Collective Action in Agri-Chains

  • Pierre-Marie Bosc
  • Sylvain Rafflegeau
  • Hélène David-Benz
  • Sylvaine Lemeilleur
  • Paule Moustier
  • Marisa Peyre
Chapter

Abstract

Since the 1980s, liberalization policies have profoundly altered the economic and institutional contexts in which agricultural producers operate. As a consequence, some of the older forms of collective action, dating from a period when their autonomy and room for manoeuvre were restricted because of State interventions and political ideologies, have been called into question. And yet, liberalization has brought with it a period in which collective action is all the more necessary in order to meet the challenges of a more unpredictable and competitive economic environment. To the traditional issues of economies of scale, bargaining power within value chains, and reduction of transaction costs can now be added those of ensuring sustainable development at the various levels of the agri-chain. Collective action is thus marked by a variety of empirical forms and initiatives of actors that fall more or less in line with the policies that support them. Economic and social inclusion remains a strategic focus to be achieved through participatory inclusion mechanisms, innovation platforms, and mechanisms for cooperation and joint decision making between actors on the basis of information sharing. New mechanisms in which collective action plays a key role are now required in order to respond to environmental and health issues and to meet the new attributes of quality that the consumer now demands. The relative ineffectiveness of collective action in the agrifood sectors in countries of the South is due to the inadequate institutional framework and the weak rule of law, which limit the capacity of organized producers to enforce rules internal to their organization and also those regulating their relationships with other actors of the value chains.

References

  1. Barral S (2015) Capitalismes agraires. Économie politique de la grande plantation en Indonésie et en Malaisie. Presses de Sciences Po, Paris 240 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Biénabe E, Vivien M-D (2015) Institutionalizing geographical indications in southern countries: lessons learned from Basmati and Rooibos. World Development, forthcoming, available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15000881. Retrieved 23 April 2016
  3. Candler W, Kumar N (1998) India: The dairy revolution: The impact of dairy development in India and the World Bank’s contribution. A World Bank operations evaluation study. World Bank, Washington, DC, 92 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheyns E, Akindes F, Adie FA (2000) La filière palmier à huile en Côte d’Ivoire 3 ans après la privatisation: état des lieux d’un procès de recomposition institutionnelle. OCL 7(2):166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. David-Benz H, Rasolofo P, Andriamparany S (2014) La régulation des prix du riz à Madagascar: l’action conjointe de l’information et de la concertation. Cah Agric 23(4–5):295–303. doi:10.1684/agr.2014.0707 Retrieved 23 April 2016Google Scholar
  6. Delabouglise A, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Phan TD, Dao DC, Nguyen TT, Truong DB, Nguyen NTX, Vu DT, Nguyen VK, Le TH, Salem G, Peyre M (2015a) The perceived value of passive animal health surveillance: the case of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Vietnam. Zoonosis Pub Health, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  7. Delabouglise A, Dao TH, Truong DB, Nguyen TT, Nguyen NTX, Duboz R, Fournié G, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Grosbois V, Vu DT, Nguyen VK, Le TH, Salem G, Peyre M (2015b) When private actors matter: information-sharing and surveillance of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Vietnam. Acta Tropica 2015, July, 147, 38–44. doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.03.025. Retrieved 23 April 2016. Epub 2015 April 3
  8. Galtier F, David-Benz H, Subervie J, Egg J (2014) Les systèmes d’information sur les marchés agricoles dans les pays en développement: nouveaux modèles, nouveaux impacts. Cah Agric 23(4–5):245–258. doi:10.1684/agr.2014.0715 Retrieved 23 April 2016Google Scholar
  9. Hopkins R (2000) Impact assessment study of Oxfam fair trade: final report. Oxfam Fair Trade Programme, Oxford 68 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Kurien V (2007) India’s milk revolution. Investing in rural producer organizations. In: Narayan D, Glinskaya E (eds) Ending poverty in South Asia. Ideas that work. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 37–67Google Scholar
  11. Maître d’Hôtel E, Bosc PM, Egg J (2008) L’action collective et la durabilité des filières agricoles au Costa Rica. Économie rurale 1(303–305):123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maître d’Hôtel E, Lemeilleur S, Bienabé E (2011) Connexion des petits exploitants à des marchés efficaces. 3e forum européen du développement rural, Palencia (Espagne), 29 March–1 April 2011, 33 pGoogle Scholar
  13. Mesa-Dishington J (2015) Innovaciones institucionales del gremio palmicultor. Palmas 36(3):59–71Google Scholar
  14. Moustier P (2009) Gouvernance et performance des filières alimentaires au Vietnam. Économies et sociétés 43(11):1835–1855Google Scholar
  15. Moustier P, Phan TGT, Dao TA, Vu TB, Nguyen TTL (2010) The role of farmer organisations supplying supermarkets with quality food in Vietnam. Food Policy 35(1):69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Naziri D, Aubert M, Codron J-M, Nguyen TTL, Moustier P (2014) Estimating the impact of small-scale farmer collective action on food safety: the case of vegetables in Vietnam. J Dev Stud 50(5):715–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rafflegeau S, Descroix F, Kourouma H, Montagnon C (1999) Caféiculture en Guinée: bilan des résultats de la recherche. Plantations, Recherche, Développement 6(6):443–453Google Scholar
  18. Ramirez M, Bernal P, Clarke I, Hernandez I, Rotolo D (2014) Distinguishing patterns of learning and inclusion through the patterns of network formation in developing agricultural clusters, SPRU: Working paper series 2014–20. University of Sussex, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  19. Temple L, Touzard JM, Kwa M, Boyer J, Requier-Desjardins D (2015) Comparaison des trajectoires d’innovation pour la sécurisation alimentaire des pays du Sud. Biotechnolologie, agronomie, société et Environnement 19(1):53–61Google Scholar
  20. Vagneron I, Roquigny S (2010) Cartographie et analyse des études d’impact du commerce équitable: synthèse. Une étude à l’initiative de la Plate-forme pour le commerce équitable. Cirad, Paris 27 pGoogle Scholar
  21. WCM (World Co-operative Monitor) (2014) Exploring the co-operative economy. Report, WCM, Brussels, Belgium, 116 pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Éditions Quæ 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Marie Bosc
    • 1
  • Sylvain Rafflegeau
    • 2
  • Hélène David-Benz
    • 1
  • Sylvaine Lemeilleur
    • 1
  • Paule Moustier
    • 1
  • Marisa Peyre
    • 3
  1. 1.CIRAD – UMR MoisaMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.CIRAD – UPR Performance of Tree Crop-Based SystemsMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.CIRAD – UPR Agirs – NIVR VietnamHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations