Agricultural Research in Romania: Rival Institutional Dependencies on Private Companies

Abstract

International audienceIn Romania, agricultural researchers are enlisted to promote the agrochemical industry and large-scale intensive agriculture. This role can be made intelligible through notion of a scientific field, highlighting rivalries between the Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the University sector. The former has lost its public funding but maintains its responsibilities within bodies devising and leading agricultural policy. The latter gives primacy to peer recognition and integration within international networks, but lacks co-financing required for being effectively included in international research projects. Each academic institution tries to devalue the rival's strong points and gain recognition for the superior value of its own assets. The funding provided by the private agrochemical industry adapts to the scientific field's structure: leading multinational firms take advantage of rivalries between academic institutions and fuel them at the same time. They consolidate current orientation taken by members of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences, especially when seeking their support for authorization for seeds and plant-protection products. Industry funds also create new rewards for University staff, emphasizing international connections but disconnecting them from purely academic achievements. Meanwhile Romanian agronomists tend to defend the type of agriculture promising the most significant business opportunities for the agrochemical industry. Thus, it uses institutional rivalries for its agenda, though without directly influencing the direction of research

Bourdieu and the study of capitalism: Looking for the political structures of accumulation

“…The confrontations that take place in scientific fields have their own stakes; but they can contribute to a ‘conceptual separation’ of economic and political issues – essential to the development of capitalism. This can be observed in the fields of economics (Lebaron, 2001) and law (Dezalay & Madsen, 2012) but also – in more specific ways and not exhaustively – in hydrology (Lave, 2012), agronomy (Roger, 2014) and behaviour genetics (Panofsky, 2014).…”

Power in the Field. Explaining the Legitimisation of Large‐Scale Farming in Romania

“…ASAS members, in turn, are accused of prioritising their career to the detriment of 'useful' work geared towards the specific needs of Romanian farmers. To obtain scientific support and gain access to the Ministry of Agriculture, managers of large-scale agricultural holdings must consider the specific structure of this confrontation and provide arguments which can be used by researchers in their defence: these managers are in a position to highlight their connections with international leading-edge research and to simultaneously stress the need for biotechnologies that meet the special requirements of Romanian agriculture (Roger 2014a). 4 Having identified the structural regularities that influence the position of defenders of large-scale farming, we can observe how these structures function and form specific combinations in particular cases.…”

“…These businesses engage in intensive cultivation of cereals (maize, wheat, barley) and oilseed (sunflower, soybean, and rapeseed), utilising both hybrid seeds and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are tolerant to nonselective herbicides. Consequently, they have forged close ties with three leading multinational agrochemical companies operating in Romania: Monsanto, BASF, and Pioneer Hi‐Bred (Roger ).…”

“…Multinational agrochemical companies influence these clashes: Monsanto, BASF, and Pioneer Hi‐Bred have made contributions to various parties by funding research that strives to achieve international recognition and that enhances the prestige of national resources at the same time (Roger ). Large‐scale Romanian farms expand on this process by claiming to develop expertise in testing the products of interest to multinational companies and by checking how these products fit into local contexts.…”