Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Food quality as a public good: cooperation dynamics and economic development in a rural community

  • Published:
Mind & Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present work deals with an initiative that aims at creating and promoting rural development through high quality. It is called “Presidia”, it has been started by the Slowfood movement, and it relies on an approach to rural economies different from the standard spreading of industrialization. The phenomenon on focus is based upon the cooperative dynamics of several small producers, and thus some criticalities typical of social dilemmas have emerged in the case-based study on the field: they deal with the role played by cooperation-supporting institutions. Through an empirically grounded agent-based model which allows what-if analysis of some policy suggestions, different mechanisms for promoting cooperation among producers are thus investigated. Simulation results outline how single altruistic actions are not capable of sustaining a positive aggregate while single selfish choices can determine very negative outcomes, and how only the strong commitment of most central actors can protect the system from random fluctuations in cooperation levels. Two main results are finally discussed: informal control mechanisms do not ensure the desired level of cooperation and high quality; interaction structure codetermines the outcome.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to the presidium coordinator and to producers, the mechanism has worked well because it has helped, in the past, in identifying two producers who were not “capable” of following productive regulations and who have been expelled.

References

  • Andreoni J (1995) Cooperation in public-goods experiments: kindness or confusion? Am Econ Rev 85(4):891–904 (September 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1984) Evol Cooperat. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burlando RM, Guala F (2005) Heterogeneous agents in public goods experiments. Exp Econ 8:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doreian P, Woodard KL (1994) Defining and locating cores and boundaries of social networks. Soc Netw 16:267–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erev I, Roth AE (2001) Simple reinforcement learning models and reciprocation in the prisoner’s dilemma game. In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded rationality. The adaptive toolbox. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 215–231

  • Gilbert N (2008) Agent-based models. Sage Publications

  • Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (2005) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham (First edition: 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM (2005) The logic of reciprocity: trust, collective action, and law. In: Gintis H et al (eds) Moral sentiments and material interests. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 339–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN (2001) Imitation, social learning, and preparedness as mechanisms of bounded rationality. In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded rationality. The adaptive toolbox. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 233–247

  • Mellers BA et al (2001) Effects of emotions and social processes on bounded rationality. In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded rationality. The adaptive toolbox. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 263–279

  • Murdoch J (2000) Networks—a new paradigm of rural development? J Rural Stud 16:407–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadriech A et al (2001) Is there evidence for an adaptive toolbox? In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded rationality. The adaptive toolbox. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 83–102

  • Schott J (1991) Social network analysis. A hand book. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the staff of Slowfood (Bra, Italy) and of MIAC (Mercato all’Ingrosso Agroalimentare di Cuneo, Italy), Sergio Capaldo and the producers who have been interviewed. Further acknowledges are due to Nigel Gilbert, Peter Hedström and Sara Arber for their useful comments on earlier versions of the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Public Finance “G. Prato”, University of Torino, Corso Unione Sovietica 218/bis, 10134, Torino, Italy

    Riccardo Boero

Authors
  1. Riccardo Boero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riccardo Boero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boero, R. Food quality as a public good: cooperation dynamics and economic development in a rural community. Mind Soc 10, 203–215 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0090-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0090-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation