Posts filed under ‘Food and Agriculture’
This Bud’s For You
| Peter Klein |
Most of my academic colleagues are anti-American food snobs. Why, those poor Yanks, they think Parmesan cheese is the white, powdery stuff in plastic cylinders rather than the expensive, thick wedge with its maker’s mark on the skin. (Note the section “Other cheeses erroneously named Parmesan” in the Wikipedia entry on Parmigiano Reggiano.) Americans even think Budweiser comes from St. Louis, not České Budějovice!
Well, I myself am a bit of an anti-American food snob but I do insist on getting the facts right. In Bud’s case, as pointed out in this brilliant piece by Daniel Davies, the original, and better, Budweiser is Adolphus Busch’s American brew, not the Czech Budvar pretender. Davies explains:
- Anheuser-Busch has been selling Budweiser since 1876, 20 years before the Budvar brewery was even built. Its brew is the original Bud.
- Bud is all natural, failing to comply with German “purity” standards only because it contains rice (as do Kiran, Bintang, and Efes).
- More generally, and most importantly, the beer we know and love today — even the fanciest, premium beer — is a product of capitalism, not some romanticized, pre-industrial “craft brewing” era. Beer brewed before the Industrial Revolution was probably horrible and until recently couldn’t be produced in small batches with any acceptable level of quality. Three cheers for the Factory System!
Fabio Chaddad to Join Missouri Faculty
| Peter Klein |
I’m pleased to announce that Fabio Chaddad of IBMEC is joining the Division of Applied Social Sciences at the University of Missouri. Fabio’s research deals with networks, supply-chain management, cooperatives, corporate finance, and other aspects of strategy and organization. He may even be worthy of a guest-blogger spot at O&M!
Organizational Innovation: Evidence from Food and Agriculture
| Peter Klein |
Just in time to address some of the issues raised in Nicolai’s provocative post, my colleagues Harvey James, Mike Sykuta, and I have revised our paper, “Markets, Contracts, or Integration? The Adoption, Diffusion, and Evolution of Organizational Form,” which focuses on organizational innovation in US agriculture. Here is the abstract:
The rise of contract farming and vertical integration is one of the most important changes in modern agriculture. Yet the adoption and diffusion of these new forms of organization has varied widely across regions, commodities, and farm types. Transaction cost and other modern theories of the firm help explain the advantages of contracting and integration over reliance on spot markets and commodity brokers. However, these theories do not address the variation in adoption rates of new organizational forms. This paper lays out a more dynamic framework for understanding the evolution of organizational practices in U.S. agriculture, drawing on theories of the diffusion of technology and organizational complementarities. Using recent trends as stylized facts we argue that the agrifood sector is characterized by strong complementarities and that identifying and describing these complementarities more fully sheds considerable light on the organizational structure of agricultural production. We illustrate our arguments with case studies from the oilseed, poultry, and hog industries.
This is a draft, and comments are most welcome.
The New Nordic Cuisine
| Peter Klein |
Because we have an above-average number of Nordic readers I’ll mention that the current issue of Food and Wine magazine profiles Danish super chef Claus Meyer, described as “Scandinavia’s answer to James Beard and Alice Waters.” Recommended Copenhagen restaurants include Meyer’s Noma along with MR Restaurant, The Paul, and Restaurant Paustian. Stop by on your next trip to Copenhagen and tell ’em O&M sent you.
Vertical Agriculture
| Peter Klein |
I’ve done some work on vertical integration in agriculture (e.g., this paper). But I learned only recently about vertical agriculture — growing crops inside a skyscraper. (HT: Creativity Exchange.)
At first I thought vertical farming couldn’t possibly be the highest-valued use of land in densely populated urban centers like New York or Hong Kong. Then again, if government ethanol subsdidies continue driving up the price of corn (poor people beware!), you never know.
Vaguely Defined Property Rights
| Peter Klein |
The shareholder model of the firm has come under increasing criticism from a variety of quarters. Stakeholder approaches argue that employees, suppliers, customers, community members, and others with relationships to the firm should have their preferences taken into account. Theories of worker empowerment, “flatter hierarchies,” and similar approaches advocate delegating decision rights to employees, not top management. Models of loose and open collaboration treat the firm as simply a node in a cluster or network of firms, with decision authority widely dispersed throughout the larger structure.
All these approaches, despite their differences, reject the standard shareholder model in which the firm’s owners, as residual claimants, possess unique rights of decision management and control. And yet, there is a substantial literature on the organizational costs of alternative models, particularly those in which residual claims are not alienable, separable from other agent roles in the organization, or marketable. These costs have not been widely appreciated in the literature on stakeholder management, worker-managed teams and firms, and the like.
My colleague Mike Cook, a specialist in cooperatives, describes these as costs of “vaguely defined property rights.” Mike argues that cooperatives, partnerships, and similar structures are plagued by two kinds of free-rider problems, a horizon problem, a portfolio problem, a control problem, and an influence costs problem, all because their equity shares are not alienable assets that trade in secondary markets. Consider each in turn. (more…)
Kicking Some AAS
| Peter Klein |
Bob Sutton may have a clever name with his “No A–hole” project, but here’s an even better one: Kick All Agricultural Subsidies, a.k.a “kickAAS.” It’s a blog, sponsored by the Guardian (UK), seeking the abolition of farm subsidies. Lots of interesting material there.
Call for Papers: Entrepreneurship Research in Food, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Development
| Peter Klein |
The University of Missouri’s McQuinn Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, with which I am affiliated, is hosting a conference in Kansas City, 18-19 October 2007, titled “Frameworks for Entrepreneurship Research in Food, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development.” Here is the call for papers. Keynote speakers include Jan and Cornelia Flora, Randy Westgren, Pierre Desrochers, and others to be announced.
Weirdest Abstract I Read Today
| Peter Klein |
From the April/June 2006 issue of Food and Foodways:
Julia C. Ehrhardt
University of Oklahoma Honors College, Norman, Oklahoma, USAAs the nascent field of food studies takes shape, insights from queer studies have the potential to enrich our understandings of the interrelationships among food, gender, and sexuality. The project of queering food studies invites us to consider how food practices and beliefs reinforce and resist heterosexual gender ideologies. In this article, I analyze foodways in recent Chicana lesbian literature, examining writings that illustrate the cultural endurance of heteronormative constructions of gender even as they demonstrate how these beliefs are disrupted, destabilized, and transformed in queer literary kitchens. Poetry and essays by Chicana lesbians challenge dominant models of Chicana culinary roles by emphasizing women’s efforts to satisfy their physical and sexual appetites.In particular, Carla Trujillo’s 2003 novel, What Night Brings, highlights the figure of the hungry lesbian as a provocative counterpoint to the literary image of the Chicana as cook. Literature by Chicana lesbians not only invites scholars to question heteronormative assumptions about food, gender, and identity, but also demonstrates the potential of queer studies to enrich a variety of topics in food scholarship.
Food and Foodways 14, no. 2 (April-June 2006): 91-109.
(Thanks to Pierre Desrochers for the pointer.)
A New Institutional Thanksgiving
| Peter Klein |
Tomorrow we Americans celebrate the traditional Thanksgiving meal. As we gather for family, feasting, and fellowship, let us remember the real leitmotif of the Thanksgiving drama: property rights.
As Ben Powell reminds us:
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on “equality” and “need” as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” The problem was that “young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
Tom Bethell, author of the highly recommended The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, provides a more detailed account here.
Update: Don’t miss Murray Rothbard’s typically insightful and engaging account, from volume 1 of his Conceived in Liberty.
The Nature of the (Family) Firm
| Peter Klein |
Brayden King at orgtheory.net has a nice post today about family-owned firms. He summarizes a recent sociology paper on the transformation of the Scottish [hooray!] shipbuilding industry from one of mostly family firms to one dominated by corporate firms. Writes Brayden: “Family businesses and corporations are clearly different creatures, but we [organizational scholars] usually just take the word of legal scholars in this matter. . . . My take-away is that, besides temporal continuity established through lines of heredity, the distinguishing feature of family firms is that affective relationships serves as the glue holding together various components of the business. This affect, which translates into close identification with the organization, is a distinctive competency of the family firm.”
I have a footnote. One industry, unlike virtually every other mature industry in the developed world, continues to be populated by small, family-owned firms: agriculture. Why? Public policy is surely part of the explanation, but not all. The best analysis of the puzzle, in my view, is the pioneering work by Doug Allen and Dean Lueck, appropriately (and wittily) titled “The Nature of the Farm” (article version here, book version here). They argue that family ownership results from agriculture’s unique combination of seasonality and random variation, which makes it difficult to design and enforce effective incentive contracts that mitigate moral hazard. Instead, sole proprietorships, with the farmer or farm family as residual claimant, outperform joint ownership arrangements, such as corporations.
I provide some further information on organizational characteristics of agriculture here.
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments