.SIS

lHllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF TRANSFORMATION OF AGRICULTURE:

FORDISM, NEO-FORDISM, AND POST-FORDISM

presented by

Masashi Tachikawa

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Sociology

  

/

W~/"T"‘_”

’ fl/W MO or profe sor
Lawrence Busch
6T
Date if A?/L§

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

-. ‘H '0

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

flfim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution
cMWMH1

 

 

A CONCEPTUAL NODEL OP TRANSFORMATION OF AGRICULTURE:
FORDISN, NEO-PORDISN, AND POST-EORDISN

BY
Haaaahi Taohikaua

A THESIS

Submitted to
niohigan state University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1993

ABSTRACT

A CONCEPTUAL NOBEL OF TRANSFORMATION OF AGRICULTURE:
PORDISN, NEO-EORDISN, AND POST-PORDISN

BY

Masashi Tachikawa

This study examines the current transformation of 0.8.
agriculture. Based on the characteristics of technological
development, three models of agricultural production system
are delineated. They are termed as Fordism, Neo-Fordism and
Post-Fordism.

The Fordist model of agricultural development is largely
characterized as large-scale units of production,
mechanization, and standardized products. In contrast with
this model, alternative models, Neo-Fordism and Post-Fordism,
try to find niche market by producing differentiated
commodities.

This study is an attempt to understand the implications
of different types of technological development in terms of
their scientific backgrounds, their effect on the flexibility
of farming, market relations, strategies to transform the
agri-food system, and prospects and barriers in the future.
The findings suggest that 0.8. agriculture is becoming more
and more heterogeneous than before in terms of technology and

farming strategy.

To My Parents

iii

ACKNO'LEDGENENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Lawrence Busch, for
his insightful suggestions, encouragement and guidance. His
continuous and thoughtful advice was greatly appreciated. I
would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Marilyn
Aronoff and Dr. Chris Vanderpool, for their helpful ideas and
suggestions. Ms. Jeanne Lorentzen deserves my appreciation for
editing this thesis.

I am very grateful to Japan-United States Educational
Commission (Fulbright Program) to give me a great opportunity
to study in the United States. My colleagues at Chugoku
National Agricultural Experiment Station, which belongs to
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, also deserve
my sincere appreciation for their continuous encouragement to
my study.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, sister and

friends for their support and encouragement to my study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Vii

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. FLEXIBILITY OF FARMING AND MARKET RELATIONS . . . . 6

(1) Flexibility of Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

a) Skills of Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

b) Technological Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

c) Organizational Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . 9

d) Policy/Regulatory Options . . . . . . . . . . . 10

(2) Market Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
II. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE TYPES OF

AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

(1) The Fordist or Conventional Model . . . . . . . . 15

(2) The Neo-Fordist or Industrial Model . . . . . . . 16

(3) The Post-Fordist or Alternative Model . . . . . . 18

III. SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

(l) Fordist and Neo-Fordist Agriculture . . . . . . . 20
(2) Post-Fordist Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

IV. STRATEGIES TRANSFORMING AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . 24
(l) Identity-preserved Crops as an Industrial Model . 24
a) Main Actors in the Transformation and Their
Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
b) Strategies: Reorganization of Vertical Linkage . 25
c) A Closed System of Technology Development/
Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
d) Bases of Competition: Added Value and Market
Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
e) Limited Farmers' Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
f) Expected Impacts and Barriers . . . . . . . . . 29

(2) Sustainable Agriculture as an Alternative Model . 30
a) Main Actors in the Transformation and Their
Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
b) Strategies: Human Capital and Horizontal
Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
c) An Open System of Technology Development/
Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

V

d)

of Scope .

e)
f)

V.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Prospects and Barriers .
Weak Linkage with the Food Processing Industry .

vi

CONCLUSION AND ITS POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Bases of Competition: Added Value and Economies

36
37
38

41

46

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

LIST OF FIGURES

Three Models of Agriculture from the Viewpoint
of Market Specification and Flexibility of
Farming O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 13

Characteristics of Three Models of
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

vii

In their book, "The Second Industrial Divide", which
deals with the transformation of the production system in
manufacturing industries, Piore and Sabel (1984) show the
possibilities of industrial development based on flexible
specialization‘ which emphasizes a craft production system.
They argue that we are facing the choice of a production
system between the mass production system and the flexible
specialization. A period during which choices are presented
regarding the path of development is referred to as an
'industrial divide'.

The brief moments when the path of technological

development itself is at issue we call industrial

divides. At such moments, social conflicts of the

most apparently unrelated kinds determine the

direction of technological development for the

following decades (Piore and Sabel 1984:5).

We are presently going through an agricultural

 

‘ "Flexible specialization is a strategy of permanent
innovation: accommodation to ceaseless change, rather than an
effort to control it. This strategy is based on flexible -
multi-use- equipment; skilled workers; and the creation,
through politics, of an industrial community that restricts
the forms of competition to those favoring innovation. For
these reasons, the spread of flexible specialization amounts
to a revival of craft forms of production that were
emarginated at the first industrial divide." (Piore and Sabel
1984:17)

2

'industrial divide', where multiple paths are open to us and
proponents and opponents are advocating their paradigms. The
outcomes of each type of agriculture can have different
implications for the structure of agriculture and society as
a whole. The objective of this paper is not prediction of the
future, but the description and analysis of the implications
of different types of agricultural production systems. The
future path of technological development relies on the
negotiations among various actors, and the possible paths can
co-exist. I suppose that this is the plausible case in the
future.

The agriculture and food industry in industrial countries
changed greatly after World War II. In terms of agriculture,
it is largely characterized as high-input of agrichemicals,
large-scale units of production, mechanization, and
standardized products. The food industry is also characterized
as a large-scale industrialized mass-production system which
creates an enormous amount of uniform, standardized food
commodities. With the help of chemical food additives and
preservatives, processed food became available and largely
replaced domestic food preparation. The transformation of the
agriculture and food industry benefited from some of the
fruits of development of chemical and engineering technology.

Such a large-scale mass production system in the
agriculture and food industry is called 'Fordist' development

(Kenney 1989, Goodman and IRedclift 1991). While Fordist

3

development has caused many problems in terms of environment
and food safety, consumers also began to search for
differentiated, value-added commodities. In short, the mass
market became glutted with standardized goods, and, currently,
there is a search for new alternative forms of development. At
this point in time, we can isolate two alternative paths of
development of the ’agri-food system' (Goodman and Redclift
1991) which will be discussed below.

In this paper I will describe three types of agricultural

production systems: the Fordist (or gongentignal) Model, the
Neezzerdist (or Industrial) Model and the W (or

W) Model to be explained below. I develop these
concepts2 as Weberian ' ideal types' through an examination of
the current literature. These concepts play a heuristic role
in examining the multi-faceted phenomena which occurred, and
continues to occur, in the agri-food system.

It is worth noting two points here. Firstly, no actor

rigidly adheres to one type of agricultural production system

 

2 According to Burrows et al. (1992), there are three
distinct positions on how to understand Fordism, Post-Fordism,
and flexibility: i.e., Marxist regulation theory; the notion
of flexible specialization associated with the 'new’
institutional economics; and the model of the flexible firm
derived from the managerialist literature. Our position here
is close to the second one, which focuses on changes in the
process of production. Piore and Sabel proposed a concept
called 'flexible specialization' which refers to ”a new form
of skilled craft production made easily adaptable by
programmable technology to provide specialized goods which can
supply an increasingly fragmented and volatile market"
(Burrows et al. 1992:3) . We owe the conceptualization of Post—
Fordism to their idea of ’flexible specialization'.

mi $3.?! ‘1» In

4
as its sole survival strategy. Rather, every actor, to a
greater or lesser degree, employs a mixed survival strategy.
For example, based on a survey, Lesley et al. (1990) found
that it is difficult to categorize farmers based on whether
they engage in low-input or conventional agriculture.
Nevertheless, it is helpful to set up a typology in order to
show the different directions and consequences of
transformation, where various actors, scientific approaches,
and organizational arrangements interact in a coordinated
fashion.

Secondly, the three types of production systems are dealt
with largely in terms of the direction of technological
development. However, I do not support the idea of
technological determinism- My position is quite the opposite.
Not only do technological options, but also the market,
organizational structure, and micro/macro regulation, affect
the likelihood of achieving an optimal solution for producing
commodities (Piore and Sabel 1984). Busch (1993) argues that
"science, technology, government regulations, market rules,
land tenure, and legal systems, are different strategies by
which individuals and organizations seek to achieve various
ends". These factors create the driving forces which organize
certain production systems, and when they work together in a
coordinated fashion, form a set of systems like a seamless
web.

In the first section of this paper, I discuss the basic

 

 

5
differences between each model of agriculture and, in the
second section, I elucidate the general characteristics of
each model. In the third section, I discuss how each model is
based on a different scientific background. The transformation
of the current agri-food system (Conventional Model) into the
Industrial and Alternative Model brings us into a totally
different situation in terms of the technology
development/transfer system, organizational arrangement,
regulation, market relation and so on. The different set of
strategies is addressed in section four. In the conclusion, I
summarize the above discussion and discuss the policy

implications for 0.8. agriculture.

 

There are two key concepts by which the three models of
agricultural production are distinguished. The foci of
agricultural production models are on the flexibility of
farming and. the ‘market. relations which are targeted. by
farmers, processors and other actors. The focus on. the
flexibility of farming and market relations of output is
crucial for farming, or any other enterprise, in order to
enable adaptation to the variability or fluctuation of the
surrounding environment. In the case of farming, there are two
sources of variation; one is the physical or biological
environment, the other is the economic environment or market
condition, which would include consumer demand. Farming has to
adapt to both influences, either by changing farming itself
and/or managing the environment to be kept under control.

The Fordist Model pursued production extensively and
succeeded in providing large quantities of products to the
market. However, the market became glutted with standardized
products at a certain point in time.

In order to find a niche market, a major shift of focus
from quantity to quality is pursued in agri-food system. In

other words, product differentiation in terms of quality

7
should be emphasized by people.

I argue there are two ways to achieve product
differentiation. The first strategy is to minimize the
variability of production (farming, in this particular case).
In other words, total quality control within the agri-food
system may be pursued as a way of product differentiation.
This will minimize the flexibility of farming. The second way
to effect product differentiation is a strategy which attempts
to adapt the variability coming from production. Farming tries
to take advantage of location-specific resources and to create
diverse, and value-added products, a strategy which can
capture the differentiated market. The agricultural production

models are classified according to these two concepts.

(1) W
The flexibility of farming refers to the possibility of
modifying some, or all, components of a farming system’.
Flexibility is determined by various factors surrounding
farmers, such as the skills of farmers, technological options,

organizational arrangements, and policy/regulatory options.

MW

Major successes of modern agricultural production are

 

3 A farming system can be defined as "the overall
approach used in crop or livestock production, often derived
from a farmer's goal, values, knowledge, available
technologies, and economic opportunities" (Benbrook 1991:6).

8
often attributed to technological innovation, such as
mechanization, chemical inputs, and modern varieties. These
technological developments contributed to increasing labor
productivity. Farmers' skills‘ have also been standardized. An
example of skill conformity is the practice of pesticide
application on a regular schedule, rather than application
based on individual farmer discretion. Flexibility of farming
requires farmers to have adequate skills, since each farming
practice requires appropriateness, timeliness, and so on. For
example, if farmers attempt to utilize agrichemicals in a
flexible manner (not based on uniformed decisions), they must
have the appropriate skills to manage the problem derived from

the pest.

1°) W

Technological development does not necessarily result in
standardization of farmers' skills or deskilling. However, the
technological development of modern agriculture mainly focused
on mechanization, chemicalization, and breeding (improving
yield and uniformity), and resulted in higher dependence on
capital, petroleum, agri-chemicals and limited varieties of
seeds (Soule and Piper 1992:52) . These technological
developments limited flexibility for farming, because these

technologies usually don' t take into account the diversity of

 

‘ The skills of farming can be defined as a producer's
capacity to deal with farming based on his or her education,
experience, knowledge, management ability, and so on.

9

ecological conditions, which virtually differ from field to
field. The reductionist approach of agricultural science has
succeeded in identifying what Latour (1987) calls "immutable
and combinable mobiles", information which is invariant
through any change in spatial or social location (Kloppenburg
1991:529). Ideally, such information may be valuable when it
succeeds in solving farmers' immediate problems. From this
standpoint, farming flexibility might be regarded as
undesirable variability occurring as a result of an
uncontrollable environment.

There are other paths of technological development which
were not taken, but there are ways to encourage farming
flexibility along with technological development. Later, such
possibilities are presented, when I deal with the Post-
Fordist, or Alternative, Model of agricultural production

system.

WW

In terms of agriculture, organizational arrangements can
be less important than other factors, since farmers are
usually self-employed and, at least on the farm, do not work
within formal organization in the sense that workers of
manufacturing industries do. However, contract farming and
vertical integration are becoming more and more important
organizational arrangements today. Marion (1986) pointed out

that "vertical coordination is one of the central dimensions

10
of the organization and conduct of economic activity" for
commodity subsectors and ”the percentage of total farm output
produced either under contractual arrangements or by
vertically integrated firms increased from 25 percent in 1960
to 31 percent in 1980" (Myers 1991:31). These organizational
arrangements affect farmers' decision making and, therefore,

farming flexibility.

MW

Government policies, such as fiscal policy, taxation,
trade policy, commodity programs, and so on, are important
factors which farmers take into consideration when selecting
crops and determining management strategy, because
governmental policy directly affects the profitability of
farming. In particular, commodity programs related to cross-
compliance provisions have been criticized as an economic
disincentive for farmers to adopt crop rotation (National
Research Council 1989:69). This provision offers a limited
option of crops and, therefore, limited flexibility of
farming. Although the 1990 Farm Bill set up a new rule of
”Planting Flexibility", the modification of regulations

remains minimal‘. Financial stress caused by high, real

 

5 The program allows farmers to plant additional crops
on the up to 15.0% of Base Acreage, but results in.a reduction
of Payment Acres. "New Provision in legislation is that farmer
may plant other crops on the 15 percent of Crop Acreage Base
not eligible for payments without loss of Crop Acreage Base.
Other crops which will be 'considered planted' to the program
crop include all other program crops, any oilseed crop, any

11
interest rates during the 19803 (which was caused by monetary
and fiscal policy) has also been criticized to discourage
farmers from engaging in long-term, environmentally sound

agricultural practices (Flora 1990b).

(2) W

Market relations, in general, refers to the ways in which
commodities are sold through the market. In other words, what
type of market is targeted by certain commodities. Here, the
main focus is on the degree of market specification of
commodities, or output of farming. The assumption here is that
market specification requires product differentiation as a
necessary condition. The degree of market specification
becomes very important when the market becomes glutted with
unspecified products“ The supply side, such.as farmers and the
food industry, attempts to capture benefits by creating a
differentiated market. In short, this is the time when the
mass market can no longer expand extensively and people begin
to locate niche markets. This change creates a great challenge
for producers who have been engaging in conventional
agriculture (Fordist agriculture).

Conventional agriculture greatly contributed to increased
production along with the development of mass markets and mass

consumption. However, these mass production and consumption

 

industrial or experimental crop, and any other non-program
crop except fruits and vegetables" (USDA, ERS 1990:24).

12
systems recently became problematic in that the price of
agricultural products continuously declined over the last
several decades, therefore, resulting in a decline in the
portion of value added on the farm“. Today many producers feel
frustrated with the situation. Market specification and
product differentiation are important strategies to adapt to

the changing demand for agricultural products.

Agricultural production in the United States may be
conceptualized as three distinctive types using this approach.

Agricultural production models are termed Ferdist (or
Conventional), Neo-Fordist (or Industrial) and Post-Fordist
(or Alternative) . Classification of three types of agriculture
is primarily based on the flexibility of farming and market
relations (to be exact, market specification) as previously
mentioned7 (see FIGURE 1).

Based on this classification, I examine the
characteristics of the three types of agriculture, the
strategies to transform current agriculture, and conclude with
the different implications and social consequences for rural

communities.

 

‘ USDA statistics show that "the farmers' share of the
consumer dollar spent at the supermarket fell from Slicents in
1918 to 24 cents by 1990" (Browne et al. 1992:108).

7 Theoretically 'traditional agriculture' can be
characterized as a flexible farming system with lower market
specification in the FIGURE 1. I do not deal with this model
of agriculture, because the focus here is mainly on the three
models of agriculture mentioned above.

13

FIGURE 1

THREE NODELS OF AGRICULTURE FRON TEE VIEWPOINT
OF NARRET SPECIFICATION AND FLEXIBILITY OF FARNING

EQEEQL

high

NEO-FORDIST

POST-FORDIST

 

(INDUSTRIAL) (ALTERNATIVE)
f_rning
rigid -* - flexible
FORDIST (TRADITIONAL)
(CONVENTIONAL)

 

low

 

 

The historical background and development of the concept

of Fordism can be traced back to the Italian Marxist, Antonio
Gramsci. The term 'Fordism' was first coined by him. He used
this term to show "the new form Of interpenetration between
the economy and the political and cultural spheres" (Forgacs
1988:275). Gramsci thought that American society in the 1920s
and 19303 could be characterized as a new society with a
'rationalized’ social structure, in which 'hegemony'
originated from.the ’rationalized' production system that was
typified by the assembly lines established by Henry Ford. In
other words, Gramsci coined the term "Fordism" to elucidate a
new form of social integration emerging in the early twentieth
century U.S.

The concept Of Fordism was later developed through the
works Of French regulationists and other researchers studying
the mass production system Of the automobile industry.
According to Hill (1990),

Fordism is a historically created and

institutionalized profit logic based on economies

Of scale achieved through the mass production of

standardized commodities by'a deskilled work force.

Productivity increases are generated by annexing

workers to single, routine operations. Wage costs

are reduced by simplifying labor. Labor control

derives from management monopoly over knowledge Of

14

 

u

 

15

the production process (Hill 1990:66).

The Fordist approach has also been applied directly tO
the food industry, particularly in fast food chain system.
Kenney (1989) uses the concept of Fordism to link the
manufacturing with the agricultural sector, and to discuss
agricultural/rural issues, particularly those raised in

industrial nations.

(1) WW

According to Kenney (1989), "Fordism [in the
manufacturing industry] created an enormous consumer market
consisting of relatively undifferentiated workers. The U.S.
agriculture responded to this market by producing masses Of
commodities at uniform quality" (Kenney 1989:135).

Agricultural Fordism can be characterized, as follows,
based on specific assumptions. Fordist agriculture is
characterized as large-scale production widely used in the
U.S. and Canada. Some other characteristics of this type Of
production are large-scale mechanization, uniform production
management based on high chemical input, and standardized
output. Agricultural Fordism appeared with the rise Of
industrial mass production and mass consumption. As U.S.
farmers became more integrated into Fordist agriculture, they
moved more into monocropping, along with mechanical and
chemical inputs, decreasing rotation, crop diversity and

flexibility (Kenny et al. 1991:181).

 

16

However, this system has come tO face two challenges. One
has been raised within the agricultural production system
itself. The rural population has increasingly raised concerns
about the condition Of their environment and health effects,
as well as their economic well-being. Another challenge
concerns changes in consumer demand. Consumers are seeking
safer, more varied, and value-added foods in the market. In
order to deal with these problems, there are two alternatives
that can be pursued.

To make a contrast to the Fordist (or Conventional)
Model, we can call the two alternative types Of agricultural
production system Neo-Fordist (or Industrial) and Post—Fordist
(or Alternative). The Neo-FOrdist approach corresponds to a
biotechnological solution tO the current problems. In
contrast, the Post-Fordist approach corresponds to sustainable
agriculture. Both Of them imply a considerable transformation
Of the current agricultural system. The most important
distinction between Neo-Fordism and Post-Fordism is
flexibility which farmers.can:reserve in their farming system,
for example, selection Of technologies and inputs which could

be left to farmers’ decision-making.

(2) WM
Neo-Fordist agriculture can be characterized as a
production system in which product differentiation (or market

specification) is pursued by advanced technology, while

 

17

natural constraints to agricultural production are minimized.
However, this system also minimizes the flexibility of
farming. For example, farmers' Options are not wide in terms
Of herbicide application if they are growing an herbicide-
tolerant crop which is especially tolerant to Monsanto's
Roundup. Rather we can see the deskilling Of farmers through
”seed-embodied technology" (Goodman and Redclift 1991:59).

This Neo-Fordist agriculture is closely related to the
development.ofIbiotechnology; Junne (1992) argues as follows;

Neo-Fordist applications try to make agriculture
less dependent on time (season) and space (specific
climate, soil). 'Neo-Fordist' applications would
supply the 'technological fix’ with which
bottlenecks of 'Fordist' development could
temporarily be overcome (e.g., the problem Of
overproduction by increasing production Of biomass
as industrial raw material, and the problem Of
pollution by the treatment Of effluent) (Junne:11).

From our viewpoint, Neo-Fordist agriculture has several
characteristics as follows;

. Seeking profitability through enhancing labor
productivity or value-added products

. Highly standardized and specialized technology is
applied (reductionistic science)

. Flexibility is dependent on Off-farm sectors (e.g., seed
company, contract food industry; e.g., Substitutionism
of food industry will undercut farmers’ flexibility.)

. Farmers' skills are required in limited areas

. Highly specified output (highly differentiated)

. Specialization toward a specifically targeted market or
subcontracted with food industry

 

18
(3) The_29sIcIIuIUuu2_gr_Alternatixe_nQdel

As mentioned before, Post-Fordist agriculture is
different from Neo-Fordist agriculture in terms Of the
flexibility Of farming. The Post-Fordist system is supposed to
take advantage of location-specific resources and
differentiate products with the help Of advanced technology,
such as the utilization Of information systems to support
farmers' decision-making, or Integrated Pest Management in
which development is location-specific.

Junne (1992) also describes the Post-Fordist approach as
follows, "A 'Post-Fordist' research strategy would imply a
system of flexible specialization, concentrate on applications
which are more site-specific, take the differentiation of
markets more into account, and respond to changes Of value
systems” (Junne:12) . We can characterize Post-Fordist
agriculture as follows;

. Seeking long-term sustainability (economically and
ecologically) and flexibility at the farming level

. Seeking low-input agriculture through utilizing
location-specific resources and information

. Flexibility at the production process is high

(flexibility is reserved at farmers' level)

. Skillful management is required to take advantage Of
local resources and information

. Diversity Of output will be enhanced through flexible
production

 

‘ Alfred Sloan’s idea Of differentiation Of the
automobile was closely related tO the decentralization Of
management. Additionally, he emphasized other areas Of
expertise in fields other than auto manufacture, such as
finance, and information analysis for long-term strategy.
These characteristics may show that Sloan was heading toward
a kind of Post-Fordist production system (Collier and Horowitz
1987).

 

 

19

. Developing diverse marketing channels, such as direct
contracts with consumer groups (e.g., community
supported agriculture)

”'7

RZIE'
\x

111- W

(1) W

Many researchers argue that the development Of
conventional agriculture (Fordist agriculture) is based on
modern science, characterized as reductionism, in which
science is oriented toward simplification, quantification, and
claiming Objectivity (Soule and Piper 1992:72).

However, it is wrong to say modern reductionist science
alone is responsible for creating conventional agriculture
and, therefore, caused many issues, (such as environmental
degradation and food safety problems. Many other factors are
also working to create Fordist agriculture, these include
technology, the research system, the production system, the
market mechanism, and regulatory mechanisms. These factors
create a kind of seamless web in the sense Of creating a ’set
of systems’ . All these factors contributed to creating Fordist
agriculture by coordinating with each other through
defining] finding their problems/solutions within the boundary
of the 'set Of systems' . For example, even in the same
discipline, such as entomology, there can be different sets Of
pest control methods, with different sets Of philosophy,

strategy and bureaucratic structure, without considerable

20

21
negotiations with each other (Perkins 1982:265). Science does
not stand alone, nor does it indicate the direction Of

technological development.

(2) MW

Scientific approaches emphasized in sustainable
agriculture stand in contrast tO those in conventional
(Fordist and.Neo-Fordist) agriculture. They are characterized
as system-oriented, holistic, multidisciplinary, long-term,
and cognizant Of local knowledge (Kloppenburg 1991, HaerOd
1990).

Modern agriculture needs certain sets Of systems or
institutions for reductionist science to be effective, while
sustainable agriculture also requires some other systems. A
decentralized research system.and.participatory technological
development are among the required systems.

In case Of Post-Fordist agriculture, participation of
various actors can play an important role in research
(priority setting, budget allocation, analysis Of results,
oversight, etc.). The farmers' role is traditionally
marginalized in the current research system. Lockerletz and
Anderson (1990:179) argue that "the support for sustainable
agriculture has in part arisen out Of a conscious protest by
outsiders, including some farmers and advocates for farmers,
against the research priorities of the agricultural

mainstream". If we consider such political background Of

22
sustainable agriculture research, the participation of farmers
will be crucial to technology development in sustainable
agriculture.

In his article explaining the history of sustainable
agriculture, Harwood (1990) points out ‘the situation. Of
agricultural science around the turn Of this century. The idea
Of sustainable agriculture was developed by the ”turn-Of-the-
century farmer-scientist groups". The path for the Alternative
Model was already prepared by them. However, the path was not
taken by most scientists Of the day, and didn’ t become
mainstream agricultural research because chemical technology
looked so promising that they (and other actors) pursued the
chemical technology as if it was the only path. During 19608,
industrial agriculture became dominant in agricultural
technology and there was no debate on the direction Of
technological development during those years. "It was a time
Of scientific euphoria" (Harwood 1990:9).

However, this does not mean industrial agriculture
represents the only form Of 'scientific’ agricultural
development, even if some proponents claim that to be the
case. Industrial agriculture became dominant not because such
technological development was better or more scientifically
advanced, but because a new alliance among scientists,
engineers, resources (e.g., research funds from agrichemical
industry) and institutions (e.g., research programs Of land-

grant universities) was created. This is the situation which

23
Latour (1987) calls 'enrollment'.

Today the chemical agriculture characterized by
reductionism reencounters holistic, sustainable agriculture
and multiple, technological development models are appearing
again. In the case of agricultural science, we are going

through a kind Of transition period, or a scientific divide.

 

Strategies to develop the Industrial Model can be
illustrated by the case of herbicide-tolerant crops and
identity-preserved (IP) crops“. However, I will mainly deal
with the latter because the concept Of "identity-preserved"
can have a far reaching impact on the current agri-food
system. IP crops can be defined as crops which have an
intrinsic value for an end-user in terms Of a certain quality

trait or combination Of traits (Goss 1991:60).

(a) W

The seed and chemical industry are the main actors to
promote this model. The IP crop enables those industries tO
shift their business Opportunities from the input market

(seed, fertilizer, and other agrichemicals) to the output

 

9 An example Of an identity-preserved crop is the case
of Kansas value-added wheat: "Natural 8’ Wheat" (Freiberg
1991) which was developed through the university-corporation
linkage. "Natural 8' Wheat" is genetically engineered wheat
which is "sweeter (than other varieties of wheat) and requires
up to 50 percent less sugar when made into products containing
bran. And that can mean ingredient cost savings to bakers, not
to mention the fact that 'less sugar' is a powerful purchasing
incentive to nutritious-conscious shoppers these days"
(Freiberg 1991:6).

24

25
market (grain. export, animal feed, wet and, dry' milling
products). "The output market [for corn and soybeans] is four
times larger than the input market" (Goss 1991:61) and they
seek a premium price at the expanded market. This is one Of
the primary reasons industries promote IP crops.

However, as Goss (1991), of DuPont's Agribiotech Group,
points out, there are at least five socio-economic and
institutional drives to encourage IP crops: first, development
Of biotechnology; second, attractive size of business
Opportunities; third, Opportunities to capture a significant
portion Of' added value; fourth, granting Of patent right
protection to plant products, and, lastly, end-user needs to

improve competitive advantage (Goss 1991:60).

(10) MW

The Industrial model is expected to transform the
traditional commodity system in order to take advantage Of
newly developed, value-added products. In this section I will
examine several strategies to exploit this new opportunity.

In terms Of organizational arrangement, the successful
development of IP crops requires every actor related to the
agri-food business to coordinate with each other in order to
keep new crops distinctive from the moment Of production to
end-use. Frey (Product Management Manager Of Pioneer Hi-Bred
International) suggested that "everyone needs to work together

... those in the grain trade, transportation, contract

 

 

26

producers, and the customers and try to put together a system
that will work, and that can grow over time" (Frey 1991:130).

In particular, the current distribution system must be
modified to accommodate IP crops because ”the current
distribution system would have difficulty in determining the
presence Of the quality trait and in preserving the identity
of specific lots Of quality grains as they move from on-farm
storage to end-user" (Goss 1991:62) . Therefore, many end-users
Of grain products began to integrate production and
manufacturing systems vertically, such.as milling facilities,

and elevators (Goss 1991:62).

(C) WWI:

Many researchers argue that biotechnology changes the
dividing line separating public and private research. Such
changes are illustrated by "the extensive and varied
corporate-university links, including contract research and
the formation of research 'clubs' and consortia embracing
private industry, universities and public research institutes"
(Goodman and Wilkinson 1990:143).

Technological development Of IP crops is also promoted
based on the same links (Freiberg 1991) . However, such
university-corporation links will affect the current
technology transfer mechanism mainly engaged in by the public
extension system. Technology transfer is expected to be a

faster and more closed system than the public extension

J. .
a
”iv-0‘

 

27
system. Urban (1991) argues that seed companies developing IP
crops play a role as the center Of technology transfer, and
create a closed system Of agricultural ’industrialization'.
Farmers outside of the system cannot have access to the
information generated within this system, unless they are

willing and able to pay for it.

(6) WW
5 'Ei !°

In the case of Fordist agriculture, the basic principle
of competition is based on economies and 'power’ of scale. By
reducing the unit cost of production, entrepreneurs with
bigger production units can get more profit to survive than
those with smaller farms. In addition to that, Heffernan
(1984) argues that the 'power’ to dominate the market is more
crucial to survival than efficiency, per se. In other words,
scale is an important factor, not because efficiency
(economies of scale) matters, but economic power to dominate
the market does”.

Compared with Fordist agriculture, Neo-Fordist
development, such as promotion Of IP crops, tries to create

more specialized, value-added products and finds less

 

‘° Heffernan makes his argument using the case of
poultry industry, but even in the grain market, we can see a
similar situation. As the grain price falls continuously,
farmers are forced to expand their farming scale, because they
cannot achieve economies Of scale by further expansion after
acreage reaches a certain point (Browne et al. 1992).

28
competition than unspecified commodities because these
products are usually grown under a contract between producers
and other industry (seed-chemical companies and the processing
industry). The concept Of 'value-added' is crucial in the
Industrial Model.

(e) W912

From the farmers' point Of view, the development Of IP
crops Offers complex challenges to growers. Farmers have to
make contracts with a certain company to grow them, and the
company (seed company, food processor, or whatever) offers a
premium price for the products. But farmers have to take
certain risks and additional handling costs to grow such
crops. According to farmers' comments on IP, such crops
sometimes have lower yield than other varieties, and farmers
have to keep such crops (especially Open-pollinated crops)
away from other varieties in the field (Cutler 1991). Also,
growers have to clean their harvesters and storage bins to
insure separation, thereby keeping them pure. These
requirements create additional work for farmers. Furthermore,
one farmer mentions the possibility Of a great loss Of a
grower's independence.

As far as information, you've got to realize if you

do grow specialty crops, that you are working for

another person and you lose a lot Of your

independence. You've got to grow a product that

these other people want. If you don't, you're not

going to get compensated for it (Cutler 1991:157).

Farmers are involved in a more closed agri-fOOd system

29
than conventional agriculture. Their decision-making in terms
of farming, such as seed selection, technological options,
handling, and marketing, is prescribed by other actors, such
as the seed and chemical industries. From the viewpoint Of
growers, the flexibility Of farming becomes more limited than
before.

(f) Expected Impagrs and Barriers

IP crops will have an enormous impact on the agri-food
system because every actor related to the system would be
affected and forced to modify the current system. In
particular, the vertical integration around special grain
crops is expected to be more pervasive. Vertical integration,
which.has been limited only to the field Of meat industries so
far, would become a more general type Of production than it is
presently.

IP crops are a great prospect in the future for the seed
and chemical industry. However, there are several perceived
hurdles to overcome:

(a) regulatory issues, such as patent protection,
(e.g., Patents need to be granted for plants
expressing novel or enhanced quality traits.)

(b) public acceptance of products developed by
biotechnology,

(c) commodity mind set Of end-users,

(d) product distribution system need to be modified.

(e.g., vertical integration, selective partnering)
(Goss 1991:62)

30

(2) WWI

Strategies to transform current agriculture into the
Alternative Model can be illustrated by the sustainable
agriculture movement promoted by' many actors, including
farmers, non-profit organizations, land-grant universities,
and governmental agencies (e.g. , U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency). Sustainable
agriculture is still a developing concept and the impact from
wide diffusion on the agri-food system and rural communities
remains to be seen. However, many researchers are trying to
infer the economic and social implications of sustainable
agriculture, and our discussion in this paper relies on these

arguments.

(a) W

The sustainable agriculture movement is participated in
by many private/public organizations and individuals, and they
are creating various networks" among themselves to promote
research, information.dissemination and.governmenta1 lobbying
activity. Although it is very difficult to identify the main
actors, public sector research institutes (in particular, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Sustainable Agriculture

 

" For example, a lobbying group, "the Sustainable
Agriculture Working Group", is a network Of various
organizations and individuals who share commitment to help
foster a more sustainable agricultural system. Eighteen
organizations mainly located in the Midwest and Northern
Plains belong to this group (Hoefner et a1. 1992).

31

Research and Education Program, or simply SARE Program) play
a crucial role in encouraging and funding research at the
regional/national level, and in diffusing information related
to sustainable agriculture. This public research program
contributed to legitimizing alternative agricultural research
and plays an important role as a catalyst in encouraging
alternative directions in the public research system.

The sustainable agriculture movement challenges many
problems inherent in the current agricultural system. The
definition of sustainable agriculture, given by Congress in
the 1990 Farm Bill, covers a wide range Of goals and tries to
achieve multi-faceted Objectives”. Therefore, the SARE
Program is also trying to cover a wide range of fields from
agro-ecological research to social impact analysis (U.S. GAO
1992).

According to Babb and Long (1987), there are at least
four trends favorable for a shift toward sustainable
agriculture. First, continued financial stress in agriculture

encourages farmers to seek cost-reducing technologies. Second,

 

n The 1990 Farm Bill defines sustainable agriculture
as an integrated system Of plant and animal production
practices having a site specific application that will, over
the long term;

- satisfy human food and fiber needs,

- enhance environmental quality and the natural resources
base upon which the agricultural economy depends,

- make the most efficient use Of nonrenewable resources and
on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural
biological cycles and controls,

- sustain the economic viability Of farm Operations, and

- enhance the quality Of life for farmers and society as a
whole (Bird 1992:142).

32
changes in the pattern Of food consumption, in particular a
demand for food with less health risk. Third, continued large
and unpredictable shocks from macroeconomic forces encourage
farmers to diversify their enterprises. Fourth, the
acceleration of technology development in the field of
biotechnology and information technology (Babb and Long

l987:8).

(b) StrategieeI_nunan_Qanital_and_ngrizental_hinkage§

Sustainable agriculture can be regarded as an alternative
farming system which takes advantage Of site-specific
resources by developing on-farm techniques to control pests
and weeds. Such techniques are also developed in order to
satisfy nutrient requirements and to contribute to the
improvement of broader ecological conditions and societal
goals. In order to achieve these goals, the SARE Program
emphasizes human capital and participation Of farmers in
research. Both enable farmers to become adequately skilled tO
deal with the complex agroecological system and, thus, to
manage it in a flexible way.

Bird (1993) emphasizes the role Of human capital which
enables the high level Of management skills required by
sustainable agriculture.

Sustainable agriculture places emphasis on equity,

empowerment, and high levels Of management skills,

and is consistent with trends in the business

world. The increased knowledge needed to manage

resources sustainability suggests a trend toward
smaller farms that allow the manager to remain

33

personally connected to diversified ecosystems and
enterprises (Bird 1993:16).

In order to enhance human capital, the information
exchange among farmers and researchers, and on-farm
experimentation]education.programs are emphasized in the SARE
Program. Through such programs, SARE tries to create networks
(though not a hierarchy) connecting farmers, researchers,
extension agents, and educators (Busby 1990:90).

Considering farmers present tendency towards adoption of
labor-saving technologies, agencies that give advice and take
over a portion Of farm management would be indispensable
within the local community (Madden 1988:1171). As adoption Of
sustainable agriculture affects the quality and quantity Of
management work, the shift to sustainable agriculture would
create a demand for supplemental functions provided by custom
service industries. Development Of such a custom service
industry is an example Of change in the regional economy.

Furthermore, widespread diffusion Of sustainable
agriculture is expected tO contribute to ‘the growth. Of
regional economic diversity. Flora (1990a) emphasized this
aspect Of sustainable agriculture and diversification Of
regional economy' which is assumed to contribute to the
sustainability Of local community.

In terms Of market relations, sustainable agriculture
Offers producers more diversified.marketing channels. Because
farm products from sustainable agriculture, in particular

organic farming, have more diversity, they are regarded as

34
value-added commodities. They demand the special attention Of
consumers using other marketing strategies, such as community
supported agriculture (Bowman 1991) . In other words, the
linkage to consumer/market will be diversified through the
extensive adoption Of sustainable agriculture.

The building Of human capital, diversification Of rural
economy and local value-added through horizontal linkage among
actors can be the main strategies Of actors promoting
sustainable agriculture. In this sense, sustainable
agriculture is expected to give various economic
Opportunities, not only to farmers, but also to non-farm

entrepreneurs.

(C) W
Practical methods of sustainable farming are being laid
down by many researchers, farmers and ranchers. Although they
vary from farm to farm and are difficult to generalize, they

commonly include certain farming methods which take advantage

35
Of biological interaction within the field”.

However, an important point is that these methods are
’patterns that work' rather than those based on single cause-
and-effect relationships (Soule and Piper 1992:81). They are
flexible enough to be modified and adapted on farmers' own
fields.

The public research system plays an important role in
sustainable agriculture because private firms are unlikely to
do research on the fundamental agroecosystem knowledge base
which is crucial to sustainable farming (Buttel 1986:63). In
addition to public institutions, farmers also play a crucial
role in terms Of their participation in research agenda
setting, on-farm demonstrations, evaluation of results, and
resource allocation. For example, more than 1,800 farmers have
participated in the SARE Program in such ways (O’Connell
1992:6).

In short, the Alternative Model creates a locally-based

Open system Of technology development/transfer in contrast to

 

” The following methods are commonly included in the

sustainable agricultural system:

(1) Crop rotation that mitigates weeds, disease, insect
and other pest problems; provides alternative sources Of
soil nitrogen; reduces soil erosion and risk Of water
contamination by agricultural chemicals.

(2) Pest control strategies that are not harmful to
natural systems, farmers, their neighbors, or consumers.
(3) Increased mechanical/biological weed control; more
soil and water conservation practices; and strategic use
Of animal and green manures.

(4) Use Of natural or synthetic inputs in a way that
poses no significant hazard to man, animals, or the
environment (O’Connell 1992:6).

36
the closed system Of the Industrial Model. Through these
technology developments, the SARE Program tries to build the
idea that "farmers and ranchers will be in control" (Busby
1990:91) rather than dependent on technology developed by

other agencies.

 

Proponents for sustainable agriculture foresee the
increase Of the value added on-farm because Of "reduced
purchases Of inputs, less processing, and forward integration
by farmers into some off-farm activities" (Babb and Long
1987:11). As we have seen above in the Industrial Model, the
concept Of ’value-added’ also plays an important role in the
Alternative Model. This is quite understandable because both
Models pursue product differentiation strategies.

When we talk about the concept Of "value-added", however,
it is important to note which actor captures the added value
(e.g., seed industry, growers, processors, etc.) and its
distributive consequences (Busch 1993).

Another important concept elemental to the bases Of
competition is 'economies Of scope’ , rather than ’economies Of
scale' . Strange (1991) argues that ”sustainable agriculture is
economically rational at the farm level if internally derived
inputs are substituted for externally purchased inputs in a

way that: (1) makes more complete use Of underused farm

37
resources; (2) improves factor productivity; (3) generates
economies of crop-product diversification; (4) preserves
capital; and. (5) allocates and. conserves resources :more
efficiently than do current programs" (Strange 1991:13) .
Sustainable agriculture can be competitive when farmers use
their whole assets more efficiently through pursuing an
Optimal combination of enterprises and reduce the purchased
inputs by utilizing internal resources. However, in reality,
farmers have to face many other hurdles in order to practice

sustainable farming and become economically competitive.

(e) W

Sustainable agriculture is expected to achieve a wide
range Of Objectives. However, wide adoption remains to be seen
and it is very difficult tO assess the prospect Of, and
barriers to, the Alternative Model today. In this respect,
O’Connell (1992) suggests several possible barriers which
people promoting sustainable agriculture must overcome.

First, the current commodity programs encourage high use
Of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides (e.g., the cross-
compliance provision mentioned above). If certain regulatory
measures are taken to encourage farmers to adopt sustainable
farming, such regulations need to be established taking into
account different regions and commodities. Unspecified
regulations could affect farmers differently according to

region and commodity group (Young 1989:139). Second,

38
sustainable farming practices require more management inputs
and time on the farm. This may be the most difficult measure
to overcome because most farmers currently engage in Off-farm
employment, and 85% Of aggregated farm household income is
from Off-farm sources (USDA, ERS 1993) . The problem is whether
or not such part-time farmers can respond to the additional
labor requirement. Third, many farms do not have technical or
economically viable alternatives tO chemical intensive farming
practices. Fourth, initial investment outlays in a different
line of farm machinery are high. Farmers feel a great degree
Of economic stress during the transition period to sustainable
farming (Northwest Area Foundation 1992:2). It is important to
provide effective measures for farmers in such a critical

period.

(f) W

In addition to the barriers mentioned above, another
serious limitation Of sustainable agriculture must be pointed
out, namely, the downstream linkage with food processing
industries.

Research on sustainable agriculture mainly focuses on the
production system. Environmental and food safety concerns are
the main drive for this research. As far as I have Observed,
the current research on sustainable agriculture, downstream
impact, such as the impact on the fOOd manufacturing sector,

is not thoroughly examined by researchers. When sustainable

39
agriculture is related with organic food.production, the food
processing sector is generally excluded from the discussion.

Minimal processing is supposed to be an important
guideline for the segment Of the food industry which responds
to sustainable agriculture, but, rather, such processing
follows the development of the Neo-Fordist food industry
today. As Goodman and.Redclift (1991) point out, 'Organic’ or
'natural' produce can be more technology-intensive than
conventional produce. For example, in the field Of food
processing, the highest priority Of research focuses on
keeping 'freshness', or the 'appearance Of freshness', and
various technologies along this line are being developed by
researchers (Huxsoll and Bolin 1989).

Sustainable agriculture is expected to provide
differentiated 'fresh' products, such as organic food.
However, the quantity Of such products is limited so far.
Therefore, they only create 'thin.markets' where the price is
much more volatile than that Of for conventional produce (Hall
et al. 1989:61). This is one reason why farmers engaging in
sustainable agriculture sometimes try to build up direct
marketing systems where the food industry is excluded.

These problems, in terms Of downstream relations, will
pose a serious constraint to the development of sustainable
agriculture. The reason for this is that the agri-fOOd system
is composed of many actors besides farmers and consumers. The

agri-food system is constructed from various interactions

40

among seed companies, chemical companies, farmers,
transporters, marketers, processors, wholesalers, retailers,
consumers, governments, and researchers. If sustainable
agriculture endeavors to change the agri-fOOd system, all the
actors mentioned above must be taken into consideration, and
create a strategy for the transformation of the agri-food
system, which is already being pursued by people promoting the
Industrial Model. A relevant question is what kind of food
processing mechanism can be invented if the new production
system does not achieve a certain standardization Of fruits or
vegetables. It is also questionable how the transportation
system can possibly be modified if fresh products are
individually different in terms Of size, variety, and
perishability.

The impact Of sustainable agriculture on the agri‘food
system, and therefore, on the agricultural production system
as well, will be limited unless the above problems are well-
integrated into the strategy for promoting sustainable
agriculture. In other words, the sustainable agriculture
system will never have a substantial impact on society without
first creating a sustainable agri-food system. In this
respect, the production-led approach Of current research may

end up having limited impact.

V. SO O C

As we have seen in the preceding sections, three types of
agricultural production system are characterized as
distinctive in terms Of their scientific/technological
approaches, their effect on the flexibility Of farming, market
relations, proponent actors, strategies to transform the agri-
fOOd system, technology development/transfer system, bases Of
competition, expected role of growers, and prospects and
barriers in the future. They can be summarized as follows
(FIGURE 2).

( 1) The Fordist (or Conventional) Model developed in U.S.
agriculture during the past several decades. Farmers produce
unspecified commodities in response to the mass consumption
market. Reductionist science is the guiding technological
principle Of this model, reducing the variability Of
environment and, therefore, the flexibility of farming.
However, as the mass market becomes glutted and problems
related to health and environment appear, alternative ways Of
agriculture are pursued. These alternatives are called the
Rec-Fordist (or Industrial) and Post-Fordist (or Alternative)
Model.

(2) The Neo-Fordist (or Industrial) Model is referred to

41

42

FIGURE 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE NODELS OF AGRICULTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MODEL PORDIST NEO-FORDIST POST-FORDIST
(CONVENTIONAL) (INDUSTRIAL) (ALTERNATIVE)
PLExIBILITY LON LOW HIGH
OF FARMING
MARKET UNSPECIFIED SPECIFIED SPECIFIED
RELATIONS e.g.,SUBCONTRACT e.g.,COMMUNITY
OF THE FOOD SUPPORTED
INDUSTRY AGRICULTURE
FARMERS' DESKILLED DESKILLED SKILLED
SKILL
DIVERSITY LOW HIGHLY SPECIPIED HIGHLY DIVERSE
OP OUTPUT UNIPORM sDIPPERENTIATION sDIVERSIPICATION
SCIENTIPIC REDUCTIONISM REDUCTIONISM SYSTEM-ORIENTED
BACKGROUND LOCATION—SPECIPIC
ExAMPLE OF LARGE SCALE IDENTITY- SUSTAINABLE
THE MODELS EARNING PRESERVED CROPS AGRICULTURE
MAIN ACTORS CAPITALIzED SEED/CHEMICAL NETWORKS
FARMER INDUSTRY PUBLIC/PRIVATE
STRATEGIES CAPITALIzATION VERTICAL LINKAGE HORIZONTAL LINKAGE
INTEGRATION HUMAN CAPITAL
TECHNOLOGY TOP-DOWN CLOSED SYSTEM LOCALLY-BASED
DEV/TRANSFER ExTENSION OPEN SYSTEM
BASES OF ECONOMIES(PONER) VALUE-ADDITION VALUE-ADDITION
COMPETITION OP SCALE MARKET SPECIFICATION ECONOMIES OP SCOPE
ROLE OP LIMITED LIMITED PARTICIPATION
PARMERS
BARRIERS DECLINE OF REGULATION (PATENT) COMMODITY PROGRAM
MARKET PRICE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
GLUTTED MARKET DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INFORMATION
TRANSITION PROBLEMS
WEAK LINKAGE WITH
FOOD INDUSTRY
PROSPECT CO-ExISTENCE OF THREE MODELS

3) NEEDS OF TARGETED POLICIES, REGULATIONS, RESEARCH
SYSTEMS FOR EACH MODEL

 

43

as a production system which produces highly specialized
commodities with the help Of advanced technology. However,
flexibility of farming is limited because the problem of
variability is technologically fixed (e.g., seed-embedded
technology) and farmers receive such technologies as given and
not significantly involved in their development. As the case
of identity-preserved crops illustrates, the seed and chemical
industries try to create vertical integration among various
sectors and establish a closed technology development/transfer
system within them. While there are still some problems in the
foreseeable future, such as regulations and public acceptance,
this Model is expected to have an enormous impact on the
current agri-food system.

(3) The Post-Fordist (or Alternative) Model is referred
to as a production system which produces differentiated and
diverse commodities, taking advantage of the development of
flexible farming methods. The case Of sustainable agriculture
illustrates this Model. It emphasizes the human capital Of
farmers which could be improved through linkages among various
actors who are committed to technological development and
dissemination. These actors strive to Create a locally-based
technological development/transfer system and Offer farmers
the Opportunity to achieve on-farm added value and economies
of scope in order to be more competitive. The weak linkage
with the food processing industry is considered this model’s

greatest barrier to having impact on the current agri-food

44
system. However, a viable local society is anticipated through
economic diversification“ and farmers are expected to play a
substantial role in this model.

The characteristics mentioned above are closely related
within each Model Of agriculture. Therefore, it is difficult
to decide which factor is the most crucial in each Model. They
create a kind Of seamless web within the models. However, in
reality, these three types Of agriculture interact and
incorporate certain factors Of different types of agriculture
into their survival strategies. In particular, it is difficult
to find distinct differences among the goals prOposed by
advocates of each type Of agriculture. All Of the proponents
of the various models advocate benefits to consumers and
farmers. We need to be precise in our attempts to assess the
difference between the alleged goals and the actual
consequences.

The consequences Of the development Of agri-fOOd system
are always multi-faceted, creating winners and losers. This
paper constructs ideal types Of Changing agriculture to assess

the implications of the role Of producers, such as farming

 

“ Economic diversification, however, is expected to be
a long-term adjustment. Based on input/output analysis, a
North Dakota study revealed the negative impact of sustainable
agriculture on local economic activity (Dahl et al. 1991). I
argue this is mainly because new economic activities (emerging
as a result Of the widespread adoption of the sustainable
agriculture) cannot be incorporated in the input/output model.
Therefore, from a short-term perspective, the transition to
sustainable agriculture could have a negative impact on the
local economy.

45

flexibility, and the technology transfer system. The
perspective taken here is mainly limited to these aspects.

Thus far, the heterogeneity Of U.S. agriculture has
mainly resulted from the size Of farm, as well as enterprise.
However, in the future heterogeneity, in terms Of technology
and farming strategy, may become more conspicuous. Each type
Of farming may need to be supported by different policies,
regulations, and research] extension systems based on different
goals and philosophies. I delineated the three types Of
agriculture 'which. could. have considerable impact on ‘the
present and future agri-fOOd system. However, these types Of
agriculture seem likely to co-exist in the foreseeable future,
and in order to respond to that, different sets Of policies,
regulations, and technology development systems need tO be
laid down”. Through these differentiated measures, U.S.
agriculture can be more flexible, adapting to socio-economic
changes, and, therefore, Offer wider Options to consumers and

farmers than is possible today.

 

‘5 Bird (1993) suggests three models Of agriculture
(Industrial Agribusiness Farm.MOdel, 21st Century Family Farm
Model, and Part-time Farm Model) and points out that different
targeted research, education and policy initiatives will be
required for each model system. Although the argument in this
paper is derived from different premisses and creates a
different typology, the conclusion in terms Of this point is
identical.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Babb, E. M. and B. F. Long. 1987. "The Role Of Alternative
Agricultural Enterprises in a Changing Agricultural

Economy".
19(1): -15.
Benbrook, Charles M. 1991. "Introduction". Pp.1-10 in
ust abl ricultu esearc d t' e
' ° ee ' , edited by National Research Council.

Washington D.C.:National Academy Press.

Bird, George W. 1992. "Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program: With Special Reference to the Science

of Ecology" I2urnal_2f_§Eet_inahle_Agri_EltEre 2(3)=141-
52.

. and John Ikerd. 1993. "Sustainable
Agriculture and Identification Of Research, Education and
Policy Initiatives for the let Century". Aggdl§_gr_rhg
O o O c.

 

(forthcoming).

Bowman, Greg. 1991. "Farms for Members Only". e e a
Januaryzl6-l9.

Browne, William P., Jerry R. Skees, Louis E. Swanson, Paul

B. Thompson, and Laurian J. Unnevehr. 1992. Sacred ngs

Q 1' ' 0 S‘ ‘0 1 - x tns I i°uf _. '9 5 .
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Burrows, Roger, Nigel Gilbert, and Ann Pollert. 1992.
"Introduction: Fordism, Post-Fordism and Economic

F1exibility"- PP.1-9 in Eerdi§n_and_zlexihilitx. edited by
N. Gilbert, R. Burrows and A. Pollert. New York:St.
Martin's Press.

Busby, Fee. 1990. "Sustainable Agriculture: Who Will Lead?".

IQErnal_2f_S2il_and_flater_92neerxatign 45(1)=89-91-

Busch, Lawrence. 1993. "Emerging Issues in Technological
Change and Technology Assessment in Agriculture". Paper
prepared for the Agricultural Technology and the Family

46

 

 

“r A “
'J' 3 ~. . o; ' . I ,.
Vb: "n. ... I l 1..) -

47
Farm Institute, University Of Wisconsin, Madison.

Buttel, Frederick H., Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr., Rhonda
Janke, Brian Caldwell, and Marianne Sarrantonio. 1986.
”Reduced-Input Agricultural Systems: Rationale and
ProspectS” - WW
1(2):58-64.

Collier, Peter and David Horowitz. 1987. Ihg_£prd§;_Ap
Angrigdn_fipig. New York:Summit Books.

Cutler. Karol 1991. IdentitY_2reSeryed1_¥alue:Added_§r22SI

Surxex_§_Beeeurce_DirecterY Cedar Falls. IA: Freiberg
Publishing Company, Inc.

Dahl, Bruce L., Gary A. Goreham, Roy M. Jacobsen, Randall S.
Sell, Larry D. Stearns, David L. Watt, and George A.

Youngs, Jr. 1991. Impacts of Sustdipgplg Agriculture Op
Nprth Qakprd Bpral gommunitigs. Agricultural Economic
Report No.272. Department Of Agricultural Economics,

Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND.

Flora, Cornelia B. 1990a. "Sustainability Of Agriculture
and Rural Communities". Pp. 343- -359 in §p§_d1pdp1§
AgriEulture_in_1enn_rate_12ne. edited by c. A Francis.

C. B. Flora, and L. D. King. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

. 1990b. "Policy Issues and Agricultural
Sustainability" PP 361- 379 in SEe_ainahle_AgriEultEre_in
Tgmpgrdrg_ang, edited by C. A. Francis, C. B. Flora, and
L.D.King. New York:JOhn Wiley & Sons, Inc.

ForgeCS. David. 1988 An_Ant2niO_Gran_ci_B_aderI_§elected
EIILIDQ§I_121§_123§- New York: SChOCken Books.

Freiberg, Bill. 1991. "Kansas Value-Added Wheat Program
Looks Promising". Sggd_lpdp§rry March:6,22.

Frey, Nick. 1991. "Meeting Sets Stage for the Future Of
Identity Preserved Crops". Pp. 129- 31 in Identity
‘ 8111.1“;00‘0 '9: e ‘ 18.- ‘ . eCO '
edited Karol Cutler. Cedar Falls, IA: Freiberg Publishing
CO.

 

Goodman, David and John Wilkinson. 1990. "Patterns Of
Research and Innovation in the Modern Agra-Food System".

PP 127- -146 in Techn2lEgisal.§h_nge_and_th__Bural
Enyirppm_pr, edited by Philip Lowe, Terry Marsden, and

Sarah Whatmore. London: David Fulton Publishers.

. and Michael Redclift. 1991. Bgrdgpippipg

 

48

NatnreI_£POQI_EGOIQEY_§_§ulture- London=Routled9e-

Goss, John. 1991. "Challenges and Opportunities for Identity

Preserved Grains". Pp. 60- 63 in Idgpriry Presgrygd,
- u e , edited

Karol Cutler. Cedar Falls, IA:Freiberg Publishing CO.

Hall, Darwin C., Brian P.Baker, Jacques Franco, and Desmond
A. Jolly. 1989. ”Organic Food and Sustainable

Agriculture". Q2ntennerarx_felicz_1§§ues 7:47-72.

Harwood, Richard R. 1990. "A History Of Sustainable
Agriculture"- PP-3-19 in SEStainable_AgricultEral_sttens.
edited by Clive A. Edwards, Rattan Lal, Patrick Madden,
Robert H.Miller and Gar House. Ankeny, IA:SOil and Water
Conservation Society.

Heffernan, William D. 1984. "Constraints in the U.S. Poultry

IndustrY"- Besear2h_in_BEral_Secielegx_and_flexelennent 1:
237-60.

Hill, Richard Child. 1990. "Industrial Restructuring, State
Intervention, and Uneven Development in the United States

and Japan". Pp. 60- 85 in Beyond the gig! Limits: Urpap
'c an on c tructurin Com t

Egrspgdrrgg, edited by J. R. Logan and T. Swanstrom.
Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.

Hoefner, Ferd, Marta Cleaveland, Craig Cramer, Juliet
Tomkins, Kris Thorp, and Chuck Hassebrook, The Sustainable

Agriculture Working Group. 1992. Sustainable Optippg

0 ' - zen 1° 01 ‘ . 01 ' 0° ell ! ilfl

Bill. The Sustainable Agriculture Working Group.

Huxsoll, Charles C. and Harold R. Bolin. 1989. "Processing
and Distribution Alternatives for Minimally Processed
Fruits and Vegetables". Eppd_1ggnnplpgy February:124-128.

Junne, Gerd. 1992. "Evolution Instead Of Revolution: the
slow pace Of paradigm change". paper presented at the
Symposium "Biotechnologies and Agriculture: technical
evolution or revolution", Rome, May 28-29.

Kenney, Martin, Linda M. Lobao, James Curry, and W. Richard
Goe. 1991. "Agriculture in the U.S. Fordism: The
Integration Of the Productive Consumer". Pp.173-188 in

e ' c t , edited by
W.H. Friedland, L. Busch, F.H. Buttel, and A.P. Rudy.
Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Kenney, Martin, Linda M. Lobao, James Curry, and W. Richard
Goe. 1989. "Midwestern Agriculture in US Fordism".

49

Sociologia_zurali§ 29(2)=131-148-

Kloppenburg Jr., Jack. 1991. "Social Theory and the
De/Reconstruction Of Agricultural Science: Local Knowledge
for an Alternative Agriculture”. Bprd1_§ppiplpgy 56(4):
519-548.

Lesley, Paul, Michael Duffy, Kevin Kettner, and Craig Chase.
1990. "Factors Affecting Farmers’ Use of Practice to
Reduce Commercial Fertilizers and Pesticides". ur a f

S9il_and_flater_§2nserxatien 45(1)=132-136-

Latour. Bruno. 1987. SQi2n22_in_A£L19ni_EQE_LQ_EflllQX
ScientiSte_and_Engineere_threugh_fiecietxo Cambridge. MA:

Harvard University Press.

Lockeretz, William and Molly D. Anderson. 1990. "Farmers'
Role in Sustainable Agriculture Research". Apprigdp

I2Ernal_2f_Alternatixe_agriculture 5(4)=178-182-

Madden, J.Patrick. 1988. "Low-Input/Sustainable Agricultural
Research and Education: Challenges to the Agricultural
Economics Profession". e tn 1

Egpppmidg 70:1167-1172.

Marion, Bruce W. and NC 117 Committee. 1986.1ng
O 0.! ._ e, ,e 'e .Q'Atl - e 9 eee St‘i.
Lexington, MaSsachusetts: Lexington Books.

Myers, Lester H. 1991. "Economic Incentives for Food
Industry Concentration and Integration: Economic
Implications". Pp.28-37 in Understapding the True Cpst pf
Eppd: Cpnsiderations {pr a Sustainable Fppd System.

Symposium Proceedings. Institute of Alternative
Agriculture. Washington D.C. March 1991.

National Research Council. l989-AILSIDBI11§_AQIIQ_1LQI§1

e 01-99.!- 2‘ 9-"

N2d_rn.2r2ductien_AgricElt_re Washington D C-=Nati°nal

Academy Press.

Northwest Area Foundation. 1992. Which 391 pp flpe2; A
Regiopal Perspecrive pp Alrgrparivg Qirggripps in

e ' ' . An Interim Report from the
Northwest Area Foundation.

O'Connell, Paul F. 1992. "Sustainable Agriculture: A Valid
Alternative". Qutleek_2n_AgricElture 21(1)=5-12-

Perkins, John H. 1982. Ipsgcrs, Erpgrrs, and ghg Insgcrigide
Qrigig. New York:P1enum Press.

50

Piore, Michael J. and Charles F.Sabel. 1984. Th§_§§gppd
° ' e . Basic
Books.

Soule, Judith D. and Jon K. Piper. 1992. Edrp13g_1p_udrprg;§
Imdgg. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Strange, Marty. 1991. e m
Sustainable_bgriculture- Center for Rural AffairS.
November.

U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
1990. 9’ "0 can i 1!! .1‘ ’90 3‘2-‘ :e on _. '01
Apr. USDA-ERS Briefing Booklet.

U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
1993. - a C s C ' a O M s
prggnpld. Summary Of Report No.8, February.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1992. Spgrdipdplg
'cu ture' a e com ' e s a
' . GAO Report to Congressional Requesters,

QRRQrtEnltiee
GAO/RCED-92-233.

Urban, Thomas N. 1991. "Agricultural Industrialization: It's
Inevitable". thiggs, Fourth Quarter.

Young, Douglas L. 1989. "Policy Barriers to Sustainable
Agriculture". A t v e
4(3):135-143.

"Illllllllll'illlllllli