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;
1

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
2

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. Onfarm 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 onfarm. 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.

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 stakeholders
to 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.
4

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
5

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
Farm management
Commodity Systems Approach
Industrial Organisation Filieres and
Subsector
Transaction Cost Economics
Agency Theory
Agrichain (Supply & Value Chain
Management)
Competitive Industry Analysis
RBT (resource based theory)
Transaction Cost Theory, Agency
Theory, and Contract Theory, New
Institutional Economics

Problem/Purpose
Get enterprise mix and technical efficiencies
Get commodity systems right
Get market/subsector performance right
Get governance structures right
Get contracts right
Get agri-chain performance right
Get strategic positioning right
Get strategy right
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 intrafirm 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
6

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,
7

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 AgEcon journals;
Economics;
Finance;
Supply Chain;
8

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.
9

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.
10

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,
11

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
12

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

13

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, N9589-003
Snowden, D. (2002), Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive selfawareness, Journal of Knowledge Management 6(2). 100-111
Sonka, S. T., & Hudson, M.A. (1989),Why Agribusiness Anyway? Agribusiness:
An International Journal.

14

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
%
Individual in organisation
3
Consumer
15
Firm (see table 2b)
43
Supply Chain (see table 2c)
21
Industry
18
Public
0
Country
0
100

IFAMR 2007
%
13
18
30
20
13
3
3
100

15

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
2
1
products
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
times coded in
26 articles
R&D input supply
Input primary production
Primary producer commod. processing
Input-primary prod.-spec. ingr. processing
Input primary manuf. consumer products
Primary - manufacturing
Input primary manufacture - retail
Primary - retail
Manufacture - retail
TOTAL

1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4

IFAMR
2007
times
coded in
25 articles
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
5

Table 3. Commodity System

IFAMR 1998
times coded in 26 articles
2
1

grains
oilseeds
meats (general)
beef
pork
poultry
sheep
dairy
fruits
veggies
bio-fuels
fibres
food
other
TOTAL

1
1
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
6
4
20

IFAMR 2007
times coded in 25 articles
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
5
1
19

16

Table 4. Geographic scope of research

IFAMR 1998
times coded in 26 articles
3
5
11
3
0
3
25

local
regional
national
multinational
global
NA
TOTAL

IFAMR 2007
times coded in 25 articles
3
2
13
6
1
0
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

Cross sectional
Longitudinal
Statistics series analysis
NA
TOTAL

IFAMR 1998
times coded in 26 articles
9
0
5
11
25

IFAMR 2007
times coded in 25 articles
14
0
4
6
24

IFAMR 1998
times coded in 26 articles
1
1
9
11
7
4
4
26

IFAMR 2007
times coded in 25 articles
8
4
4
5
5
0
4
25

Table 7. Type of dependent variable

Perceptual outcomes
Attitudinal outcomes
Behavioural outcomes
Tangible outcomes
Prices, quantities
Performance measure
NA
TOTAL

17

Table 8. Number of sources of data

single
multiple
NA
TOTAL

IFAMR 1998
times coded in 26 articles
17
3
6
26

IFAMR 2007
times coded in 25 articles
12
11
2
25

IFAMR 1998
times coded in 26 articles
4
1
0
1
2
0
3
15
26

IFAMR 2007
times coded in 25 articles
6
0
0
4
8
1
4
2
25

Table 9. Occupation of respondents.

consumers
academics
government
farmers
management
mixed
companies
NA
TOTAL

Table 10. Journals in reference list

IFAMR 1998
1st
2nd
3rd
Strategy
0
0
0
Str.Man.Journal. 0
0
0
0
other 0
0
0
0
Management
4
2
1
AOMR 0
0
0
0
AOMJ 0
0
0
0
other 4
2
1
7
Marketing
1
1
J Intern B Stud.
2
1
0
0
0
0
J Prod. Inn. M
Agribusiness.
3
2
2
IFAMR 0
0
0
0
Agrib: Int.Journal 3
2
2
7
0
0
0
Supply Ch Mgm.
Agric Econ
9
5
AJAE 5
2
0
7
other 4
3
0
7
Economics
2
2
2
Finance
0
0
0
Ind. Organisation
0
0
0
Development.
0
0
0
Food Sc. & Tech
2
2
0
Cooperatives.
0
0
0
Miscellaneous.
TOTAL
23
15
5

1st
0

Total
0
0
0
7

4
0
0
4

2
3
0
7

3
0
1
3
1
2
1
6

0
14
5
1
6
0
0
0
4
0
43

2
0
0
0
2
0
2
24

IFAMR 2007
2nd
3rd
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
2
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
5
1
0
0
5
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
16

Total
1
1
0
9
2
0
7
4
0
1
6
2
4
2
12
5
7
5
1
0
0
3
1
2
47

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

18

Table 11. Managerial Implications

Direct
explicit
implicit
Indirect
explicit
implicit
Unclear
TOTAL

IFAMR 1998
times coded in 26 articles
8
7
1
17
8
9
1
26

Table 12. Application of Agribusiness System analysis approach.

IFAMR 1998
times coded in 26 articles
Advancement
1
Explicit application
2
Implicit application
5
Unclear application
18
TOTAL
26

IFAMR 2007
times coded in 25 articles
9
9
0
13
10
3
3
25

IFAMR 2007
times coded in 25 articles
0
0
7
18
25

19