Você está na página 1de 8

Agribusiness management research: following

Goldbergs
tradition?
Daniel Conforte
Massey University, New Zealand
Abstract

This paper explores the nature of agribusiness management research and its
implications for the agribusiness profession. In the first section the concept
of
agribusiness is revisited. The second section provides a theoretical
perspective into
possible research paradigms in agribusiness management with special
attention to the
Agribusiness System approach. The next section presents a characterisation
of 51
research articles published in the IFAMR in 1998 and 2007 in terms of
disciplinary
areas of research, value adding functions, methodology, and the journals
cited in the
reference lists, among others. The final section presents a discussion of
findings with
reference to Ray Goldbergs academic work and implications for agribusiness
education.

The agribusiness concept revisited


Reviewing the concept agribusiness may seem unnecessary or redundant
after more
than 50 years of its inception and also after twenty years since the
foundation of the
International Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA, now IFAMA). Yet,
anecdotal evidence shows that the term means different things to different
people. For
the general public, agribusinesses resonates with big agriculture and food
multinational corporations. The divergent understanding of the term holds
true also
within the IAMA community.
Some scholars use the term agribusiness when referring to processing and
manufacturing companies in the agri-food chain. For others, agribusiness is
the part of
the economic system that takes care of getting food and fiber from the farm
to the
consumer. What is the significance of such a discrepancy inside the
profession? The
lack of agreement about what agribusiness is becomes worthy of
consideration when

looking for answers to questions like, What do scholars actually do in


agribusiness?
What research problems are considered relevant in the agribusiness
management
field? These definitional questions matter since paradigms can be considered
language
communities (Kuhn, 1962). Are we researching under any degree of
paradigmatic
coherence? Are we aiming to solve related problems?

The concept of Agribusiness

The term Agribusiness was first used publicly in 1956 by John H. Davis in a
paper
presented at the Boston Conference on Distribution as the sum total of all
operations
involved in the production and distribution of food and fiber (Fusione, 1986;
2
Fusione, 1995). A few months later the concept Agribusiness was further
refined by
Davis and Goldberg (1957) as follows.
Agribusiness means the sum total of all operations involved in the
manufacture and
distribution of farm supplies; production operations on the farm; and the
storage,
processing, and distribution of farm commodities and items made from
them. .
thus agribusiness essentially encompasses today the functions which the
term
agriculture denoted 150 years ago
Davis and Goldberg (1957), in their book A Concept of Agribusiness,
developed a
framework to analyze and understand the multiple relationships between the
many
different sectors and businesses engaged in production and distribution of
food and
fiber products. The aim of that study, assigned to them by the Food
Foundation, was
to better understand the mutually supporting relationships between
agriculture and
business and as possible, to improve fundamental economic relationships
among all
engaged in the production, distribution and use of such products.
In their early work, Davis and Goldberg used input-output matrix models to
define the
dimensions and magnitudes of the transactions between the different
segments or
sectors of the agribusiness system.

International Food and Agribusiness Management Review


Volume 12, Issue 4, 2009

Toward Better Defining the Field of Agribusiness Management


Desmond Nga and John W. Siebert

Abstract
Despite the growth and interest in the agribusiness profession, what constitutes
agribusiness management research continues to be a perennial debate. This
study argues that the advancement of a field is predicated on defining a fields
set of fundamental questions or issues because resolution of such issues serves
to elevate the field to a high level of research inquiry. In order to advance the
domain of agribusiness management in agricultural economics, this study
examines four questions of strategy and outlines the pertinent theories used in
resolving such concerns. Theories which we feel can advance agribusiness
management to be a distinct discipline include Coases (1937) treatment on the
nature of the firm, Simons (1957, 1976) concept of bounded rationality,
Penroses (1959) theory of the growth of the firm, and subsequently Barneys
(1986, 1991) Resource-Based View. The relevance and implications of this early
work should serve as a guide to those seeking to explain an agribusiness firms
existence, behavior, growth and heterogeneity.

Introduction
Despite the growth and interest in the agribusiness profession, what constitutes agribusiness
management research continues to be a perennial debate (Barry, Sonka, and Lajili, 1992; Harling,
1995; Robbins, 1988). Understanding what is or what is not agribusiness management research is
fundamentally dictated by its definition. Since Davis and Goldberg's (1957) seminal definition of
agribusiness, 1 agribusiness has subsequently been defined in various ways, such as agroindustrialization (Boehlje 1999; Cook and Chaddad 2000), value, or net chains (Lazzarini, Chaddad,
and Cook, 2001) or agriceuticals (Goldberg 1999). These definitions share a common emphasis for
the interdependence of the various sectors of the agri-food supply chain that work towards the
production, manufacturing, distribution, and retailing of food products and services (Boehlje, 1999;
Cook and Chaddad, 2000).
1 The

term agribusiness was originally defined as: the sum total of all operations involved in the manufacture and
distribution of farm supplies; production operations of the farm; and the storage, processing, and distribution of farm
commodities made from them (Davis and Goldberg, 1957, p. 2).

Despite such an attention to the interdependent nature of agribusinesses, this interdependence cannot
be understood independently of the behavior of the underlying agribusiness firm. Agribusiness
researchers contend that the behavior of the agribusiness firm is typically explained by neoclassical
economic principles of the production theory of the firm (Barry, 1999; Robbins, 1988; Sporleder,
1992; Westgren and Zering, 1998). This appears to be consistent with Harlings (1995) survey of
AAEA members. Harling (1995) found that the majority viewed agribusiness management as a subdiscipline of agricultural economics (52% agreed with this statement) and that agribusiness
management was the application of economics to agricultural businesses (53% agreed with this

statement). In fact, Casavant and Infanger (1984) and Woolverton et al. (1985) viewed agribusiness
as a special case of agricultural economics (see also Robbins, 1988).
Although various agribusiness researchers (e.g., Casavant and Infanger, 1984; Robbins, 1988;
Woolverton et al., 1985) have viewed economics as the appropriate tool for thinking about the
management (Harling, 1995, p. 503) of the agribusiness firm, Harlings (1995) survey, nevertheless,
found that 70% surveyed viewed economics and management as distinctly different disciplines. In
fact, 99% agreed that more than production and cost functions were needed to understand a
business (Harling, 1995, p. 506). Harling (1995), as well as French et al. (1993), have thus argued
that in order to advance agribusiness management as a discipline, there is a distinct need for
managerial explanations of firm behavior. This was recognized earlier by Westgren and Cook (1986)
who noted, if inroads are to be made in agribusiness management research, cross-disciplinary efforts
are necessary (p. 488).
Yet, despite such earlier calls, the advancement of agribusiness management as a discipline has been
sporadic (Cook and Chaddad, 2000). Cook and Chaddad (2000) describe that the evolution of this
field [agribusiness management] has been sporadic with bursts of research activity and then periods
of little or no activity (p. 212). Although there are numerous possible explanations, such sporadic
developments can be attributed to a basic philosophical challenge faced by agribusiness researchers:
agribusiness researchers want to be true to their own predilections towards management yet have
to satisfy the majority [agricultural economics] that thinks in terms of economics. (Harling, 1995, p.
509). That is, since agribusiness management

Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE) 2013


Presentation in Case Study Series
Full paper to be published in Informing Science:
the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline special series on Case Studies

Case Studies in Agribusiness:


An Interview with Ray Goldberg

T. Grandon Gill
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Abstract
Agribusiness refers to the collection global systems involved in the production,
distribution and
consumption of food and fiber. Since the term was first coined by Harvard Business
School
(HBS) professors Ray Goldberg and John Davis in the 1950s, case studies have
played a pivotal
role in the development of the field.
In this interview with Ray Goldberg, the impact of case studies on agribusiness
thought and
education are discussed. Highlights include how cases have: served to define the
field as an area
of research, provided a means of communications between researchers and
practicing executives,
fostered communication between executives participating in different parts of the
overall systems
and, most importantly, helped students to acquire a grasp of the complex
relationships between

agricultural products, trade, technology and public policy.


International Food and Agribusiness Management Review
Volume 14, Issue 5, 2011

Academic Perspectives on Agribusiness: An International Survey


Joshua Dean Detrea , Michael A. Gundersonb, Whitney Oliver Peakec, and Frank J. Dooley

Abstract
Through an international survey of agricultural economists, we shed new light on perceptions about
agribusiness education, research, grantsmanship, and outreach. Results indicate that de-partments
expect agribusiness faculty to teach more courses, yet maintain research expecta-tions for
agribusiness faculty similar to those of their non-agribusiness peers. As a result, agri-business faculty
have lowered their engagement in agribusiness extension programs. Moreover, evidence suggests an
increasing trend in the amount of grant dollars obtained and the number of refereed publications
reported at the time of tenure evaluation, while the number of non-refereed publications has declined.
Finally, results indicate that specialized journals, such as the IFAMR, have improved their importance
as outlets for agribusiness research.

Introduction
Nature Publishing Group undertook a survey of higher education faculty and discussed a
troubling reality: although scientists personally value education as much as research, they fre-quently
align their decision making, both for themselves and on behalf of their departments, with the needs of
research rather than those of education (Savkar and Lokere 2010). In a re-cent interview, Gordon
Gee, president of The Ohio State University, the largest public univer-sity in the U.S, noted, The
universities of the 21st century are going to be the smokestacks of the century, and The notion of
the large, massive public university that can exist in isolated splendor is dead (Welsh-Huggins
2010). He further notes that the evaluation of professors, particularly as it relates to tenure, must

change if universities are to meet the educational needs of society. This changing landscape of
academia, coupled with reductions in federal funding, shifts in student credit hours from agricultural
economics to agribusiness, and the need for closer ties to industry, are all likely to exert an impact on
the role of agribusiness faculty in ag-ricultural economics programs.
Many agricultural economics undergraduate programs, as a whole, have realized a loss of enrollment over time (Perry 2010). Much of the loss in agricultural economics, however; is simply a
shift of these students to degrees in agribusiness (Perry 2010). This shift to agribusi-ness is
interesting, given the lack of consensus within the field concerning what agribusiness specifically
entails (Harling 1995). The earliest and most often accepted definition of agribusi-ness can be found
in Davis and Goldberg (1957) (King et al. 2010). While their definition re-flects that agribusiness has
its foundation in agricultural economics, much has changed since this definition was introduced more
than a half a century ago. In particular, agribusiness has grown so that in now encompasses the
domain of management sciences. King et al. (2010) conclude that agribusiness scholarship
emphasizes an integrated view of the food system that extends from input supply through production,
processing, and distribution to retail outlets and the consumer. Thus faculty, who identify themselves
as agribusiness faculty, likely conduct scholarship activities in one or more of the subspecializations
of agribusiness (agribusiness management, agricultural chemicals, agricultural finance,
biotechnology and bioenergy, food marketing, food safety, labor and human capital, nutrition, and
supply chain management). While these areas all fall under the general umbrella of agribusiness, they
are each unique areas of scholarship.
In this paper, we explore the perceived importance of these issues, in an effort to gain further insight
into what is expected of agribusiness faculty members within agricultural economics departments. To
do this we first analyze the time agribusiness professors allocate to teaching, research, extension,
grantsmanship, and service relative to non-agribusiness professors. Se-cond, we examine how
agribusiness faculty perceive certain factors influence on the promo-tion and tenure decision in
comparison to faculty in other specialty areas within agricultural economics and where agribusiness
faculty publish their work. We then turn our attention to understanding how non-agribusiness faculty
members evaluate issues related to agribusiness relative to agribusiness faculty. Next, we examine
the portfolio of agribusiness professors at various stages of their careers when they were promoted to
associate professor with tenure. Fi-nally, based on these results, we draw conclusions and suggest
implications for agribusiness Detre et al. / International Food and Agribusiness Management Review /
Volume 14, Issue 5, 2011
143 2011 International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA). All rights reserved.

programs and faculty, as well as provide insight into what non-tenured faculty members must do to
pass successfully through the promotion and tenure process.

Tanaya, I Gusti Lanang Parta. 2010. A study of agribusiness supply chain systems for small farmers in
dryland
areas of Lombok Island Indonesia : a pluralistic approach. Ph.D. Curtin University, Muresk Institute

Abstract
Despite the contribution that agriculture makes to the Indonesian Gross Domestic
Product, the income of small subsistence farmers continues to fall. While many
development activities and policies have been implemented to reduce the gap in
income between farmers and non-farmers, the situation remains unchanged. In part
this is because the majority of research has focused on improving production rather
than addressing the social and economic aspects of farming and its supply chains.
Very few approaches have adopted a holistic systems approach. This study examines
holistically the agri-food supply chains of dryland farmers of Lombok, in eastern
Indonesia, using a pluralistic approach. The objective of this study was to investigate
the utility of developing a pluralistic model which combined the benefits of SSM
with hard systems approaches like statistical and technical efficiency analyses and
test this approach on the agri-food supply chains of dryland farmers of Lombok, in
eastern Indonesia.
Agribusiness is a complex social system both to understand and to manage but is also
driven heavily by the need to produce efficiently for a market. This means that
solving problems within such systems requires the melding of both the qualitative
and quantitative aspects in a pluralistic way. The research presented here combines
an interpretative research approach the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) with hard
systems tools like descriptive and inferential statistical analyses, and technical
efficiency analysis.
The SSM analysis was successful in identifying a feasible pathway for change for the
agri-food supply chains studied. The key benefits of adopting this approach was its
ability to produce realistic and feasible solutions in a culturally acceptable way and
to unconsciously help the supply chain members to understand, look at, think,
analyse and solve their problems through collaborative action. It is however, a
complex tool to use and there is a need to develop a simplified SSM approach which
significantly reduces the sophisticated systems jargon and technical terms that have
been developed by the SSM research community if it is to be adopted more widely
for use in solving agri-food supply chain problems in developing countries
.
The farm productivity analysis found significant variations in the technical efficiency
of the farms analyzed; from 47.6 to 94.5 per cent, indicating that there is still
significant opportunity for improvements in production practices. Age and education
were found to significantly affect farm-specific technical efficiency suggesting that
programs that educated the rural young generally, but more specifically in new
innovations and farm management practices, would show production efficiency
benefits.
An analysis of the marketing system revealed that a number of market intermediaries
were involved in the marketing and distribution of agricultural commodities. Market
intermediaries arrange for the collection, consolidation and subsequent transport of
the product and to varying degrees, with the sorting, grading and packing of the

product to better fulfill downstream customers needs. Quality at the farm gate was
problematic, for much of the product is sold under the tebasan system where there
are few incentives for quality and farmers face difficulties in disposing of product
which fails to meet customers expectations. As the quality of the product
iv
deteriorates as it moves down the supply chain, the marketing margin increases to
cover the increasing losses, and the uncertainty of price inherent in highly volatile
commodity markets. In order to reduce risk, farmers and downstream market
intermediaries prefer to transact with those exchange partners with whom they have
developed long-term relationships. However, in the absence of reliable market
information and the propensity for actors to sell to whichever market intermediary
offers the highest price, little trust is evident in the exchange. As the geographic
distance between actors increase, relationships down the supply chain become
increasingly less personal and more businesslike.
This study resulted in a new pluralistic model for analyzing the agribusiness supply
chain of Lombok referred to as the Lombok Method (LM). This pluralistic approach
was found to be a more effective way to analyse and design solutions than SSM
alone for the following reasons. First, the inclusion of hard system analysis
enhanced the robustness of the model produced which in turn means it can be
validated and challenged. Secondly, hard systems approaches were used to verify
the findings of the SSM and also provide feedback into the SSM. Finally, the SSM
was able to bring the experience of the participants to the interpretation of the hard
system analysis.
While the model was successful in providing some solutions to the problems
experienced in the supply chains, the research also highlighted the need to do further
studies that 1) identify the nature and scale of market failure, 2) apply optimization
techniques to supply chain systems and 3) identify a means of including external
variables like climate in the model. There may also be a role for modeling the
relationships between supply chain participants using structural equation modeling
(SEM) or causal loop diagrams (CLD). With a focus on SSM there is a need to
develop a simplified approach for use in developing countries and establishing
standards for the conduct of human interaction in the SSM process.

Você também pode gostar