Searching for family farming in Argentina: chronicles of a technological innovation between two worlds

  • Frédéric Goulet
  • Gabriela Giordano
Research Article


This paper proposes a contribution to the analysis of the processes that accompany the increasing fragmentation of agricultural worlds between contrasting models of development. To this end, we examine an area that has until now attracted little attention in this respect, that of the scientific and technological actors involved; we also look at original mechanisms which aim to create intersections between models of development. The paper is based on research carried out in Argentina, a country where there are two major contrasting models of development, embodied by the notions of agribusiness and family farming. We analyse the trajectory of a technological innovation in the field of machinery, based on the determination of agronomists and manufacturers to adapt agribusiness technologies to the needs of small family farmers. We study the attempts at problematisation and interessement that they make in relation to this public and its accompanying scientific and technical actors. These dynamics reveal contrasting approaches to innovation, technology and agricultural development. They also demonstrate the profound misunderstanding that exists between these two heterogeneous worlds.


Innovation Science and technology Agricultural machinery Family farming Argentina 


  1. Akrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. (2002). The key to success in innovation. Part 1: The art of intressement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akrich, M., Callon, M., B. Latour, Eds. (2006). Sociologie de la traduction. Textes Fondateurs, Paris: Presses de l’Ecole des Mines.Google Scholar
  3. Albaladejo, C. (2016) Modelo teórico para ensar la copresencia y coexistencia de diferentes formas de agricultura. In: Seminario internacional “Transformaciones territoriales y la actividad agropecuaria. Tendencias globales y emergentes locales”, La Plata, Argentina.Google Scholar
  4. Albaladejo, C., & Arnauld de Sartre, X. (2012). Une révolution agricole incomplète? Leçons d’Argentine. In H. Regnault, X. Arnauld de Sartre, & C. Regnault-Roger (Eds.), Les révolutions agricoles en perspective (pp. 51–72). Paris: Editions France Agricole.Google Scholar
  5. Barri, F., & Wahren, J. (2010). El modelo sojero de desarrollo en la Argentina: tensiones y conflictos en la era del neocolonialismo de los agronegocios y el cientificismo-tecnológico. Realidad Económica, 255, 43–65.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, H. (2014). Food sovereignty via the peasant way: a sceptical view. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1031–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Best, H. (2008). Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: a case study from West Germany. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(1), 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanchet, V. (2017). “We make markets”. The role of the ethical fashion show in categorising the ethical fashion. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 32(2), 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonneuil, C., Joly, P. B., & Marris, C. (2008). Disentrenching experiment? The construction of GM-crop field trials as a social problem in France. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowker, G., & Leigh Star. S. (1999). Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of the St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Callon, M. (2016). Revisiting marketization: from interface-markets to market-agencements. Consumption Markets & Culture, 19(1), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornilleau, L., & Joly, P. B. (2014). La révolution verte, un instrument de gouvernance de la “faim dans le monde”. Une histoire de la recherche agronomique internationale. In D. Pestre (Ed.), Le gouvernement des technosciences (pp. 171–201). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  14. Coughenour, C. M., & Chamala, S. (2000). Conservation tillage and cropping innovation. Constructing the new culture of agriculture (360 p). Ames: Iowa State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craviotti, C. (2014). La agricultura familiar en Argentina: Nuevos desarrollos institucionales, viejas tendencias estructurales. In: Craviotti, C. (Eds) Agricultura familiar en Latinoamérica: Continuidades, transformaciones y controversias (pp. 175–204). Buenos Aires: CICCUS.Google Scholar
  16. Dodier, N. (1995). The conventional foundation of action. Elements of a sociological pragmatics. Réseaux, 3, 145–166.Google Scholar
  17. Dubuisson-Quellier, S. (2003). Confiance et qualité des produits alimentaires: une approche par la sociologie des relations marchandes. Sociologie du travail, 45(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elgert, L. (2016). ‘More soy on fewer farms’ in Paraguay: challenging neoliberal agriculture’s claims to sustainability. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(2), 537–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elverdin, J., Ledesma, S. E., Zain El Din, E. & Cittadini, E., Eds. (2014) Programa Nacional para el Deasrrollo y la Sustentabilidad de los Territorios. Buenos Aires: Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, INTA.Google Scholar
  20. Fleury, P., Chazoule, C., & Peigné, J. (2014). Ruptures et transversalités entre agriculture biologique et agriculture de conservation. Economie Rurale, 339–340, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fouilleux, E. (2015). Agriculture, alimentation et mondialisation (75 p). Angers: Groupe ESA.Google Scholar
  22. Gisclard, M., Allaire, G. & Cittadini, R. (2015) Proceso de institucionalización de la agricultura familiar y nuevo referencial para el desarrollo rural en la Argentina. Mundo Agrario 16(31).Google Scholar
  23. Godin, B. (2015). Models of innovation: Why models of innovation are models, or what work is being done in calling them models? Social Studies of Science, 45(4), 570–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodman, D. E., Dupuis, M., & Goodman, M. K. (2012). Alternative food networks. Knowledge, practice and politics (308 p). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Goulet, F. (2016) Faire science à part. Politiques d’inclusion sociale et recherche agronomique en Argentine, Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université Paris-Est.Google Scholar
  26. Goulet, F., & Vinck, D. (2012). Innovation through withdrawal. Contribution to a sociology of detachment. Revue Française de Sociologie, 53(2), 117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Granjou, C., & Arpin, I. (2015). Epistemic commitments: making relevant science in biodiversity studies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40(6), 1022–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gras, C., & Hernandez, V. (Eds.). (2013). El agro como negocio (366 p). Biblos: Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  29. Hervieu, B., & Purseigle, F. (2015). The sociology of agricultural worlds: from a sociology of change to a sociology of coexistence. Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies, 96(1), 59–90.Google Scholar
  30. Hubbard, K., & Hassanein, N. (2013). Confronting coexistence in the United States: organic agriculture, genetic engineering, and the case of roundup ready alfalfa. Agriculture and Human Values, 30, 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jansen, K. (2014). The debate on food sovereignty theory: agrarian capitalism, dispossession and agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(1), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order (332 p). New-York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Lapegna, P. (2013). Social movements and patronage politics: processes of demobilization and dual pressure. Sociological Forum, 28, 842–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lapegna, P. (2016). Genetically modified soybeans, agrochemical exposure, and everyday forms of peasant collaboration in Argentina. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43, 517–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology (336 p). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Le Gall, J. (2015). Nouveaux producteurs urbains, nouvelles agricultures urbaines? Migrants boliviens et «bolivianisation» de l’approvisionnement en légumes de Buenos Aires. Problèmes d’Amérique latine, 4(99), 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leigh Star, S.  & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutionnal ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertebrates zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.Google Scholar
  38. Le Velly, R. (2017). Sociologie des systèmes alimentaires alternatifs. Une promesse de différence. Paris: Presses des Mines.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemery, B. (2003). Les agriculteurs dans la fabrique d'une nouvelle agriculture. Sociologie du Travail, 45(1), 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manzanal M. & Schneider S. (2011). Agricultura familiar y políticas de desarrollo rural en Argentina y Brasil (Análisis Comparativo, 1990-2010). Revista Interdisciplinaria de Estudios Agrarios 34, 35–71.Google Scholar
  41. Pellegrini, P. A. (2013). Transgénicos. Ciencia, agricultura y controversias en la Argentina. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.Google Scholar
  42. Richardson, N. (2009). Export-oriented populism: commodities and coalitions in Argentina. Studies in Comparative International Development, 3(44), 228–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sabourin, E. (2014). L’agriculture brésilienne en débat: évolutions récentes, controverses et politiques publiques. Problèmes d’Amérique latine, 4(95), 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schiavoni G. (2010) Describir y prescribir: la tipificación de la agricultura familiar en la Argentina. Las agriculturas familiares del Mercosur: trayectorias, amenazas y desafíos. M. Manzanal and G. Neiman (eds). Buenos Aires, Ciccus: 43–59.Google Scholar
  45. Vinck, D. (2009). De l’objet intermédiaire à l’objet frontière. Vers la prise en compte du travail d'équipement, Revue d'Anthropologie des Connaissances, 3(1), 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vinck, D. (2011). Taking intermediary objects and equipping work into account in the study of engineering practices. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRAD, UMR Innovation et Développement dans l’Agriculture et l’AlimentationBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Innovation et Développement dans l’Agriculture et l’AlimentationUniv. Montpellier, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgroMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.IPAF Region Pampeana-INTABuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations