Reflexive Accumulation and Global Restructuring: Retailers and Cultural Processes in the Australian Poultry Industry

Rural Sociology 64(2), 1999, pp . 320-333

Copyright 1999 by the Rural Sociological Society

Reflexive Accumulation and Global Restructuring:Retailers and Cultural Processes in the AustralianPoultry Industry'

Jane DixonDepartment of Social Science and Social Work, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT Chicken consumption in Australia resembles that in the U .S .,but a comparison of the restructuring of poultry production in both coun-tries shows some significant differences . This finding raises the questionof what lies behind the emergence of similar consumption norms whenconsumption is often explained in terms of production regimes . The arti-cle explores the success of Australian producers in rejecting global freetrade pressures while acquiescing to supply chain arrangements intro-duced by supermarkets . It describes how Australian producers have bene-fitted from two cultural phenomena: the arrival of Kentucky FriedChicken and a dietary low fat regimen . It argues that an internationalizedfood service sector-including supermarket and fast-food chains-andwestern dietary advice are responsible for chicken's popularity in Aus-tralia. The theory of reflexive accumulation is used to explain the powerof retailers and cultural producers in a food system increasingly domi-nated by "high value foods ." Further, reflexive accumulation can help toexplain both the present restructuring of the Australian poultry complexand the unevenness of agri-food restructuring in general.

Introduction

Australia has long been a nation of red-meat eaters . Prior to theSecond World War, per capita consumption stood at 118 .5 kgs . perannum, approximately two-thirds of which was beef with sheepmeat constituting the remainder. The only chicken was from back-yard egg producers, and it was eaten rarely. Red-meat consumptionpeaked in the mid-1970s, with poultry overtaking sheep consump-tion in 1978. Since then, poultry consumption has continued tooutpace sheep and currently constitutes 28 percent of Australianper capita meat consumption 2 (ABS various years) . Now, citing therise in consumption over the last thirty years and the small numberof chicken growers and processors, the Australian poultry industryclaims to be the country's most successful agri-food industry (Aus-tralian Chicken Meat Federation n .d.).

Australia's per capita chicken consumption is predicted to overtakebeef by 2013, a milestone reached in the U .S. in 1990 (Boyd andWatts 1997) . This trend is shared with other industrialized nations,and worldwide chicken will outsell beef by 2000 (Instate 1997) . TheDutch Rabobank concluded its global assessment of poultry by stating

1 I would like to thank Jasper Goss, Geoff Lawrence, David Burch, and two anony-mous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts.

2 Data excludes bacon, ham and canned meats .

Australian Poultry Industry - Dixon

321

that "Worldwide demand for poultry products has increased substan-tially in both developed and developing countries at the expense ofbeef and pork consumption . The price, value and religious accept-ability have been favourable for demand" (Rabobank 1993 :21).

Within rural sociology, changes in food consumption, such as theshift from red to white meat, have been explained through politi-cal economy approaches . In the most recent shift, restructuring hasbeen attributed to what are called flexible accumulation strate-gies-capital accumulation based on flexible labor markets, flexi-ble specialization by firms, and the creation of niche markets basedon product differentiation . Global restructuring of commoditycomplexes is occurring through a transition from one productionregime to another : namely, from the Fordist (mass production) tothe post-Fordist (flexible specialization and accumulation) regime(Lawrence and Vanclay 1994) . Such restructuring of production isbelieved to pervade commodity system restructuring and evenshape the norms of consumption (Friedmann 1990).

The Fordist/post-Fordist model has been used to good effect todescribe the U .S. broiler complex (see Boyd and Watts 1997 ; Kimand Curry 1993) . Kim and Curry and Boyd and Watts portray thatcomplex as based on mass production but tending to flexible spe-cialization, located in regions of low cost labor, and tending to oli-gopolistic control . The authors contend that the sheer success andsize of the U .S. industry makes it a model for others . Similarly, Con-stance and Heffernan (1991) allege that broiler production is be-coming an international complex based on the export of U .S . tech-nology and vertical integration systems . Their arguments sitcomfortably within more general studies of the globalization ofagriculture, where consumption is treated as a by-product of the ac-tions of global producers engaged in flexible accumulation, result-ing, in effect, in flexible consumption (Bonnano et al . 1994 :11).

Nevertheless, these arguments are limited in their ability to pro-vide a comprehensive explanation for the restructuring of region-ally specific poultry complexes, particularly so in the Australiancase. This article argues that changes within Australia's poultrycommodity complex require a more nuanced explanation because,while consumption norms conform to the global pattern, the pro-duction side of the complex is unlike other meat commodity com-plexes both in Australia and the U .S. In short, while mass produc-tion and oligopoly are present in Australia, flexible specializationand low cost labor are absent. Moreover Australian producers arewithstanding government pressures to lower labor costs and are re-pudiating the global trade in chicken products . While Boyd andWatts (1997) make it clear that in the U .S. broiler producers dictateproduct differentiation, supermarkets and fast food chains play thatrole in Australia .

322

Rural Sociology, Vol. 64, No . 2, June 1999

Thus the transition-in-production regimes argument used to ex-plain restructuring of the U .S. broiler industry is not sufficient inthe Australian context . The concept of reflexive accumulation, asdescribed by Lash and Urry (1994), is adopted instead to explainthe persistence of Fordist production regimes alongside the re-structuring of the consumption end of the complex . The reflexiveaccumulation perspective emphasizes a circular, rather than a lin-ear, relationship between production and consumption and ac-knowledges cultural as well as commodity producers . The globaltransfer of symbols and values, such as good health and conve-nience, influence chicken consumption as much as transfers oftechnologies, capital, and labor. This argument finds support in theemerging sociology of consumption, in which consumption is notreduced to production (Edgell et al . 1996 ; Fine and Leopold 1993;Miller 1995 ; Warde 1997).

This paper describes the contours of the Australian poultry com-modity complex and outlines the producers' resistance to policyshifts that have followed from global free trade pressures . However,the producers are increasingly captive to direct sourcing contractsoffered by supermarkets . Thus, the paper emphasizes the signifi-cance of social actors beyond the producers, feed suppliers, andregulatory bodies. It draws particular attention to the activities ofsupermarkets and fast food chains in influencing the productionsector and changing food consumption norms.

Flexible or reflexive accumulation in `high value foods'

A distinction has been made recently between traditional exportcommodities and high value foods (Friedland 1994 ; Watts andGoodman 1997) . The latter are generally identified as fresh ratherthan durable commodities: fruits and vegetables, poultry, shell fish,and dairy products . Watts and Goodman describe what they call thepost-Fordist attributes of high value foods (HVFs), including het-erogeneity, "quality," and location in market niches . They argue thatthese features "place considerable weight on the point of consump-tion insofar as HVFs have to be culturally constituted for particularsorts of taste, diet, and `vanity"' (Watts and Goodman 1997 :11).

This particular line of reasoning is illustrated by Boyd and Watts(1997) in their sustained treatment of the extent to which flexibleaccumulation strategies have penetrated the U .S. broiler industry,particularly through the adoption of flexible specialization and just-in-time processes . They argue that no "other agricultural commod-ity or agro-industry can match the capacity of the firms in thebroiler industry who adjust production and develop new productswith astonishing speed and flexibility . . . " (Boyd and Watts1997:215) . Although Boyd and Watts describe the U .S . broiler in-dustry as being a leader in flexible, just-in-time routines, they note


323

"the endemic problem of over production" due to unfettered in-tensification or Fordist production (Boyd and Watts 1997:215).They also suggest that further penetration of flexible specializationis contingent upon bird biology and on culinary and health relatedquestions of meat quality.

Kim and Curry (1993) similarly document the history of the U .S.broiler industry within the context of economic restructuring moregenerally. They describe the interrelationship of changing labormarkets, differentiated consumption norms and the associated roleof the broiler industry . However, they are more circumspect thanBoyd and Watts about labeling the U .S. broiler production systempost Fordist, noting instead that product differentiation is "as muchthe marketing techniques, such as store design and advertising, thatcreate the variety, as it is the actual ingredients of the food" (Kimand Curry 1993:75).

Instead of flexible accumulation, Lash and Urry's (1994) conceptof reflexive accumulation appears more relevant to the restructuringtaking place in the Australian poultry complex . They describe re-flexive accumulation as profit making based upon the systemic feed-back of information and the aestheticization of products . These con-siderations permeate all contemporary production systems,including Fordist, and are not simply employed to create niche mar-kets-the defining basis of flexible accumulation . Within reflexiveaccumulation, moreover, consumers are viewed as actors in their ownright through, for example, questioning production sphere activities.Reflexive accumulation acknowledges that consumers are increas-ingly subject to information about foods and are suspicious of foodproducers. Consumers reflect on foods' functions and foods' rela-tionships to themselves. In short, they take foods' availability forgranted, but not its meanings or worth . This reverses the longstand-ing food ontology for older, industrialized communities . As Giddensand others point out, diet is "a particularly pertinent example of theprocess of reflexivity" (Quoted in Nettleton 1997:218).

Reflexively infused commodity complexes are flexible in one im-portant sense: the presence of dynamic and flexible consumptionnorms, with consumers, for example, embracing both healthy andfast, convenient foods. In the case of Australian chicken consump-tion, these norms result from product differentiation and an abun-dance of culinary and dietary advice, not flexible specialization . Ac-quiring a multi-faceted taste for chicken has been made easy by thevariety of retail sources : supermarkets, specialty poulterers, old-fash-ioned butchers, and fast food outlets, especially the family-pro-moted KFC chain. Chicken acquires another layer of value by beingdepicted as a healthy food in the majority of "diet pyramids" andother food selection guides used by nutritionists . Changing atti-tudes toward nutrition and diet, and convenience, have been cred-

324

Rural Sociology, Vol. 64, No. 2, June 1999

ited with underpinning the rise of so-called "star" foods, includingpoultry, in the United Kingdom since 1980 (Ritson and Hutchins1996:62).

Australian poultry production

At first glance the production side of the poultry complex in Aus-tralia resembles that existing in other developed market economies:contract labor, vertical integration, high-and increasing-levels ofprocessor concentration, and World Trade Organization pressuresfueling demands for the industry to liberalize (Dixon and Burgess1998) . There are approximately ninety processors, all of which areAustralian owned private companies . The industry describes itself asthree tiered, with Inghams and Steggles-the "Big Two"-dominat-ing, about a dozen medium-sized processors, and the remainderclassed as small producers . The large processors produce the majorinputs, including feed and chicken stock, have their own chickenrearing operations, and in one case are engaged in manufacturingveterinary pharmaceuticals . For the past few years the second tierhas become reliant on imported avian stock and protein meal.

At the bird-rearing stage there are some 800 contract growers(generally self-employed family businesses), and, in some states,dedicated rearing operations owned by the processors. The num-ber of processors and farmers has remained fairly constant over thelast decade, and despite new technology there have been small in-creases in the number of processing workers . However chicken pro-duction remains a relatively small agricultural employer, directly ac-counting for 17,000 jobs, or fewer than five percent of theagricultural workforce (NFF 1995 :28).

The most recent industry concentration figures show that the fourlargest processors account for 77 percent of production (ABS 1993).Other figures suggest that the "Big Two" provide up to 90 percent ofmeat in one state, and never below half of any state's production(Dixon and Burgess 1998) . Concentration has intensified due to thedeparture of a number of multinational feed and food companiesduring the 1970s and 1980s, a move arguably hastened by a govern-ment decision in 1985 to monitor competition between processors.

While foreign capital involvement is negligible, three vital inputsare imported: genetic avian stock, protein meal, and processing lineequipment . In this sense Bonnano et al .'s (1994) description of foodssuch as chicken being assembled locally from widely sourced compo-nents, like automobiles, is appropriate . Whether this feature is suffi-cient to support the claim that broiler or chicken complexes are glob-alized continues to be debated (Bonnano et al . 1994 ; Friedland 1994).

There are three features of Australian production that are notshared by other poultry producing countries : a (bird) disease free en-vironment (AQIS 1994) ; a negligible, and decreasing, level of exports


325

(notable for the world's seventeenth largest producer) ; and, a dis-tinctive regulatory environment. Unlike the situation in the UnitedStates and many European Union nations, the industry has never at-tracted government subsidies for feed or export enhancement . How-ever, the Commonwealth (federal) and state governments play a crit-ical role in relation to imports and grower incomes, and it is in theseareas that much restructuring is being played out . This paper outlinesthese struggles, and questions whether their significance to the na-tional industry matches the growing influence of supermarkets.

The poultry complex and the push for free trade

Numerous agri-food sectors in Australia have been exposed to theforces of globalization and free trade in recent years . Importedpork, canned and frozen fruits and vegetables, fruit juices and otherproducts have all become widely available, often to the detriment oflocal growers and processing companies. However, Australian poul-try producers have so far resisted these pressures and have managedto maintain a degree of protection in their home market . However,as will be seen later, this has not insulated the industry from signifi-cant restructuring; instead, it has meant that this restructuring hasbeen driven by the demands of the domestic retail sector, which hasresulted in extensive transformation.

McMichael (1996) has outlined three responses from rural pro-ducer communities to global economic pressures : develop nichemarkets on the basis of flexible production systems; do nothingand be made redundant through relocation of the activity ; or, pro-vide a lower cost labor force for global firms . The Australianchicken meat producers are responding, instead, by attempting toresist globalization . Two policy developments support this con-tention. The first relates to the fight to relax Australia's quarantinelaws and permit the importation of cooked chicken meat . Briefly,in 1989 after a forty-year ban, the government agreed withmedium-sized processors wishing to guarantee their access to day-old birds that the industry be permitted to import avian meat . Re-quests from the United States, Thailand, and Denmark to exportchicken meat immediately followed . After six years of receivingsubmissions in support of imports from these countries, and froman unnamed fast-food company, the Australian Quarantine Inspec-tion Service (AQIS) recommended a lifting of the ban on im-ported meat (AQIS 1994) . Growers and processors were united intheir opposition, emphasizing loss of employment and the risks tobird health: a viewpoint strongly communicated to consumers(ACCC 1997).

In response, government bureaucrats repeatedly raised Aus-tralia's obligations to the World Trade Organization and arguedthat the industry could not use phytosanitary measures to impede

326


trade. It thus came as something of a surprise when the ruling con-servative government announced in November 1997 that it wouldpermit the importation of chicken meat, but cooked at such hightemperatures as to make it only fit for pet food . The applicantsseeking greater levels of imports complained publicly, as did theAustralian dairy, beef, and pork industries, which feared that theiraccess to overseas markets would be curtailed in retaliation (Burton1997; McKenzie 1997 ; Taylor 1997).

The second policy shift involves the Australian government's mi-cro-economic reform agenda and an oversight instrument, the Na-tional Competition Policy (NCP) . Under NCP all state governmentlegislation that offers state protection to any group is subject to re-view: a highly contentious development for the poultry complex.Since the 1970s, following protracted strikes by contract growers, allstates, except one, introduced legislation to regulate contractual ar-rangements between growers and processors . In each case, the legis-lation mandates committees to negotiate the fees paid by processorsand to mediate disputes . These arrangements create a collective bar-gaining situation between growers and the processor to which theyare contracted. The collectively determined fee is a payment for la-bor, management inputs, operating costs (e .g ., gas, water, and littermaterial), and a return to capital invested in shedding the poultry.In addition to the standard growing fee, more productive growers(measured by the number of live birds on pick up) are paid a setpercentage above the rate, while less efficient growers receive lessthan the standard. Importantly, all growing group members are en-titled to know what everyone else receives, a transparency which iscompared favorably to the system of individual agreements thatprevails in the United States (Vorstermans 1996).

These particular arrangements are alternatively credited with giv-ing growers relatively high incomes and creating high labor costsrelative to Australia's overseas competitors (Larkin and Heilbron1997) . Certainly the depiction by Boyd and Watts (1997) of U .S.broiler growers and non-unionized process workers does not applyin Australia . In Australia, workers are highly unionized with rela-tively good wages and occupational health conditions . Their de-scription of "small impoverished contract growers" (Boyd and Watts1997:193) is also not applicable in Australia, where growers andtheir farm labor experienced the largest increases in weekly incomebetween 1990-1995 of any agricultural sector (NFF 1995 :57) . Sincethe early 1990s the majority of processors have argued that the fee-setting legislation is anachronistic and should be replaced by indi-vidual performance contracts . They generally welcome legislativereview within the NCP context, but are not united on the issue ofcollective bargaining. Growers, on the other side, are increasinglyarticulate in their defense of the existing contract arrangements


327

and have highlighted the lack of competition on the processingand retailing side of the complex . They argue that until this con-centration is addressed no attempt should be made to dismantlethe legislation governing their allegedly uncompetitive relationshipwith the processors (Burgess et al . 1998) . It is the changing rela-tionship between processors and retailers which is currently trans-forming the industry in a way that global pressures have not.

Australian poultry and the retail sector

It is increasingly evident that in Australia and Western Europe,the production sector is significantly (and directly) influenced bydevelopments in the retail sector (Hughes 1996 ; Parsons 1996) . Inthe case of poultry, the two most important actors in the retail sec-tor are the supermarkets and those fast-food outlets specializing inchicken products.

The internationalized supermarket and food service sector

The most common explanation for chicken's high consumptionin both Australia and elsewhere is its low price (IFC 1995 ; Larkin1991 ; Rabobank 1993) . In Australia the low price is attributed to anefficient industry and supermarkets adopting chicken as a "lossleader," that is, a commodity purposely marketed at low prices inorder to attract customers (Larkin and Heilbron 1997) . Anotherpopular explanation looks to the role of the ubiquitous "well-pro-moted `fast food' outlets " (Larkin 1991 ; Skurray and Newell 1993).There are more take-away outlets for chicken than for any othermeal-type food, including fish and chips, hamburgers, and pizzas . 3KFC arrived in Australia in 1968, and the local fondness for friedchicken is demonstrated by the fact that KFC Australia contributed35 percent of KFC's earnings outside the U .S., making it "one ofthe most successful divisions in the world in terms of sales andprofit contribution" (Shoebridge 1996 :65).

Supermarkets and fast food outlets are more than retailers andthe facilitators of market exchange . They are product "makers" andvalue-adders when they demand product innovations from theirsuppliers and when they position products socially with advertising.KFC advertisements, on television every week of the year, promotea way of life as much as a set of products . In 1996 the companysought to reposition its image from provider of tasty, but possiblyunhealthy, snacks to supplier of healthy meals . The corporation ' snational marketing director was reported to state:

At the end of the day mum works . . . and she also normallycooks. We know mum doesn 't want to replace meals during

3 Data supplied by Coles-Myer Research Division, Tooronga, 1996 .

328


the week with fast food : she wants real food . . . If we justsell her chicken we're not solving her problem, so we'retrying to sell her a complete meal which she feels happybuying (Strickland 1996 :3).

Globally, the impact of supermarkets and other large retailers' re-structuring strategies on food production is becoming clearer(Lowe and Wrigley 1996 :7), and retailer operations across the globeare converging (Dawson 1995) . One of the major reasons for theextraordinary growth of chicken consumption in Asia (twice theglobal rate) is due to an increase in western style convenience re-tailing through fast food outlets and supermarkets (Instate 1997).This purchasing pattern mirrors the situation in the U .S. and Aus-tralia, where most chicken meals are purchased ready-made from ei-ther supermarkets or fast food outlets . 4

A recently published history of Australian supermarkets(Humphery 1998) depicts them as enthusiastic adopters of ideasand products from elsewhere, the United States in particular, andargues that "Retail forms, and the cultures attached to them, havebeen crucial in the globalization of a Western consumer culture"(Humphery 1998 :72) . Humphery's account is important for its de-scription of the spread of retailing practices, such as the three "Cs"of convenience, choice, and cleanliness.

Equally important, Australian supermarkets have adopted behind-the-scenes corporate strategies developed elsewhere . Dawson(1995:78) argues that large retailers accrue power through a smallnumber of policies-namely, the growth of vertical marketing sys-tems, an increase of administered marketing channels, and the useof new types of power within channels to squeeze out competitorsand to capture consumer attention . Significantly they place two keydistributors-supermarkets and fast food chains-in a direct rela-tionship with consumers, where they can mediate between produc-tion and consumption. These strategies are being used by Aus-tralian supermarkets to reconfigure the supply chain within theAustralian poultry complex.

Reconfiguring the supply chain

In the past five years, Australian supermarket company annual re-ports have stressed the importance to profitability of "supply chaindynamics ." While supermarkets micromarket at the consumer level,they are simultaneously centralizing supplier level relationships . Forexample, over the last decade supermarkets in Australia have beenby-passing traditional wholesale fruit and vegetable markets to pur-chase directly from growers (Parsons 1996), with the lessons learntbeing applied to other fresh products.

4 Gofton (1995) notes figures of 45 percent of U .S. chicken being bought fromfast food outlets.


329

Almost half of all chicken meat marketed in Australia is boughtby the supermarkets, with 40 percent going to the food service sec-tor (including fast food outlets, restaurants, and caterers) and 10percent to butchers and specialist poulterers (Cransberg andParkinson 1996) . This market allocation took shape in the 1960swhen the two largest Australian poultry processors, Inghams andSteggles, agreed to supply the two largest Australian supermarkets-Woolworths and Coles-with the bulk of their chicken . To this day,the preferential supply arrangements between Coles and Stegglesand Woolworths and Inghams remain.

While direct sourcing from chicken meat producers is thirtyyears old, the mechanics are being fundamentally reworked . In1996, Coles supermarkets orchestrated the trial of a new supplychain system, known as the "the cross-docking" of poultry. The pre-sent system involves the staff of the processing company, Steggles,approaching individual in-store delicatessen managers for theirdaily orders. When fully adopted cross docking will reverse the flowof orders as Coles state distribution centers fax processors the fol-lowing day's order. Under the new system, Coles will be supplied byits traditional processor, supplemented by one or two medium sizedprocessors in each state . Once the cross docking partners havebeen identified, all other processors will be locked out of the sup-ply chain, unless they offer very specialized products . One likely im-pact is that the large and medium sized processors will becomeeven bigger, with the smaller processors supplying local butchersand smaller food service outlets . Such arrangements are less flexi-ble than the previous "transactionally coordinated marketing sys-tems," and require investments to maintain them . For, despite thelong history and mutual benefits between the major supermarketsand chicken processors, squabbling over wholesale prices is a dailyoccurrence.

Woolworths has also been restructuring its supply chain system incoordination with its major poultry supplier, Inghams . In order tostrengthen its primary relationship Woolworths5joined its preferredsupplier in a series of workshops in 1995 . The strategic horizonsdocument that framed the workshops described their purpose thus:

Partnering can be defined as the supplier and retaileragreeing to work closely together to leverage their com-bined resources . Partnering aligns strategies, systems andresources to improve mutual efficiencies whilst enhancingthe offer to the consumer. A fundamental of effective part-nering is the recognition that both parties profitabilitygoals are complementary (Safeway 1995 :14).

5 Woolworths trades as Safeway in the Australian state of Victoria . It is perhapsworth noting that Woolworths Australia is distinct from, and has no relationshipwith, the U .S .-based discount stores of the same name .

330


Both the growers and processors are cognizant of the power ofthe supermarkets. As a manager of a second tier (medium-sized)processor remarked:

They have enormous power of volume-they can be quitekind to smaller operators and the larger you get theharder they screw you-because you rely more and moreon them. And the reliance on them because of the sheervolume is enormous for us as an entire industry, so theycan extract more from you . They are buying chicken, ifyou discount for inflation, cheaper than ten years ago(Marven 1996).

Supermarkets do not simply demand volume, they also demandproduction development and regular innovation . The marketingmanager of one of the major processors explained that new prod-ucts have two sources:

The borrowing of ideas from overseas happens all the time:we are such a small market. England is far advanced interms of prepared lines . The other push for product devel-opment comes from the supermarkets, who see somethingand want it . At the moment they all want KFC 's hot andspicy birds-so hot and spicy and roto [rotisserie] birdswill be the rage . . . it is hard to say no, when there are tenother guys lining up to do what they want. If smaller rivalfirms are approached by the supermarkets to supply themnationally [and] they cannot do it, then we might be ap-proached to help out. What the supermarkets want theyget (McGeachie 1996).

Arguably, processors find the direct sourcing contracts on offerfrom the supermarkets hard to refuse because of the latter's powerof volume and the processors' capacity to fill the demand . This eco-nomic fact combined with consumer demand for fresh rather thanfrozen chicken requires a constantly serviced supply chain . Indeedthe Australian situation could be characterized as a monopsonymarket: few retail buyers and many more sellers at the two levels ofgrowers and processors and processors and supermarkets.

ConclusionsOn the same day that the government effectively prohibited

poultry imports, it announced that Canadian pork would be al-lowed into Australian supermarkets (Holden 1997) . This event re-inforces our interest in unraveling the dynamics of the poultrycomplex . This article has described how the restructuring takingplace in the Australian poultry complex is due more to retailer and


331

consumer pressures than to the influence of global free trade. Thecapacity of the poultry complex to resist the latter form of restruc-turing lies in a mix of factors, including : a highly unified, locally-owned industry in which all the main players are essentially thesame as they were thirty years ago ; a collectively organized laborforce of growers who are prosperous enough to contribute thefunds needed to fight pressures for lower wages ; cross-sectoral inte-gration forged over decades between supermarkets and processors,which has delivered consistently low prices; and a hugely popularfood, which family food providers associate with health and conve-nience. The pork complex has none of these advantages.

However, while poultry producers have repulsed one form ofglobal restructuring, they appear to be weak vis-a-vis retailers andare succumbing to retailer-led restructuring . Supermarkets, and toa lesser extent fast food chains, prove attractive to the processorsfor several reasons beyond simple volume . The supermarkets knowfar more about consumer wants and of global trends than do theproducers, and it is on this basis that the distributors mediate be-tween production and consumption . While the chicken is naturallycapable of providing a huge product range, in the Australian con-text the supermarkets are acknowledged by the processors to bethe drivers of product differentiation.

The key processes reconfiguring poultry producer-consumer re-lations are simultaneously cultural and economic in that they in-volve shaping two sets of relationships to extract use and exchangevalue: those between retailers and producers through new supplychains and those between distributors and consumers, throughadding social value to products . For these reasons, Hughes (1996)is correct to emphasize the concept of retailers as harnessers of thecultural energies of capitalism.

In the case of Australian poultry, it is the relations centered onthe distribution sphere which are globally infused and diffused.Moreover, the co-existence of intensive production systems andflexible norms of consumption unsettles the utility of transition-in-production regime theory for explaining global restructuring ofthis particular commodity complex. Global restructuring is unevenin the way it impacts on commodities precisely because foods areculturally as well as economically embedded and valued. This factmakes the symbolic transfer of values as crucial as the transfer ofcapital from grower to processor, and Australian poultry producersare playing a negligible role in this symbolic transfer.

ReferencesAlexander, Stephanie . 1996. The Cook's Companion. Melbourne : Viking.ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) . various years . Apparent Consumption of Food-

stuffs and Nutrients Australia. ABS Catalogue No . 4306 .0 .

332


1993. Manufacturing Industry : Poultry Processing Australia . Unpublisheddata.

ACMF (Australian Chicken Meat Federation) . no date . Poultry Meat Industry . Sydney:ACME

ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) . 1996 . Draft Determi-nation : Application for Authorisation, Inghams Enterprises . In Relation to Col-lective Negotiation of Chicken Growers' Contracts and a Company Code ofPractice . ACCC.

AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) . 1994 . AQIS Position Paper.Importation of Cooked Chicken Meat from the USA, Thailand, and Denmark.Canberra: AQIS.

Bonnano, Alessandro, Lawrence Busch, William Friedland, Lordes Gouveia, andEnzo Mingione . 1994 . From Columbus to ConAgra . Lawrence, Kansas : UniversityPress of Kansas.

Boyd, William and Michael Watts . 1997 . "Agro-industrial just-in-time : the chicken in-dustry and postwar American capitalism ." Pp . 192-225 in Globalizing Food. Agrar-ian Questions and Global Restructuring, edited by D. Goodman and M. Watts. Lon-don : Routledge.

Burgess, John, Jane Dixon, and Darren McKay. 1998 . Submission to the Draft Re-view of the NSW Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986 . On Behalf of the ChickenGrowers Association of NSW.

Burton, Tom . 1997 . "Government Chickens Out, Again ." The Australian FinancialReview. 7 November:37.

Constance, Douglas and William Heffernan. 1991 . "The Global Poultry Agro/foodComplex ." International Journal of the Sociology of Food and Agriculture1 :126-42.

Dawson, John . 1995 . "Food retailing and the food consumer ." Pp . 77-104 in FoodChoice and The Consumer, edited by D .W. Marshall . London: Blackie Academic &Professional.

Dixon, Jane and John Burgess . 1998 . "The Political Economy of Microeconomic Re-form in the Australian Chicken Meat Industry." Journal of Australian PoliticalEconomy 41 :104-33.

Edgell, Stephen, Kevin Hetherington, and Alan Warde . 1996 . Consumption Matters.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Fine, Ben and Ellen Leopold. 1993 . The World of Consumption . London : RoutledgeFriedland, William . 1994. "The global fresh fruit and vegetable system: an industrial

organization analysis" Pp . 173-89 in The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems,edited by P. McMichael . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Friedmann, Harriet . 1990. "Family wheat farms and third world diets : a paradoxical re-lationship between unwaged and waged labor" Pp . 193-213 in Work Without Wages,edited by J . Collins and M . Gimenz . New York: State University of New York Press.

Friedmann, Harriet and Philip McMichael. 1989 . "Agriculture and the State System:The Rise and Demise of National Agricultures, 1870 to the Present ." SociologiaRuralis 29 : 93-117.

Gofton, Leslie . 1995 . "Convenience and the moral status of consumer practices" Pp.152-81 in Food Choice and The Consumer, edited by D .W. Marshall . London:Blackie Academic & Professional.

Holden, Rick . 1997 . "Pig Farming Crisis ." The Advertiser 12 December: 5.Hughes, Alexandra. 1996 . "Forging new cultures of food retailer-manufacturer re-

lations?" Pp . 90-115 in Retailing, Consumption and Capital. Towards the New RetailGeography, edited by N . Wrigley and M. Lowe . Essex: Longman.

Humphery, Kim . 1998 . Shelf Life : Supermarkets and the Changing Cultures of Consump-tion . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Instate Pty. Ltd .1997 . Asian Export Opportunities for Chicken Meat . Sydney : AustralianChicken Meat Federation .


333

IFC (International Finance Corporation) . 1995 . The World Poultry Industry. Wash-ington, DC: The World Bank.

Kim, Chul-Kyoo and James Curry . 1993 . "Fordism, Flexible Specialization and Agri-Industrial Restructuring . The Case of the US Broiler Industry." Sociologica Ru-ralis 33: 61-80.

Larkin, Terence . 1991 . The Australian Poultry Industry: Economic Structure and the Im-pact of World Poultry Trade Developments . Sydney: APIA.

Larkin, Terence and S .G.Heilbron . 1997 . The Australian Chicken Meat Industry. Inter-national Benchmarking Study. Sydney: Australian Chicken Meat Federation.

Lash, Scott and John Urry. 1994 . Economies of Signs & Space. London: Sage.Lawrence, Geoffrey and Frank Vanclay. 1994. "Agricultural change in the semi-pe-

riphery : the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia" Pp . 76-103 in The Global Restructur-ing of Agro-Food Systems, edited by P. McMichael . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Lowe, Michelle and N . Wrigley. 1996 . "Towards the new retail geography" Pp . 3-30in Retailing, Consumption and Capital. Towards the New Retail Geography, edited byN. Wrigley and M. Lowe . Essex : Longman.

Marven, G. 1996 . Personal interview, 12 February.McGeachie, G. 1996 . Personal interview, 25 January.McKenzie, David . 1997 . "US Turns up Heat on Cooked Chicken ." The Australian

Newspaper. 8-9 November :7.McMichael, Philip . 1996 . "Globalization : Myths and Realities ." Rural Sociology 61:

25-55.Miller, Daniel . 1995 . "Consumption as the vanguard of history." Pp . 1-57 in Acknowl-

edging Consumption . A Review of New Studies, edited by D . Miller. London: Routledge.NFF (National Farmers Federation) . 1995 . The Australian Rural Labour Market vol . 9.

Canberra : NFENettleton, Sarah . 1997 . "Governing the risky self." Pp. 207-22 in Foucault. Health

and Medicine, edited by A. Petersen and R. Bunton . London: Routledge.Parsons, Hermione . 1996. "Supermarkets and the supply of fresh fruit and vegeta-

bles in Australia : implications for wholesale markets." Pp . 251-68 in Globalizationand Agri Food Restructuring. Perspectives from the Australasia Region, edited by D.Burch, R . Rickson and G. Lawrence . Aldershot: Avebury.

Rabobank. 1993 . The World Poultry Market . Nederland : Rabobank.Ritson, Christopher and Richard Hutchins. 1996 . "Food choice and the demand for

food." Pp . 43-76 in Food Choice and The Consumer, edited by D. W. Marshall . Lon-don : Blackie Academic & Professional.

Safeway. 1995 . Understanding Safeway . Module Three-Interactive Workshop . 13October 1995.

Shoebridge, Neil . 1996 . "KFC Finds Real Meals Much More Satisfying ." Business Re-view Weekly. 19 February: 64-7.

Skurray, Geoff and Graeme Newell . 1993 . "Food Consumption in Australia1970-1990 ." Food Australia 45:434-38.

Strickland, Katrina . 1996. " Fast Food Chains Latch on to Health ." Australian News-paper. 5 February: 3.

Taylor, Lenore. 1997 . "Industry Crows over Chook Ruling ." Australian Financial Re-view. 7 November:7.

Vorstermans, Louis. 1996 . "Contract Farming : the Future . . . or Back to Serfdom."Victorian Farmer 2 :20-21.

Warde, Alan . 1997. Consumption, Food and Taste . London : Sage.Watts, Michael and David Goodman . 1997. "Agrarian questions : global appetite, lo-

cal metabolism: nature, culture, and industry in fin-de-siecle agro-food systems."Pp . 1-34 in Globalizing Food. Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring, edited byD . Goodman and M . Watts . London : Routledge.

Documents

Reflexive Accumulation and Global Restructuring: Retailers and Cultural Processes in the Australian Poultry Industry