Search results

The chapter will document the Canadian reaction, as reflected in the demand of New Zealand, that Canada fundamentally alters its dairy supply management system in order to participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The Canadian government has resolutely refused to do so, supported wholeheartedly by dairy farmers throughout the country. This is in part because of the effect such an action would have on rural spaces and the debilitating result it would have on Canadian dairy production. As well, the chapter will address the issue of the cost of dairy products in New Zealand as compared with Canada. Part of this analysis will focus on the role of supermarkets in determining the price structure of milk in both Canada and New Zealand. Finally, the chapter will offer an examination of the New Zealand system as represented by Fonterra and the Canadian system as epitomized by dairy supply management.

In every industry there are resources. Some are moving, others more fixed; some are technical, others social. People working with the resources, for example, as buyers or sellers, or users or producers, may not make much notice of them. A product sells. A facility functions. The business relationship in which we make our money has “always” been there. However, some times this picture of order is disturbed. A user having purchased a product for decades may “suddenly” say to the producer that s/he does not appreciate the product. And a producer having received an order of a product that s/he thought was well known, may find it impossible to sell it. Such disturbances may be ignored. Or they can be used as a platform for development. In this study we investigate the latter option, theoretically and through real world data. Concerning theory we draw on the industrial network approach. We see industrial actors as part of (industrial) networks. In their activities actors use and produce resources. Moreover, the actors interact − bilaterally and multilaterally. This leads to development of resources and networks. Through “thick” descriptions of two cases we illustrate and try to understand the interactive character of resource development and how actors do business on features of resources. The cases are about a certain type of resource, a product − goat milk. The main message to industrial actors is that they should pay attention to that products can be co-created. Successful co-creation of products, moreover, may require development also of business relationships and their connections (“networking”).

Purpose – This study compares the arrival of large-scale dairy farming in two New Zealand regions since 1984 with a particular focus on the competition between sheep farming and dairy farming.

Design/methodology/approach – The case study draws on qualitative interviews with 58 farmers in two regions.

Findings – We identify and compare the changing economic, social and cultural hierarchies in and between the two regions.

Originality/value – This study extends a typical political economic comparison by emphasising the changes in social and cultural capital as a result of the changing economic conditions in the country and the regions.

Within the agri-food sectors of Western countries, there is an increasing interest in alternative food, i.e., organic, local and regional food, artisanal food, short-supply chains, slow food etc. Innovation in food processing is a significant element both in alternative food and conventional food strategies. Alternatives are based on competition on qualities rather than price. A main question in this chapter is to address how alternative qualities are embedded into food products? This question is explored using a study of two alternative cases within the dairy sectors of Norway and Wales. A model of the different modes of designed qualities of food is developed and discussed to explore the complex issue of quality. We find space and technology especially relevant as dimensions of qualities. Our conclusion is that there is a need to nuance the discussion about quality and food. Firms may develop as hybrids within a conventional vs. alternative perspective, and a strong emphasis on the conventional and alternative as a dichotomy tends to give a static and restrictive perspective.

The emergence of strengths-based management may be the management innovation of our time. Nearly every organization has been introduced to its precepts – for example, the insight that a person or organization will excel only by amplifying strengths, never by simply fixing weaknesses. But in spite of impressive returns, organizations and managers have almost all stopped short of the breakthroughs that are possible. With micro tools largely in place, the future of strengths management is moving increasingly to the macro-management level, as witnessed in the rapid and far-reaching use of large group methods such as the Appreciative Inquiry Summit and its next generation design-thinking summit. Macro means whole and, by definition, unites many improbable opposites – for example, it embraces top down and bottom up simultaneously. It is a prime time source of organizational generativity. But the rules of macro-management are different than any other kind, most certainly micro-management. A decade of research and successful prototyping with single organizations, regions and cities, extended enterprises, industries, and UN-level world summits reveals five “X” factors – a specific set of mutually reinforcing elements of success and organizational generativity – and provides a clear set of guidelines for when and how you can deploy the “whole system in the room” design summit to bring out the best in system collaboration. By analyzing the performance and impacts of six case studies of the “whole system in the room” Appreciative Inquiry design summit, this chapter provides a bird’s eye view of the opportunities, challenges, and exciting new vistas opening up in this the collaborative age – a time when systemic action and macro-management skill are the primary leverage points for game-changing innovation, scalable solutions, and generative organizing. The chapter concludes with a call for more research into the stages of large group dynamics and advances a metaphor from the leadership literature – the spark, the flame, and the torch – to give imagery to the “positive contagion” and “the concentration effect of strengths” that happens during an Appreciative Inquiry Summit where 100s and sometimes 1000s come together interactively and collaboratively to design the future.

In The Changing Body (Cambridge University Press and NBER, 2011), we presented a series of estimates showing the number of calories available for human consumption in England and Wales at various points in time between 1700 and 1909/1913. We now seek to correct an error in our original figures and to compare the corrected figures with those published by a range of other authors. We also include new estimates showing the calorific value of meat and grains imported from Ireland. Disagreements with other authors reflect differences over a number of issues, including the amount of land under cultivation, the extraction and wastage rates for cereals and pulses and the number of animals supplying meat and dairy products. We consider recent attempts to achieve a compromise between these estimates and challenge claims that there was a dramatic reduction in either food availability or the average height of birth cohorts in the late-eighteenth century.

Changing conditions for farming force farmers to search for new ways to organize agricultural production. In dairy farming, households experience long working hours, inconvenient working conditions, and low incomes. Dairy markets are beleaguered by overproduction, low prices on staple dairy products, and low return to labor and capital. This structural squeeze, which is aggravated by quick technological changes and the globalization of markets, is negotiated in various ways by dairy farmers in different agricultural regimes. A recent coping strategy for dairy farmers in Norway has been joint farming, a process whereby two, three, or even more farmers establish a joint company to merge their resources and work together. These joint farmers enjoy more leisure time, greater security in case of illness, and improved work environments. Why is joint farming so successful in Norway? One main explanation is the difference between agricultural regimes, which places the Norwegian dairy farmer in a privileged position when it comes to building coping capacity.

Purpose – Dairy has been the backbone of agriculture in regional Norway, and the processing of milk has been dominated by co-operatives owned by milk farmers. During the social democratic order (1945–1979), productivist agriculture thrived, while a more multifunctional agriculture was developed after 1980. As a measure against overproduction, a quota system was introduced in 1983. The purpose of this study is to see if there are signs of a neo-productivism revival after climate change and other global shocks, like the food crisis, featured prominently on the political agenda.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter reviews the radical structural changes in Norwegian dairy production since the early 1960s, which reduced the number of milk farms radically from 148,000 in 1959 to almost 16,000 in 2009. According to the Agricultural Agreement between the Norwegian government and the farmers' organisations, the co-operatives are given an important semi-public role as market-price regulators and stock keepers. This Norwegian system may be described as a classical regulated dairy regime. The Norwegian dairy regime has been through several deregulations and re-regulations over the last 20 years, partly forced by internal pressures and partly inspired by liberalisation tendencies abroad.

Findings – After mid-1990s, there has been an increase in the number of joint dairy farms, where individual ownership of land is maintained while herds, buildings and machinery are merged. Three thousand six hundred thirty dairy farmers are now participating in 1,510 joint farming firms, producing 29 per cent of the milk in Norway. This rapid growth of joint farming is transforming the dairy sector in Norway. Analysis has shown that its evolution is closely tied to farmer socio-economic demands, including social benefits, such as increased leisure time, and security during illness. While there has been pressure to increase productivity, the food crisis changed attitudes, making the current policy of import tariffs and subsidies easier to defend.

Originality/value – This chapter shows that neo-liberalism in Norway was not pursued as far as in most other OECD countries, although some deregulation was taking place. Norwegian agricultural policies are still regulating the sector to a substantial degree, with the annual Agricultural Agreement negotiations serving as a centrepiece. Norway has ambitious climate goals, and by 2020 greenhouse gases emissions should be reduced to 30 per cent of the 1990 rate. A further goal is that Norway will be carbon neutral by 2030. As part of the implementation of its climate policy, a White Paper on agriculture and climate change was put forward in May 2009. For Norwegian food production as a whole, a change towards more grazing at the expense of crops would improve carbon storage and reduce the overall use of fertiliser. Such a shift in land use would benefit the dairy sector, in part because of easier access to domestically grown cow feed.