IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/areint/342108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conventional vs Modern: Which Approach is Better for the Success of Agricultural Cooperatives?

Author

Listed:
  • Utomo, Raden Priyo
  • Kuleh, Yohanes
  • Darma, Dio Caisar

Abstract

Purpose. This paper describes the relationship between organizational management, network usage, quality of services and products, and HR productivity of members regarding the success of East Kalimantan agricultural cooperatives in a conventional versus modern perspective. A goal is based on improving landscape in conventional agricultural cooperatives, which is analogous to the lag of the four factors above. Methodology / approach. Comparative-descriptive analysis is used to dissect the main objectives. Enumerators collect data via interviews with owners or managers who oversee 2,748 active cooperatives. Specifically, the sample focuses on active cooperatives from ten branches in East Kalimantan which are divided into two types: 1,860 modern agricultural cooperatives and 888 conventional agricultural cooperatives. Results. The empirical results present the following four outputs: (1) in terms of success, there is no significant difference between conventional agricultural cooperatives and modern agricultural cooperatives even though the operating techniques are also different; (2) network usage, quality of services and products, and HR productivity of members play a superior role in the sustainability of conventional agricultural cooperatives or modern agricultural cooperatives; (3) on the other hand, i.e organizational management is proven to be able to fight for conventional agricultural cooperatives in a positive way; (4) in the case of modern agricultural cooperatives, organizational management does not support success. Originality / scientific novelty. This paper proposes a thematic study in a new direction that compares the performance of modern agricultural cooperatives with conventional agricultural cooperatives based on a measure that represents the level of success. Practical value / implications. Today, the presence of technology is a practical solution that controls the majority of jobs, such as operating cooperatives. Recognizing crucial changes, one that must be addressed by agricultural cooperatives is the latest adjustments. However, it is not enough to focus only on the innovation aspect, but also to improve the internal organization of the cooperative, which will enable cooperation between generations of members to foster ethics, awareness and commitment. These findings offer valuable education to supervisory commissions, especially modern agricultural cooperatives, to modify organizational management mechanisms according to the capacity of members.

Suggested Citation

  • Utomo, Raden Priyo & Kuleh, Yohanes & Darma, Dio Caisar, 2023. "Conventional vs Modern: Which Approach is Better for the Success of Agricultural Cooperatives?," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 9(4), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:areint:342108
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.342108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/342108/files/Conventional%20vs%20modern%20which%20approach%20is%20better%20for%20the%20success%20of%20agricultural%20cooperatives.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.342108?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy Besley & Nicholas Stern, 2020. "The Economics of Lockdown," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 493-513, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sinha, Shreya & Narain, Nivedita & Bhanjdeo, Arundhita, 2022. "Building back better? Resilience as wellbeing for rural migrant households in Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. Manko Barbara A., 2021. "Considerations in the Use of Work-From-Home (WFH) for Post-Pandemic Planning and Management," Management, Sciendo, vol. 25(1), pages 118-140, January.
    3. Petruta Ionela Stanca & Tudor Tarbujaru, 2021. "The Challenges and Importance of Virtual Teams During the COVID-19 Pandemic," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 893-899, December.
    4. Gus O'Donnell & Harry Begg, 2020. "Far from Well: The UK since COVID‐19, and Learning to Follow the Science(s)," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(4), pages 761-804, December.
    5. Stankov, Petar, 2024. "Will voters polarize over pandemic restrictions? Theory and evidence from COVID-19," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. Utomo, Raden Priyo & Kuleh, Yohanes & Darma, Dio Caisar, 2023. "Conventional vs modern: which approach is better for the success of agricultural cooperatives?," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 9(4), December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:areint:342108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://are-journal.com/are .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.