Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governing Common-Property Assets: Theory and Evidence from Agriculture

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper introduces a refined approach to conceptualising the commons in order to shed new light on cooperative practices. Specifically, it proposes the novel concept of Common-Property Assets (CPAs). CPAs are exclusively human-made resources owned under common-property ownership regimes. Our CPA model combines quantity (the flow of resource units available to members) and quality (the impact produced on the community by the members’ appropriation of the resource flow). While these two dimensions are largely pre-existing in the conventional case of natural common-pool resources, they directly depend on members’ collective action in CPAs. We apply this theoretical framework to farm machinery sharing agreements—a widespread grassroots cooperative phenomenon in agriculture—using a systematic literature review to generalise the findings from a sample of 54 studies published from 1950 to 2018. Our findings show that in successful CPAs, members endorse and do not deviate from a quantity-quality equilibrium that is collectively agreed upon. Despite the existence of thresholds for both quantity and quality due to (axiological) membership heterogeneity, qualitative changes in respect of the common good are possible in CPAs that promote democratic practices. Our study has potentially strong implications for developing ethics in cooperatives and the sustainable development of communities worldwide.

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. We refer here to the seventh principle of the International Cooperative Association: “co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members” (Chomel and Vienney 1996, p. 5).

  2. In US farms, machinery costs can amount to as much as 41% of annual farm production costs (Wolfley et al. 2011). In Quebec, equipment purchasing accounts for 20–25% of total expenses for dairy farmers (Harris and Fulton 2000a). In French farms, mechanisation represents 19% of operating expenses and 29% of fixed assets (AGRESTE 2016).

  3. Cox et al. (2010) splits Ostrom’s (1990) principles 1, 2 and 4 into two subcomponents (e.g. ‘clearly defined boundaries’ becomes ‘clearly defined users’ boundaries’ and ‘clearly defined resource boundaries’). Because we also investigated membership characteristics in detail, we decided to merge the subcomponents of these principles into one comprehensive principle (e.g. ‘clearly defined user and resource boundaries’). On an unrelated note, Ostrom (1990, p. 90) identifies a further design principle, O8 ‘nested enterprises’, “for CPRs that are part of larger systems”. Due to this specific attribute, it is mentioned in our discussion section (Section Discussion).

  4. Agrawal’s (2001) article initially considers ‘shared norms’ and ‘homogenous identities and interests’ as two different variables. In order to produce a clear framework, we decided to merge these variables because the descriptions of the CPA groups in our sample were generally not extensive enough to address them separately.

  5. These forms are not mutually exclusive. Farmers often rely simultaneously on several of them (Thomas et al. 2015).

  6. The final search terms were (in alphabetical order): coop* for the use of farm implements; coop* for the use of agricultural equipment; CUMA; farm machinery coop*; joint machinery pool; machinery ring; machinery sharing; machinery-use cooperative; partage de matériel agricole. The variant ‘co-operative’ was also included.

  7. Studies on irrigation CPRs, which are better represented in the literature (Tang 1992; Wade 1987), may have obfuscated the findings on traditional farm machinery sharing arrangements.

  8. These 54 articles are marked with an asterisk in the reference list.

  9. Throughout this section, the percentages in parentheses correspond to the prevalence of the item among the studies reviewed.

  10. As explained in “Methodology: Systematic Literature Review” section, our methodology ensures that we have not arbitrarily ruled out any given strategy. In particular, no item reports strategies that are not described in independently authored, peer-reviewed sources.

References

(Articles in the SLR are marked with an asterisk)

  • Abrahamsson, G. (2015). We run the network of information exchange around the work of machinery rings in Europe. In Association of the European national MR-federations (EMR e.V.). Neuburg, Germany. December 2015.

  • Abramitzky, R. (2011). Lessons from the Kibbutz on the equality-incentives trade-off. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 185–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acheson, J. (2006). Institutional failure in resource management. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 9(10), 1649–1672.

    Google Scholar 

  • AGRESTE (Service de la Statistique du Ministère de l’Agriculture). (2016). L’équipement des exploitations agricoles. Primeur, 334, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, T., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Social capital and collective action. In D. Castiglione, J. van Deth, & G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 70–100). Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D., & Lueck, D. (1998). The nature of the farm. Journal of Law and Economics, 41(2), 343–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Almås, R. (2010). I have seen the future and it works! In A. Bonanno, H. Bakker, R. Jussaume, Y. Kawamura, & M. Shucksmith (Eds.), From community to consumption: New and classic (pp. 3–16). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Andersson, H., Larsén, K., Lagerkvist, C., Andersson, C., Blad, F., Samuelsson, J., et al. (2005). Farm cooperation to improve sustainability. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34(4–5), 383–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argandoña, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9–10), 1093–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Artz, G., Colson, G., & Ginder, R. (2010). A return of the threshing ring? A case study of machinery and labor-sharing in Midwestern farms. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 42(4), 805–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artz, G. (2014). Equipment sharing in agriculture. In P. B. Thompson & D. M. Kaplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics (pp. 595–600). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Artz, G., & Naeve, L. (2015). Scaling up fruit and vegetable production: Is machinery sharing a possibility? Professional Agricultural Workers Journal, 3(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Artz, G., & Naeve, L. (2016). The benefits and challenges of machinery sharing among small-scale fruit and vegetable growers. Journal of Agriculture, Food systems, and Community Development, 3(6), 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baland, J.-M., & Platteau, J.-P. (1996). Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a role for rural communities?. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Baranyai, Z., Szabó, G., & Vásáry, M. (2014). Analysis of machine use in Hungarian agriculture. Is there any future for machinery sharing arrangements? Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists, 16(3), 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Barthélémy de Saizieu, T. (1984). Les formes actuelles de l'entraide agricole dans une commune de basse-Bretagne. Ethnologie Francaise, 4(14), 363–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Basarik, A., & Yildirim, S. (2015). A case study of sharing farm machinery in Turkey. International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences, 3(9), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Beaudry, R., Denis, C., & Saucier, C. (2002). Entre l'enthousiasme et l'inquiétude. Collection études théoriques. Québec: CRISES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollier, D. (2011). The growth of the commons paradigm. In C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 27–40). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokusheva, R. & Kimura, S. (2016). Cross-country comparison of farm size distribution. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 94, OECD Publishing, Paris.

  • Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdín, G. (2016). Equality under threat by the talented: Evidence from worker-managed firms. Economic Journal, 126(594), 1372–1403.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Capitaine, M. (2005). Organisation des territoires des exploitations agricoles. Impact du recours à des collectifs d'action : la conduite de chantiers de récolte en CUMA, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy.

  • *Capitaine, M., Benoît, M. & Baudry, J. (2008). Mutualisation du travail et compétences territoriales. In Coopératives, développement et territoire—Formes coopératives de partage et organisation du travail, Colloque SFER. Paris, France. February 2008.

  • *Chalopin, A., & Masson, P. (1999). Construction de la CUMA-compost. Économie Rurale, 253, 106–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomel, A., & Vienney, C. (1996). Déclaration de l'ACI: la continuité au risque de l'irréalité. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 67(4), 655–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cocaud, M. (2001). Un cadre associatif pour l'innovation technique dans les campagnes bretonnes du XXIème siècle. Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l'Ouest, 108, 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccorese, P., & Ferri, G. (2020). Are mergers among cooperative banks worth a dime? Evidence on efficiency effects of M&As in Italy. Economic Modelling, 84, 147–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. L., Chaddad, F. R., & Iliopoulos, C. (2004). Advances in cooperative theory since 1990: A review of agricultural economics literature. In G. Hendrikse (Ed.), Restructuring agricultural cooperatives (pp. 65–90). Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cordellier, S. (2014). Une histoire de la coopération agricole de production en France. Revue Internationale de l'Economie Sociale, 331, 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornée, S., & Szafarz, A. (2014). Vive la difference: Social banks and reciprocity in the credit market. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3), 361–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Villamayor Tomás, S. (2010). A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 38–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cropp, R., & Ford, C. (2002). An analysis of machinery cooperatives for dairy farms in the upper Midwest, UWCC Staff Paper No. 1, University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, Madison.

  • *Cush, P., & Macken-Walsh, A. (2016). The potential for joint farming ventures in Irish agriculture: A sociological review. European Countryside, 8(1), 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXe siècle. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P., & Worthington, S. (1993). Cooperative values: Change and continuity in capital accumulation the case of the British Cooperative Bank. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(11), 849–859.

    Google Scholar 

  • *De Toro, A., & Hansson, P. (2004). Machinery co-operatives. A case study in Sweden. Biosystems Engineering, 87(1), 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1986). Mediocrity and individuality. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 357–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Edwards, E. (2013). Joint machinery ownership. Extension service ag decision maker series A3–34, Iowa State University Extension, Ames.

  • Emery, S. (2014). Independence and individualism: Conflated values in farmer cooperation? Agricultural and Human Values, 32(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fesmire, S. (2003). John Dewey and moral imagination: Pragmatism in ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanigan, S., & Sutherland, L. (2016). Buying access to social capital? From collaboration to service provision in an agricultural co-operative. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(4), 471–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • FNCUMA. (2019). CUMA: Chiffres clefs 2019. Paris: Fédération Nationale des CUMA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forcadell, F. J. (2005). Democracy, cooperation and business success: The case of Mondragón corporación cooperativa. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • *FWA (Fédération Wallonne de l’Agriculture). (2012). Dossier coopératives. Pleinchamp, 40, 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gertler, M. (1981). A Comparison of agricultural resource management on selected group and individual farms in Saskatchewan, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research of McGill University, Montreal.

  • Giagnocavo, C., & Vargas-Vasserot, C. (2012). Support for farmers' cooperatives: Country report Spain. Wageningen UR: Wageningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gijselinckx, C., & Bussels, M. (2012). Support for farmers' cooperatives: Country report Belgium. Wageningen UR: Wageningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gini, A. (2004). Moral leadership and business ethics. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics, the heart of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 25–43). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2017). Focusing on ethics and broadening our intellectual base. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(1), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gröger, B. (1981). Of men and machines: Co-operation among French family farmers. Ethnology, 20(3), 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gui, B. (1991). The economic rationale for the ‘third sector’. Annals of public and cooperative economics, 62(4), 551–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinnane, T. W. (2001). Cooperatives as information machines: German rural credit cooperatives, 1883–1914. The Journal of Economic History, 61(2), 366–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 193–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (2000). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harris, A., & Fulton, M. (2000a). The CUMA farm machinery co-operatives. Saskatoon: Center for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harris, A., & Fulton, M. (2000b). Farm machinery co-ops: An idea worth sharing. Saskatoon: Center for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harris, A., & Fulton, M. (2000c). Farm machinery co-operatives in Saskatchewan and Québec. Saskatoon: Center for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the new commons. In Governing shared resources: Connecting local experience to global challenges (pp. 1–75). 12th biennial conference of the international association for the study of the Commons. Cheltenham, England. July 2008.

  • Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2003). Ideas, artifacts, and facilities: Information as a common-pool resource. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1), 111–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Herbel, D., Rocchigiani, M., & Ferrier, C. (2015). The role of the social and organizational capital in agricultural co-operatives' development: Practical lessons from the CUMA movement. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 3(1), 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hofstrand, D. (2000). Labor and machinery sharing agreement. Extension service ag decision maker series C4–45, Iowa State University Extension, Ames.

  • Hudon, M. (2007). Fair interest rates when lending to the poor. Ethics and Economics, 5(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, I., & Simons, T. (2002). The transfer of experience in groups of organizations: Implications for performance and competition. Management Science, 48(12), 1517–1533.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jannot, P., & Vaquié, F. (1997). Les conditions d’adoption d’une solution innovante d’équipement : Le groupe tracteur. Ingénieries, 11, 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jeanneaux, P., Capitaine, M., & Mauclair, A. (2018). PerfCuma: A framework to manage the sustainable development of small cooperatives. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 7(1), 54–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1979). Rights and production functions: An application to labor-managed firms and codetermination. Journal of Business, 52(4), 469–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. R., & Georges, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. C., & Kalmi, P. (2012). Economies of scale versus participation: A co-operative dilemma? Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 1(1), 37–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmi, P. (2007). The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(4), 625–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kenkel, P., & Long, G. (2007a). Feasibility of machinery cooperatives in the Southern plains. In Southern agricultural economics association. Mobile, Alabama. February 2007.

  • *Kenkel, P., & Long, G. (2007b). Structural considerations for machinery cooperatives. In NCERA-194 annual meeting. Minneapolis, Minnesota. November 2007.

  • *Lagerkvist, C., & Hansson, H. (2012). Machinery-sharing in the presence of strategic uncertainty: Evidence from Sweden. Agricultural Economics, 43(s1), 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lanneau, G. (1969). Agriculteurs et coopération. Archives Internationales de Sociologie de la Coopération, 26, 131–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lanneau, G. (1984). Stratégies coopératives chez les agriculteurs à travers leurs pratiques. In L'économie sociale en agriculture et en milieu rurale (pp. 214–221). Paris, France. March 1984.

  • *Lanneau, G., Baubion-Broye, A., & Cassagne, J. (1971). Société villageoise et coopération agricole. Archives Internationales de Sociologie de la Coopération, 26, 24–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Larsén, K. (2007). Participation, incentives and social norms in partnership arrangements among farms in Sweden. In Annual meeting of the American agricultural economics association (pp. 1–34). Portland, Oregon. July 2007.

  • *Larsén, K. (2010). Effects of machinery-sharing arrangements on farm efficiency: Evidence from Sweden. Agricultural Economics, 41(5), 497–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Le Guédard, P. (2010). Cadre de référence pour la mise en place et le développement des CUMA et des CUMO. Québec: Direction régionale du Bas-Saint-Laurent MAPAQ.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lucas, V., Gasselin, P., Thomas, F., & Vaquié, P. (2014). Coopérative agricole de production: Quand l’activité agricole se distribue entre exploitation et action collective de proximité. In P. Gasselin, J.-P. Choisis, S. Petit, F. Purseigle, & S. Zasser (Eds.), L’agriculture en famille (pp. 201–222). Paris: EDP Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lucas, V., & Gasselin, P. (2018). Gagner en autonomie grâce à la Cuma. Expériences d’éleveurs laitiers français à l’ère de la dérégulation et de l’agroécologie. Économie Rurale, 364(2), 73–89.

  • *Lucas, V., Gasselin, P., & Van Der Ploeg, J. D. (2019). Local inter-farm cooperation: A hidden potential for the agroecological transition in Northern agricultures. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43(2), 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McArthur, J. (1980). Machines agricoles et transformations sociales: Accès au matériel agricole en CUMA et organisations agricoles dans deux cantons de Haute-Garonne. Revue Géographique des Pyrénées et du Sud-Ouest, 51(4), 411–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, M. S., Payne, G. T., & Robert, E. E. (2016). Organizational ethics research: A systematic review of methods and analytical techniques. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 429–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2009). Integrating personalism into virtue-based business ethics: The personalist and the common good principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2012). The firm as a “community of persons”: A pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzani, T., & Zamagni, V. (2010). Cooperative networks in the Italian economy. Enterprise & Society, 11(1), 98–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrett C. D., & Waltzer N. (2004). Cooperatives and local development: Theory and applications for the 21st century. New York & London: M.E. Sharpe.

  • Meyer, C., & Hudon, M. (2019). Money and the commons: An investigation of complementary currencies and their ethical implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 277–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Morneau, C. (1999). CUMA: Une structure économique. Québec: Université rurale québécoise au Bas-Saint-Laurent.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Norby, J. (1950). Cooperative and contract use of farm machinery in Norway. Journal of Farm Economics, 32(2), 290–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Nouwogou, K. (2016). Promouvoir la mécanisation agricole à travers les coopératives agricoles: Cas de CUMAs au Bénin. In Proceedings of the consultative meeting on mechanization strategy. Nairobi, Kenya. December 2016.

  • Olmstead, A., & Rhode, P. (1995). Beyond the threshold: An analysis of the characteristics and behavior of early reaper adopters. Journal of Economic History, 55(1), 27–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1995). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Gardner, R. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 404–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2019). Decommodification in action: Common property as countermovement. Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419867202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Périlleux, A., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Understanding cooperative finance as a new common. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 88(2), 155–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–1608.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pierre, G. (2009). The biodiesel produced by farmers at a local scale using a traditional procedure: What kind of territorial construction for an agro-environmental project in social economy? European Countryside, 1(3), 141–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pierre, G. (2013). L’agriculteur, acteur central des projets d’autonomie agricole, entre choix de vie, choix professionnel et inscription dans des projets collectifs et/ou de territoire. ESO Travaux et Documents, 35, 119–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pierre, G. (2013b). Produire pour son territoire. De l'autonomie agricole au projet local agro-énergétique. Illustrations dans l'ouest français, Unpublished HDR thesis, Université de Caen, Caen.

  • *Pierre, G., & Thareau, B. (2011). Vers de nouveaux rapports au développement agricole au territoire: Agir ensemble pour devenir autonome. Revue Internationale de l'Économie Sociale: Recma, 320, 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohler, D., Fairbairn, B., & Fulton, M. E. (2017). The governance of business federations. Working paper, Centre for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

  • Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: Economic and political origins of our time. New York: Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poteete, A., Janssen, M., & Ostrom, E. (2009). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putterman, L. (1983). A modified collective agriculture in rural growth-with-equity: Reconsidering the private, unimodal solution. World Development, 11(2), 77–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacchetti, S. (2015). Inclusive and exclusive social preferences: A Deweyan framework to explain governance heterogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 473–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalet, S. (2006). Prisoner’s dilemmas, cooperative norms, and codes of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(4), 309–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sison, A., Hartman, E., & Fontrodona, J. (2012). Guest editors’ introduction reviving tradition: Virtue and the common good in business and management. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 207–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidtz, D. (2001). A place for cost-benefit analysis. Philosophical Issues, 11(1), 148–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D. (2011). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. (2009). Moving beyond market fundamentalism to a more balanced economy. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(3), 345–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stofferahn, C. (2004). Individualism or cooperation: Preferences for sharing machinery and labor. Journal of Cooperatives, 18, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Takacs, I., & Takacs-György, G. (2012). Cooperation among farmers for cost saving machinery. In Third International Symposium "Agrarian economy and rural development: Realities and perspectives for Romania (pp. 327–335). Bucharest, Romania. October 2012.

  • Tang, S. Y. (1992). Institutions and collective action: Self-governance in irrigation. San Francisco: ICS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Thomas, F., & Draperi, J. (2008). Les nouvelles frontières de la coopération d'utilisation de matériels agricoles. In Les entreprises coopératives agricoles: Mutations et perspectives (pp. 1–18). Paris, France. February 2008.

  • *Thomas, F., Vaquié, P., Lucas, V., & Gasselin, P. (2015). Coopération agricole de production: Renouvellement des modalités de coopération de proximité entre agriculteurs. In Structures d'exploitation et exercice de l'activité agricole : Continuités, changements ou ruptures ? (pp. 1–11). Rennes, France. February 2015.

  • USDA (1980). Cooperative benefits and limitations, farmer cooperatives in the United States. Cooperative information report 1 section 3, United-States Department of Agriculture, Washington.

  • Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2012). The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. London and Sterling: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Vasa, L., Baranyai, Z., Kovacs, Z., & Szabo, G. (2014). Drivers of trust: Some experiences from Hungarian agricultural cooperatives. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 4(26), 286–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, R. (1987). Village republics: Economic conditions for collective action in South India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wolfley, J., Mjelde, J., Klinefelter, D., & Salin, V. (2011). Machinery-sharing contractual issues and impacts on cash flows of agribusinesses. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36(1), 139–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Fisher, M., & Pascual, U. (2011). Urbanization and the viability of local agricultural economies. Land Economics, 87(1), 109–125.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the special issue guest editors and to two anonymous reviewers as well as to Carlo Borzaga, Murray Fulton, Franck Thomas, Peter Wirtz, and numerous conference and seminar participants for their helpful comments and discussions. In addition, we would like to make special reference to Georgeanne Artz (Iowa State University), who worked on farm machinery CPAs and who has recently passed away.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Rennes 1, CREM UMR CNRS 6211, and CERMi, Faculté des Sciences Économiques, 7, Place Hoche CS 86514, 35065, Rennes Cedex, France

    Simon Cornée

  2. Université de Rennes 1, CREM UMR CNRS 6211, Faculté des Sciences Économiques, 7, Place Hoche CS 86514, 35065 Rennes, Cedex, France

    Madeg Le Guernic

  3. INRAE-AGROCAMPUS OUEST, UMR SMART-LERECO, CRISES, Université du Québec à Montréal, 2, rue André le Nôtre, 49045, Angers Cedex, France

    Damien Rousselière

Authors
  1. Simon Cornée
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madeg Le Guernic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Damien Rousselière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Cornée.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 82 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cornée, S., Le Guernic, M. & Rousselière, D. Governing Common-Property Assets: Theory and Evidence from Agriculture. J Bus Ethics 166, 691–710 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04579-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04579-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation