Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Agricultural commodity branding in the rise and decline of the US food regime: from product to place-based branding in the global cotton trade, 1955–2012

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent scholarship has focused on the tensions, contradictions, and limits of place-based branding through labels of origin, place-named agricultural products, and geographical indications. Existing literature demonstrates that even well-intentioned efforts to use place-based branding to protect the livelihoods and cultural and ecological practices of small producers are often undermined by transnational firms, states, and local elites who attempt to capture the benefits of these marketing strategies. Yet, little attention has been given to the implications of place-based branding for competition among geographically dispersed agricultural producers. While place-based branding can be used for emancipatory ends, it can also be used strategically by agricultural producers to expand their market share at the expense of others. To explore these dynamics, I trace an alternative history of place-based branding that begins not in the potentially emancipatory politics of protecting terroir but rather in the tensions and contradictions characterizing the rise and decline of the US food regime. Drawing on a cross-time comparison of branding strategies within the global cotton trade, I make two key arguments. First, I argue that US producers and the US state forged the use of different types of branding strategies (product vs. place-based) in response to the distinct tensions and contradictions characterized by the rise and decline of the US food regime. Second, these distinct branding strategies organized competition among geographically dispersed cotton producers in different ways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Certification marks are words, symbols, or designs owned by a party that certifies the goods and services of other parties if they meet certain standards. The owner of the mark itself generally does not use it but rather controls the mark and evaluates whether others have met its standards for use (USPTO 2013). A mark can be obtained if the public is deemed to understand that goods bearing the mark come only from the geographic region named in the mark. The goals of certification marks, however, are similar to those of trademarks: protecting the owner and users of the mark from confusingly similar marks or from being seen as simply a generic commodity (Giovannucci et al. 2010). Unlike trademarks, US certification marks cannot be sold or traded and the owner cannot refuse to certify goods that meet the standards. As such, they reflect, to a degree, the nature of a “public good” (Giovannucci et al. 2010).

  2. After the PL 480 programs were discontinued, the FMDP continued to be funded through direct financing (Dunn 1992).

  3. The National Cotton Council is a commodity trade association that serves as a unified voice for seven segments of the cotton textile industry: cotton producers, ginners, warehousers, merchants, cooperatives, cottonseed processors/dealers, and textile manufacturers.

  4. The US and USSR were not competing for market share per se as they were exporting cotton to nearly mutually exclusive trade networks. Cotton exports served largely as a tool to expand their respective zones of influence.

  5. The Uzbek SSR had long been a major cotton producing region in the Soviet sphere, but it was only with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 that the newly independent Uzbekistan became integrated into the capitalist global trade in cotton.

  6. First known as the Targeted Export Assistance (TEA) Program when established in 1985, this program’s name was subsequently changed to the Market Promotion Program (MPP) and then the Market Access Program in 1996 (Amponsah et al. 1996).

Abbreviations

AoA:

Agreement on Agriculture

CCA:

China Cotton Association

CCI:

Cotton Council International

EFS:

Engineered Fiber Selection

FMDP:

Foreign Market Development Program

GATT:

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

ICAC:

International Cotton Advisory Committee

IFCP:

International Forum for Cotton Promotion

IIC:

International Institute for Cotton

MAP:

Market Access Program

NCC:

National Cotton Council

OPEC:

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

UK:

United Kingdom

US:

United States

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

USSR:

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (or Soviet Union)

WTO:

World Trade Organization

References

  • Allen, P., M. FitzSimmons, M. Goodman, and K. Warner. 2003. Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amponsah, W., K. Adu-Nyako, and D. Pick. 1996. Evaluation of export promotion programs on trade of high-valued and processed food products: Implications for North Carolina businesses. International Agricultural Trade and Research Consortium, Working Paper #96-5, December. St. Paul, MN: IATRC, University of Minnesota.

  • Appelbaum, R., and G. Gereffi. 1994. Power and profits in the apparel commodity chain. In Global production: The apparel industry in the Pacific Rim, ed. E. Bonacich, L. Cheng, N. Chinchilla, N. Hamilton, and P. Ong, 42–64. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baffes, J. 2004. Cotton: Market setting, trade policies, and issues. Policy Research Working Paper Series 3218. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  • Baffes, J., O. Badiane, and J. Nash. 2004. Cotton: Market structure, policies and development issues. Paper presented at the WTO Africa Regional Workshop on Cotton, Cotonou, Benin, March 23–24.

  • Barham, E. 2003. Translating terroir: The global challenge of French AOC labeling. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besky, S. 2014. The labor of terroir and the terroir of labor: Geographical indication on Darjeeling tea plantations. Agriculture and Human Values 31(1): 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingen, J. 2012. Labels of origin for food, the new economy and opportunities for rural development in the US. Agriculture and Human Values 29: 543–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczyk, R.L. 2006. Styling synthetics: DuPont’s marketing of fabrics and fashions in postwar America. Business History Review 80: 485–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, S. 2010a. Development from within? The potential for geographical indications in the Global South. The Journal of World Intellectual Property 13(2): 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, S. 2010b. Embedding local places in global spaces: Geographical indications as a territorial development strategy. Rural Sociology 75(2): 209–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, S. 2011. The importance of place: Re-territorialising embeddedness. Sociologia Ruralis 51(4): 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, S., and K. De Master. 2011. New rural livelihoods or museums of production? Quality food initiatives in practice. Journal of Rural Studies 27: 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, S., and M.S. Gaytan. 2012. The paradox of protection: National identity, global commodity chains, and the tequila industry. Social Problems 59(1): 70–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, S., and A.V. Zapata. 2009. Geographical indications, terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustainability: The case of tequila. Journal of Rural Studies 25: 108–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D.C. 2000. The International Institute for cotton: The globalization of cotton since 1945. Agricultural History 74(2): 258–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, G.S. 1982. An American harvest: The story of Weil Brothers-Cotton. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., C. Méadel, and V. Rabeharisoa. 2002. The economy of qualities. Economy and Society 31(2): 194–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. 2009. Breaking new ground in food regime theory: Corporate environmentalism, ecological feedbacks and the ‘food from somewhere’ regime? Agriculture and Human Values 26(4): 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2007a. CCI delivers lean manufacturing training to key accounts in Southeast Asia. Cotton Council International Southeast Asian Events and Promotions. Press release, Summer. http://www.cottonusa.org/events/SoutheastAsiaArchive.cfm?sn.ItemNumber=1067&tn.ItemNumber=1094. Accessed 20 March 2010.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2007b. COTTON USA buyers tour to China nets sales of US cotton products. Cotton Council International China & Hong Kong Events and Promotions. Press release, Summer. http://www.cottonusa.org/events/ChinaHongKongArchive.cfm?sn.ItemNumber=1067&tn.ItemNumber=1094#2054. Accessed 20 March 2010.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2011a. CCI’s promotion work in China positions US Cotton as the preferred fiber. Cotton Council International Success Stories Press Release. http://www.cottonusa.org/files/successStories/CCI%2011%20Success%20Story%20-%20China%20Govt%20Affairs.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2011b. Home textile companies in China specify US cotton for blankets. Cotton Council International Success Stories Press Release. http://www.cottonusa.org/files/successStories/CCI%2011%20Success%20Story%20-%20Ibena.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012a. About COTTON USA. http://www.cottonusa.org/about/index.cfm?ItemNumber=819&navItemNumber=2538. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012b. Cotton council International annual report. http://www.cottonusa.org/files/2012_AnnualReport/index.html. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012c. COTTON USA consumer & trade promotions. http://www.cottonusa.org/about/index.cfm?ItemNumber=1062&navItemNumber=25482538. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012d. COTTON USA mark recognition. http://www.cottonusa.org/about/index.cfm?ItemNumber=1066&navItemNumber=2552. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012e. COTTON USA product and licensee directory. http://www.cottonusa.org/applications/ManufacturerDir/index.cfm?navIHtemNumber=2585. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012f. COTTON USA supply chain marketing program. http://www.cottonusa.org/about/index.cfm?ItemNumber=1065&navItemNumber=2551. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012g. COTTON USA trade servicing program. http://www.cottonusa.org/about/index.cfm?ItemNumber=1064&navItemNumber=2550. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012h. The COTTON USA mark. http://www.cottonusa.org/about/index.cfm?ItemNumber=1060&navItemNumber=2546. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • CCI (Cotton Council International). 2012i. The COTTON USA mark licensing program. http://www.cottonusa.org/about/index.cfm?ItemNumber=1061&navItemNumber=2547. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • Chorev, N. 2007. Remaking US trade policy: From protectionism to globalization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J.L. 2003. Threads: Gender, labor and power in the global apparel industry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J.L. 2005. New directions in commodity chain analysis of global development processes. In New directions in the sociology of global development, research in rural sociology and development, vol. 11, ed. F.H. Buttel, and P. McMichael, 3–18. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton Gin and Oil Mill Press. 2005. International mills targeted by CI. August 6. Mesquite, TX: Haughton Publishing.

  • Colwick, R.F., W.F. Lalor, and L.H. Wilkes. 1984. Harvesting. In Cotton, ed. R.J. Kohel, and C.F. Lewis, 367–395. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, K. 2010. Prospects and challenges of geographical indications in India. The Journal of World Intellectual Property 13(2): 148–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn Jr., R.P. 1992. Remembering. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis, M., and D. Goodman. 2005. Should we go “home” to eat?: Toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies 21(3): 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson, J.A., and M.W. Zacher. 1988. Managing international markets: Developing countries and the commodity trade regime. New York, NY: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., Jr. 1966. Growth of the business of Anderson, Clayton & Co., volume 10. Houston, TX: Texas Gulf Coast Historical Association Publication Series.

  • Freidberg, S. 2004. French beans and food scares: Culture and commerce in an anxious age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H. 1982. The political economy of food: The rise and fall of the postwar international food order. American Journal of Sociology 88S: 248–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H. 1992. Distance and durability: Shaky foundations of the world food economy. Third World Quarterly 13(2): 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H. 1993. The political economy of food: A global crisis. New Left Review 197: 29–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H. 2005. From colonialism to green capitalism: Social movements and the emergence of food regimes. In New directions in the sociology of global development, research in rural sociology and development, vol. 11, ed. F.H. Buttel, and P. McMichael, 229–267. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H. 2009. Discussion: Moving food regimes forward: Reflections on symposium essays. Agriculture and Human Values 26(4): 335–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H., and P. McMichael. 1989. Agriculture and the state system: The rise and decline of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologica Ruralis 29(2): 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, B., H. Bellow, and O. Capps. 1992. Import demand for US fresh grapefruit: Effects of US promotion programs and trade policies of importing nations. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 24: 251–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbon, P., and S. Ponte. 2005. Trading down: Africa, value chains and the global economy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovannucci, D., E. Barham, and R. Pirog. 2010. Defining and marketing “local” foods: Geographical indications for US products. The Journal of World Intellectual Property 13(2): 94–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D. 2004. Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro-food networks and paradigm change. Sociologia Ruralis 44(1): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., B. Sorj, and J. Wilkinson. 1987. From farming to biotechnology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziani, G. 1981. Dependency structures in COMECON. The Review of Radical Political Economics 13(1): 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2007. The Polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as neoliberal governance. Antipode 39(3): 456–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanrahan, C.E. 2007. Agricultural export and food aid programs. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL33553. Washington, DC: CRS.

  • Hanrahan, C.E. 2009. Agricultural export and food aid programs. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL33553, January 23. Washington, DC: CRS.

  • Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, and L. Busch. 2006. Differentiated standardization and standardized differentiation: The complexity of the global agrifood system. In Between the local and the global: Confronting complexity in the contemporary agri-food sector, Research in Rural Sociology and Development, vol. 12, ed. T. Marsden, and J. Murdoch, 39–68. New York, NY: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, W. 2000. Concentration of ownership and control in agriculture. In Hungry for profit: The agribusiness threat to farmers, food and the environment, ed. F. Magdoff, J.B. Foster, and F.H. Buttel, 61–76. New York: Monthly Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, C. 2003. The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, T.K., and I. Wallerstein. 1986. Commodity chains in the world-economy prior to 1800. Review 10(1): 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICAC (International Cotton Advisory Committee). 1954. International Cotton Advisory Committee. International Organization 8(3):421–422.

  • ICAC (International Cotton Advisory Committee). 1962. International Cotton Advisory Committee. International Organization 16(1):262.

  • ICAC (International Cotton Advisory Committee). 2010. Statistics. In Documents of the ICAC (CD-ROM), Volume 15. Washington, DC: ICAC.

  • IFCP (International Forum for Cotton Promotion). 2012a. About. http://cottonpromotion.org/about/. Accessed 23 July 2013.

  • IFCP (International Forum for Cotton Promotion). 2012b. How to do it. http://cottonpromotion.org/category/how-to-do-it/. Accessed 23 July 2013.

  • IFCP (International Forum for Cotton Promotion). 2012c. Membership application. http://cottonpromotion.org/membership-application/. Accessed 23 July 2013.

  • IFCP (International Forum for Cotton Promotion). 2012d. Mission Statement. http://cottonpromotion.org/mission_statement/. Accessed 23 July 2013.

  • IHS Global Insight. 2010. A cost-benefit analysis of USDA’s international market development programs. March. http://www.wheatworld.org/wp-content/uploads/trade-global-insight-map-report-march2010-20100423.pdf. Accessed 24 February 2011.

  • Jacobson, T.C., and G.D. Smith. 2001. Cotton’s renaissance: A study in market innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinnucan, H.W., H. Xiao, and S. Yu. 2000. Relative effectiveness of USDA’s nonprice export promotion instruments. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 25(2): 559–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knickel, K., and H. Renting. 2000. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural development. Sociologica Ruralis 40(4): 512–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, M.N. 2003. Quality standard-setting in the global cotton chain and cotton sector reforms in Sub-Saharan Africa. IIS/GI. Kongevej Working Paper 03.7. Copenhagen, Denmark: Institute for International Studies.

  • Lewis, B. 2002. Cotton promotion activities from around the world. Prepared for the International Forum for Cotton Promotion, September. http://www.cottonpromotion.org/documents/cotton_promotion_sept_02.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2011.

  • Mancini, M.C. 2013. Localised agro-food systems and geographical indications in the face of globalisation: The case of Queso Chontaleño. Sociologia Ruralis 53(2): 180–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S.A. 1987. The rise of wage labour in the cotton South: A global analysis. The Journal of Peasant Studies 14: 226–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 1990. Incorporating comparison within a world-historical perspective: An alternative comparative method. American Sociological Review 55(3): 385–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 1992. Tensions between national and international control of the world food order: contours of a new food regime. Sociological Perspectives 35(2): 343–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 1993. Agro-food restructuring in the Pacific Rim: A comparative-international perspective on Japan, South Korea, the United States, Australia, and Thailand. In Pacific-Asia and the future of the world-system, ed. R.A. Palat, 103–116. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2000. A global interpretation of the rise of the East Asian food import complex. World Development 28(3): 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2004. Development and social change: A global perspective, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2005. Global development and the corporate food regime. In New directions in the sociology of global development, research in rural sociology and development, Volume 11, eds. F. H. Buttel and P. McMichael, 265–299. Oxford: Elsevier.

  • McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36(1): 139–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onunkwo, I.M., and J.E. Epperson. 2000. Export demand for US pecans: Impacts of US export promotion programs. Agribusiness 2: 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, H., D.E. Ethridge, and C.K. Bragg. 1984. Fiber. In Cotton, ed. R.J. Kohel, and C.F. Lewis, 437–509. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, B. 2009. The long hangover from the second food regime: A world-historical interpretation of the collapse of the WTO Doha Round. Agriculture and Human Values 26(4): 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quark, A.A. 2008. Toward a new theory of change: Socio-natural regimes and the historical development of the cotton textiles commodity chain. Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center 31(1):1–37.

  • Quark, A.A., and A. Slez. 2014. Interstate competition and Chinese ascendancy: The political construction of the global cotton market, 1973–2012. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 55(4): 269–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renting, H., T.K. Marsden, and J. Banks. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35: 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robb, B. 2007. Cotton blossoms in apparel: The lowdown on high fashion. Cotton International 2007 Edition. Meister, 12–14.

  • Robinson, E. 2006. China’s purchase of EFS system good for US cotton. Delta Farm Press, May 17.

  • Robinson, E. 2007. World reaps benefits from US demand-building. Southeast Farm Press, October 11. http://southeastfarmpress.com/world-reaps-benefits-us-demand-building. Accessed 28 February 2010.

  • Rosen, E.I. 2002. Making sweatshops: The globalization of the US apparel industry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E. 2011. Evolutionary history. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, J. 2006. Report from the International Forum for Cotton Promotion. Paper presented at the 65th Plenary Meetings of the International Cotton Advisory Committee, Goiânia, Brazil, September. http://www.icac.org/meetings/plenary/65_goiania/documents/english/ps2/ps2_ifcp.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2010.

  • Smith, H., and R. Zhu. 1999. The spinning process. In Cotton: Origin, history, technology and production, ed. C.W. Smith, and J.T. Cothren, 729–750. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, H., and H.W. Kinnucan. 1993. Effects of non-price export promotion: Some evidence for cotton. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 37(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnino, R., and T. Marsden. 2006. Beyond the divide: Rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6(2): 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terhaar, A.A. 2003. Rethinking cotton promotion. Paper presented at the Agricultural Outlook Forum, February 21. http://purl.umn.edu/33150. Accessed 20 March 2010.

  • USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office). 2013. Frequently asked questions about trademarks. http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426676. Accessed 13 October 2013.

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2011a. Foreign market development program fact sheet. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, January. http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/programs/Final_FMD_January%202011_updated.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2012.

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2011b. Market access program fact sheet. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, January. http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/programs/Final_MAP_January%202011_updated.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2012.

  • Van der Ploeg, J.D., H. Renting, G. Brunori, K. Knickel, J. Mannion, T. Marsden, K. de Roest, E. Sevilla-Guzman, and F. Ventura. 2000. Rural development: From practices and policies towards theory. Sociological Ruralis 40(4): 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winders, B. 2009. The politics of food supply: US agricultural policy in the world economy. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitlin, J., and P. Totterdill. 1989. Markets, technology and local intervention: The case of clothing. In Reversing industrial decline? Industrial structure and policy in Britain and her competitors, ed. P.Q. Hirst, and J. Zeitlin, 155–190. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Alessandro Bonanno, Brent Kaup, Harvey James, and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments on this paper. This research was generously funded by fellowships from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Federation of University Women.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, College of William & Mary, 214 Morton Hall, 100 Ukrop Way, Williamsburg, VA, 23185, USA

    Amy A. Quark

Authors
  1. Amy A. Quark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy A. Quark.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quark, A.A. Agricultural commodity branding in the rise and decline of the US food regime: from product to place-based branding in the global cotton trade, 1955–2012. Agric Hum Values 32, 777–793 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9593-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9593-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation