Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Power, Fairness and Constrained Choice in Agricultural Markets: A Synthesizing Framework

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

To have a choice at all is to be free.

—Abner Doon, in The Worthing Saga, by Orson Scott Card (Chap. 5)

Abstract

The (un)fairness of agricultural markets is frequently invoked, especially by farmers. But fairness is difficult to define and measure. In this paper we link fairness and power with the concept of constrained choice to develop a framework for assessing fairness in agricultural markets. We use network exchange theory to define power from the dependencies that exist in agricultural networks. The structure of agricultural networks and the options that agricultural producers have to participate in agricultural networks affect the degree to which they are dependent on others within the network. Dependency, in turn, affects the choices that agricultural producers have. We consider both the number and nature of these choices. We argue that constraining or limiting choices—both in number and type—violates principles of justice. Importantly, network exchange theory provides a method for assessing constraints in choices and, hence, the fairness of agricultural markets. Such an assessment could potentially lead to new policies that safeguard the liberties of marketplace participants. We present a brief case to illustrate how this framework can inform on the fairness of agricultural markets and conclude with considerations of what this means for policy, particularly in the arena of anti-trust.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

adapted from Henry and Raunikar (1960) and Roy (1963)

Fig. 6

adapted from James et al. (2013)

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Breimyer, H. F. (1965). Individual freedom and the economic organization of agriculture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, J. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2009). Fairness and food choice. Food Policy, 34(6), 483–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Community-wealth.org. (n.d.). W. K. Kellogg Foundation: Food & community program. http://community-wealth.org/content/w-k-kellogg-foundation-food-community-program. Accessed 11 June 2014.

  • Constance, D. H., & Bonanno, A. (2000). Regulating the global fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever and the Marine Stewardship Council. Agriculture and Human Values, 17(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constance, D. H., Martinez, F., Aboites, G., & Bonanno, A. (2013). The problems with poultry production and processing. In H. S. James Jr. (Ed.), The ethics and economics of agrifood competition (pp. 155–175). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S. (1987). Emerson’s contributions to social exchange theory. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Social exchange theory (pp. 209–222). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gillmore, M. R., & Yamagishi, T. (1983). The distribution of power in exchange networks: Theory and experimental results. American Journal of Sociology, 89(2), 275–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitri, C., Jaenicke, E. C., & Effland, A. B. (2009). Why did contracts supplant the cash market in the broiler industry? An economic analysis featuring technological innovation and institutional response. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 7(1), 1–34. doi:10.2202/1542-0485.1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuPuis, E. M., Harrison, J. L., & Goodman, D. (2013). In A. H. Akron & J. Ageyman (Eds.), Cultivating food justice (pp. 283–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, C. (2009). Freedom of contract and fundamental fairness for individual parties. The tug of war continues. UMKC Law Review, 77(3), 647–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N. (1990). The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1993). On the fairness of pricing—An empirical survey among the general population. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 20(3), 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, W. (1947). As you sow. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, R., & Joshi, A. (2010). Food justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, W. D. (1972). Sociological dimensions of poultry production in the United States. Sociologia Ruralis, 12(3/4), 481–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, W. D. (1984). Constraints in the U.S. poultry industry. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 1, 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, W. D. (2000). Concentration of ownership in agriculture. In F. Magdoff, J. B. Foster, & F. H. Buttel (Eds.), Hungry for profit: The agribusiness threat to farmers, food, and the environment (pp. 61–76). New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellberg-Bahr, A., & Spiller, A. (2012). How to treat farmers fairly? Result of a farmer survey. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15(3), 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, M., Heffernan, W., Lind, D., & Barham, E. (2008). Contractual integration in agriculture: Is there a bright side for agriculture of the middle? In T. A. Lyson, G. W. Stevenson, & R. Welsh (Eds.), Food and the mid-level farm: Renewing an agriculture of the middle (pp. 79–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, M. K., & James, H. S., Jr. (2005). The ethics of constrained choice: How the industrialization of agriculture impacts farming and farmer behavior. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, W. R., & Raunikar, R. (1960). Integration in practice. The broiler case. Journal of Farm Economics, 42(5), 1265–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesterman, O. (2011). Fair food: Growing a healthy, sustainable food system for us all. Philadelphia, PA: Public Affairs (Perseus).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, J. L. (1981). What’ fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM). (n.d.). The principle of fairness. http://www.ifoam.bio/en/principles-organic-agriculture/principle-fairness. Accessed 20 June 2015.

  • James, H. S., Jr., & Hendrickson, M. K. (2008). Perceived economic pressures and farmer ethics. Agricultural Economics, 38(3), 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, H. S., Jr., Hendrickson, M. K., & Howard, P. H. (2013). Networks, power and dependency in the agrifood industry. In H. S. James Jr. (Ed.), The ethics and economics of agrifood competition (pp. 99–126). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 26(3), 489–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, B. (2009). Cornered: The new monopoly capitalism and the economics of destruction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. A. (2004). Civic agriculture. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovsky, B., Willer, D., & Patton, T. (1988). Power relations in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 53(2), 220–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas, O. A., Kesavan, R., & Bernacchi, M. (2008). Buyer–seller information asymmetry: Challenges to distributive and corrective justice. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayser, S., & von Wangenheim, F. (2013). Perceived fairness of differential customer treatment: Consumers’ understanding of distributive justice really matters. Journal of Service Research, 16(1), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. (2000). The power of food. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., Page, K. M., & Sigmund, K. (2000). Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science, 289, 1773–1775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oleinik, A. (2011). Market as a weapon: Domination by virtue of a constellation of interests. Forum for Social Economics, 40(2), 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, A. (2006). State regulation of production contracts. University of Arkansas National Center for Law Research and Information. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/articles/peck_contractregulation.pdf.

  • Poppo, L., & Zhou, K. Z. (2014). Managing contracts for fairness in buyer–supplier exchanges. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1508–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick, A., Islam, M., & Thomson, S. (2012). Power in global agriculture: Economics, politics, and natural resources. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 2(1), 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohwer, Y., & Westgren, R. (2013). Are ethics and efficiency locked in antithesis? In H. S. James Jr. (Ed.), The ethics and economics of agrifood competition (pp. 37–53). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roscingo, V. J. (2011). Power, revisted. Social Forces, 90(2), 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, E, P. (1963). Contract farming, U.S.A. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.31924013805548.

  • Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sligh, M., Carrasquillo, N., Mesh, M., Henderson, E., & Mendieta, O. (2012). Social stewardship standards in organic and sustainable agriculture. Pittsboro, NC: Agricultural Justice Project. http://agriculturaljusticeproject.org/wp-content/themes/agriculture/pdf/AJP_Standards_Document_9412.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2015.

  • Stuart, D. (2009). Constrained choice and ethical dilemmas in land management. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 53–71. doi:10.1007/s10806-008-9129-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. R., & Domina, D. (2010). Restoring economic health to contract poultry production. In Report prepared for the Joint U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Agriculture/GIPSA public workshop on competition issues in the poultry industry, May 21, 2010, Normal, AL, USA.

  • Toler, S., Briggeman, B. C., Lusk, J. L., & Adams, D. C. (2009). Fairness, farmers markets, and local production. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5), 1272–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tribe, L. H. (1979). Perspectives on Bakke: Equal protection, procedural fairness, or structural justice? Harvard Law Review, 92(4), 864–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Agriculture. (n.d.) Vertical coordination in the pork and broiler industries. Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/491410/aer777b_1_.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2015.

  • US Department of Justice. (2012). Competition and agriculture: Voices from the workshops on agriculture and antitrust enforcement in our 21st century economy and thoughts on the way forward. Washington, DC: USDOJ. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/05/16/283291.pdf.

  • US Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDOJ-USDA). (2010a). Proceedings, public workshops exploring competition issues in agriculture: Margins. Washington, DC: USDA and DoJ. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/dc-agworkshop-transcript.pdf.

  • US Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDOJ-USDA). (2010b). Proceedings, public workshops exploring competition issues in agriculture: Poultry. Washington, DC: USDA and DoJ. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/alabama-agworkshop-transcript.pdf.

  • Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2014). Justice and fairness. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/justice.html. Accessed June 15, 2015.

  • Waldron, J. (1981). A right to do wrong. Ethics, 92(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. New York: Bedminister Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, L., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2014). For our valued customers only: Examining consumer responses to preferential treatment practices. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 2368–2375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A previous version of this paper was presented at meetings of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society. The authors appreciate comments from participants at those meetings. This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, under Hatch Project numbers 1002034 and 0233866.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Mary K. Hendrickson

  2. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Harvey S. James Jr.

Authors
  1. Mary K. Hendrickson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harvey S. James Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary K. Hendrickson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hendrickson, M.K., James, H.S. Power, Fairness and Constrained Choice in Agricultural Markets: A Synthesizing Framework. J Agric Environ Ethics 29, 945–967 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9641-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9641-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation