IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Has Australia fallen behind the strategic alliance contracting trend in the global food industry? If so, is government assistance warranted?


  • Taylor, Philip J.


Since the 1970s, there has been a broad shift from arm‘s length to long-term strategic alliance procurement practices across nations and industries. This has happened for sound commercial reasons. Peculiarities of agricultural production have slowed this shift in many food industry sectors, but it is now proceeding apace – driven primarily by rapidly globalising supermarket chains. In most Australian agri-food sectors, few firms have the scale or level of sophistication that would make them attractive strategic alliance partners either for international food retailers or for their category managers. The reasons for this include a combination of past government failures (inappropriate policies) and failures or inefficiencies in a range of information markets. The long-term nature of strategic alliances generates significant first-mover advantages for suppliers. Australian food producers risk being locked out of attractive opportunities if they fail to adapt to the new mode of contracting. For regional economies, the long-term benefits from accelerating strategic alliance adoption are likely to be large. Such benefits will flow on to many who are not usually considered private beneficiaries of that adoption. In other words, there are significant public benefits in prospect. While the results of past government intervention in this field have been mixed, there has been much learnt internationally from such experience. In Australia, many of the inappropriate policies have now been reversed and the prospects for cost-effective government assistance in the relevant information markets are good.

Suggested Citation

  • Taylor, Philip J., 2011. "Has Australia fallen behind the strategic alliance contracting trend in the global food industry? If so, is government assistance warranted?," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100718, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare11:100718

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. William Henry Kaye-Blake & Walt L. Abell & Eva Zellman, 2009. "Respondents' ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 547-564, October.
    2. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    3. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), September.
    4. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    5. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, March.
    7. McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "Consumer Preferences And Willingness To Pay For Food Labeling: A Discussion Of Empirical Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(03), November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Agri-food industry sectors; strategic alliance contracting; value chain; government assistance; Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; Marketing;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:aare11:100718. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.