The profession of (agricultural) economists and the experience of transition

The objective of the paper is to survey the state of knowledge of economists and agricultural economists at the onset of transition and seventeen years later. The "standard" economic reasoning in the early nineties were based on neoclassical economics and documented was has been termed the Washington Consensus. It is shown that the discrepancy between expectations and reality as well as the evolution of institutional economics has challenged economists. A "blue print" favoured in the early nineties seems to be opposed by many economist nowadays. Agricultural economists have been influenced by the lines of thought in the main profession, but there approach became country-specific in early years of the transition period. Nevertheless, there are some open questions concerning assessment and approach in giving policy advice.Washington Consensus, land reform, farm organization, Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Super-large Farms: The Importance of Institutions

There are many reasons for the evolution of super-farms in some of the CIS. This paper does not intend to elaborate on the whole set of reasons. There are already many studies which provide surveys on the background and the rationale of these organisations. This paper aims at focusing on one specific determinant of the rise of super-large farms, namely institutions. The focus is chosen as this determinant seems to have been overlooked, partly because it is completely beyond the neoclassical approach. Institutions as rules of the game can be classified into four levels according to Williamson. The paper mainly deals with embedded institutions. It is shown that these institutions are country-specific and vary widely across countries. It is argued that the evolution of super-large farms could only arise because cooperative and corporate farms survived up to bankruptcy and because embedded institutions impeded the foundation of family farms. Mental models of policy makers did contribute to the amalgation of corporate and cooperatives into super-large farms. However, it is noted that embedded institutions had such strong effects because markets did not work adequately and legislation and its enforcement was not supportive for the foundation of family farms. The paper ends with an evaluation from the economic point of view of the existence of super-large farms and with a projection of what may happen in the future.Agribusiness,

Embedded institutions and the persistence of large farms in Russia

Differences in farm structures between Russia and western market economies can hardly be made consistent with the neoclassical textbook idea of a technologically determined farm size operating in a perfect market environment. The main aim of the paper is to identify embedded institutions that provide an explanation for the persistent differences. It is shown that these institutions vary widely across countries. We argue that the historical contingency of a patrimonial society that is both hierarchical and egalitarian also has an important bearing on the current persistence of large farming structures in Russia. The cultural beliefs based on this contingency explain the relative absence of entrepreneurial attitude in the rural society, the lack of trust in formal transactions with strangers, and the unwillingness to deviate from collective behaviour. Managers of former collective farms together with regional government authorities had strong incentives to secure their status-quo rents by inhibiting individualisation in agriculture. In addition, based on their ideological background in communism and their lifelong experience, many of them simply could not imagine how food security and social safety in the countryside should be provided without large farms. It is argued that the evolution of super-large farms could only arise because cooperative and corporate farms survived up to bankruptcy and because embedded institutions impeded the foundation of family farms. Mental models of policy makers did contribute to the amalgamation of corporations and cooperatives into super-large farms. The paper ends with an evaluation from the economic point of view of the existence of super-large farms and with a projection of what may happen in the future. -- Die Unterschiede in den Betriebsstrukturen zwischen Russland und den westlichen Marktwirtschaften lassen sich kaum mit dem neoklassischen Lehrbuchmodell einer technologisch determinierten Betriebsgröße in einem vollkommenen Markt in Einklang bringen. Das Hauptziel des Artikels besteht deshalb darin, die eingebetteten Institutionen zu identifizieren, die für die anhaltenden Unterschiede eine Erklärung liefern können. Es wird gezeigt, dass diese Institutionen von Land zu Land stark variieren. Wir vertreten den Standpunkt, dass die historische Bedingtheit der russischen Gesellschaft, die sowohl hierarchisch als auch egalitär geprägt ist, einen bedeutenden Einfluss auf das derzeitige Weiterbestehen der großbetrieblichen Strukturen in Russland hat. Die so geprägten kulturellen Vorstellungen und Überzeugungen der Handelnden erklären den relativen Mangel von unternehmerischem Verhalten in der ländlichen Gesellschaft, das fehlende Vertrauen in formale Transaktionen mit Fremden und den Unwillen, vom Kollektivverhalten abzuweichen. Die Leiter der ehemaligen Kollektivbetriebe und regionale Verwaltungen hatten starke Anreize, die Status-quo Renten ihrer Einnahmen zu sichern, indem sie eine Individualisierung der Großbetriebe verhinderten. Hinzu kommt, dass sich viele von ihnen aufgrund ihres ideologischen Hintergrunds im Kommunismus und ihrer lebenslangen Erfahrung einfach nicht vorstellen konnten, wie Nahrungsmittelsicherheit und soziale Absicherung auf dem Lande ohne Großbetriebe funktionieren sollten. Es wird vermutet, dass sich die neuerdings entstandenen, riesigen Agroholdings nur entwickeln konnten, weil die bisherigen Großbetriebe nicht liquidiert wurden und eingebettete Institutionen die Gründung von Familienbetrieben verhinderten. Die mentalen Modelle der Politiker trugen daher zum Verschmelzen der Großbetriebe zu Agroholdings bei. Der Artikel schließt mit einer Bewertung der Agroholdings aus ökonomischer Sicht und einem Ausblick in die Zukunft.Embedded institutions,agricultural transition,farm restructuring,agroholdings,Russia,Eingebettete Institutionen,Transformation im Agrarsektor,Umstrukturierung,Agroholdings,Russland.

Agricultural Transition in the New Federal States of Germany

International Development,

National interest in international stabilization schemes

The present paper tries to show the limitations of the traditional approach to evaluating commodity stabilization schemes. It is asserted that no definite answer can be given concerning the global welfare aspects of such schemes. The emphasis of the study, therefore, lies on the clarification of the effects of international stabilization schemes on exporting and importing nations. Starting with rather general assumptions about demand and supply curves, we determine the effects of international stabilization schemes on the revenue (expenditure) overtime and on the fluctuation of revenue (expenditure) of individual countries. However, without knowing the parameters of the domestic supply and demand curves and of the world market supply and demand curves, no definite conclusions can be drawn. This, clearly, contradicts some recent findings in the literature which were derived from very special assumptions and resulted in definitive statements. This study is not intended to provide a conclusive answer as to whether to establish international stabilization schemes or not. To answer this question, more information is required about a number of factors such as the probability, direction and magnitude of fluctuations in supply at the national and the international level, the total cost of the stabilization scheme and the contribution required of an individual country, and, above all, the feasibility of finding the trend equilibrium quantity of a commodity which ought to be stabilized

EU-Agrarreform: endlich ein Durchbruch?

Am 22. Januar hat die EU Kommission ihre Vorschläge zur Reform der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik vorgelegt. Welche Reformen sind vorgesehen? Wie werden sie bewertet? Franz Fischler, Ulrike Höfken, Gerd Sonnleitner und Ulrich Koester nehmen Stellung --

Regional cooperation to improve food security in southern and eastern African countries:

Food supply Africa, Southern., Food supply Tanzania., Africa, Southern Economic integration.,