IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/roafes/v101y2020i2d10.1007_s41130-020-00102-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impossible and necessary coexistence of agricultural development models in the Pampas: the case of Santa Fe province (Argentina)

Author

Listed:
  • Christophe Albaladejo

    (INRAE, Department TERRA, Site de Clermont-Theix (RRI Agriterris)
    UNLP-CONICET IMHICIHU (Argentina))

Abstract

This article’s objective is to highlight the different forms of agriculture present in the Argentinian Pampas, to analyse their logics, in particular in their relationships to the territory, and to discuss the relationships they have with each other. The theoretical framework adopted is that of “territorial pacts”. This framework makes it possible to define for each form of agriculture through three dimensions of its local integration into the territory (territorial mediation) and through four dimensions of its integration into institutions (agricultural development model). This theoretical framework was taught and put into practice by a team of 7 or 8 researchers and teacher-researchers and 80 fifth-year students of agronomy within the framework of a 1-week study trip repeated in three consecutive years in Santa Fe province. This is an interesting province for studying this subject because of the historical importance of family farming and the growth of large business farms. The method includes analyses of the agronomist’s skills and reflections with students. Three agricultural development models could be distinguished and analysed: business farming, small-scale family farming and conventional farming. These models highlight the roles of technicians, cities, markets, symbolic issues and personal projects. In conclusion, it appears that relationships between these different models are more along the lines of a co-presence and not of a coexistence. The latter would require the construction of a local public space and a profound change in the models’ current strategies. Nevertheless, a plural conception—and one that is open to dialogue—of the study programmes of the university faculties of agronomy could be a first step towards coexistence, since it appears that these faculties are at the centre of the tensions arising from co-presence.

Suggested Citation

  • Christophe Albaladejo, 2020. "The impossible and necessary coexistence of agricultural development models in the Pampas: the case of Santa Fe province (Argentina)," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 213-240, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:roafes:v:101:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s41130-020-00102-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s41130-020-00102-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41130-020-00102-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41130-020-00102-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gasselin, Pierre & Hostiou, Nathalie, 2020. "What do our research friends say about the coexistence and confrontation of agricultural and food models? Introduction to the special issue," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), October.
    2. Pierre Gasselin & Nathalie Hostiou, 2020. "What do our research friends say about the coexistence and confrontation of agricultural and food models? Introduction to the special issue," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(2-3), pages 173-190.
    3. Marcelo Sili & María Isabel Haag & María Belén Nieto, 2022. "Constructing the Transitions and Co-Existence of Rural Development Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-23, April.
    4. Pierre Gasselin & Nathalie Hostiou, 2020. "What do our research friends say about the coexistence and confrontation of agricultural and food models? Introduction to the special issue," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 173-190, December.

    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. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    3. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    4. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Yury Dranev & Maxim Kotsemir & Boris Syomin, 2018. "Diversity of research publications: relation to agricultural productivity and possible implications for STI policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1565-1587, September.
    6. Julia Jouan & Mireille De Graeuwe & Matthieu Carof & Rim Baccar & Nathalie Bareille & Suzanne Bastian & Delphine Brogna & Giovanni Burgio & Sébastien Couvreur & Michał Cupiał & Benjamin Dumont & Anne-, 2020. "Learning Interdisciplinarity and Systems Approaches in Agroecology: Experience with the Serious Game SEGAE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    8. Christophe Albaladejo, 2020. "The impossible and necessary coexistence of agricultural development models in the Pampas: the case of Santa Fe province (Argentina)," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(2-3), pages 213-240.
    9. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    10. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    11. Stephanie Walton, 2024. "Transforming the food system in ‘unprotected space’: the case of diverse grain networks in England," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 989-1006, September.
    12. Elsa Berthet & Cécile Barnaud & Nathalie Girard & Julie Labatut, 2012. "Toward a reflexive framework to compare collective design methods for farming system innovation," Post-Print hal-00781251, HAL.
    13. Desquilbet, Marion & Dorin, Bruno & Couvet, Denis, 2013. "Land sharing vs. land sparing for biodiversity: How agricultural markets make the difference," TSE Working Papers 13-435, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Oct 2015.
    14. Isabel Salavisa & Maria Fátima Ferreiro & Sofia Bizarro, 2021. "The Transition of the Agro-Food System: Lessons from Organic Farming in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Maja Farstad & Heidi Vinge & Egil Petter Stræte, 2021. "Locked-in or ready for climate change mitigation? Agri-food networks as structures for dairy-beef farming," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 29-41, February.
    16. repec:lib:0000of:v:3:y:2017:i:1:p:20-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. James Sumberg & John Thompson & Philip Woodhouse, 2013. "Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(1), pages 71-83, March.
    18. Laurence Holzemer & Pascal Marcq & Lou Plateau & Sybille Mertens & Kevin Maréchal, 2015. "Projet « CADACC » - Caractérisation de la demande alimentaire en circuits courts :rapport final juin 2015," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/336699, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Gasselin, Pierre & Lardon, Sylvie & Cerdan, Claire & Loudiyi, Salma & Sautier, Denis, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), July.
    20. Lucas, Véronique, 2021. "A “silent” agroecology: the significance of unrecognized sociotechnical changes made by French farmers," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), March.
    21. Sepide Mehrabi & Juan Carlos Perez-Mesa & Cynthia Giagnocavo, 2022. "The Role of Consumer-Citizens and Connectedness to Nature in the Sustainable Transition to Agroecological Food Systems: The Mediation of Innovative Business Models and a Multi-Level Perspective," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.

    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:spr:roafes:v:101:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s41130-020-00102-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.