Sociological Dimensions of Agricultural Structures in the United States

Heffernan, William D.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.1972.tb00156.x

Cited by 41 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…c Gomez and Zhang (2000), Foltz et al (2002), Deller (2003). d Tetreau (1938Tetreau ( , 1940, Heffernan (1972), Rodefeld (1974), Martinson et al (1976), Poole (1981), Wolf (1999, 2000), Reisner et al (2004). e Seipel et al (1998), Schiffman et al (1998).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

The community effects of industrialized farming: Social science research and challenges to corporate farming laws

Lobao

Stofferahn

2007

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social scientists have a long history of concern with the effects of industrialized farming on communities. Recently, the topic has taken on new importance as corporate farming laws in a number of states are challenged by agribusiness interests. Defense of these laws often requires evidence from social science research that industrialized farming poses risks to communities. A problem is that no recent journal articles or books systematically assess the extent to which research to date provides evidence of these risks. This article addresses the gap in the literature. We evaluate studies investigating the effects of industrialized farming on community well-being from the 1930s to the present. Using a pool of 51 studies, we document the research designs employed, evaluate results as to whether adverse consequences were found, and delineate the aspects of community life that may be affected by industrialized farming. Of these studies, 57% found largely detrimental impacts, 25% were mixed, finding some detrimental impacts, and 18% found no detrimental impacts. Adverse impacts were found across an array of indicators measuring socioeconomic conditions, community social fabric, and environmental conditions. Few positive effects of industrialized farming were found across studies. The results demonstrate that public concern about industrialized farms is warranted. Scholars often debate whether research should be oriented around disciplinesÕ accumulated body of knowledge or, conversely, provide critical knowledge in the public interest. Social scientistsÕ long-term engagement in building the body of research on industrialized farming allows for accomplishment of both objectives.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

The community effects of industrialized farming: Social science research and challenges to corporate farming laws

Lobao

Stofferahn

2007

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the concept of the agricultural technological treadmill, Cochrane (1993) describes the negative social consequences of new agricultural technologies. Similarly, Heffernan (1972), Rodefeld (1978), and Danbom (1979) recognize a link between new agricultural technologies and increased farm size (see also Buttel et al 1990). They acknowledge the role of end users to the extent that they highlight cases in which farmers resisted (albeit unsuccessfully) adoption of technological changes.…”

Section: Agricultural Technology and End Usersmentioning

confidence: 92%

How farmers matter in shaping agricultural technologies: social and structural characteristics of wheat growers and wheat varieties

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science and technology studies (STS) research challenges the concept of technological determinism by investigating how the end users of a technology influence that technology's trajectory. STS critiques of determinism are needed in studies of agricultural technology. However, we contend that focusing on the agency of end users may mask the role of political-economic factors which influence technology developments and applications. This paper seeks to mesh STS insights with political-economic perspectives by accounting for relationships between availability of diverse technologies, variations in politicaleconomic structures, and farmer interests and characteristics. We present the results of an analysis on the recent development of three wheat varieties: (a) a wheat variety that was modified genetically to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate, (b) wheat varieties with characteristics selected to serve specific markets, (c) and emerging research and development of perennial wheat varieties. Using data obtained through a survey of wheat growers in Washington State, we analyzed whether farmer interest in these three clusters of wheat varieties was associated with distinct individual characteristics and attitudes and whether those characteristics and attitudes are consistent with political economic structures. Although our analysis did not allow us to assess the degree of direct influence that farmers have on the technological development trajectory for these types of wheat, we were able to document variation in technological alternatives and farmer characteristics related to different political-economic trends.

show abstract

“…Research in Mino was supported by the United Nations University. It is thus commendable that various scholars have made great efforts to unravel the real nature of relationships entailed in contract farming (Heffernan 1972;Raup 1973;Althoff 1979;Burbach and Flynn 1980;Wilson 1986). I also wish to thank John Cornell, Harumi Befu, David Gilmore, Richard Moore, John Wilson, and an anonymous reader of this journal for their valuable criticism of an earlier draft of this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The support of each of these organizations is gratefully acknowledged. Thus, unlike "corporate farming," under which farmers provide nothing but wage labor, contract farming could avoid the "alienation" of farmers (Heffernan 1972;Raup 1973). Two different versions of this paper were presented at the workshop of the State and Cultural Transformations of the United Nations University in Macau (December 1986) and at the annual meeting of the Association of Asian Studies in Chicago (March 1986 CONTRACT FARMING IN SPAIN AND JAPAN 433 sons and groups into "political and legal equals" (Goodell 1980:285).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmers, Industries, and the State: The Culture of Contract Farming in Spain and Japan

Asano-Tamanoi

1988

Comp Stud Soc Hist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmers used to grow, process, store, and merchandise food and fiber. Such “agriculture as an industry in and of itself or as a distinct phase of our economy,” however, has long become a legacy of the past (Davis and Goldberg 1957:1). Farmers today stand in relations of growing complexity with various “others” for the purpose of agricultural production, i.e. farm suppliers, banks, research centers, processors, storage operators, distributors, and the government. In other words, farmers work in the complex web of relationships created by all these individuals and institutions. In this context, “contract farming,” a topic of growing interest among social scientists, seems to epitomize, perhaps most clearly, such complex production relations maintained by many farmers today in various corners of the world.

show abstract

Sociological Dimensions of Agricultural Structures in the United States

Cited by 41 publications

References 2 publications

The community effects of industrialized farming: Social science research and challenges to corporate farming laws

The community effects of industrialized farming: Social science research and challenges to corporate farming laws

How farmers matter in shaping agricultural technologies: social and structural characteristics of wheat growers and wheat varieties

Farmers, Industries, and the State: The Culture of Contract Farming in Spain and Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About