IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/areint/341540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conventional vs modern: which approach is better for the success of agricultural cooperatives?

Author

Listed:
  • Utomo, Raden Priyo
  • Kuleh, Yohanes
  • Darma, Dio Caisar

Abstract

Purpose. This paper describes the relationship between organizational management, network usage, quality of services and products, and HR productivity of members regarding the success of East Kalimantan agricultural cooperatives in a conventional versus modern perspective. A goal is based on improving landscape in conventional agricultural cooperatives, which is analogous to the lag of the four factors above. Methodology / approach. Comparative-descriptive analysis is used to dissect the main objectives. Enumerators collect data via interviews with owners or managers who oversee 2,748 active cooperatives. Specifically, the sample focuses on active cooperatives from ten branches in East Kalimantan which are divided into two types: 1,860 modern agricultural cooperatives and 888 conventional agricultural cooperatives. Results. The empirical results present the following four outputs: (1) in terms of success, there is no significant difference between conventional agricultural cooperatives and modern agricultural cooperatives even though the operating techniques are also different; (2) network usage, quality of services and products, and HR productivity of members play a superior role in the sustainability of conventional agricultural cooperatives or modern agricultural cooperatives; (3) on the other hand, i.e organizational management is proven to be able to fight for conventional agricultural cooperatives in a positive way; (4) in the case of modern agricultural cooperatives, organizational management does not support success. Originality / scientific novelty. This paper proposes a thematic study in a new direction that compares the performance of modern agricultural cooperatives with conventional agricultural cooperatives based on a measure that represents the level of success. Practical value / implications. Today, the presence of technology is a practical solution that controls the majority of jobs, such as operating cooperatives. Recognizing crucial changes, one that must be addressed by agricultural cooperatives is the latest adjustments. However, it is not enough to focus only on the innovation aspect, but also to improve the internal organization of the cooperative, which will enable cooperation between generations of members to foster ethics, awareness and commitment. These findings offer valuable education to supervisory commissions, especially modern agricultural cooperatives, to modify organizational management mechanisms according to the capacity of members.

Suggested Citation

  • Utomo, Raden Priyo & Kuleh, Yohanes & Darma, Dio Caisar, 2023. "Conventional vs modern: which approach is better for the success of agricultural cooperatives?," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 9(4), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:areint:341540
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.341540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/341540/files/2_Utomo_article.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.341540?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiacheng Zhang & Jianli Luo & Jia Li, 2021. "Agricultural co-operatives participating in supply chain integration in China: A qualitative comparative analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Katharine Heyl & Felix Ekardt & Lennard Sund & Paula Roos, 2022. "Potentials and Limitations of Subsidies in Sustainability Governance: The Example of Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-26, November.
    3. repec:thr:techub:10021:y:2021:i:1:p:661-674 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Barraud-Didier, Valérie & Henninger, Marie-Christine & El Akremi, Assâad, 2012. "The Relationship Between Members’ Trust and Participation in the Governance of Cooperatives: The Role of Organizational Commitment," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, February.
    5. Rivera-Ferre, Marta G. & López-i-Gelats, Feliu & Ravera, Federica & Oteros-Rozas, Elisa & di Masso, Marina & Binimelis, Rosa & El Bilali, Hamid, 2021. "The two-way relationship between food systems and the COVID19 pandemic: causes and consequences," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    6. Xiangyu Wu & Yunlong Ding, 2018. "The Service Supply Effect of Cooperatives under Economic Transformation: A Demand-Supply Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Min Liu & Jinxiu Yang & Guoquan Zheng & Ping Shang & Yipei Li, 2023. "External Factors Facilitating Quality Certification of Agricultural Products in China: Insights from Cooperatives in the Sichuan Province," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Confidence Ndlovu & Mfundo M. Masuku, 2021. "The Efficacy of Agricultural Cooperatives Towards Enhancing Food Security in Rural Areas: Mbombela Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 21(1), pages 661-674, July.
    9. Wanglin Ma & Awudu Abdulai, 2017. "The economic impacts of agricultural cooperatives on smallholder farmers in rural China," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 537-551, September.
    10. Xiyuan Yu & Wenli Liu & Lingli Qing & Di Zhang, 2023. "Improving Farm Cooperatives’ Performance and Sustainability: A Study of Agricultural Managers’ Competencies Based on the Grounded Theory and the fsQCA Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Achilleas Kontogeorgos & Panagiota Sergaki & Anastasia Kosma & Vassiliki Semou, 2018. "Organizational Models for Agricultural Cooperatives: Empirical Evidence for their Performance," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(4), pages 1123-1137, December.
    12. Carlos Omar Trejo-Pech & Roselia Servín-Juárez & Álvaro Reyes-Duarte, 2023. "What sets cooperative farmers apart from non-cooperative farmers? A transaction cost economics analysis of coffee farmers in Mexico," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    13. Nawab Khan & Ram L. Ray & Hazem S. Kassem & Muhammad Ihtisham & Badar Naseem Siddiqui & Shemei Zhang, 2022. "Can Cooperative Supports and Adoption of Improved Technologies Help Increase Agricultural Income? Evidence from a Recent Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    14. Eti Kusmiati & Dian Masyita & Erie Febrian & Martha Fani Cahyandito, 2023. "A study on the determinants of successful performance of Indonesian cooperatives," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 50(9), pages 1285-1301, March.
    15. Nhan Quoc Tran & Thong Van Ngo & Nay Van Nguyen & Thanh Ngoc Duong & Can Duy Nguyen & Tu Duong Quach & De Van Le, 2022. "Impact of New-Type Agricultural Cooperatives on Profitability of Rice Farms: Evidence from Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Kenkel, Phil & Crossan, Zachary, 2019. "Human Resource Management in Agricultural Cooperatives," Journal of Cooperatives, NCERA-210, vol. 34.
    17. Zhang, Shemei & Sun, Zhanli & Ma, Wanglin & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2020. "The effect of cooperative membership on agricultural technology adoption in Sichuan, China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    18. Timothy Besley & Nicholas Stern, 2020. "The Economics of Lockdown," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 493-513, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liyan Yu & Jerker Nilsson & Feng Zhan & Song Cheng, 2023. "Social Capital in Cooperative Memberships and Farmers’ Access to Bank Credit–Evidence from Fujian, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Yuanyuan Peng & H. Holly Wang & Yueshu Zhou, 2022. "Can cooperatives help commercial farms to access credit in China? Evidence from Jiangsu Province," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 325-349, December.
    3. Hongyun Zheng & Wanglin Ma & Gucheng Li, 2021. "Adoption of organic soil amendments and its impact on farm performance: evidence from wheat farmers in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(2), pages 367-390, April.
    4. Huma Neupane & Krishna P. Paudel & Mandeep Adhikari & Qinying He, 2022. "Impact of cooperative membership on production efficiency of smallholder goat farmers in Nepal," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(2), pages 337-356, June.
    5. Li, Xiaokang & Guo, Hongdong & Jin, Songqing & Ma, Wanglin & Zeng, Yiwu, 2021. "Do farmers gain internet dividends from E-commerce adoption? Evidence from China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Wanglin Ma & Hongyun Zheng & Yueji Zhu & Jianling Qi, 2022. "Effects of cooperative membership on financial performance of banana farmers in China: A heterogeneous analysis," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(1), pages 5-27, March.
    7. Ahmet Candemir & Sabine Duvaleix & Laure Latruffe, 2021. "Agricultural Cooperatives And Farm Sustainability – A Literature Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 1118-1144, September.
    8. Nawab Khan & Ram L. Ray & Hazem S. Kassem & Muhammad Ihtisham & Badar Naseem Siddiqui & Shemei Zhang, 2022. "Can Cooperative Supports and Adoption of Improved Technologies Help Increase Agricultural Income? Evidence from a Recent Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Fang Wu & Xibao Guo & Xia Guo, 2023. "Cooperative membership and new technology adoption of family farms: Evidence from China," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 719-739, September.
    10. Theo Benos & Nikos Kalogeras & Martin Wetzels & Ko De Ruyter & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2018. "Harnessing a ‘Currency Matrix’ for Performance Measurement in Cooperatives: A Multi-Phased Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-38, December.
    11. Guoqiang Liu & Dakuan Qiao & Yuying Liu & Xinhong Fu, 2022. "Does Service Utilization Improve Members’ Welfare? Evidence from Citrus Cooperatives in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Lin Xie & Biliang Luo & Wenjing Zhong, 2021. "How Are Smallholder Farmers Involved in Digital Agriculture in Developing Countries: A Case Study from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Kifle T. Sebhatu & Fatemeh Taheri & Tekeste Berhanu & Miet Maertens & Steven Van Passel & Marijke D'Haese, 2021. "Beyond focus: Exploring variability of service provision of agricultural cooperatives," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(2), pages 207-231, June.
    14. Carlos Omar Trejo-Pech & Roselia Servín-Juárez & Álvaro Reyes-Duarte, 2023. "What sets cooperative farmers apart from non-cooperative farmers? A transaction cost economics analysis of coffee farmers in Mexico," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Nilsson, Jerker & Helgesson, Matilda & Rommel, Jens & Svensson, Ellinor, 2020. "Forest-owner support for their cooperative's provision of public goods," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    16. Zhang, Shemei & Ma, Jiliang & Zhang, Liu & Sun, Zhanli & Zhao, Zhijun & Khan, Nawab, 2022. "Does adoption of honeybee pollination promote the economic value of kiwifruit farmers? Evidence from China," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 19(14), pages 1-14.
    17. Hao, J., 2018. "Cooperative member commitment, trust and social pressure -- the role of members’ participation in the decision-making," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275881, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Lu Wang & Jianli Luo & Yuxia Liu, 2021. "Agricultural cooperatives participating in vegetable supply chain integration: A case study of a trinity cooperative in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-20, June.
    19. Zheng, Hongyun & Ma, Wanglin & Wang, Fang & Li, Gucheng, 2021. "Does internet use improve technical efficiency of banana production in China? Evidence from a selectivity-corrected analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Katrin Martens & Sebastian Rogga & Jana Zscheischler & Bernd Pölling & Andreas Obersteg & Annette Piorr, 2022. "Classifying New Hybrid Cooperation Models for Short Food-Supply Chains—Providing a Concept for Assessing Sustainability Transformation in the Urban-Rural Nexus," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:areint:341540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://are-journal.com/are .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.