The Impact of Social Capital on Agricultural Income Among Corporate Farms in the Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic, agricultural production is still dominated by corporate farms. However, not all of them had been equally successful, economically. In general, a varying adoption of production factors is identified as being of influence. Whether their ability to collaborate with other farms is an additional factor which has been discussed under the concept of social capital since quite some time will be analysed in this paper. Based on the findings of a survey among a sample of 166 corporate farms by adopting factor and multiple regression analysis it can be deduced that social capital is indeed a significant factor determining the level of agricultural income.corporate farms, social capital, cross sectional models, Czech Republic, Agribusiness, Institutional and Behavioral Economics, C31, P32, Q12, Z13,

The Impact of Social Capital on Farm and Household Income: Results of a Survey among Individual Farmers in Poland

Private farming is the dominant mode of agricultural production in most European countries. Not all farmers are equally successful, economically. In this paper it is analysed whether social capital is an important factor contributing to higher agricultural incomes. Based on the findings of a farm survey in Poland among 410 farmers by adopting factor and multiple regression analysis it can be deduced that social capital is indeed a significant factor determining the level of agricultural income. However, its impact not that clear-cut as anticipated. More in-depth analysis will be needed in the future.cross sectional models, empirical research, farm income, individual (private) farms, social capital, Poland, Farm Management,

Agri-food business: global challenges - innovative solutions

The rise of a western-style middle class in many successful emerging economies like China currently is inducing deep structural changes on agricultural world markets and within the global agri-food business. As a result of both higher incomes and concerns over product safety and quality the global demand for high-quality and safe food products is increasing significantly. In order to meet the new required quality, globally minimum quality standards are rising and private standards emerging. All over the world these developments cause adjustments at the enterprise, chain and market levels. At the same time, the tremendously increasing demand for renewable energy has led to the emergence of a highly promising market for biomass production. This has far-reaching consequences for resource allocation in the agri-food business, for the environment, for the poor in developing countries and for agricultural policy reforms. The challenges increase with ongoing liberalisation, globalisation and standardisation, all of which change trade patterns for agricultural and food commodities, and influence production costs and commodity prices. CONTENTS: Preface... i; On the political economy of food standards ... 1, Johan F. M. Swinnen, Thijs Vandemoortele; An analytical framework for the study of deviant behaviour in production... 11, Norbert Hirschauer, Gaetano Martino; Netchain innovations for sustainable pork supply chains in an EU Context... 22, Rannia Nijhoff-Savvaki, Jacques Trienekens, Onno Omta; Inclusion of dairy farms in supply chain in Bulgaria - Modes, efficiency, perspectives... 35, Hrabrin Bachev; The effective traceability on the example of Polish supply chain ... 47, Agnieszka Bezat, Sebastian Jarzebowski; Geographical indications in transition countries: Governance, vertical integration and territorial impact. Illustration with case studies from Serbia... 58, Marguerite Paus; Processing and marketing feasibility of underutilized fruit species of Rajasthan, India ... 70, Dheeraj Singh, Lobsang Wangshu, V. C. Prahalad; Future impact of new technologies upon food quality and health in Central Eastern European countries... 82, Lajos Zoltán Bakucs, Imre Ferto, Attila Havas; Are food industry companies interested in co-financing collective agricultural marketing?... 95, Anikó Tóth, Csaba Forgács; Farmers' reasons for engaging in bioenergy utilisation and their institutional context: A case study from Germany ... 106, Melf-Hinrich Ehlers; Degree and pattern of agro-food trade integration of South-Eastern European countries with the European Union ... 118, Štefan Bojnec, Imre Ferto; Competitiveness of cotton and wheat production and processing in Central Asia ... 133, Inna Levkovych --

The Transformation of Agricultural Production Cooperatives in East Germany and Their Future

With the break-down of the socialist regime in East Germany in 1989/90 the collective farms had to be transformed or to be dissolved. At that time, it had been anticipated by (mostly West German) politicians and agricultural economists alike that collective farms would soon wither away and be replaced by family farms. However, even more than 15 years after transition, transformed agricultural production cooperatives (APCs) and other corporate farms dominate agricultural production. Based on literature review, statistics and an empirical survey among farm managers, the major reasons for their popularity will be analyzed. These seem to be not only economic, but also social ones. Finally, their future development will be looked at. Their number is gradually declining over time which might be called a “second wave of transformation”

The Impact of Social Capital on Agricultural Income Among Corporate Farms in the Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic, agricultural production is still dominated by corporate farms. However, not all of them had been equally successful, economically. In general, a varying adoption of production factors is identified as being of influence. Whether their ability to collaborate with other farms is an additional factor which has been discussed under the concept of social capital since quite some time will be analysed in this paper. Based on the findings of a survey among a sample of 166 corporate farms by adopting factor and multiple regression analysis it can be deduced that social capital is indeed a significant factor determining the level of agricultural income

The Impact of Social Capital on Farm and Household Income: Results of a Survey among Individual Farmers in Poland

Private farming is the dominant mode of agricultural production in most European countries. Not all farmers are equally successful, economically. In this paper it is analysed whether social capital is an important factor contributing to higher agricultural incomes. Based on the findings of a farm survey in Poland among 410 farmers by adopting factor and multiple regression analysis it can be deduced that social capital is indeed a significant factor determining the level of agricultural income. However, its impact not that clear-cut as anticipated. More in-depth analysis will be needed in the future

The Impact of Social Capital on Polish Farm Incomes: Findings of an Empirical Survey

Private farming is the dominant mode of agricultural production in most European countries. Not all farmers are equally successful, economically, which is usually explained by different levels of production factors, i.e. land, labour and capital. This article analyses whether social capital is an additional factor contributing to higher agricultural incomes. Using primary evidence from a farm survey in Poland among 410 farmers it can be deduced that social capital is indeed a significant factor determining the level of agricultural income. However, its impact is not as clear-cut as anticipated. The elaboration and testing of appropriate indicators has just started. More in-depth analysis will be needed in the future.

Making rural households’ livelihoods more resilient. The importance of social capital and the underlying social networks.

Although interest in the structure and relational features of social capital and its underlying networks has grown since the early 1990s, the terms do not embody any ideas that are really new to sociologists, but are indeed rather new to economists. Until the 1950s, land, labour, and financial capital (i.e., levels of investment) were seen as being relevant for economic growth. Then technology (physical capital) was added to the list. In the early 1960s, convincing empirical evidence showed that labour without know-how and entrepreneurial skills (human capital) limit the potential of the other production factors. Today, labour and skills are usually simultaneously addressed when talking of human capital. In development economics, and more recently in main-stream and transition economics, social capital is more and more considered an important capital asset for the welfare of individuals and communities. Already in the early 1990s, development economics postulated the so-called capital asset pentagon that comprises the mainstream economic production factors, as well as social capital (see figure below). The potential of compensating the lack of one capital asset with the existence of another was seen as important for maintaining a sustainable livelihood. It is also important to note that human capital resides in individuals and social capital in relationships (WOOLCOCK, 2001). As literate and informed people are better able to organize, evaluate and transform information, human and social capital assets are complements. In addition, social capital can supplement meagre levels of other capital assets. Capital asset pentagon of the sustainable livelihood framework: During the transformation process of transition countries in the 1990s, the tremendous institutional changes and breakdowns in the public and private sectors further accelerated interest in social capital. Public service institutions such as kindergartens or farm extension services were closed and rural communities with social capital could compensate for this by collective actions. The emergence of a relatively flourishing microfinance sector in urban and rural areas is proof of the power of tapping social networks when public and private banks refrain from servicing the poorer segments of the population. This edited volume tries to bring together academics in Germany who have an outspoken interest in conducting research on social capital and the underlying network in a rural context. The volume starts out with two conceptual and methodological contributions, one by BUCHENRIEDER and DUFHUES and another by BUCHENRIEDER, which pave the way for a better understanding of the empirical contributions. The contributions by DUFHUES and BUCHENRIEDER and WOLZ, FRITZSCH and REINSBERG discuss methodological issues to operationalise social capital as a parameter in econometric analyses. While DUFHUES and BUCHENRIEDER address the issue based on interpersonal relationships and propose methods to model networks, WOLZ, FRITZSCH and REINSBERG construct a factor from the observance of structured social capital in rural areas of the Czech Republic. They find that some forms of structured social capital contribute to total farm output. In this sense, social capital drives total factor productivity, which is in line with what DASGUPTA (2002) claimed, and can be considered a new production factor. KASARJYAN and KORFF use a networkcentred approach to assess the effects of strong and weak ties on having access to rural microcredit in Armenia in a situation where the formal financial market fails. Interestingly, it is mostly bonding social capital that determines access. Clearly, as the rural financial market develops in Armenia, access to rural credit has to go beyond family and friendship ties. Finally, BEUCHELT and FISCHER describe how rural households in Vietnam manage risk based on their five capital assets. Normally, financial, physical and natural capital assets are already stretched to their limits and it is the social capital that has to be called upon when an income shock hits. However, social capital is more developed in the better-off households than in the very poor households. Therefore, it can be concluded from the empirical contributions in this volume that access to social capital is not a panacea for rural economic development under difficult societal, economic and political conditions. Nevertheless, interpersonal networks of social capital can help to ease socio-economic hardship when the state and market fail to do their share

Making rural householdsâ livelihoods more resilient. The importance of social capital and the underlying social networks.

Although interest in the structure and relational features of social capital and its underlying networks has grown since the early 1990s, the terms do not embody any ideas that are really new to sociologists, but are indeed rather new to economists. Until the 1950s, land, labour, and financial capital (i.e., levels of investment) were seen as being relevant for economic growth. Then technology (physical capital) was added to the list. In the early 1960s, convincing empirical evidence showed that labour without know-how and entrepreneurial skills (human capital) limit the potential of the other production factors. Today, labour and skills are usually simultaneously addressed when talking of human capital. In development economics, and more recently in main-stream and transition economics, social capital is more and more considered an important capital asset for the welfare of individuals and communities. Already in the early 1990s, development economics postulated the so-called capital asset pentagon that comprises the mainstream economic production factors, as well as social capital (see figure below). The potential of compensating the lack of one capital asset with the existence of another was seen as important for maintaining a sustainable livelihood. It is also important to note that human capital resides in individuals and social capital in relationships (WOOLCOCK, 2001). As literate and informed people are better able to organize, evaluate and transform information, human and social capital assets are complements. In addition, social capital can supplement meagre levels of other capital assets. Capital asset pentagon of the sustainable livelihood framework: During the transformation process of transition countries in the 1990s, the tremendous institutional changes and breakdowns in the public and private sectors further accelerated interest in social capital. Public service institutions such as kindergartens or farm extension services were closed and rural communities with social capital could compensate for this by collective actions. The emergence of a relatively flourishing microfinance sector in urban and rural areas is proof of the power of tapping social networks when public and private banks refrain from servicing the poorer segments of the population. This edited volume tries to bring together academics in Germany who have an outspoken interest in conducting research on social capital and the underlying network in a rural context. The volume starts out with two conceptual and methodological contributions, one by BUCHENRIEDER and DUFHUES and another by BUCHENRIEDER, which pave the way for a better understanding of the empirical contributions. The contributions by DUFHUES and BUCHENRIEDER and WOLZ, FRITZSCH and REINSBERG discuss methodological issues to operationalise social capital as a parameter in econometric analyses. While DUFHUES and BUCHENRIEDER address the issue based on interpersonal relationships and propose methods to model networks, WOLZ, FRITZSCH and REINSBERG construct a factor from the observance of structured social capital in rural areas of the Czech Republic. They find that some forms of structured social capital contribute to total farm output. In this sense, social capital drives total factor productivity, which is in line with what DASGUPTA (2002) claimed, and can be considered a new production factor. KASARJYAN and KORFF use a networkcentred approach to assess the effects of strong and weak ties on having access to rural microcredit in Armenia in a situation where the formal financial market fails. Interestingly, it is mostly bonding social capital that determines access. Clearly, as the rural financial market develops in Armenia, access to rural credit has to go beyond family and friendship ties. Finally, BEUCHELT and FISCHER describe how rural households in Vietnam manage risk based on their five capital assets. Normally, financial, physical and natural capital assets are already stretched to their limits and it is the social capital that has to be called upon when an income shock hits. However, social capital is more developed in the better-off households than in the very poor households. Therefore, it can be concluded from the empirical contributions in this volume that access to social capital is not a panacea for rural economic development under difficult societal, economic and political conditions. Nevertheless, interpersonal networks of social capital can help to ease socio-economic hardship when the state and market fail to do their share.Community/Rural/Urban Development, Consumer/Household Economics, Farm Management, Food Security and Poverty,