Peasants, grapes and corporations: The growth of contract farming in a Chilean community

Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty

“…While access to resources for the CFFs had been mainly through the market, state and kin networks, for small producers, more formalÐand relatively strongÐforms of organization along with external support have generally been more critical in opening access to knowledge, credit, irrigation, technical assistance and new markets (Bebbington, 1997;North, and Cameron, 1998;Hinojosa, 1998;Sinergia, 1998;Perreault, Bebbington and Carroll, 1998). In the cases of contract farming, the intermediation of commercial actors has been important in widening this access, albeit at considerable cost for peasant autonomy (Korovkin, 1992). Thus, while elements of the transition and resources accessed were similar to those of the CFFs, the mechanism of access di ered in the case of small farmers, with intermediary organizations of state, market and civil society playing important roles.…”

Linking agribusiness and small-scale farmers in developing countries: Is there a new role for contract farming?

“…Conversely, it can be argued that the independent farmer who is heavily indebted has much the same status (Watts, 1994). It is also said that producers are disadvantaged by the high level of manipulation of the contract, in terms of both the legal and tacit arrangements (Glover, 1984(Glover, , 1987Porter & Phillips-Howard, 1997), and by the fact that contracting undermines traditional structures and support systems (Korovkin, 1992). Moreover, contracting is often associated with higher levels of family conflict (Watts, 1994).…”

“…A large number of studies on contract farming also came from anthropologists, political economists, sociologists and geographers (Grosh, 1994). This literature is largely dominated by questions related to the dependency and world systems approach, and criticises contract farming as an institution leading to an increase in the marginalisation of farmers and communities that do not participate in contracting (Korovkin, 1992;Watts, 1994;Little, 1994). In this respect, it is argued that technological advances are passed on to the minority, resulting in uneven benefits that do not necessarily suit the needs of the developing country concerned (Meliczek, 2000).…”

“…Contracting farmers can increase profit opportunities through a greater product range and differentiated products (Pasour, 1998), or by diversifying out of traditional crops in developing countries in order to grow high-value crops and thereby increase their income (Williams, 1985;Levin, 1988;Korovkin, 1992;Glover, 1994;Von Braun & Immink, 1994;Kennedy, 1994;Delgado, 1999;Coulter et al, 1999). There is widespread evidence of an improvement in farmer income in developing countries as a result of contracting (Levin, 1988;Clapp, 1994), although the effect of an increase in production costs is sometimes not considered when evaluating the incidence of increased income (Little, 1994).…”

“…There is a universal loss of autonomy as farmers operate under a centralised control system (Schrader, 1986;Currie & Ray, 1986;Levin, 1988;Korovkin, 1992;Morvaridi, 1995;Pasour, 1998;Rehber, 1998;Wolz & Kirsch, 1999;Colchao, 1999;Sofranko et al, 2000) and the contracted farmer is sometimes reduced to little more than a hired hand (Clapp, 1994). Conversely, it can be argued that the independent farmer who is heavily indebted has much the same status (Watts, 1994).…”