Reflexive Accumulation and Global Restructuring: Retailers and Cultural Processes in the Australian Poultry Industry¹

Abstract

Chicken consumption in Australia resembles that in the U.S., but a comparison of the restructuring of poultry production in both countries shows some significant differences. This finding raises the question of what lies behind the emergence of similar consumption norms when consumption is often explained in terms of production regimes. The article explores the success of Australian producers in rejecting global free trade pressures while acquiescing to supply chain arrangements introduced by supermarkets. It describes how Australian producers have benefitted from two cultural phenomena: the arrival of Kentucky Fried Chicken and a dietary low fat regimen. It argues that an internationalized food service sector—including supermarket and fast‐food chains—and western dietary advice are responsible for chicken's popularity in Australia. The theory of reflexive accumulation is used to explain the power of retailers and cultural producers in a food system increasingly dominated by “high value foods.” Further, reflexive accumulation can help to explain both the present restructuring of the Australian poultry complex and the unevenness of agri‐food restructuring in general.

The Chicken Game – Organization and Integration in the Norwegian Agri-Food Sector

“…While we noted that the Norwegian model has moderated developments in the chicken value chain, there exists structural pressures that may lead to similarities with US and Australian conditions (Constance, 2008;Dixon, 1999). For how long will a consolidation between the three players sustain or when will the chicken game soon play a new round?…”

“…This said, while there are some basic similarities with respect to the development of the chicken industry in different countries, there are also key differences (see e.g. Boyd and Watts 1997;Burch, 1995;Constance andHeffernan 1991, Constance, 2008;Dixon, 1999;Vik and Bjørkhaug, 2015). For example, while US, agriculture follows varying liberal and deregulated trajectories, Norway is a country where agriculture has traditionally been heavily regulated.…”

Constrained Choice and Climate Change Mitigation in US Agriculture: Structural Barriers to a Climate Change Ethic

“…Contract farming allows companies to limit their liability and to externalize risks (Ashwood et al 2014). Contract farming has emerged in an array of agricultural sectors and regions with negative consequences regarding labor and environmental outcomes (Ashwood et al 2014;Borlu 2015;Burch 1994;Dixon 1999;Goss et al 2001;Mabbett and Carter 1999;Vandergeest et al 1999;Welsh 1997). As seen in in the poultry and leafy green sectors, contracts constrain production choices because companies can stop contracting with farmers who do not comply with the terms of their contracts (Constance and Heffernan 1994;Heffernan and Lind 2000;Stuart 2009).…”

Botswana’s beef global commodity chain: Explaining the resistance to change

“…Based upon commodity studies of United States tobacco (Wright, 2005), Australian chicken (Dixon, 1999), and French green beans (Freidberg, 2004), scholars have made the case that culture helps to structure the relationship among actors in the commodity chain (see also Friedland, 2001;Raynolds, 2004). For example, in her study of green bean trade between two former colonies (Zambia and Burkino-Faso) and their former colonizers (Britain and France), Freidberg (2004) finds that each commodity chain operates differently, due to cultural legacies, despite both countries having similar, increasingly science-based standards.…”