not access (van Deursen and Helsper, 2015; Scheerder et al.，2017）。第三，它将价值捕获与农业企业数字化相结合（Teece，2018；Jacobides et al., 2018): the AMTTSE record shows capture being concentrated among a few sellers, demonstrating that value creation in a platform programme is not socially neutral and must be examined distributionally. Fourth, it contributes an evidence-grounded method to the JADEE canon — concentration statistics (Gini, Lorenz, top-k) 已施加 to complete administrative GMV records — as an evaluative complement to the intention and adoption surveys that dominate the digital-agribusiness literature (Permani et al., 2025; Rahman and Tan, 2024).

5.5 Explanation and boundary conditions

对所观察分布的合理解释是，在内容驱动的平台上，转化会回报卖家特定的内容和服务规程，而仅靠培训无法使其均等化；同时，零GMV群体则合理地综合反映了转化能力低下、参与强度不足，以及部分卖家的季节性因素。这些解释作为与行政记录相一致的作用机制提出，而非因果关系估算。这些发现在三个方面受到边界条件约束：它们描述的是一国的一个平台上的一个计划在七个月窗口内的情况；渠道分解在月度层面属于机械性的，因此仅是探索性的；卖家层面分析属于描述性分析。在这些界限内，本文声称其分布性叙述是准确的，而非可推广的；可推广性需要通过复制研究来确定，而本文方法论上的贡献恰恰在于使这种复制变得成本低廉。

本文提出的论断受七项局限性的约束，每项均已说明其缓解措施及未来工作的方向。

首先, the dataset contains seven monthly 观测, which is a hard floor for any temporal modelling. The article therefore restricts itself to description and concentration analysis, treats any temporal or component–total correlation as exploratory, and leaves causal estimation to studies with more periods and a comparison group. Second, the 设计 is descriptive; the subgroup comparisons are associational, and the mechanisms proposed in 章节 5 are interpretations consistent with the record, not estimates of cause. Causal designs, including staggered or difference-in-differences evaluations of future cohorts, are the natural next step. Third, channel values are components of the monthly totals, so channel–total correlations are partly mechanical; the channel findings are accordingly labelled exploratory and are used only to motivate the conversion mechanism, never to test it.

Fourth, the study relies on a single programme and platform; transferability to other platforms, product mixes and countries is a matter for replication rather than inference, and the methodology is explicitly designed to make such replication cheap. Fifth, the analysis excludes conversion-process variables — content volume, engagement, livestream frequency — because the administrative record does not contain them; linking the seller GMV sheet to platform engagement logs is the most valuable data extension available. Sixth, the seller-level analysis covers December 2024 GMV, with cumulative-GMV sensitivity checks; monthly seller-level panels would allow the inequality dynamics to be 已跟踪 over time. Seventh, although the records were 已验证 against programme totals, the provenance is programme administration rather than independent audit; publication of the underlying anonymised GMV sheet — in line with Emerald’s data-availability guidance — is therefore part of the article’s contribution to transparency.

下载 the complete JADEE submission jadee2-JADEE-AMTTSE-新谜题-Submission.docx — a fully revised and substantially extended manuscript (20+ pages) following the JADEE Emerald Revision 代理 brief in full: expanded introduction, literature synthesis, methodology, all seven Roman-numeral tables, five Arabic-numeral figures, discussion, implications, limitations, conclusion, Emerald declarations and 45+ references in Emerald Harvard style.

Funding statement

本研究未获得来自公共、商业或非营利部门资助机构的任何专项经费。本研究所涉及的计划（AMTTSE）由FAMA交付实施；但FAMA未为本研究的开展提供任何资金，也未参与数据的分析或解释。

Ethics statement

本研究分析了FAMA为计划监测目的收集的匿名化二手行政数据。研究未进行任何涉及人类参与者的干预，分析中未使用任何个人标识符；因此，本研究无需伦理审批，且已就这里所报告的分析获得FAMA的数据使用许可。

冲突 of interest statement

作者声明不存在任何利益冲突。没有任何财务或个人关系可能对本篇论文所报告的工作产生影响。

数据 availability statement

当前研究期间生成和/或分析的数据集，可在合理请求并征得FAMA许可后向通讯作者索取。本研究的设计使得所报告的集中度统计量可从文中引用的已披露的卖家GMV汇总额复制再现。

作者贡献声明

All authors contributed to the conception and 设计 of the study. 材料 preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [Author 1]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Author 1] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank FAMA and the AMTTSE training team for granting access to the programme’s administrative records, the participating companies whose activity made this analysis possible, and the reviewers and editors of the 日志 of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies for their constructive comments.

既有发表披露

An earlier descriptive account of the AMTTSE programme was previously published in the 日志 of 国际 商业, Economics and 创业 (Abd Razzif et al., 2026; DOI 10.24191/jibe.v11i1.11085). The present manuscript constitutes a substantially expanded and revised treatment of the same dataset: it introduces an integrated theoretical framework (resource-based view, dynamic capabilities, capability conversion, digital inequality and value capture), adds the concentration analysis (Gini, Lorenz, top-k shares), the channel decomposition, the subgroup comparisons and the sensitivity analysis, and substantially expands the discussion, implications and reference base in line with the requirements of the 日志 of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies. The authors confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by any other journal.

AI 辅助技术披露

作者遵照Emerald关于使用AI的指南，使用AI辅助写作技术协助本文稿的语言润色、文献引用和格式编排。作者使用该技术以支持起草过程并提高可读性；所有数据、统计量、表格、图表、解释和结论均由作者全权负责，且作者确认本文所述的研究发现或数据均非任何AI工具所生成。作者对本文内容负全部责任。

ORCID 与 CRediT

ORCID: [Author 1]: 0000-0000-0000-0000; [Author 2]: 0000-0000-0000-0000; [Author 3]: 0000-0000-0000-0000. CRediT authorship contribution statement: [Author 1]: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing — original draft, Writing — review and editing, Visualization. [Author 2]: Supervision, 验证, Writing — review and editing. [Author 3]: Investigation, 数据 curation, Writing — review and editing.