With an analysis based on the performance of large-scale Nordic farms in Russia and Ukraine, this article deals with the frictions of the publicly listed, super large farming model. These farms began operations in 2006 and 2007 with much fanfare. Despite high initial expectations, however, these publicly traded companies (agroholdings) continue to disappoint investors, both with respect to agricultural performance and profitability (although with considerable variation among them). The main question to be addressed is: why have these investments not been successful? We will locate the reasons for this current lack of success in (1) the mixed role that finance has played in the development of these companies, and (2) an initial failure on the part of investors to appreciate the unique climatic and other local challenges presented by agriculture (compared to other economic endeavors). The contribution we seek to make is in critically examining and contextualizing claims concerning the degree to which super large corporate farms financed by stock market capital do indeed achieve superior agricultural performance. Based on an in-depth examination of four Nordic agroholdings, we arrive at an assessment of super large corporate farms that points to an incompatibility between land speculation and agricultural production and other contradictions and risks.

This article empirically investigates rural, small‐scale household farming in post‐Soviet southern Ukraine, focusing on a particular group of households that have managed to intensify their production beyond subsistence without help from large farms. Large‐farm support for small‐scale household agricultural production in the former Soviet Union is generally considered necessary for small‐scale household farming, so the absence of this support is noteworthy. The conditions of this intensification are explored and mapped out. Further, this intensification is related to discussions in the peasant study literature on the general viability of intensive smallholder production. While the investigated farms do present some sustainability concerns, this paper concludes that this production is not less viable than large‐scale agricultural production. The main future challenge is how upcoming agrarian reforms will affect smallholders, particularly with respect to formalising informal resource use.

No abstract

No abstract

Farm restructuring is a continuous on-going process supported by national agricultural policy in Sweden; while striving for more efficient farms in terms of labor and yields, farms enlarge their holdings of arable land and animals. The environmental consequences of more intensive land uses have in turn stimulated environmental policies to deal with negative environmental consequences. In this paper we argue that an underlying problem with both of these policy approaches is that they primarily emphasize specific components of farms and fail to see the farm as an interconnected system. In this paper we therefore focus on the farm as a 'system' and on the systemic role of farming in the broader landscape. We develop a theoretical framework of farming logics which help to better understand agricultural production systems. Drawing on 34 semi-structured interviews with farmers, we divide the farms into three farming logic categories: I) 'production vanguards'; II) 'landscape stewards'; and III) 'environmental vanguards'. We use these categories to analyze the role of key aspects such as size, intensity of production, specialisation, how farmer preferences and knowledge influence land use systems, and interactions of these with the local landscape. The findings show how farms that on the one hand share some basic characteristics can display quite different farming logics and vice versa. We argue that these farming logics offer a potentially positive diversity in farming approaches, with complementary and mutually dependent roles in Sweden's overall food system.