Click here to download

Agricultural production and relational goods
Journal Title: RIVISTA DI ECONOMIA AGRARIA 
Author/s: Benedetto Rocchi 
Year:  2013 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  19 Pg. 7-25 FullText PDF:  63 KB
DOI:  10.3280/REA2013-003001
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The paper discusses the relevance of "relational goods" in studying the economics of agriculture and food supply chain. The quality of interpersonal relations and the dynamic of relational assets have been proposed as relevant concepts in the interpretation of the happiness paradox in developed economies. After a short overview of the literature, the concept of "relational goods" is used to discuss three specific topics: the role of personal relations in overcoming the information asymmetries in the agro-food system, the organisation of labour in agriculture and the emerging sector of social farming. Quality differentiation increases the importance of credence characteristics in marketing agricultural and food products. The creation of relational assets may ease the solution of this information problem. Moreover, emerging forms in the marketing of agricultural and food products, such as alternative food supply chains, community supported agriculture and farmers’ markets, can be better understood when the production of relational goods is taken into account. The dynamic of personal relations is also relevant in explaining the variety of tenancy forms and models of labour organisation in agriculture. A historical example relative to share tenancy in Italy is used as an example to discuss this theme. Finally, the growing sector of social farming (where farming activities are the basis of personal care of individuals with disabilities or social discomfort) clearly shows the economic and social relevance of relational goods. In social farming production activities become the opportunity for a personal "encounter" between the carer and the beneficiary. The nature of the agricultural production process seems particularly suitable for lending support these forms of personal care. The paper closes with a discussion on policies to incentive the creation of relational assets in the agro-food system. The possible trade-off between economic incentives and altruistic motivations in producing genuine human relations suggests an indirect approach. The institutional context and the specific regulations should widen the spectrum of means available to actors in arranging economic and market relations.
Keywords: Relation of economics to social values, welfare economics, agriculture
Jel Code: A13, D6, Q1

  1. Amerighi G. Il percorso delle fattorie sociali tra fragilità economica e ricchezza umana. Firenze: tesi di Laurea Specialistica in Sviluppo Rurale e Tecniche Sostenibili, anno accademico 2009/2010.
  2. Andersen E.S. (1994). The evolution of credence goods: A transaction approach to product specification and quality control. MAPP Working paper 21. Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business.
  3. Bandini M. (1991). La quota di conguaglio nel sistema della mezzadria, in Cecchi C. (a cura di), L’imprenditore agrario e la proprietà. Scritti sull’approccio contrattuale all’analisi dei tipi di impresa, Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 63-88.
  4. Basile E. (1991). Il dibattito sul crepuscolo della mezzadria: ideologia ed economia morale, in Cecchi C. (a cura di), L’imprenditore agrario e la proprietà. Scritti sull’approccio contrattuale all’analisi dei tipi di impresa, Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 89-121.
  5. Bruni L. (2012). Le nuove virtù del mercato nell’era dei beni comuni, Roma: Città Nuova.
  6. Bruni L., Zamagni S. (2004). Economia civile. Efficienza, equità, felicità pubblica, Bologna: Il Mulino.
  7. Bruni L., Zarri L. (2007). La grande illusione: false relazioni e felicità nelle economie di mercato contemporanee, Impresa Sociale, n. (76)2: 148-167.
  8. Di Iacovo F., Senni S., De Kneght J. (2006). Farming for health in Italy, in Hassink, J., van Dijk M. (eds.), Farming for Health, The Netherland: Springer: 289-308,, DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4541-7_20
  9. Gabbai M., Rocchi B., Stefani G. (2003). Pratiche alimentari e prodotti tipici: un’indagine qualitativa sui consumatori. Rivista di Economia Agraria, n. 58(4): 511-552.
  10. Gui B. (2000). Beyond transactions: on the interpersonal dimension of economic reality. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, n. (71)2: 139-169.
  11. Gui B. (2005). From transactions to encounters: the joint generation of relational goods and conventional values, in Gui B., Sugden R. (eds.), Economics and social interactions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 23-51,, DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511522154.003
  12. Gui B. (2010). Beni relazionali, in Bruni L. e Zamagni S. (a cura di), Dizionario di Economia Civile, Roma: Città Nuova, pp. 89-101.
  13. Gui B., Stanca L. (2010). Happiness and relational goods: well-being and interpersonal relations in the economic sphere. International Review of Economics, n. 57(2): 105-118.
  14. Hirsh F. (1981). I limiti sociali allo sviluppo. Milano: Bompiani.
  15. Kirwan J.R. The reconfiguration of producer-consumer relations within alternative strategies in the UK agro-food system: the case of farmers’ markets, PhD Thesis, University of Glouchestershire 2003, www.ccri.ac.uk/AboutUs/Staff/Images/James%20Kirwan%20PhD%20Thesis%20July%202003.pdf.
  16. Magliulo A. (2007). Sulla felicità in economia. La teoria dei beni relazionali di Menger e Böhm-Bawerk, Working Paper del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche dell’Università degli Studi di Firenze, n. 1, www.dse.unifi.it/upload/sub/WP01bis.pdf.
  17. Otsuka K. (2007). Efficiency and equity effects of land markets, in Evenson R., Pingali P. (eds.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics Volume 3, Amsterdam: Elsevier - North Holland, pp. 2672-2703.
  18. Relf P.D. (2006). Theoretical models for research and program development in agriculture and health care, in Hassink J. e van Dijk M. (eds.), Farming for Health, The Netherland: Springer, pp. 1-20,, DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4541-7_1
  19. Robinson L.J., Allan Schmid A., Barry P.J. (2002). The role of social capital in the industrialization of the food system. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, n. 31(1): 15-24.
  20. Rocchi B., Cavicchi A., Baldeschi M. (2012). Consumers’s attitude towards farmers’ markets in Tuscany. Sviluppo locale, vol. 15(37/38): 5-23.
  21. Rocchi B. (2004). Un sovrappiù di comunione: formazione e distribuzione del reddito nelle aziende EdC, in Bruni L., Crivelli L. (a cura di), Per una economia di comunione. Roma: Città Nuova, pp. 197-222.
  22. Rossi A., Favilli E., Brunori G. (2013). Il ruolo emergente dei civic food networks nell’innovazione attorno al cibo. AgriRegioniEuropa, n. 8(32): 6-9.
  23. Sage C. (2003). Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks in south-west Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies, n. 19(3): 47-60.
  24. Sam A. (2008). Les tribulations d’une cassière, Malesherbes (FR): Stock.
  25. Senni S. (2005). L’agricoltura sociale come fattore di sviluppo rurale. AgriRegioniEuropa, n. 1(2): 30-31.
  26. Senni S. (2007). Competitività dell’impresa agricola e legame con il territorio: il caso dell’agricoltura sociale. AgriRegioniEuropa, n. 3(8): 19-22.
  27. Senni S. (2010). Agricoltura e imprenditorialità sociale nell’esperienza italiana, Impresa Sociale, n. 79(4): 15-33.
  28. Spaemann R. (2005). Persone. Sulla differenza tra “qualcosa” e “qualcuno”. Bari: Laterza.
  29. Stefani G. (2003). L’organizzazione del lavoro nell’azienda agraria, in Torquati B.M., Economia e gestione dell’impresa agraria, Bologna: Edagricole, pp. 57-74.

Benedetto Rocchi, Agricultural production and relational goods in "RIVISTA DI ECONOMIA AGRARIA" 3/2013, pp. 7-25, DOI:10.3280/REA2013-003001

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content