s trategies of farms towards the production of collective goods in the r ussian agricultural sector...
TRANSCRIPT
STRATEGIES OF FARMS TOWARDS THE PRODUCTION OF COLLECTIVE GOODS IN THE RUSSIAN AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
Member of the laboratory : LEMNA
Professor assistant at the Université de Nantes
GROUIEZ Pascal
Rural’Est, SFER-INRA, 20 octobre 2011, Dijon
1
Emails :
[email protected]@gmail.com
OUTLINE
I Theoretical Framework
II Results
2
1.1 SOME STYLIZED FACTS ON THE RUSSIAN AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
Some inefficient farms have been preserved Some Corporate farms keep their social roles Some Individuals farms develop social roles
Barriers to entry / inefficient economic rules (Csaki et al., 1996 ; Shagaïda, 2005 ; Brooks et al., 1994, 1996 ; Lerman (ed.) 2008 ; Serova, 2005, 2008) ; eyes on elections (Amelina, 2002) ;
Hybridation process (Wegren, 2005 ; O’Brien et al. 1998, 2004)
Existence of multifunctionality of farms
3
1.2 THEORETICAL APPROCH
Multifunctionality
Industrial Organization approach
Patrimonial concepts
Community of interest
Commercial relationship and patrimonial relationship
The concept of « productive configuration » can help us to understand all the strategies of actors and to link market and non-market productions according the institutional context
Multifunctionality can be considered as strategies that economic actors apply in order to develop business and reproduce communities of interests in a highly competitive context
4
1.3 EMPIRICAL WORK
Goal : understand what kind of role the integration of farms into various supply chains plays in their MFA strategy.
Problems in the statistical analysis Not easy to identify the relation between agriculture
and agro-food industry in Russian statistics The Soviet « troïka » representation of farms does not
evolve
50 interviews with farmers and agro-businessmen in the Orel Oblast’
Statistical tests to validate our typology
5
OUTLINE
I Theoretical Framework
II Results
6
TYPOLOGIE OF FARMS ACCORDING TO THE GOSKOMSTAT
7
49,27
42,59
8,13
Share of production value in %according to the different kinds of farms in 2007
corporate farmshousehold plotsindividual farms
Data : Goskomstat, 2010
WHO ARE THE ACTORS OF THE TRANSITION IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR?
The « Farmers » : individual farmers, managers of agroholdings (public or private), directors of corporate farms and owners of household plots.
Public actors : governor of Orel Region, department of agriculture from Orel Region, “Ministry” of agriculture
Private actors : Investor from work sector, from oil sector, from agribusiness sector, middlemen, individuals and communities which own plots of land.
8
2.1 PRODUCTIVE CONFIGURATIONS
9
2.1 PRODUCTIVE CONFIGURATIONS
public agrholdings
corporate farms individual farms household plots Agroholdings
commercial relationship
to deliver products to the agroholding at a lower price than the market price
competition with other PC on the
local market
patrimonial relationship
collective goods housing for young people(1) food security (2)
collective goods
local and federal regulations
(1) access to credit (2) credit for housing projects access to credit
from regional banks
10
PRIVATE AGROHOLDINGS IN THE OREL REGION
11
Head office of the agroholdings Name of the owners
Usable farmland in ha.
Investment in 2007/ 2008 (Md. r.)
Mean activity/Activity in Orel
Number of Corporate Farms in Orel
OAO Agrofest-Don Aleksej Fedoryčev 31000 0,134football/grain production 10
Mossel'prom (in 2009) Sergej Lisovsko n.a. n.a.Television and press/Pig breeding 3
Agroholding (AMS-Agro) Četverikov 30000 2 Politician/ n/a 9
Belyj Fregat Anatolij Butorin 100000 1,3Grain Import /Poultry farm 5
ZAO AVK Eksima (Eksima Agro) . Nikolaj Demin 46000 4
Meat international trade /Pig breeding 4
Set-Holding Aleksandr Samusev 50000 0,004 Oil/grain production 4
Agroteh-M Žanna Mahova 8500 1 Oil/Daily cow breeding 3Nobel-Ojl (Nobel-Agro) Grigorij Gurevič 90000 0 Oil/grain production 3
OOO PlanetaPerelygin Gennadij Leonidovič 8800 0,016 n/a /Daily cow breeding 2
Agriko (Šablykinskij agrokompleks) Vladimir Bovin 6000 4
International Trade of Grain/Pig breeding 2
holding ЗАО Orelinvestprom Il'âžov M.A. 40000 6,5
Cement works/Pig breeding 2
Avtobaza Il'inskoe V. P. Veŝikov 9500 0,03Construction firm in Moscow/Potato 2
Al'kor Holding Vladimir Džangirov 11200 1 bank/sunflower oil 1
Prodimeks Holding Hudokormov Igor' (RAZGULÂJ) 14400 n.a.
Sugar import from Ukraina/Sugar manufacturing 2
Holding Zolotoj Kolos n.a. 2600 0,059Regional agroholding from Tatarstan 1
ОАО «Agropromyšlennyj al'âns Ûg» Isaenko Petr Dmitrievič 8000 1,4 n/a / Pig breeding 4
Moslovo Aleksandr Dragal'cev 35000 -dairy cow breeding and market gardening 2
Ûnost' Sergej Boudagov 2200 - Grain production 1
OOO Omega KompaniâKarmanov Konstantin Nikolaevič 4300 0,45 Nd./dairy cow breeding 1
Total
41 % of the regional usable
farmland 487200 22 58
2.1 PRODUCTIVE CONFIGURATIONS
(2) quotas
FPI
public agrholdings private agroholdings
corporate farms individual farms
household plots Agroholdings corporate farms oligarchs
commercial relationship
to deliver products to the agroholding at a low er price than the market price
competition w ith other PC on the
local market
to deliver products at a low er price than the market
price
competition w ith the FPI on the foodstuff markets
patrimonial relationship
collective goods housing for young people(1) food security
(2) collective goods
collective goods to apply a social policy to the countryside
local and federal
regulations
(1) access to credit
(2) credit for housing projects access to credit
from regional banks
access to the credit market
(1) access to credit from regional banks
food processing industry small producers
corporate farmshousehold
plotsmiddlemen
individual farmers
household plots middlemen
commercial relationship
to deliver products at the market price
improve the competition betw een farms to the benefit
of the FPI
competition w ith private
agroholdings on foodstuff markets
Competition w ith other farmers
competition w ith the other household
plots
(1)encourage the competition betw een small producers to knock dow n prices
(2) f ind outlet opportunities
patrimonial relationship
play a kryša role avoiding the
competition w ith the corporate farms
n.a.to deliver inputs for
the landow nersn.a.
Reproduce the identity of the small producers
local and federal
regulations n.a. n.a.
unfavorable quota policy
n.a. n.a. n.a.
private agroholdings
corporate farms oligarchs
commercial relationship
to deliver products at a
lower price than the market price
competition with the FPI on the foodstuff markets
patrimonial relationship
collective goods to apply a social policy to the countryside
local and federal regulations
access to the credit market
(1) access to credit from
regional banks(2) quotas
12
EXAMPLE : EKSIMA AGRO
13
20 corporate farms or factories in Russia (4 corporate farms in the Orel Region)
46 000 ha. of land (35 000 ha. Of arable land)
Owner of Mikoân (a kolabassa manufactory, 20% of the Moscow delicatessen market)
Feed production (760 million Rubles in 2009, 22 million euros)
Eksima spent 75 million rubles (2,1 million euros) in housing, roads, gas networks and subsidies to public schools
(2) quotas
FPI
public agrholdings private agroholdings
corporate farms individual farms
household plots Agroholdings corporate farms oligarchs
commercial relationship
to deliver products to the agroholding at a low er price than the market price
competition w ith other PC on the
local market
to deliver products at a low er price than the market
price
competition w ith the FPI on the foodstuff markets
patrimonial relationship
collective goods housing for young people(1) food security
(2) collective goods
collective goods to apply a social policy to the countryside
local and federal
regulations
(1) access to credit
(2) credit for housing projects access to credit
from regional banks
access to the credit market
(1) access to credit from regional banks
food processing industry small producers
corporate farmshousehold
plotsmiddlemen
individual farmers
household plots middlemen
commercial relationship
to deliver products at the market price
improve the competition betw een farms to the benefit
of the FPI
competition w ith private
agroholdings on foodstuff markets
Competition w ith other farmers
competition w ith the other household
plots
(1)encourage the competition betw een small producers to knock dow n prices
(2) f ind outlet opportunities
patrimonial relationship
play a kryša role avoiding the
competition w ith the corporate farms
n.a.to deliver inputs for
the landow nersn.a.
Reproduce the identity of the small producers
local and federal
regulations n.a. n.a.
unfavorable quota policy
n.a. n.a. n.a.
food processing industry
corporate farms household plots middlemen FPI
commercial relationship
to deliver products at the market price
improve the competition
between farms to the benefit of the
FPI
competition with private
agroholdings on foodstuff markets
patrimonial relationship
play a kryša role avoiding the
competition with the corporate farms
n.a.
local and federal regulations
n.a. n.a.unfavorable quota
policy
2.1 PRODUCTIVE CONFIGURATIONS
14
EXAMPLE : ONO NOVOSIL’SKOE
Looks for its outlets by itself
Signed a contract with a dairy factory in Tula (N. sells 90% of its milk production
The local household plots benefit from this commercial contract (at the same price)
15
2.2 TYPOLOGY OF PRESENT CORPORATE FARMS ACCORDING TO THE TRANSFORMATIONS
16
20% of corporate farms in the Orel Region
(2) quotas
FPI
public agrholdings private agroholdings
corporate farms individual farms
household plots Agroholdings corporate farms oligarchs
commercial relationship
to deliver products to the agroholding at a low er price than the market price
competition w ith other PC on the
local market
to deliver products at a low er price than the market
price
competition w ith the FPI on the foodstuff markets
patrimonial relationship
collective goods housing for young people(1) food security
(2) collective goods
collective goods to apply a social policy to the countryside
local and federal
regulations
(1) access to credit
(2) credit for housing projects access to credit
from regional banks
access to the credit market
(1) access to credit from regional banks
food processing industry small producers
corporate farmshousehold
plotsmiddlemen
individual farmers
household plots middlemen
commercial relationship
to deliver products at the market price
improve the competition betw een farms to the benefit
of the FPI
competition w ith private
agroholdings on foodstuff markets
Competition w ith other farmers
competition w ith the other household
plots
(1)encourage the competition betw een small producers to knock dow n prices
(2) f ind outlet opportunities
patrimonial relationship
play a kryša role avoiding the
competition w ith the corporate farms
n.a.to deliver inputs for
the landow nersn.a.
Reproduce the identity of the small producers
local and federal
regulations n.a. n.a.
unfavorable quota policy
n.a. n.a. n.a.
small producers
individual farmers
household plots middlemen
commercial relationship
Competition with other farmers
competition with the other
household plots
(1)encourage the competition between small producers to knock down prices
(2) find outlet opportunities
patrimonial relationship
to deliver inputs for the landowners
n.a.Reproduce the identity of the small
producers
local and federal regulations
n.a. n.a. n.a.
2.1 PRODUCTIVE CONFIGURATIONS
17
TO CONCLUDE Multifunctionality can be considered as a
strategy to insure interests of a community of interests and to develop agricultural activities.
We observed four kinds of strategy which depend on the size and on the political position of the farmer
We observed that, in the Orel Region, the policies have been particularly helpful for the agribusiness investors
Then, Multifunctionality appears as the result of compromises between politicians, oligarchs and communities
We deconstructed categories of statistic in the aim to describe transformations in the agricultural sector and in all the supply chain
18
2.3 REGULATION OF THE SECTOR
(2) quotas
FPI
public agrholdings private agroholdings
corporate farms individual farms
household plots Agroholdings corporate farms oligarchs
commercial relationship
to deliver products to the agroholding at a low er price than the market price
competition w ith other PC on the
local market
to deliver products at a low er price than the market
price
competition w ith the FPI on the foodstuff markets
patrimonial relationship
collective goods housing for young people(1) food security
(2) collective goods
collective goods to apply a social policy to the countryside
local and federal
regulations
(1) access to credit
(2) credit for housing projects access to credit
from regional banks
access to the credit market
(1) access to credit from regional banks
food processing industry small producers
corporate farmshousehold
plotsmiddlemen
individual farmers
household plots middlemen
commercial relationship
to deliver products at the market price
improve the competition betw een farms to the benefit
of the FPI
competition w ith private
agroholdings on foodstuff markets
Competition w ith other farmers
competition w ith the other household
plots
(1)encourage the competition betw een small producers to knock dow n prices
(2) f ind outlet opportunities
patrimonial relationship
play a kryša role avoiding the
competition w ith the corporate farms
n.a.to deliver inputs for
the landow nersn.a.
Reproduce the identity of the small producers
local and federal
regulations n.a. n.a.
unfavorable quota policy
n.a. n.a. n.a.
Advantageousquotas
Disadvantageous quotas
19
Thank you for your attention
Merci pour votre attention
20
21