1

XX IFAMA Conference, Boston 2010

Agribusiness management research: following Goldbergs tradition?

Daniel Conforte Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract This paper explores the nature of agribusiness management research and its implications for the agribusiness profession. In the first section the concept of agribusiness is revisited. The second section provides a theoretical perspective into possible research paradigms in agribusiness management with special attention to the Agribusiness System approach. The next section presents a characterisation of 51 research articles published in the IFAMR in 1998 and 2007 in terms of disciplinary areas of research, value adding functions, methodology, and the journals cited in the reference lists, among others. The final section presents a discussion of findings with reference to Ray Goldbergs academic work and implications for agribusiness education.

The agribusiness concept revisited Reviewing the concept agribusiness may seem unnecessary or redundant after more than 50 years of its inception and also after twenty years since the foundation of the International Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA, now IFAMA). Yet, anecdotal evidence shows that the term means different things to different people. For the general public, agribusinesses resonates with big agriculture and food multinational corporations. The divergent understanding of the term holds true also within the IAMA community.

Some scholars use the term agribusiness when referring to processing and manufacturing companies in the agri-food chain. For others, agribusiness is the part of the economic system that takes care of getting food and fiber from the farm to the consumer. What is the significance of such a discrepancy inside the profession? The lack of agreement about what agribusiness is becomes worthy of consideration when looking for answers to questions like, What do scholars actually do in agribusiness? What research problems are considered relevant in the agribusiness management field? These definitional questions matter since paradigms can be considered language communities (Kuhn, 1962). Are we researching under any degree of paradigmatic coherence? Are we aiming to solve related problems?

The concept of Agribusiness The term Agribusiness was first used publicly in 1956 by John H. Davis in a paper presented at the Boston Conference on Distribution as the sum total of all operations involved in the production and distribution of food and fiber (Fusione, 1986;

2

Fusione, 1995). A few months later the concept Agribusiness was further refined by Davis and Goldberg (1957) as follows.

Agribusiness means the sum total of all operations involved in the manufacture and distribution of farm supplies; production operations on the farm; and the storage, processing, and distribution of farm commodities and items made from them. . thus agribusiness essentially encompasses today the functions which the term agriculture denoted 150 years ago

Davis and Goldberg (1957), in their book A Concept of Agribusiness, developed a framework to analyze and understand the multiple relationships between the many different sectors and businesses engaged in production and distribution of food and fiber products. The aim of that study, assigned to them by the Food Foundation, was

to better understand the mutually supporting relationships between agriculture and business and as possible, to improve fundamental economic relationships among all engaged in the production, distribution and use of such products.

In their early work, Davis and Goldberg used input-output matrix models to define the dimensions and magnitudes of the transactions between the different segments or sectors of the agribusiness system.

The Agribusiness Commodity System Goldberg (1974) expanded the concept of agribusiness introducing the notion of Agribusiness Commodity System to refer to all firms and institutions involved in the manufacture and distribution of farm supplies; production operations on the farm; and the storage, processing, and distribution of a given commodity and the items made from it.

In Goldbergs view, the Agribusiness Commodity System approach, while drawing from disciplines of macro and micro economics, agriculture economics, agriculture science, and management, aims to

.1) analyze the agribusiness environment; 2) set forth the structure and operations of a particular commodity system in the larger environment; and 3) relate the specific operations of a firm or institution to the total vertical commodity system and to the ultimate purpose of that system, namely, to provide food in an efficient, nutritionally acceptable, and socially desirable manner. (pp)

As suggested by Goldberg (1974, 1979), the overall mission of agribusiness as a profession is to

inform private and public policy and strategic decision making with the ultimate purpose of providing food in an efficient, nutritionally acceptable, and socially desirable manner.(pp)

Goldberg applied this systemic view of agribusiness to analyze the interrelated functions of all agents horizontally and vertically across and along the value chain. This approach helped him study firms and institutions in its commodity system and with reference to other commodity systems as well as to the national and global

3

environment. Under this approach he recognized that each agent, be it private or public, has two functions; one which refers to its specific operations, and the other to the manner in which each agent coordinates its function to the total commodity system of which it is part. (Shelman M.L., 1998)

Agribusiness management research paradigms Paradigms, as argued by Kuhn (1962), are the products of past scientific achievements that particular scientific communities acknowledge for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice. Paradigms, while providing shared language and frameworks for understanding the world, define the legitimate problems and methods of a research field. Are there any defining paradigms as research problems, frameworks, and methods - unique to agribusiness management research? What role, if any, does Goldbergs agribusiness system (AS) approach play?

The Coordination Problem Recognition of the coordination problem in agribusiness started when, due to technological advances and the industrial revolution during the 19th century, activities previously carried out on the farm were transferred to businesses outside the farm. Agriculture entered a long process of specialization and vertical disintegration. On-farm production functions and off-farm functions such as upstream agriculture inputs supply and downstream manufacturing and distribution were separated. Agribusiness is considered to be a product of the dispersion of functions historically performed on-farm. The separation of functions, the extreme fragmentation of agriculture, the specific and unique biological and seasonal nature of agriculture, its dependence on climate, ever changing consumer demands, regulations and technological innovations, all worked together to exacerbate the coordination problem. Davis and Goldberg, conscious of the changing nature of agriculture and of its increasing interdependence with what they at that time referred to as business argued about the need to develop a new discipline to address the need for improved coordination between agriculture and business to achieve a more balanced economy conducive to progress. In their view, there was a need for the art of getting diverse groups to work together and of research aimed at reconciling differences between groups or to workout policies drawing on the ideas of all interested groups as source material(pp).

The International Agribusiness Management Association In 1990, the International Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA) was founded by a group of academic, government and industry leaders. Its original mission was to stimulate strategic thinking across the full spectrum of the agribusiness system. It was aimed to serve as an effective worldwide networking organization, acting as a functional bridge between the agribusiness industry, researchers, educators, government, consumer groups and non-governmental organizations. IAMA was to play a role as a worldwide leadership forum bringing together top executives, academics, policy makers, students and stakeholders to network and stimulate strategic thinking across the global food, fiber, fuel, floral and forestry systems. Its overall goal was to make the global food and agribusiness sector more efficient, effective, responsive and sustainable. IAMA was to be dedicated to an efficient system that is sensitive to the needs of consumers, safe, environmentally responsive and has a high degree of business integrity.

4

IAMA changed its formal name to the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA) in 1996. Since then members have been using both names indifferently. Its current mission statement reads IAMA is an international management organization that brings together current and future business, academic, and government leaders along with other industry stakeholdersto improve the strategic focus, transparency, sustainability, and responsiveness of the global food and agribusiness system (IAMA website, 2009)

Agribusiness journals Agribusiness: An International Journal was the first journal associated with the IAMA community. In 1998 the journal defined a new editorial policy. The editorial committee stated that Davis and Goldbergs early intention was to advance economic analysis of the agriculture and food industry organization with special attention to issues of coordination, competition, and the relative merits of firms, markets and public policies in the operation of an industrialized food system (Cotterill R. 1998). The journal clearly defined its agribusiness economics focus with its explicit intention to

capture agribusiness economists in action in the real world of markets, courts of law, and policy arenas, and to advance the study of issues related to industrial organization, regulation and competition... (pp.353)

A new journal named The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review (IFAMR) was launched in 1998 as the official journal of IFAMA. In an opening article titled Food and Agribusiness Management Research: Advancing Theory and Practice, the first editorial team of the IFAMR cited Davis and Goldberg, but now stressing their view about an increasing need for a specialized set of management skills in the field of modern agriculture and its multiple relations to business. In including the term management, the new journal signaled its option for a managerial approach for research in agribusiness.

agribusiness management research would encompass all functional areas of business management such as financial analysis, human resource management, logistics management, information systems management, marketing management, organizational design and analysis, production and operations management, and strategic management.(pp)

The IFAMR editorial policy was to publish research dealing with relevant issues confronting the food system and to be application oriented. The aim was to advance the theory and practice of management in the food and agribusiness industry.

Goldbergs research agenda At the inaugural symposium of IAMA in 1991, Goldberg presented his views for a research and teaching agenda. For him, analysing and understanding how the emerging industry structures and institutions affected coordination in the agribusiness system was of paramount importance. His vision for a research agenda was based on both efficiency and ethical grounds. He was concerned not only about product profitability as a measure of efficiency, but also about asset management as a measure of sustainability and of the future performance of the global agribusiness system.

5

When we have looked at these new synergistic relationships horizontally and vertically, and... at the new breakthroughs of technology, we havent discussed who benefits from it, who is rewarded by it, and who shares in that change. How do we capture that return on investment necessary to refuel and restructure the system for the future? If we have to worry socially about those who are left out of the system, how do we do that in such a way that we dont mess up the market system in the process?.( pp.169)

Goldbergs professional focus was on performance, sustainability and equity of the agribusiness system with a special interest for consumers and farmers needs and concerns.

..no problem at any functional level of the value added food and fibre chain could be understood, evaluated, researched, or acted upon without looking at the total agribusiness system domestically and internationally. pp.67

Although the agribusiness system was his paradigmatic analytical approach, he recognised that without a multidisciplinary underpinning it wouldnt be possible to deal with an economic sector the size of the global food sector.

Supply chain management Increasing international trade, more stringent consumer demands on health issues and food safety, and the advancement of biotechnologies have advanced the need to develop efficient and responsive value chain management practices. Since the late 1990s several academic institutions have focused their research agendas in the discipline of supply chain and networks management in agribusiness. For example the Expertise Centre for Chain and Network Studies in Wageningen was established to develop a comprehensive theoretical framework to understand the key dimensions, and its interrelationships, of supply chain organization and management of perishable primary products. This centre has clearly stated paradigmatic research problems:

1. the problem of channel choice: how to reach the final customer in the most optimal way? 2. the problem of efficient consumer response: how to develop new products efficiently? 3. the problem of governance regime: how to reduce transaction costs and enhance cooperation and trust amongst supply chain partners? 4. the problem of quality performance: how to manage food technology processes in order to enhance quality levels and/or to exploit quality variability? 5. the problem of value added capturing and distribution: how to guarantee an acceptable remuneration to supply chain partners according to their contributions and efforts?

Competence and Governance In their very thoughtful and useful paper, Cook and Chaddad (2000) presented the various theoretical frameworks which have been used by agribusiness scholars over time to investigate problems at the different functional and structural levels of the agribusiness system. In reviewing the process of increasing agro-industrialization and evolution of agribusiness scholarly work, the authors argue that the governance

6

perspective and the competence perspective are the theoretical underpinnings of agribusiness management.

agribusiness evolved along two parallel levels of analysis: the study of coordination between vertical and horizontal participants within the food chain, known as agribusiness economics, and the study of decision-making within alternative food chain governance structures, known as agribusiness management. pp.209-210

Cook and Chaddad presented the paradigmatic evolution of agribusiness economics and research in terms of theories and the related managerial problems/purpose addressed. The following table is based on their ideas.

Theory/framework/approach Problem/Purpose Farm management Get enterprise mix and technical efficiencies Commodity Systems Approach Get commodity systems right Industrial Organisation Filieres and Subsector

Get market/subsector performance right

Transaction Cost Economics Get governance structures right Agency Theory Get contracts right Agrichain (Supply & Value Chain Management)

Get agri-chain performance right

Competitive Industry Analysis Get strategic positioning right RBT (resource based theory) Get strategy right Transaction Cost Theory, Agency Theory, and Contract Theory, New Institutional Economics

Get organisational design right

The table gives an idea of the theories, mostly developed in other academic disciplines, which agribusiness researchers have been drawing from. Cook and Chaddad argue that with the birth of agribusiness journals and the IAMA, the intra-firm work in agribusiness re-emerged with a focus on strategy and governance, or, as they say, getting strategy and organisational design right.

The theories and frameworks presented in the table, with the exception of Farm Management and Commodity System Analysis, are hardly unique to agribusiness management research. The governance perspective and the competence perspective, although considered the underpinning of agribusiness management research, may also well be the theoretical underpinnings of management in any other field or industry. Regardless of the usefulness of these frameworks, the unique nature of agribusiness management research can hardly be established on the basis of enabling disciplines, or theoretical frameworks, which are not unique to the field. Therefore, the question remains: What is the central phenomenon of study in agribusiness management research we agree on?

What are the set of problems and questions that define what makes research in agribusiness management unique and different from, for example, research in the generic field of management? Management research has a core phenomenon of study which is the organisation and its inner workings. It would be very unlikely to review an academic management journal without finding research work about the

7

organisation since the study of the organisation is the raison detre of this field (Conforte & Stablein, 2007). What is the raison detre of agribusiness management?

The uniqueness of agribusiness management Why is agribusiness management unique and why does it require specific study programmes? This question has been put forward by university principals, deans and administrators. Exploring what makes agribusiness management unique may shed light on its paradigmatic research problems. Sonka and Hudson (1989) argued that the uniqueness of agribusiness was grounded on.

1) the unique cultural, institutional, and political aspects of food, domestically and internationally; 2) the uncertainty arising from the underlying biological basis of crops and livestock production; 3) the alternative goals and forms of political intervention across subsectors and among nations in an increasingly global industry; 4) the institutional framework leading to significant portions of the technology development process being performed in the public sector; and 5) the variety of competitive structures existing within and among the subsectors of the food and agribusiness sector.

Sonka & Hudson, willingly or not, made a strong case for the need for contextual research in agribusiness. What makes this profession different is the uniqueness of its context; the complexity, diversity and dynamism of its natural, geographic, biological and institutional context. Scholars from the learning and knowledge management sciences have been increasingly arguing in favor of the use of case studies to produce the type of context dependent knowledge required for people to become experts in the fields related to human affairs. Such context dependent knowledge lies at the centre of case studies as a method of research and learning, (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

If the Sonka & Hudson characteristics really make agribusiness unique one would expect them to be reflected in agribusiness research. To what extend has agribusiness research considered Sonka and Hudsons context dependence?

A review of IFAMR articles

Fifty one articles published in the IFAMR in 1998 and 2007 were reviewed. All the articles were entirely read and then coded by the author. The method of coding was based on Scandura & Williams (2000). The categories and subcategories used for coding each article are the following

Substantive area of research Changing business environment Strategy Organisation Management: innovation/new product development, supply chain management, human resource management, quality management; Marketing: consumer/customer behaviour, marketing strategy, marketing tactics, market research, price discovery; Economic Organisation: industrial organisation: vertical coordination, institutional economics,

8

Economics: price analysis; International Trade Finance; Technology/operations; Cooperatives; Risk management Research and teaching methods;

Level of Primary dependent variable Individuals inside organisation, consumer, firm, supply chain, industry, public, country

Commodity System Grains, oilseeds, meat (beef, poultry, pork, sheep, other), dairy, fruits, veggies, bio-fuels, fibre, food, other.

Geographic scope of research Local, regional, national, multinational, global.

Research Strategy Literature Review, Sample survey, Laboratory experiment, Experiment simulation, Field study primary data (focus group, interview, case study), Field study secondary data, Field experiments, Judgment task, Computer simulation, Modelling

Time frame Cross sectional, Longitudinal.

Type of dependent variable Perceptual, Attitudinal, Behavioural, or Tangible outcomes (prices, volumes, performance)

Number of sources of data Single, multiple

Occupation of subjects Consumers, academics, government, farmers, managers, mixed, subject is company

Journals or journals disciplines cited Strategy: Strategic Management Journal, other; Management: Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Product Innovation management; other managerial; Agribusiness: IFAMR, Agribusiness; Agricultural Economics: American Journal of Agriculture Economics, other Ag-Econ journals; Economics; Finance; Supply Chain;

9

Industrial Organisation; Development

Managerial Implication Direct explicit, Direct implicit, Indirect explicit, Indirect implicit, Unclear.

Use of Agribusiness Commodity System analysis approach Advancement, Explicit application, Implicit application, Unclear application.

The most difficult category to code was the substantive area of research. The criteria used to classify each article was a combination of the terminology used by the author/s of the articles, the nature of the research problem, the aim of the study, the theories applied, and the literature cited. Some articles were easier to code than others. Some articles were coded as pertaining to more than one category. To achieve the best possible degree of validity and reliability, the most dubious articles were coded one day and then reviewed and coded again a few days later. The list of items in this category was changing as some articles did not fit the original list.

The criteria used to code managerial implications was whether the article provided information or understanding of the market or environment, or if it offered knowledge about how and why to manage a business in a given context. An example of the first type of articles would be articles about consumer perception or willingness to pay. Example of the second type would be articles looking at alternative forms of supply chain coordination depending on type of product/market.

Another difficult category to code was if articles were making use or not of the agribusiness system approach. The criteria used was to look at the degree of contextual complexity of the research problem and the degree of systemic perspective of the methodology based on Goldbergs definition of the AS approach.

The author recognises the limitations of the present work. The criteria to code the articles may be highly contentious. The process of coding could also be improved to make it more reliable. A review of only two years of publishing does not allow the making of any final conclusions about the nature of 20 years of research by the IAMA academic community. Only partial conclusions and hypothesis are presented here. Further effort is required to ensure a higher degree of validity and reliability. Future work may improve the degree of validity by having the articles coded by more than one researcher. The criteria for coding may be submitted to the opinion of a sample of experts in agribusiness management. The coding process may be repeated after a time interval to test for consistency and improve reliability. In spite of these limitations, the reader familiar with the tradition and thematic evolution of the research in the IAMA community may be able to judge the validity and reliability of this work; or at least judge if it looks fair enough.

Analysis and findings

A simple frequency analysis was conducted for each category and subcategory (see tables in Appendix). Although no formal cross section analysis has been done, some observations are presented.

10

Areas of research The most frequently coded area of study was marketing with 30% of the articles in 1998 and 42% in 2007. Inside the marketing area, issues of consumer/buyer behaviour topped the list followed by marketing strategy. Research questions of vertical coordination, consumer preferences, and price discovery were dominant. Inquiry in coordination issues, resulting from the sum of articles coded as supply chain management and as vertical coordination were investigated in 20% of the articles in 1998 and in 19% in 2007. Supply chain management was up from 8% to 13% and economics of vertical coordination down from 12% to 6% during the period. Issues related to economics/price analysis were observed in 22% of the articles in 1998 and in 8% in 2007. Organisation management increased from 11% in 1998 to 22% in 2007; and economic organisation decreased from 15% to 6%. Inside the marketing category, work related to consumer behaviour (mostly food perception) went up from 6% to 19% whereas price discovery/willingness to pay went down from 11% to 5%. Very little work was observed in the fields of strategy and changing business environment. No studies were identified related to finance, marketing tactics, human resources, industrial organisation, cooperatives, and risk management.

Level of dependent variable The purpose of this category was to identify which agents performance in the agribusiness system was it that the research was aiming to understand, for example the manager, the firm, or otherwise. The dependent variables most frequently studied were at the firm and the supply chain level. In 1998 43% of the articles looked at the level of the firm, 21% at the supply chain level, 18% at the industry level, and 15% at the consumer level. In 2007, although the proportions were similar, work at the firm level was down to 30%, and individuals inside organisation up from 3% to 13%. An interesting development was the shift in the type of metrics used to measure these variables, with a decrease during the period in tangible metrics and an increase in perceptual/attitudinal/behavioural measures. This may be an indication of a shift from a focus on economics to management research issues. This finding is aligned with observations about data sources and data collection methods.

Methodology From a methodological point of view, an increase in studies based on primary data was observed, up from 30% to 60%. The use of primary data went up from 13% to 30% with an increase in the use of interviews and of sample survey. In reference to the use of case study methodologies, no application of this method was identified in 1998; three articles used this method in 2007. Judgment and modelling techniques decreased significantly.

When looking at the occupation of respondents, there was a clear increase in the number of managers/farmers used as sources of data; 50% in 2007 compared to 10% in 1998. Although not clear, this may be an indication of an increase in the interest for issues of managerial concern. The sharp reduction in the N/A (not apply) item in the occupation category during the period may indicate that in 1998 more data was sourced from secondary sources than in 2007. These findings are also consistent with changes in data collection methods which showed an increase in the use of surveys and interviews. When considering the time frame, it is interesting to note the lack of longitudinal studies, which may be an indication that very little process research has been done.

11

Functional areas When looking at the type of economic functions or activities, most studies at the firm level looked at commodity processing and trading, and at inputs supply activities. In studies of supply chain/vertical coordination the focus shifted from the primary producer-commodity processor to interfaces including retailers in 2007. The most studied commodities were meats, grains and dairy; although 25% of the studies investigated food in general. When looking at the geographic scope of the studies, most were conducted at a national level, with an increasing number (25%) at a multinational level in 2007.

Journals cited One of the most useful and interesting criteria of coding was the journals cited in the reference lists. When analysing the reference lists, the journals were coded as of first, of second or of third order of importance depending on its frequency or predominance in the reference list of each article. A predominance of agricultural economics journals as primary sources was observed (25%), which was twice as much as agribusiness journals (12%). Another interesting finding was the almost nonexistent referencing to work published in top management journals such as the Academy of Management Journal and the Academy of Management Review. This finding may be evidence that agribusiness management researchers have been more interested in management problems of an inter-organisational nature at the industry and supply chain level than at the intra-organisational level. Another interesting observation was that the Strategic Management Journal, arguably the most influential source of literature for scholars in the strategy field, was not used as a source of references at all in 1998 and only used in one article in 2008. This may be an indication that scholars in agribusiness, although interested in competence issues may be more interested in competitive positioning and economics of strategy instead of the strategy crafting aspects of competence. This finding is interesting when considering that IAMAs ongoing purpose has been the stimulating of strategic thinking. It may be argued that almost any information coming from a firms environment may be of managerial or of strategic interest, but the finding that these two top management journals have been of no use indicates a need for a deeper discussion about what management and strategy means for the agribusiness profession.

The agribusiness system (AS) The analysis of the category application of the agribusiness system analysis showed little evidence of implicit, and much less of explicit, reference to Goldbergs AS approach. In 1998, out of 26 articles only two made explicit reference; five seemed to make some degree of application of the framework, and 18 no application. In 2007, out of 25 articles, no explicit reference to the AS analysis approach was identified; 18 made no application of the AS and seven seemed to have made some application. This evidence could mean two things; that the AS has been abandoned as a profitable research framework, or that it has been institutionalised to such a degree that no explicit referencing is needed anymore.

HBS agribusiness case studies An interesting observation was the void of references to Harvard Business School agribusiness case studies and almost an insignificant reference to Ray Goldbergs work. Why is it that the work of one of the founding fathers of the profession,

12

arguably one of the most influential academic agribusiness strategic thinkers and prolific agribusiness case studies researcher and writer, is not cited in the academic agribusiness management literature? Although Goldbergs case studies were mostly teaching case studies and not research case studies, the contextual knowledge captured in his work has not been considered and referenced in the literature.

Implications for agribusiness and education.

What is then the nature of agribusiness management research? Evidently, any answer based on a review of only two years of work will not provide a definitive answer; if any definitive answer to such a question is at all possible. If we were to judge only by the work published in 1998 and 2007, one must say that, in general terms, agribusiness management research is a multidisciplinary and diverse body of work, with some degree of focus on problems of consumer behaviour, supply chain management and coordination in a variety of commodity systems and industries. A body of work which has been drawing from several disciplines, most recently mainly from marketing, industry analysis, organisation economics, and institutional economics.

Is the Agribusiness System approach as advanced by Goldberg still a paradigmatic framework? If we were to answer this question based on the frequency that this approach has been explicitly cited or referenced, then the answer is clearly no. If we were to answer it based on how many studies have been looking at getting the commodity system right, the answer would still be no since there were no such studies at all among the articles reviewed. But if we understand that Goldbergs AS aim is not simply to get the commodity system right but to provide an overall frame of reference and purpose to agribusiness management research, then the answer should be yes. Goldbergs AS is a useful framework to study complex problems, but most importantly it provides an overall purpose and meaning to the agribusiness profession. Without this framework it is very difficult to tell how the diverse academic work in agribusiness fits together.

Do we have a defining paradigm as a profession? The answer to this question very much depends on what we think that our work is useful for; or where we stand as a profession. If we see ourselves as a collection of scholars, each focused on its academic discipline, then we may have as many paradigms as disciplines underpinning our work. But if we define ourselves as a profession motivated with the overall purpose of the wellbeing of the global food and agribusiness system, then the AS approach brings us all, regardless of our disciplines, under one paradigmatic umbrella, to provide food (and other agriculture based products) in an efficient, nutritionally acceptable, and socially desirable manner.

Those who appreciate good case studies understand the amount of research and sophistication required to produce one. The rigorous case writer, aware of the multiple problems and disciplines that underpin the agribusiness profession, explores and organises every piece of potentially relevant evidence which may be required later on by the experts in such disciplines to address their problems of interest; each one with its own frameworks and tools. Preparing a good case study for discussion is in itself a major piece of research, a research process that continues later on when it is discussed over and over again. But it is a different kind of research which produces a different

13

kind of knowledge (Snowden, 2002; Gherardi, 2000). It has been argued that an academic discipline, or profession, without a body of thoroughly produced case studies is one without exemplars, and a profession without exemplars is an ineffective one (Kuhn 1987; Flyvbjerg 2006). The collection of agribusiness case studies produced by Goldberg and his disciples embody the uniqueness of agribusiness and represent what agribusiness management is.

REFERENCES

Beierlein J. G., Baker G. A. and Starbird S. A., (1998), Food and Agribusiness Management Research: Advancing the Theory and Practice, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 1(1): 1-3 JAI Press Inc.

Cnforte D., Stablein R., (2008), A review of articles published in the International Food and Agribusiness Management Review in 1998 and 2007, IFAMA Symposium, Monterrey, USA.

Cook, M.L. and Chaddad, F.R., (2000), Agroindustrialization of the Global Agrifood Economy: Bridging Development Economics and Agribusiness Research, Agricultural Economics, 23(3): 1-12.

Cotterill Ronald W, (1998), Agribusiness is Changing, Agribusiness, 14 (5) 352, John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Davis J.H & Goldberg R.A (1957), A Concept of Agribusiness, Harvard University,

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). "Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research." Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245

Fusione, A.E. (1986 ). John H. Davis: His Contribution to Agricultural Education and Productivity. Agricultural History, 60(2), pp. 97-110

Fusione, A.E. (1995 ). John H. Davis: Architect of the Agribusiness Concept Revisited, Agricultural History, 69 (2), pp. 326-348

Gherardi, S. (2000). "Practice-based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in Organizations." Organization 7(2): 211.

Goldberg R.A. (1974) Agribusiness Management for Developing Countries Latin America, Balinger Publishing Company,

Goldberg R.A., McGinity R.C (1979) Agribusiness management for Developing Countries Southeast Asian Corn System and American and Japanese Trends Affecting It, Balinger Publishing Company

Goldgerg R.A. (1991) Why the International Agribusiness Management Association. IAMA . Inagural Symposium. Retrieved the 11 of December from www.ifama.org

14

Goldgerg R.A. (1991), Where do we go from here? Developing new perspectives. IAMA . Inagural Symposium. Retrieved the 11 of December from www.ifama.org

International agri-food chains and networks: management and organization, (2006), book, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands

Kuhn T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, 3rd. ed.

Kuhn, T.S. (1987). What are scientific revolutions? In L.Kruger, L.J. Daston, & M. Heidelberg (Eds), The probabilistic revolution, Vol. 1: Ideas in history (pp. 7-22). Ca,mbridge, MA: MIT Press.

Scandura, T. A. and E. A. Williams (2000). "Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research." Academy Of Management Journal 43(6): 1248-1264.

Shelman M.L. (1998), The Business of Agribusiness, HBS Publishing Division, N9-589-003

Snowden, D. (2002), Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness, Journal of Knowledge Management 6(2). 100-111

Sonka, S. T., & Hudson, M.A. (1989),Why Agribusiness Anyway? Agribusiness: An International Journal.

15

Appendix

Table 1. Substantive area of research IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 % % % % Changing business environment 9 5 Strategy 6 8 Organisation Management 11 22 innovation/new product development 3

3

supply chain management (**) 8

13

human resource management 0

3

quality management 0

3

Marketing 30 42* consumer/customer behaviour 6

19

marketing strategy 6

8

marketing tactics 0

0

market research 5

3

price discovery/will to pay 11

5

Economic Organisation 15 6 industrial organisation 3

vertical coordination (**) 12

6

institutional economics 0

0

Economics/price analysis 22 8 International Trade 3 6 Finance 0 3 Technology/operations 2 0 Cooperatives 0 0 Research and teaching methods 2 0 Risk management 0 0 100 100 (*) when sub categories do not add up with category is because some articles were coded directly with the code of the category (**) supply chain management and vertical coordination were distinguished mostly on the basis of the conceptual frameworks and literature referenced. Articles mostly referencing organisational economics theories and focused on governance were coded ad vertical coordination.

Table 2a. Level of Primary Dependent Variable IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 % % Individual in organisation 3 13 Consumer 15 18 Firm (see table 2b) 43 30 Supply Chain (see table 2c) 21 20 Industry 18 13 Public 0 3 Country 0 3 100 100

16

Table 2b. Firm level coding based on activity IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles Input R&D 0 0 Input/equipment supply 2 2 Primary production 1 1 Primary logistics 0 0 Commodity processing 3 2 Commodity trading 1 2 Manufacturing ingredients 0 0 Manufacturing consumer products

2 1

Wholesale/distribution/retail 1 0 TOTAL 10 8

(*) figures indicate how many articles were coded with the the corresponding subcategory

Table 2c. Supply Chain level coding based on activities. IFAMR 1998 IFAMR

2007 times coded in

26 articles times

coded in 25 articles

R&D input supply 1 0 Input primary production 0 0 Primary producer commod. processing 3 2 Input-primary prod.-spec. ingr. processing 0 0 Input primary manuf. consumer products 0 0 Primary - manufacturing 0 0 Input primary manufacture - retail 0 1 Primary - retail 0 1 Manufacture - retail 0 1

TOTAL 4 5

Table 3. Commodity System IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles grains 2 2 oilseeds 1 0 meats (general) 2

beef 1 2 pork 1 2

poultry 0 0 sheep 0 0

dairy 1 2 fruits 3 1 veggies 1 0 bio-fuels 0 0 fibres 0 2 food 6 5 other 4 1

TOTAL 20 19

17

Table 4. Geographic scope of research IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles local 3 3 regional 5 2 national 11 13 multinational 3 6 global 0 1 NA 3 0 TOTAL 25 25

Table 5. Research Strategy IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles Formal theory/Lit Review 1 0 Sample survey 5 11 Laboratory experiment 0 0 Experiment simulation 0 0 Field study primary data 4 11

focus group 0 1 interview 4 7

case study 0 3 Field study secondary data 7 7 Field experiment 0 1 Judgment Task 6 1 Computer simulation 0 0 Modelling (econometric) 6 0

TOTAL 29 31 Note: The total sum is bigger than the articles because some articles were coded with more than one research strategy

Table 6. Time frame IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles Cross sectional 9 14 Longitudinal 0 0 Statistics series analysis 5 4 NA 11 6 TOTAL 25 24

Table 7. Type of dependent variable IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles Perceptual outcomes 1 8 Attitudinal outcomes 1 4 Behavioural outcomes 9 4 Tangible outcomes 11 5 Prices, quantities 7 5 Performance measure 4 0 NA 4 4

TOTAL 26 25

18

Table 8. Number of sources of data IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles single 17 12 multiple 3 11 NA 6 2

TOTAL 26 25

Table 9. Occupation of respondents. IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles

consumers 4 6 academics 1 0

government 0 0 farmers 1 4

management 2 8 mixed 0 1

companies 3 4 NA 15 2

TOTAL 26 25

Table 10. Journals in reference list IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 1st 2nd 3rd Total 1st 2nd 3rd Total Strategy 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Str.Man.Journal. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Management 4 2 1 7 4 3 2 9 AOMR 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 AOMJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

other 4 2 1 7 4 2 1 7 Marketing 1 1 2 3 1 4 J Intern B Stud. 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 J Prod. Inn. M 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Agribusiness. 3 2 2 7 3 2 1 6

IFAMR 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 Agrib: Int.Journal 3 2 2 7 2 1 1 4

Supply Ch Mgm. 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 Agric Econ 9 5 14 6 5 1 12

AJAE 5 2 0 7 5 0 0 5 other 4 3 0 7 1 5 1 7

Economics 2 2 2 6 2 2 1 5 Finance 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ind. Organisation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Development. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Food Sc. & Tech 2 2 0 4 2 1 0 3 Cooperatives. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Miscellaneous. 2 2

TOTAL 23 15 5 43 24 16 7 47

Note: 1st = most referenced source in article; 2nd = second most referenced source; 3rd = source with a maximum of one or two references

19

Table 11. Managerial Implications IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles Direct 8 9 explicit 7 9 implicit 1 0 Indirect 17 13 explicit 8 10 implicit 9 3 Unclear 1 3

TOTAL 26 25

Table 12. Application of Agribusiness System analysis approach. IFAMR 1998 IFAMR 2007 times coded in 26 articles times coded in 25 articles Advancement 1 0 Explicit application 2 0 Implicit application 5 7 Unclear application 18 18

TOTAL 26 25