IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlcoop/46222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution of Cooperative Thought, Theory, and Purpose

Author

Listed:
  • Torgerson, Randall E.
  • Reynolds, Bruce J.
  • Gray, Thomas W.

Abstract

The evolution of agricultural cooperative thought, theory, and purpose in the United States is reviewed from the standpoint of the reemergence of interest in how cooperatives can provide some of the security and benefits that might be lost with gradual phasing out of federal government farm support programs. By accomplishing group action for self-help, the early development of cooperatives drew considerable attention from economists, social theorists, and politicians. Alternative schools of cooperative thought developed, but most proponents of cooperatives regarded them as having enormous potential to provide a public service role in building a more economically stable and democratic society This paper also surveys how cooperative theory was developed more rigorously in the post-WWII period. It has provided better analytical tools for understanding how and why cooperatives have changed in response to technological and economic developments, as well as to social trends, like individualism. Given the new perspectives on cooperative theory and the scope of changes in how cooperatives operate and are structured, cooperatives have even greater potential for coordinating self-help actions, but this potential needs the support of cooperative education services.

Suggested Citation

  • Torgerson, Randall E. & Reynolds, Bruce J. & Gray, Thomas W., 1998. "Evolution of Cooperative Thought, Theory, and Purpose," Journal of Cooperatives, NCERA-210, vol. 13, pages 1-20.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlcoop:46222
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.46222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/46222/files/Vol%2013%201998%20Article%201.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.46222?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fulton, Murray E. & Gibbings, Julie, 2000. "Response And Adaption: Canadian Agricultural Co-Operatives In The 21st Century," Miscellaneous Publications 31768, University of Saskatchewan, Centre for the Study of Co-operatives.
    2. Zsuzsanna Kispál-Vitai & Yann Regnard & Klara Kövesi & Claude-André Guillotte, 2019. "Cooperative case studies from three countries: Is membership a problem or a solution in the 21st century?," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 41(4), pages 467-485, December.
    3. Ortmann, Gerald F. & King, Robert P., 2007. "Agricultural Cooperatives I: History, Theory and Problems," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 46(1), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Zsuzsanna Kispál-Vitai & Yann Regnard & Klara Kövesi & Claude-André Guillotte, 2019. "Cooperative case studies from three countries: Is membership a problem or a solution in the 21 st century?," Post-Print hal-02351404, HAL.
    5. Peña-Lévano, Luis M. & Escalante, Cesar & Félix, Álvaro, 2017. "FARM-STPACK: A Financial Analysis Tool for Small-farm Peruvian Farmers," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2017.
    6. Deng, Hengshan & Huang, Jikun & Xu, Zhigang & Rozelle, Scott, 2010. "Policy support and emerging farmer professional cooperatives in rural China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 495-507, December.
    7. Kispál-Vitai, Zsuzsanna, 2006. "Gondolatok a szövetkezetelmélet fejlődéséről [Ideas for developing cooperative theory]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 69-84.
    8. Ortmann, Gerald F. & King, Robert P., 2006. "Small-Scale Farmers in South Africa: Can Agricultural Cooperatives Facilitate Access to Input and Product Markets?," Staff Papers 13930, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    9. Phoebe Stephens, 2021. "Social finance for sustainable food systems: opportunities, tensions and ambiguities," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1123-1137, December.

    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:jlcoop:46222. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daksuus.html .

    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.