IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/226814.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agrarian vision, industrial vision, and rent-seeking: A viewpoint

Author

Listed:
  • Jauernig, Johanna
  • Pies, Ingo
  • Thompson, Paul B.
  • Valentinov, Vladislav

Abstract

Many public debates about the societal significance and impact of agriculture are usefully framed by Paul Thompson’s distinction between the “agrarian” and the “industrial vision.” The key argument of the present paper is that the ongoing debate between these visions goes beyond academic philosophy and has direct effects on the political economy of agriculture by influencing the scope of rent-seeking activities that are undertaken primarily in the name of the agrarian vision. The existence of rent-seeking activities is shown to reflect the fact that the agrarian vision is not universally supported, which is certainly true of the industrial vision as well. The key argument of the present paper is that these two philosophical visions of agriculture are not radically incongruent. Rather, they share a common ground within which they are even mutually supportive. If agricultural policy making is oriented toward this common ground, it may reduce overall dissatisfaction with the resulting institutional regime of agricultural production. Such an agricultural policy may also stimulate the emergence of new business practices that not only enable efficient agricultural production but also minimize negative ecological impact and preserve cultural landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jauernig, Johanna & Pies, Ingo & Thompson, Paul B. & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2020. "Agrarian vision, industrial vision, and rent-seeking: A viewpoint," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 33(3-6), pages 391-400.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:226814
    DOI: 10.1007/s10806-020-09830-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/226814/1/Jauernig_2020_Agrarian_Vision.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10806-020-09830-3?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. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton, 2017. "Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 634-657.
    2. de Olde, Evelien M. & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2019. "The moral complexity of agriculture: A challenge for corporate social responsibility," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 32(3), pages 413-430.
    3. Odening, Martin & Hüttel, Silke, 2018. "Müssen landwirtschaftliche Bodenmärkte vor Investoren geschützt werden? Eine ökonomische Perspektive," FORLand Project Publications 276288, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences.
    4. Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J. & Sumner, Daniel A., 2015. "What Happens When Food Marketers Require Restrictive Farming Practices?," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 5, September.
    5. Gordon Rausser & David Zilberman & Gabriel Kahn, 2015. "An Alternative Paradigm for Food Production, Distribution, and Consumption: A Noneconomist’s Perspective," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 309-331, October.
    6. Uwe Deichmann & Aparajita Goyal & Deepak Mishra, 2016. "Will digital technologies transform agriculture in developing countries?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(S1), pages 21-33, November.
    7. Gordon C. Rausser, 1992. "Predatory versus Productive Government: The Case of U.S. Agricultural Policies," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 133-157, Summer.
    8. Alfons Weersink & Evan Fraser & David Pannell & Emily Duncan & Sarah Rotz, 2018. "Opportunities and Challenges for Big Data in Agricultural and Environmental Analysis," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 19-37, October.
    9. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    10. Allen, Douglas W & Lueck, Dean, 1998. "The Nature of the Farm," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 343-386, October.
    11. Wilhelm Klümper & Matin Qaim, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    12. Silke Hüttel & Martin Odening & Vanessa von Schlippenbach, 2015. "Steigende landwirtschaftliche Bodenpreise: Anzeichen für eine Spekulationsblase?," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 82(3), pages 37-43.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hans Dagevos & Carolien de Lauwere, 2021. "Circular Business Models and Circular Agriculture: Perceptions and Practices of Dutch Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, January.

    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. Merel, Pierre & Qin, Zhiran & Sexton, Richard J., 2023. "Policy-Induced Expansion of Organic Farmland: Implications for Food Prices and Welfare," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335587, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Hennessy, David A. & Zhang, Jing & Bai, Na, 2019. "Animal health inputs, endogenous risk, general infrastructure, technology adoption and industrialized animal agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 355-362.
    3. Zilberman, David & Kaplan, Scott & Gordon, Ben, 2018. "The political economy of labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 6-13.
    4. Lajoie-O'Malley, Alana & Bronson, Kelly & van der Burg, Simone & Klerkx, Laurens, 2020. "The future(s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Johanna Jauernig & Stephan Brosig & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Profession and residency matter: Farmers' preferences for farmland price regulation in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 816-834, September.
    6. Bovay, John & Alston, Julian M., 2018. "GMO food labels in the United States: Economic implications of the new law," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 14-25.
    7. 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.
    8. Rahman, Shaikh Moksadur, 2020. "Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: Evidence from Bangladesh," Asian Business Review, Asian Business Consortium, vol. 10(2), pages 99-108.
    9. Wang Kai, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Idea Generation Techniques," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 65-80, January.
    10. Bridgelall, Raj & Stubbing, Edward, 2021. "Forecasting the effects of autonomous vehicles on land use," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    11. Bevilacqua, Maurizio & Ciarapica, Filippo Emanuele, 2018. "Human factor risk management in the process industry: A case study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 149-159.
    12. Naveena Prakasam & Louisa Huxtable-Thomas, 2021. "Reddit: Affordances as an Enabler for Shifting Loyalties," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 723-751, June.
    13. Colin Jerolmack & Alexandra K. Murphy, 2019. "The Ethical Dilemmas and Social Scientific Trade-offs of Masking in Ethnography," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(4), pages 801-827, November.
    14. Valeriy Makarov & Albert Bakhtizin, 2014. "The Estimation Of The Regions’ Efficiency Of The Russian Federation Including The Intellectual Capital, The Characteristics Of Readiness For Innovation, Level Of Well-Being, And Quality Of Life," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(4), pages 9-30.
    15. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Jan Pokrivcak, 2008. "Comparative Advantages, Transaction Costs and Factor Content of Agricultural Trade: Empirical Evidence from the CEE," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2008_03, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    16. Zhao, Jing & Knoop, Victor L. & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Two-dimensional vehicular movement modelling at intersections based on optimal control," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 1-22.
    17. Kristine Edgar Danielyan & Samvel Grigoriy Chailyan, 2019. "Delineation of Effectors Impact on The Human Brain Derived Phosphoribosylpyrophosphate Synthetase-1 Activity," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 24(1), pages 17918-17926, December.
    18. PK Gupta, 2018. "An Assessment of Relative Risks to Human/Ecological Health Biotech Crops versus Other Human Activities," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 1(2), pages 51-62, February.
    19. Klaus Deininger & Denys Nizalov & Sudhir K Singh, 2013. "Are mega-farms the future of global agriculture? Exploring the farm size-productivity relationship for large commercial farms in Ukraine," Discussion Papers 49, Kyiv School of Economics.
    20. Chuan Wang & Yupeng Liu & Wen Hou & Chao Yu & Guorong Wang & Yuyan Zheng, 2021. "Reliability and availability modeling of Subsea Autonomous High Integrity Pressure Protection System with partial stroke test by Dynamic Bayesian," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 235(2), pages 268-281, April.

    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:zbw:espost:226814. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.