Skip to main content

Networks, Power and Dependency in the Agrifood Industry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

We review research on power, dependency and the concentration of agrifood industries and report updated concentration figures for selected agrifood sectors. We then utilize network exchange theory to identify principles of dependency and network relations and describe network relationships within the broiler, beef and commodity crop sectors. We argue that this study demonstrates that network analysis can inform on the nature, source and extent of differential dependencies and asymmetric power relationships within the agrifood sector.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Five different workshops on competition within the agrifood system were held in 2010 in the US, in locations that allowed access and participation by farmers and producers. Transcripts of the hearings can be found at USDA-DOJ (2010).

  2. 2.

    Domina and Taylor (2009) and Carstensen (2008) are concerned that buyer power and seller power have different measures and impacts. Analysis of market share is hard to calculate because of the difficulty in establishing the parameters of the market – in particular the geographical nature of markets; the inelasticity of particular market sectors like most in the agrifood industry, and the fact that competitive circumstances are very different in different sectors of the food system (e.g. the poultry industry has completely different parameters than the beef industry).

  3. 3.

    Chen’s (2008, p. 247) definition: “Buyer power is the ability of a buyer to reduce price profitably below a supplier’s normal selling price, or more generally the ability to obtain terms of supply more favorably than a suppliers’ normal terms. The normal selling price, in turn, is defined as supplier’s profit-maximizing price in the absence of buyer power. In the case where there is perfect competition among suppliers, the normal selling price of a supplier is the competitive price, and the buyer power is monopsony power. On the other hand, in a case where competition among suppliers is imperfect, the normal selling price is above the competitive price, and the buyer power is countervailing power.

  4. 4.

    Lynn (2006, 2009) argues that Wal-Mart uses its monopsonistic power to force concessions from suppliers rather than collecting higher prices from consumers.

  5. 5.

    US v. Cargill and Continental. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Civil No. 1: 99CV01875. Section VI, Paragraphs 20–26.

  6. 6.

    Emerson (1962, p. 32) provides this specific definition: “The dependence of actor A upon actor B is (1) directly proportional to A’s motivational investment in goals mediated by B, and (2) inversely proportional to the availability of those goals to A outside of the A-B relation.”

  7. 7.

    A critique of the green revolution is that hybrids required higher levels of inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation water, thus the suggestion by Vandana Shiva that they not be called “higher yielding varieties” but “high responsive varieties” (Shiva 1991).

  8. 8.

    McDonald and Korb (2006) showed that 30% of broiler growers reported no other operation near them.

  9. 9.

    The Department of Justice has argued that such a “captive draw” area in grain should trigger antitrust concerns. In their suit opposing the acquisition of Continental Grain by Cargill, the Department of Justice argued that there were significant geographic areas where the two firms competed for grain products that would be reduced to a captive draw area if the acquisition was approved. See US v Cargill and Continental. US District Court for District of Columbia. Civil No. 1: 99CV01875.

  10. 10.

    Weinberg (2003) gives the example of a North Georgia family who were able to upgrade from a four room house with no indoor toilet to a seven room house with two baths after 20 years in the poultry business (1961–1982). “We all owe that to Gold Kist,” [the farmer] said. “Chickens have been mighty good to this family.” However, Heffernan (January 2012, personal conversation) says that farmers in Louisiana in his 1982 restudy were starting to show signs of distress but almost every survey participant would say ‘go talk to so and so, you’ll see what’s happening’ rather than openly reporting issues. Thus, he was unable to document this discontent for his study.

  11. 11.

    Today, the top 20 grocery stores have a combined 65% of the grocery market (Shelansky 2010), with estimates for Wal-Mart’s share running from 23 (UFCW 2010) to 33% (Clifford 2011). Regardless, Mitchell (2011) and UFCW (2010, p. 5) note that Wal-Mart grew from 6% of grocery sales in 1998 to having larger grocery sales today than the “combined sales of its three closest competitors….”

  12. 12.

    It is also important to note that beef processing plants largely left unionized areas of the Midwest in the 1980s and 1990s after the introduction of boxed beef production created the opportunity for beef packers to build larger plants with faster processing speeds (and deskilled, less costly labor) in the Great Plains (Gouveia 1994; Stull et al. 1995). Thus, a system of relatively dispersed slaughter plants and farmer feeders changed to a more geographically concentrated industry accompanied by changes in the CR4 where 36% of steers and heifers were slaughtered by the top firms in 1980 compared to 81% in 2009 (GIPSA 2011).

  13. 13.

    For further discussion of the competitive nature of these markets see Moss (2010, 2011); Shi et al. (2008) and Hubbard (2009). For an animated representation of changes in the seed industry from the mid-1990s to present see Howard (2009).

  14. 14.

    It is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of contributors. However, we are reminded of Davis and Blomstrom’s (1971, p. 95) Iron Law of Responsibility, which states that “in the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which society considers responsible will tend to lose it.”

References

  • Adcock, F.J., D. Hudson, P. Rosson, H.M. Harris, and C.W. Herndon. 2006. The global competitiveness of the North American livestock industry. Choices 21(3): 171–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P. 2004. Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American agrifood system. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. 2007. Livestock marketing and competition issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Order Code RL33325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blas, J. 2010. End looms for fertiliser cartels. Financial Times, August 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno, A., and D.H. Constance. 2008. Stories of globalization: Transnational corporations, resistance, and the state. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breimyer, H.F. 1965. Individual freedom and the economic organization of agriculture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breimyer, H.F., H.D. Guither, and W.B. Sundquist. 1973. Who will control U.S. agriculture? A series of six leaflets. University of Illinois College of Agriculture Special Publications, vol. 28. Urbana: University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch, D., and G. Lawrence. 2009. Towards a third food regime: Behind the transformation. Agriculture and Human Values 26(4): 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carstensen, P.C. 2008. Buyer power, competition policy, and antitrust: The competitive effects of discrimination among suppliers. Antitrust Bulletin 53(20): 271–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z. 2008. Defining buyer power. Antitrust Bulletin 53(2): 241–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, S. 2011. Groceries fill aisles at stores like CVS. New York Times, January 17, B1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constance, D.H., F. Martinez, G. Aboites, and A. Bonanno. 2013. The problems with poultry production and processing. In The ethics and economics of agrifood competition, ed. Harvey S. James Jr.. Dordrecht: Springer, –.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K.S. 1987. Emerson’s contributions to social exchange theory. In Social exchange theory, ed. K.S. Cook, 209–222. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K.S., and R.M. Emerson. 1978. Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review 43(5): 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K.S., R.M. Emerson, M.R. Gillmore, and T. Yamagishi. 1983. The distribution of power in exchange networks: Theory and experimental results. The American Journal of Sociology 89(2): 275–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. 1961. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K., and R.L. Blomstrom. 1971. Business, society, and environment: Social power and social response, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domina, D., and C.R. Taylor. 2009. The debilitating effects of concentration in markets affecting agriculture. Lincoln: Organization for Competitive Markets. http://farmfutures.com/mdfm/Faress1/author/2/OCM competition report.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2011.

  • Emerson, R.M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review 27(1): 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2008. Who owns nature? Corporate power and the final frontier in the commodification of life. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/707/01/etc_won_report_final_color.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2011.

  • Etter, L. 2008. Lofty prices for fertilizer put farmers in a squeeze. Wall Street Journal, May 27, A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feedstuffs. 2010. Feed marketing and distribution. Feedstuffs Reference Issue, September 15, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foer, A. 2010. Agriculture and antitrust enforcement issues in our 21st century economy. In Proceedings of the December 8, 2010, workshop, 219–252. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and Department of Justice. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/dc-agworkshop-transcript.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2011.

  • Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Trans. Colin Gordon. Brighton: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L.C. 1979. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1: 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, W.H. 1984. Commodity systems analysis: An approach to the sociology of agriculture. Research in Rural Sociology and Development 1: 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, W.H. 1994. The global fresh fruit and vegetable system: an industrial organization analysis. In The global restructuring of agro-food systems, ed. Philip McMichael, 173–189. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, W., A. Barton, and R. Thomas. 1981. Manufacturing green gold: Capital, labor, and technology in the lettuce industry. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H., and P. McMichael. 1989. Agriculture and the state system. Sociologia Ruralis 29(2): 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: An outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenna, L., and D.R. Cahoy. 2009. Agribusiness concentration, intellectual property, and the prospects for rural economic benefits from the emerging biofuel economy. Southern Rural Sociology 24(2): 111–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., and E.M. DuPuis. 2002. Knowing food and growing food: Beyond the production-consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 42(1): 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouveia, L. 1994. Global strategies and local linkages; The case of the U.S. meatpacking industry. In From Columbus to ConAgra: The globalization of agriculture and food, eds. A. Bonanno, L. Busch, W.H. Friedland, L. Gouveia, and E. Mingione, 125–148. Lawrence: University of Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). 2011. 2010 Annual report of the packers & stockyards program. Washington, DC: USDA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundlach, G., and A. Foer. 2008. Buyer power in antitrust: An overview of the American Antitrust Institute’s invitational symposium on buyer power. The Antitrust Bulletin 53(2): 233–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gura, S. 2007. Livestock genetics companies: Concentration and proprietary strategies of an emerging power in the global food economy. Ober-Ramstadt: League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development. http://www.psas-web.net/documents/Info/livestock_gen_gura.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2011.

  • Hanneman, R.A., and M. Riddle. 2005. Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, W.D. 1972. Sociological dimensions of poultry production in the United States. Sociologia Ruralis 12(3/4): 481–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, W.D. 1984. Constraints in the U.S. poultry industry. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, vol. 1, 237–260. Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, M.K., and H.S. James Jr. 2005. The ethics of constrained choice: How the industrialization of agriculture impacts farming and farmer behavior. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18(3): 269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, M.K., W.W.D. Heffernan, D. Lind, and E. Barham. 2008. Contractual integration in agriculture: Is there a bright side for agriculture of the middle? In Food and the mid-level farm, ed. T.A. Lyson, G.W. Stevenson, and R. Welsh, 79–100. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P.H. 2009. Visualizing consolidation in the global seed industry: 1996–2008. Sustainability 1(4): 1266–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, K. 2009. Out of hand: Farmers face the consequences of a consolidated seed industry. Washington, DC: National Family Farm Coalition.

    Google Scholar 

  • James Jr., H.S., and M.K. Hendrickson. 2008. Perceived economic pressures and farmer ethics. Agricultural Economics 38(3): 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, A. 1964. Bargaining power in transactions: A basic model of interpersonal relationships. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 23(1): 49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R. 2002. Collective bargaining for farmers. Choices 4th Quarter, 1518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, B. 2006. Breaking the chain: The antitrust case against Wal-Mart. Harper’s Magazine 313(1874): 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, B. 2009. Cornered: The monopoly capitalism and the politics of destruction. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, J., and P. Korb. 2006. Agricultural contracting update: Contracts in 2003. Economic Research Service Electronic Information Bulletin EIB-9. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, J., and W. McBride. 2009. The transformation of U.S. livestock agriculture: Scale, efficiency, and risks. Economic Research Service Electronic Information Bulletin EIB-43. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovsky, B., D. Willer, and T. Patton. 1988. Power relations in exchange networks. American Sociological Review 53(2): 220–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P.V. 1987. Elements of interactor dependence. In Social exchange theory, ed. K.S. Cook, 130–148. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, W.D. 1997. Change in U.S. livestock production, 1969–92. Economic Research Service Agricultural Economic Report No. AER754. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2000. The power of food. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime analysis of the ‘world food crisis. Agriculture and Human Values 26: 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miele, M., and J. Murdoch. 2002. The aestheticisation of food: Taste, time and typicality. Sociologia Ruralis 42(4): 312–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. 2011. Eaters beware: Wal-Mart is taking over our food system. Grist, 30 December. http://www.grist.org/food/2011-12-30-eaters-beware-walmart-is-taking-over-our-food-system. Accessed 13 Jan 2012.

  • Molm, L.D. 1987. Linking power structure and power use. In Social exchange theory, ed. K.S. Cook, 101–129. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, M., and D. Chanil. 2010. Super 50: Steadfast leaders. Progressive Grocer, May. http://www.progressivegrocer.com/inprint/article/id664/super-50-steadfast-leaders/. Accessed 13 Jan 2012.

  • Moss, D. 2010. Transgenic seed: The high technology test of antitrust? CPI Antitrust Journal 2:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, D. 2011. Competition and transgenic seed systems. Antitrust Bulletin 56(1): 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, J. 1973. The fiscal crisis of the state. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue, E.J., R.A. Hoppe, D.E. Banker, R. Ebel, K. Fuglie, P. Korb, M. Livingston, C. Nickerson, and C. Sandretto. 2011. The changing organization of U.S. farming. Economic Research Service Electronic Information Bulletin EIB-88. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleinik, A. 2011. Market as a weapon: Domination by virtue of a constellation of interests. Forum for Social Economics 40(2): 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, A. 2010. After growth, fortunes turn for Monsanto. New York Times, October 4. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/05monsanto.html?_r=0. Accessed 1 May 2012.

  • Rich, R. 2008. Fecal free. Biology and authority in industrialized Midwestern pork production. Agriculture and Human Values 25(1): 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R.T. 2002. Broilers: Differentiating a commodity. In Industry studies, 3rd edn, ed. L.L. Duetsch, 59–95. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelansky, H. 2010. Agriculture and antitrust enforcement issues in our 21st century economy. In Proceedings of the December 8, 2010, workshop, 182–252. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture and Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, G., J-P. Chavas, and K. Stiegert. 2008. An analysis of bundle pricing: The case of the corn seed market, Working Paper Series FSWP2008-01. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Food System Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 1991. The green revolution in the Punjab. The Ecologist 21(2): 57–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. 1994. Introduction. In Ethics, ed. P. Singer, 3–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stull, D., M. Broadway, and D. Griffith (eds.). 1995. Any way you cut it: Meat processing and small town America. Lawrence: University of Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Successful Farming. 2010. U.S. Pork powerhouses 2010, November. http://www.agriculture.com/uploads/assets/promo/external/siteimages/powerhouses2010.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2012.

  • Taylor, C.R., and D. Domina. 2010. Restoring economic health to contract poultry production. Report prepared for the Joint U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Agriculture/GIPSA Public Workshop on Competition Issues in the Poultry Industry, Normal, 21 May 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, G. 2010. Shake-up at the top, growth in the ranks. Watt Poultry USA, February, 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • UFCW. 2010. Ending Walmart’s rural stranglehold. Washington, DC: UFCW.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau. 2011. Economic census. Sector 31: Manufacturing: subject series: Concentration ratios: Share of value added accounted for by the 4, 8, 20, and 50 Largest Companies for Industries: 2007. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Agriculture/Department of Justice (USDA-DOJ). 2010. Agriculture and antitrust enforcement issues in our 21st century economy. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture & US Department of Justice. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/index.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2011.

  • Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, C. 2003. Big Dixie chicken goes global: Exports and the rise of the North Georgia poultry industry. Business and Economic History On-line 1: 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J. 2006. Network theories and political economy: From attrition to convergence? Research in Rural Sociology and Development 12: 11–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, T.A., and S.E. Trist. 2010. Buyer power in U.S. hog markets: A critical review of the literature. Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper No. 10-04, Tufts University, Medford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., M.R. Gillmore, and K.S. Cook. 1988. Network connections and the distribution of power in exchange networks. The American Journal of Sociology 93(4): 833–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, X., and T. Vulkina. 2009. Do alternative marketing arrangements increase pork packers’ market power? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(1): 250–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harvey S. James Jr. Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

James, H.S., Hendrickson, M.K., Howard, P.H. (2013). Networks, Power and Dependency in the Agrifood Industry. In: James, Jr., H. (eds) The Ethics and Economics of Agrifood Competition. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6274-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics