4.7 Article

An integrated conceptual framework for the study of agricultural cooperatives: from repolitisation to cooperative sustainability

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 467-479

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.019

关键词

Agricultural cooperatives; Cooperative sustainability; cooperative hourglass; Repolitisation; Epistemological biases; Cooperative movement; Food policy

资金

  1. Centre for Food Policy at City, University of London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agricultural cooperatives (ACs) are major players in European farming, where they account for 40-60% of agricultural trade, and are key actors in articulating rural realities. This paper offers a solidary critique of ACs beyond the dominant institutional economics lens, and aims to resume the debate on their de/repoliticisation. Evidence presented points towards a continuous process of co-optation of ACs by the dominant food regime as well as decreased adherence to cooperative principles, revealing theoretical parallelisms with the organic and fair trade movements. While acknowledging the important role ACs play in supporting farmers, many of who interviewed for this research reported they could not survive without them, this paper warns of the loss of their historical political roots, and introduces a new theoretical framework for a more integrated study of ACs in the context of wider food system forces. The framework is composed of three conceptual components: first, the coooperative triangle illustrates interwoven cooperative identitary dimensions; second, the cooperative hourglass depicts ongoing tensions between the cooperative economic and governance model, and the market economy they exist in; and third, the concept of cooperative sustainability brings together the previous two components to analyse ACs' ability and capacity to maintain the dimensions indicated in the cooperative triangle while also fostering environmental sustainability through their practices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据