Skip to main content

The Resilience of the Cooperative Form: Cooperative Beehiving by Swedish Cooperatives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

Abstract

The paper identifies the phenomenon of cooperative beehiving. Members de-associate themselves from large cooperatives and form smaller entities, just as bees swarm out of the old crowded beehive in search for a new one. We show in the framework of transaction cost theory that the exiting farmers are those who have experience and advantages in organizing cooperatives and are willing to take risks as entrepreneurs. The new beehives, organized also as cooperatives, rely heavily on outsourcing and start-up assistance plans. Two cases from the Swedish agrifood industry illustrate our claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As can be seen in Table 2, however, two cooperatives (i.e., NNP and Norrmejerier) were both active in dairy and slaughter, mainly due to that these two cooperatives were active in the North of Sweden where the farm density is low.

  2. 2.

    Today, the LRF has 29 cooperative organizations and 170,000 individuals as members. In addition, the LRF has eight subsidiaries, for example working with insurance, financial consulting services, and media. Source: LRFs homepage.

  3. 3.

    AB = IOF, or joint-stock company/corporation.

  4. 4.

    See homepage for Sju Gårdar and Upplandsbondens in Swedish.

  5. 5.

    1 SEK is about 0.15 USD, or 0.11 EUR (April 5, 2012).

  6. 6.

    See for example a recent treaty on TCE by Tadelis and Williamson (2012); also Joskow (2005).

  7. 7.

    Hendrikse and Bijman (2002) propose slightly different results. However, according to our definition Type I farmers are farmers efficient in organization technology and not in producing higher quality product like the Hendrikse-Bijman Grower 1.

  8. 8.

    See homepage for Sju Gårdar and Upplandsbondens in Swedish.

  9. 9.

    In the course “Cooperatives and Other Agri-Food Systems”, held at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU).

  10. 10.

    The Dairy Association of Gävle (i.e., a city north of Stockholm, on the east coast).

  11. 11.

    Inger even sat on the board of Arla during the time she was an active dairy farmer.

References

Written Sources

  • Albaek S, Schultz C (1998) On the relative advantage of cooperatives. Econ Lett 59(3):397–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bager T (1997) Institutional and organisational change in the European food sector: a meso-level perspective. In: Nilsson J, van Dijk G (eds) Strategies and structures in the agro-food industries. Van Gorcum, Assen, pp 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijman WJJ, Hendrikse GWJ (2003) Co-operatives in chains: institutional restructuring in the Dutch fruit and vegetables industry. J Chain Netw Sci 3(2):95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caves RE, Petersen BC (1986) Cooperatives’ shares in farm industries: organizational and policy factors. Agribusiness 2(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaddad FR, Cook ML (2004) Understanding new cooperative models: an ownership-control rights typology. Rev Agric Econ 26(3):348–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):386–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook ML (1995) The future of U.S. agricultural cooperatives: a neo-institutional approach. Am J Agric Econ 77:1153–1159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook ML, Plunkett B (2006) Collective entrepreneurship: an emerging phenomenon in producer-owned organizations. J Agric Appl Econ 38(2):421–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Dul J, Hak T (2008) Case study methodology in business research. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. ISBN 978-0-7506-8196-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Fakta om svenskt jordbruk (Facts on Swedish agriculture) (1996) Jordbruksverket, Jönköping

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier GD, Porter PK (1991) The productive efficiency of US milk processing co-operatives. J Agric Econ 42(2):161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton M (1988) Cooperative organizations in Western Canada. Occasional Paper 88.03, Center for the Study of Cooperatives, University of Saskatchewan

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton M (1995) The future of cooperatives in Canada: a property rights approach. Am J Agric Econ 77(5):1144–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton M, Hueth B (2009) Cooperative conversions, failures and restructurings: case studies and lessons from U.S. and Canadian agriculture. Center for the Study of Cooperatives, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

    Google Scholar 

  • Galor Z (2008) Demutualization of cooperatives: reasons and perspectives. http://www.coopgalor.com/i_publications.html

  • Hansmann H (1996) Ownership of enterprise. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris A, Stefanson B, Fulton M (1996) New generation cooperatives and cooperative theory. J Coop 11:15–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmberger P (1966) Future roles for agricultural cooperatives. J Farm Econ 48(5):1427–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrikse GWJ (2011) Pooling, access, and countervailing power in channel governance. Manage Sci 57(9):1692–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrikse GWJ, Bijman WJJ (2002) On the emergence of new growers’ associations: self-selection versus countervailing power. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29(2):255–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrikse GWJ, Veerman CP (2001) Marketing co-operatives: an incomplete contracting perspective. J Agric Econ 52(1):53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty. Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström BR (1999) Future of cooperatives: a corporate perspective. Finnish J Bus Econ 4:404–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1979) Rights and production functions: an application to labor-managed firms and codetermination. J Bus 52(4):469–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson T (1985) Lantbrukarnas föreningsrörelse – framväxt och utveckling. (The farmer cooperative associations – emergence and development). LRF, Helsingborg

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson T (1994) Bondesamverkan i Sverige. (Farmer cooperation in Sweden). LRF, Stockholm: Media Nova

    Google Scholar 

  • Joskow PL (2005) Vertical integration. In: Ménard C, Shirley MM (eds) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, Berlin, pp 319–348

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karantininis K, Zago A (2001) Cooperatives and membership commitment: endogenous membership in mixed duopsonies. Am J Agric Econ 83(5):1266–1272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantbrukskooperativ årsbok 1996. (Yearbook of farmer cooperatives). LRF, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantbrukskooperativ årsbok 1998. (Yearbook of farmer cooperatives). LRF, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl B (2004) Svensk lantbrukskooperation, jordbrukspolitik och nationalekonomi (Swedish farmer cooperatives, agricultural policy, and economics). In: Rydén R (ed) Jordbrukarnas kooperativa föreningar och intresseorganisationer i ett historiskt perspektiv (The farmers’ cooperative associations and interest organizations in a historical perspective). KSLA, Stockholm, pp 255–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson J (1997) Agricultural co-operatives in the 15 EU member states: Sweden. In: van Bekkum OF, Van Dijk G (eds) Agricultural co-operatives in the European Union, trends and issues on the eve of the 21st century. van Gorcum, Assen, pp 145–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliament C, Taitt J (1989) Mergers, consolidations, acquisitions: effect on performance of agricultural cooperatives, staff paper no 89–37: 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry C (1987) Union corporate campaigns. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter PK, Scully GW (1987) Economic-efficiency in cooperatives. J Law Econ 30(2):489–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton RJ, Iskow J (1993) The competitive role of cooperatives in market-oriented economies: a policy analysis. In: Csaki C, Kislev YH (eds) Agricultural co-operatives in transition. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 55–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Staatz J (1987) Farmers’ incentives to take collective action via cooperatives: a transaction cost approach. In: Royer J (ed) Cooperative theory: new approaches, agricultural cooperative service. USDA, Washington, pp 87–107, Service Report 18

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler G (1951) The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. J Polit Econ 59(3):185–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenska Institutet (The Swedish Institute). Fact Sheets About Sweden, 22t Qd

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveriges Djurbönders (Swedish Animal Farmer’s) Annual Report, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadelis S, Williamson OE (2012) Transaction cost economics. In: Gibbons, Roberts (eds) Handbook of organizational economics. Princeton University Press, pp 159–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurow L (2001) Social and antisocial capital. The Luxembourg Institute for European and Institutional Studies (LIEIS). Organized at the Harvard Faculty Club

    Google Scholar 

  • Trifon R (1961) The economics of cooperative ventures: further comments. J Farm Econ 43:215–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (2004) Transaction cost economics and agriculture – an excursion. In: Huylenbroeck GV, Verbeke W, Lauwers L (eds) Role of institutions in rural policies and agricultural markets. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 19–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirenga B, Tilburg AV, Grunert KG (1997) Agricultural marketing and consumer behavior in a changing world. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

Internet

Personal Interviews

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Hakelius .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hakelius, K., Karantininis, K., Feng, L. (2013). The Resilience of the Cooperative Form: Cooperative Beehiving by Swedish Cooperatives. In: Ehrmann, T., Windsperger, J., Cliquet, G., Hendrikse, G. (eds) Network Governance. Contributions to Management Science. Physica, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2867-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics