Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-qmls6 Total loading time: 0.27 Render date: 2022-07-07T00:02:49.911Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Moving local food through conventional food system infrastructure: Value chain framework comparisons and insights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2010

J. Dara Bloom*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Armsby Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
C. Clare Hinrichs
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Armsby Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: jdb439@psu.edu

Abstract

There is growing recognition that the direct marketing initiatives favored by many local food activists and proponents often lack the capacity to meet rapidly expanding consumer demand for local food. To address these needs, some food systems researchers have identified a role for ‘transitional’ food systems that piggyback on the pre-existing, conventional local food system infrastructure, while moving toward the social and economic benefits of direct marketing. This paper uses a value chain model (based on business management studies and adapted to the context of agrifood enterprises) as a framework for investigating how actors who are accustomed to working within the logic of the traditional produce industry incorporate local food into their overall operations. Using a qualitative comparative case study approach, the paper examines how features of the value chain structure and governance mechanisms operate in two food distribution networks that are transitioning toward localization in a rural and an urban region of Pennsylvania, respectively. Case study analysis focuses on conventional wholesale produce distributors as the link between local producers and local buyers. Interviews with the distributors, producers and buyers reveal the sources and outcomes of challenges affecting how the distributors organize their purchasing and selling of local produce. Network practices, in turn, have equity implications as distributors struggle to pay producers enough to maintain their economic viability, while still making local produce accessible to a wide range of consumers. Policy-makers and practitioners seeking to support the ‘scaling up’ of local and regional food systems should consider targeted development of technical infrastructure in processing and distribution, as well as outreach on appropriate shared ownership models. Future research should be longitudinal to determine the longer-term role and contribution of the conventional food system infrastructure in transitioning to more sustainable local and regional food systems.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1USDA. 2009. News Release 0595.09 [online]. Agriculture Deputy Secretary Merrigan announces partnership with fair food network [refd January 26, 2009]. Available at Web site http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2009/12/0595.xml (accessed 4 September 2010).Google Scholar
2Clancy, K. 2009. What are we talking about when we talk about local and regional food systems? In Proceedings of the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Developments' Enhancing Local and Regional Food Systems: Exploring the Research, What Works, and What We Need to Learn. Kerhonkson, NY, May 19–20, 2009.Google Scholar
3Stevenson, G.W. and Pirog, R. 2008. Values-based supply chains: strategies for agrifood enterprises-of-the-middle. In Lyson, T., Stevenson, G.W., and Welsh, R. (eds). Food and the Mid-Level Farm. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. p. 119143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Agriculture of the Middle [online refd January 26, 2009]. Available at Web site www.agofthemiddle.org (accessed 4 September 2010).Google Scholar
5Archer, D.W., Dawson, J., Kreuter, U.P., Hendrickson, M., and Halloran, J.M. 2008. Social and political influences on agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4):272284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Renting, H., Marsden, T.K., and Banks, J. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35:393411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Marsden, T., Banks, J., and Bristow, G. 2000. Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40(4):425438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Martinez, S., Hand, M., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., Vogel, S., Clark, S., Lohr, L., Low, S., and Newman, C. 2010. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERR-97.Google Scholar
9King, R.P., Hand, M.S., DiGiacomo, G., Clancy, K., Gómez, M.I., Hardesty, S.D., Lev, L., and McLaughlin, E.W. 2010. Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains. USDA Economic Research Service, ERR-99.Google Scholar
10Doel, C. 1999. Towards a supply-chain community? Insights from governance processes in the food industry. Environment and Planning A 31:6985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. American Sociological Review 61(4):674698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Painter, K. 2008. An Analysis of Food-Chain Demand for Differentiated Farm Commodities: Implications for the Farm Sector. USDA Rural Development Cooperative Research Report 215.Google Scholar
13DeLind, L. 2006. Of bodies, place, and culture: re-situating local food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19:121146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19:2332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Ilbery, B. and Maye, D. 2005. Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish–English borders. Environment and Planning A 37:823844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Hinrichs, C.C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16:295303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Hinrichs, C.C. 2003. The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies 19:3345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18DuPuis, M. and Goodman, D. 2005. Should we go ‘home’ to eat?: towards a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies 21:359371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Lyson, T., Stevenson, G.W., and Welsh, R. 2008. Preface. In Lyson, T., Stevenson, G.W., and Welsh, R. (eds). Food and the Mid-Level Farm. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. p. xixvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Hinrichs, C. and Schafft, K. 2008. Farm to school programs in Pennsylvania[online]. Center for Rural Pennsylvania [refd January 3, 2009]. Available at Web site http://www.ruralpa.org/farm_school_report08.pdf (accessed 4 September 2010).Google Scholar
21. Senate Bill No. 1209. 2006. Healthy Farms and Healthy Schools Act. The General Assembly of Pennsylvania [refd February 23, 2007]. Available at Web site www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2005&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=1209&pn=2047 (accessed 4 September 2010).Google Scholar
22Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., and Hamm, M.W. 2009. Farm to school programs: Exploring the role of regionally-based food distributors in alternative agrifood networks. Agriculture and Human Values 27(3):335350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3):481510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Raub, W. and Weesie, J. 1990. Reputation and efficiency in social interactions: an example of network effects. American Journal of Sociology 96(3):626654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Friedmann, H. 2007. Scaling up: bringing public institutions and food service corporations in the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario. Agriculture and Human Values 24:389398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Bloom, J.D. 2009. Conceptualizing ‘hybrid’ food networks: engaging conventional food system infrastructure to build local food systems. Unpublished M.S. thesis. ThePennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
27Brasier, K.J., Goetz, S., Smith, L., Ames, M., Green, J., Kelsey, T., Rangarajan, A., and Whitmer, W. 2007. Small farm clusters and pathways to rural community sustainability. Community Development 38(3):822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Welsh, R. 2009. Farm and market structure, industrial regulation and rural community welfare: conceptual and methodological issues. Agriculture and Human Values 26:2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Stevenson, S. 2009. Mid-scale food value chains case study: Organic Valley. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, UW-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Available at Web site http://www.agofthemiddle.org/pubs/rb80final2.pdf (accessed July 7, 2010).Google Scholar
89
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Moving local food through conventional food system infrastructure: Value chain framework comparisons and insights
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Moving local food through conventional food system infrastructure: Value chain framework comparisons and insights
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Moving local food through conventional food system infrastructure: Value chain framework comparisons and insights
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *