This article describes how power is negotiated in the food and agriculture arena. The other important question is what kinds of alternatives are possible in the agri-food system which dominated by global corporations? Using commodity systems analysis and theories of the firm, the authors provide a picture of the structure of the world food system through the rise of food chain clusters and food retailing. The connection between structures, space, time and resistance are used to understand the colonization of our world by the logic of the same system (global capitalism). The compression of space and the speed-up of time are essential components of accumulation in the modern era. It governs economic and political transactions to the centralization of control that we see in the agri-food system. These centralized networks described in the food chain clusters; Figure 1: The Cargill/Monsanto food chain cluster, Figure 2: The Con Agra food chain cluster, Figure 3: The Novartis/Archer Daniels Midland food chain cluster. All of the clusters are represents the situation in 1999.
In the global food system, power play by spanning distance and decreasing the time between production and consumption (the political economy of agriculture). The food and agriculture firms always follow several strategies to reduce uncertainty, such as horizontal integration (by expanding their business in the same stage of the commodity system), vertical integration (by expanding upstream or downstream in the agriculture and food commodity chains), and global integration (by expanding business globally). According to the author, each business strategies to concentrate on the ownership and control of the food system are highly dependent on the formation and sustaining of relationships and networks
The authors identified three major strengths of the global food system: first is the mass production of food for mass consumption, second is access to capital, and third is an elegant vision that focuses on the bottom line which is ideologically legitimated by neoclassical economics, and morally legitimated in capitalist culture. In contrary, there is some weakness of global food system that they may difficult to produce and distribute foods in smaller or more differentiated markets, difficult to develop a trusting relationship with consumers, highly depend on the brand which highly cost in advertising, and to solve the social and environmental problems they create. These vulnerabilities are the opportunity for farmers, workers, consumers, and communities to promotes their alternatives.
Case study of The Kansas City Food Circle
The Kansas City Food Circle organization, which began in November 1994, is the example of a political alternative that emerged as a potential resistance. This local Food Circle is embedded in a particular locale relationships which mean that eaters respect to the process of the food that they eat. Consumers can get seasonal and fresh food at a price that supports farmers using sustainable practices. The local Food Circle also educates the consumer about the seasonality of foods. There is a different conception of space between local vs. the dominant global agri-food system. The most important aspect of these movements is the ability of the community to protect their lifeworld from the dominant logic of the systems world (reorder time and space).
Source of the article:
Mary K. Hendrickson and William D. Heffernan
No comments:
Post a Comment