Elsevier

Food Policy

Volume 34, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 31-38
Food Policy

Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.007Get rights and content

Abstract

The Papa Andina network employs collective action in two novel approaches for fostering market chain innovation. The participatory market chain approach (PMCA) and stakeholder platforms engage small potato producers together with market agents and agricultural service providers in group activities to identify common interests, share market knowledge and develop new business opportunities. These forms of collective action have generated commercial, technological and institutional innovations, and created new market niches for Andean native potatoes grown by poor farmers in remote highland areas. These innovations have benefited small farmers as well as other market chain actors. This paper describes Papa Andina’s experiences with collective action for market chain innovation. It then discusses the implications of these experiences for the understanding of collective action and the policy implications for research and development organizations.

Introduction

The Andean region of South America is characterized by extreme social and economic inequalities. It is estimated that more than 60% of Ecuador’s rural population and nearly 80% of Bolivia’s and Peru’s are poor (CEPAL, 2004). Poverty is especially prevalent in highland areas, where the potato is the main staple food and an important source of cash income. In areas over 3500 m above sea level, subject to frequent frost and drought, potatoes are among the few crops that can be grown. Over centuries, Andean farmers have developed more than 4000 native varieties of potato. In Peru and Bolivia, most native potatoes are cultivated by semi-commercial farmers for home consumption, barter and sale in local markets. At lower altitudes, more commercially oriented farmers grow modern varieties employing pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers. In Ecuador, where growing conditions are generally milder, native varieties have almost entirely been replaced by new varieties introduced by national breeding and seed programs.

Agricultural development is taking place in the context of rapid urbanization and increasing market integration. Farmers are confronted with many new market challenges as well as opportunities. Urbanization and increasing participation of women in the labour force are leading to a dietary transition towards convenience foods, animal protein, fresh dairy products, and higher consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. Packaged food sales and supermarket retail outlets are now found in most developing countries. Demand is also increasing for higher quality foods that meet ever-increasing standards of safety. Supermarkets are becoming major players in vertically integrated food marketing systems. Consequently, the production practices and livelihoods of small Andean farmers are increasingly influenced by the demands of urban consumers, market intermediaries and food industries (Reardon and Berdegué, 2002, Wilkinson and Rocha, 2006).

In contemporary agricultural markets, small farmers are often at a disadvantage in relation to larger commercial farmers who can supply larger volumes of quality-assured products, possess superior bargaining power, and have better access to information, services, technology and capital. Small farmers’ limited access to physical and financial resources restricts their ability to expand and invest in technologies that increase efficiency and add value to primary production. Small farmers also frequently have limited technical skills and poor access to information and training for improving their production practices. The limited market surplus of individual small farmers inflates marketing costs, increasing transaction costs and the per-unit costs of assembly, handling and transportation. Small farmers also lack basic knowledge of the marketing system, current information on prices and market conditions, and bargaining power (Kruijssen et al., 2007, Kruijssen et al., in press; Berdegué, 2001).

Various approaches have been proposed to improve the prospects of small farmers in agricultural markets, including collective action via farmer organizations and cooperatives (Shepherd, 2007). In the present paper, we discuss two novel uses of collective action that involve not only small farmers but also market agents and agricultural service providers. The participatory market chain approach (PMCA) and stakeholder platforms foster market chain innovation in ways that benefit small farmers as well as other market chain actors. The main intended outcomes of these types of collective action are commercial, technological and institutional innovations. This differs from most cases of collective action described in the literature, which report on farmer organization for achieving economies of scale, enhancing small farmers’ bargaining power or improving the management of common pool resources. The new forms of collective action reported on here, involving diverse market chain actors, researchers and other agricultural service providers, have been developed by the regional research and development (R&D) network, Papa Andina, which operates in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.

Section snippets

Perspectives on collective action and innovation

This paper is concerned with the use of collective action to foster pro-poor innovation in market chains. Much has been written on farmer organizations for managing common pool resources, and for marketing and service provision. There is also a rapidly growing literature on innovation processes. However, the role of collective action in innovation processes has received little attention to date. In this section we review relevant literature on collective action and on innovation, and identify

Framework for analyzing collective action in market chain innovation

Ostrom and colleagues at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University have developed a general framework for understanding institutions known as the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework. It has three main components:

  • The “Action Arena” in which participants interact.

  • Three groups of “Exogenous Variables” that influence the “Action Arena” (biophysical/material conditions, attributes of the community and rules).

  • The “Outcomes” produced (Ostrom, 2005,

Papa Andina’s use of collective action to foster pro-poor market chain innovation

Papa Andina was established in 1998 to promote pro-poor innovation in the Andean potato-based food systems. Financed mainly by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and other donors, and hosted by the International Potato Center, the network includes about 30 partners in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. In each country, Papa Andina coordinates its activities with a “strategic partner” that plays a leadership and coordinating role in market chain innovation: the PROINPA Foundation in

Discussion

In this section, we summarize patterns that emerge from our examples of collective action in relation to the main components of the framework for analysis of collective action in market chain innovation (Fig. 1).

Implications for general understanding of collective action

Papa Andina’s work illustrates how collective action involving small farmers, market agents, researchers and other agricultural service providers can generate pro-poor market chain innovations. The collective action literature emphasizes its role among individuals with common interests, in managing common pool resources, reducing transaction costs, gaining scale economies, and improving the bargaining power of small farmers. The innovation literature, in contrast, highlights the importance of

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) for supporting Papa Andina and the work reported on here. Additionally, the Department for International Development (DFID) of the UK supported work in Bolivia, and New Zealand Aid supported Papa Andina’s regional program beginning in 2007. We are grateful to Helen Markelova and Ruth Meinzen-Dick from CAPRi and two anonymous reviewers for their perceptive comments, and to Sophie Higman for skilful editing. This work

References (20)

  • A. Agrawal

    Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources

    World Development

    (2001)
  • A. Hall et al.

    Why research partnerships really matter: innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor

    World Development

    (2001)
  • A. Barnett

    From “Research” to Poverty Reducing “Innovation”

    (2004)
  • Berdegué, J., 2001. Cooperating to Compete: Associative Peasant Business Firms in Chile. Thesis,...
  • T. Bernet et al.

    Participatory Market Chain Approach (PMCA) User Guide

    (2006)
  • CEPAL, 2004. Anuario estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe,...
  • Engel, P., Salomon, M., 2003. Facilitating Innovation for Development: A RAAKS Resource Box....
  • F. Hartwich et al.

    Public-private partnerships for agricultural innovation; concepts and experiences from 124 cases in Latin America

    International Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology

    (2007)
  • M. Koelen et al.

    Social learning: a construction of reality

  • Kruijssen, F., Keizer, M., Giuliani, A., 2007. Collective action for small-scale producers of agricultural biodiversity...
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (146)

  • Producer risk aversion and participation in agricultural cooperatives

    2022, Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management
  • Organisational attributes of cooperatives and farmer companies

    2021, Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management
  • Understanding inclusive innovation processes in agricultural systems: A middle-range conceptual model

    2021, World Development
    Citation Excerpt :

    These cognitive forms of social capital, combined with experiences of social learning, create the conditions for collective cognition to occur. Collective cognition refers to the process through which individuals with diverse initial viewpoints and perceptions of reality develop shared perspective, insights, and values, particularly in terms of their understanding of the current situation, challenges, and opportunities for change (Devaux et al. 2009). In processes of inclusive innovation, in which stakeholder groups are diverse and situated on different sides of occupational, cultural, language, and other boundaries, processes of collective cognition contribute to generating a consensus understanding of potential pathways for technical, organizational, and institutional change.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text