Agricultural cooperatives

as transforming agents in
rural development
The case of Galicia
María Fandiño, Carlos J. Álvarez, Raquel
Ramos and Manuel F. Marey

Abstract: Changes in the agricultural sector over the last 50 years have meant that
many of the organizations created to favour agricultural production are no longer of
value and need to be modified. In Galicia, Spain, the agricultural cooperative
movement is not fully developed, and at the same time is being forced to adapt to
new development policies within the European Union. This study reviews the
current situation regarding the agricultural cooperative movement in Galicia, and
assesses its potential as a transforming agent in rural development. The authors
report on a census of existing cooperatives and a questionnaire survey of their
characteristics.

Keywords: associative structures; cooperative movement; rural development;

agricultural sector

The authors are with the Department of Agricultural and Forestry Engineering, University of
Santiago de Compostela, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Campus Universitario s/n, 27002 Lugo, Spain.
Tel: +34 982 25 36 39. Fax: +34 982 28 59 26. E-mail: proyca@lugo.usc.es.

In many countries of the European Union, the
socioeconomic development of rural areas remains a key
problem. Pathways to achieve this development include
both traditional approaches and new programmes within
the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy
(Maseda et al, 2004). The present study was aimed at
assessing the potential of agricultural cooperatives as a
transforming element in rural development, in view of the
positive effects of this type of organization both in terms
of production (ie the possibility of organizing and
adequately dimensioning production) and participation
(ie social integration of decision making, and
diversification of products and services). We focus on the
province of Lugo in the north-west Spanish region of
Galicia, where agriculture is the primary economic
activity. There can be little doubt that agricultural
cooperatives favour rural development; our principal
interest here is to assess the extent to which cooperative
systems may complement other developmental strategies.
In Europe, agricultural cooperatives are currently
facing profound structural changes due to evolving
political and economic conditions. There have been
numerous studies of specific aspects of agricultural
cooperative function, including for example information
systems (Kollar et al, 1999) or land acquisition (Duke et al,
2004).
France, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark
provide clear examples of adaptation to changes in
economic policies and market conditions. Concentration
of agricultural cooperatives through mergers has
strengthened the cooperative system in these countries,
and has given it a major presence in most agricultural and
fisheries sectors. Indeed, most agricultural purchases and
sales in these countries are made though cooperatives
(Munuera, 1997). In these countries, agricultural
cooperatives are a central component of rural
development.
In southern Europe, however, the situation is very
different. In Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, most
agricultural cooperatives are small in scale in terms of
both membership and turnover (Gómez, 2003).
In Spain, agricultural cooperatives have a long

Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 35, No 3, 2006, pp 191–197 191

Agricultural cooperatives in rural development

tradition, but their economic development has been Materials and methods
delayed with respect to other countries with more
We first drew up a census of cooperatives, on the basis of
advanced agricultural sectors. Spanish agricultural
the lists maintained by the Galician regional government,
cooperatives are generally small to medium-sized
supplemented and validated (a) with data supplied by the
enterprises made up of small to medium-sized farms
Caixa Rural de Galicia, the only cooperative savings bank
(Juliá, 2002). The origin of these associative structures can
in Galicia, and (b) with various lists of dairy marketing
be seen as a response to continued reductions in the
cooperatives.
income of agricultural businesses and rural workers
Second, we drew up a questionnaire. We opted to
with respect to urban workers, reflecting both market
administer this questionnaire to a single representative of
changes and declining governmental support (Gómez,
each cooperative. This permitted validation of the census,
2003).
and reasonable confidence in response representativeness.
Within Spain, new developments in the EU Common
The questionnaire was administered to the manager of
Agricultural Policy give increasing emphasis to concepts
each cooperative, on the grounds that this person was
such as multifunctionality and rural development, and
likely to know most about the cooperative’s function and
encourage cooperatives to become increasingly and
outlook. The questionnaire was divided into four blocks,
proactively involved in these areas, within which
as follows:
cooperative organizations evidently offer great
advantages (Juliá, 2002). • Block 1: Basic characteristics of the cooperative, includ-
Galicia is a region in north-west Spain, at the periphery ing respondent’s name and position, and past and
of the European Union, with an area of about 29,400 km2 present characteristics of the cooperative (structural
and a population of about 2.7 million. About 75% of this characteristics, financial status, activities).
population lives in rural communities, and about 25% of • Block 2: Services offered by the cooperative to its
the active population works in the primary sector. In members, paying particular attention to ways in which
recent years, there has been a dramatic decline in the cooperative is able to adapt to its members’
agricultural employment and in the number of farms changing requirements.
(Crecente et al, 2002). Rural communities have suffered • Block 3: Financing of the cooperative, including current
very significant emigration (López, 1979; Beiras, 1975), financial status and credit, and the respondent’s
particularly of young people abandoning the agricultural opinions about the current and future situation of
sector (Hernández, 1996). In addition, agricultural cooperative credit organizations.
development has historically been hindered in Galicia by • Block 4: Outlook for agricultural cooperatives in Galicia
inheritance traditions favouring the fragmentation of land in general, and for the respondent’s cooperative in
ownership, and this problem is compounded by the hilly particular. In this block we also asked respondents how
topography (González et al, 2004). Thus farms are often they thought that the functioning of their cooperative
both small and discontinuous, making cooperative might be improved.
association practically essential for market access and
profitability.
Government census data indicate that agricultural Results and discussion
cooperatives currently have a total membership of about
Our initial census indicated a total of 107 agricultural
45,000 people in Galicia, accounting for about 25% of the
cooperatives in Lugo Province, 76 of which were active
total number of agricultural businesses, with a turnover
and could be contacted; in other words, about 40% of the
of about €1,200 million per annum, and generating more
cooperatives included in the official lists are no longer
than 4,100 direct jobs (Xunta de Galicia, 2003). Most of
active. A total of 67 cooperatives agreed to take part in the
Galicia’s agricultural cooperatives are in the livestock
study.
sector, and over 50% are in dairy farming; although it is
Table 1 summarizes the educational level of the
notable that only 13% of milk produced in Galicia is
respondents. About 34% had university-level education:
processed and marketed by cooperatives, versus 87% by
this relatively low proportion is unfavourable for
private companies. Most cooperatives in Galicia are
effective management of cooperatives. As expected, most
smallholder cooperatives (Fernández, 1988) with
of these university-educated managers work in larger
relatively few members, a small volume of business, and
cooperatives.
little connection or cooperation with other cooperatives;
in line with this, cooperatives tend to focus on their own
specific problems rather than on those of the industry as a
whole.
As noted, the present study reviews the current
Table 1. Educational level of the 67 respondents, all managers of
situation regarding agricultural cooperatives in Lugo
agricultural cooperatives.
province (Galicia), aiming to analyse the principal
problems faced by these enterprises, and to identify Educational level %
strategies for improvement of the cooperative system
No schooling 3.0
and for the transformation of rural development Primary school 38.8
through cooperative organization. The study was Secondary school 23.9
based on a questionnaire administered to all University 34.3
agricultural cooperatives in the study area (Lugo
Total 100.0
province).

192 Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 35, No 3

 Agricultural cooperatives in rural development

38.8 Table 2. Agricultural sector of the 67 cooperatives.

40.0
34.3
35.0 Sector %

30.0 Livestock with feed production 16.4

Livestock 83.6
25.0 Viticulture 0.0
Horticulture 0.0
20.0
13.4 Others 0.0
15.0 Total 98.5
Data lost 1.5
10.0 7.5
Total 100.0
5.0 1.5 3.0 1.5
0.0
0.0
50 60
0
40
0

90

3
00
–7

–8

–0
19 –
40 51
–9

–2
61

71

01
re 19 19
81

91

fo
19

19

20
19

Be Table 3. Principal activities of the 67 cooperatives.

19

Activity %
Figure 1. Proportion of cooperatives founded in each of the
periods shown. Purchasing, sale of products 64.2
Purchasing, sale of products, feed production 14.9
Milk production 4.5
Farm-machinery use 11.9
The first question asked the respondent in which year Services (second degree) 1.5
the cooperative was founded. The cooperative movement Share-owned beef cattle 1.5
began in the late nineteenth century in Galicia (Díaz de Others 1.5
Rábago, 1899; Fernández, 1988), as in Spain generally Total 100.0
(Montolio, 1992). As shown in Figure 1, though, only
1.5% of the cooperatives included in the present study
were founded before 1940. Again as shown in this figure,
the cooperative movement in Galicia underwent a purchase cost but significantly reduces the farmer ’s hours
dramatic expansion from the 1980s onwards, and some of work (see Bukenya et al, 2003).
73% of the total of 67 cooperatives were founded in the To assess our findings as regards volume of business,
1980s and 1990s. This highlights the delay in the we will consider the cooperatives in three groups, namely
growth of the cooperative movement in Galicia with dairy farming, beef production, and other activities.
respect to other European countries; indeed, the historical The dairy sector has traditionally been strongly
pattern seen in Galicia is more typical of developing cooperative in many parts of the world (Ferrier and
countries. Porter, 1991). About half of the dairy cooperatives in this
The 67 cooperatives included in this study are all in the study do not market their members’ milk: ie members
livestock sector (Table 2), and are mainly concerned with negotiate individual contracts with milk marketing and
the marketing of the milk or beef produced by their processing companies, and the cooperatives only buy
members. In some cases, this principal activity is supple- inputs and feed. Of the cooperatives that do market
mented by bulk purchasing of agricultural inputs, or by members’ milk, 68% each sell less than 10 million litres of
other services to members (Table 3). milk per annum; the remaining 32% sell larger volumes. It
Responses to this section of the questionnaire also is important to bear in mind that the volume of milk sold
indicated that the cooperative movement in Galicia shows is likely to be an important factor determining the profit-
limited vertical development, with only one second- ability of the cooperative, and thus its future survival,
degree cooperative (ie a cooperative with other merger, absorption or disappearance (see Lerman and
cooperatives as its members). This is largely attributable Parliament, 1991; Hind, 1994). Individual negotiation of
to the recent establishment of most Galician cooperatives, contracts with private companies is a relatively new
to structural problems within the sector, and to develop- development, largely attributable to wide variations in
mental considerations (Hermann, 2002). production volume among the individual members of
Typically, members want their cooperative to produce each cooperative (see Hind, 1997). It is worth noting that
and supply feed, and about 15% of the cooperatives milk marketing companies probably aim to play down the
considered in the present study offer this service, supply- importance of cooperatives, since it is likely to be to their
ing both to members and to non-members, and thus advantage to negotiate contracts directly; at the same
favouring synergy and coordinated development (see time, large-volume producers can probably obtain better
Filippi and Torre, 2003). terms by direct negotiation than through a cooperative.
One specific type of cooperative that shows Our results indicate that the volume of milk sold is the
particularly favourable prospects in Galicia (Xunta de principal determinant of cooperatives’ turnovers. As
Galicia, 2003) is the farm-machinery use cooperative. shown in Table 4, about 55% of the cooperatives have a
Many of the cooperatives considered in the present study turnover in excess of €1.2 million per annum.
were created with the sole purpose of purchasing and In many areas of the world, the operational and
using a self-propelled feed mixer, which has a very high commercial strategies of cooperatives have changed

Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 35, No 3 193

Agricultural cooperatives in rural development

Table 4. Annual turnover of the 67 cooperatives. Table 5. Other activities of the 44 dairy-sector cooperatives.

Turnover (€ per annum) % Activity No Yes Total

≤ 300,000 11.4 Feed production 36 8 44
300,001–750,000 18.2 Meat marketing 40 4 44
750,001–1,200,000 13.6 Purchase/sale of inputs other than feed 13 31 44
1,200,001–2,000,000 20.5 Purchase/sale of feed (not feed production) 34 10 44
2,000,001–3,600,000 13.6 Shop/supermarket 36 8 44
3,600,001–6,000,000 13.6 Others 42 2 44
> 6,000,000 6.8
Data lost 2.3
Total 100.0

considerably in recent years (see Chase, 2003). Our results
indicate that these changes have been positive in Galicia:
73% of the dairy cooperatives considered in the present
study reported net profits, although 45% of these profit-
able cooperatives showed profitability that was
classifiable as low.
Following the creation of a cooperative, its members
typically begin to demand a wider range of services, and
the cooperative usually begins to diversify its activities
(see Chase, 2003). In line with this, Galician cooperatives
certainly show increasing diversification of services to
members, often involving specialization: thus for
example, some cooperatives have specialized in supplying
inputs required by single-family farms (see Allanson and
Hubbard, 1999). Our findings on the activities of the
different dairy cooperatives are summarized in Table 5.
Only 9 (13%) of the 67 cooperatives included in this
study were in the beef production sector. The remaining
14 cooperatives (21% of the total) were of other types,
including cooperatives dedicated to services, purchase
and sale to members of inputs including fertilizer, and
farm-machinery use cooperatives.
The 67 cooperatives had a total of 5,686 members, on
average 90 members per cooperative. This reflects the
growth of the cooperative movement in Galicia over
recent decades. As noted above, this development is
partially attributable to the dramatic increase in the
number of cooperatives in Galicia during the 1980s and
1990s, within a context of adaptation to the more
competitive agricultural markets entered on joining the
European Union (see Jenkins, 2000). The cooperatives
formed in Galicia at this time were generally at the level
of an existing small geographical administrative unit,
such as the municipality or district (see Filippi and Torre,
2003 and Table 6). This remains apparent in the small size
of most existing cooperatives.
It is worth noting that the growth of the cooperative
movement in Galicia over recent decades has been
associated with a decline in the number of farms
(Crecente et al, 2002). This decline has most severely
affected small farms, precisely those that are least likely to
enter into cooperative organizations. In fact, most of the
inactive cooperatives detected in this study are small
associations of small farms, which have probably become
inactive because many or all of the farms have been
abandoned.
At present, however, the cooperative system appears to
be dynamic and growing, and includes functional
Table 6. Territorial scale of the 67 cooperatives.
Scale No %
Local 7 10.4
Municipal 13 19.4
District 23 34.3
Provincial 15 22.4
Regional 8 11.9
National 1 1.5
International 0 0.0
cooperatives of widely differing size. About 51% of the
cooperatives included in this study can be classified as
small, with fewer than 45 members, and it seems very
likely that most of these cooperatives will be absorbed by
larger cooperatives or disappear. About 45% of the
cooperatives can be classified as intermediate in size, with
45–300 members, indicating either successful recruitment
of members or a merger of smaller cooperatives. These
cooperatives are typically competitive in the short and
medium term, but subject to market tensions and member
demand for increasingly complex and expensive services.
Finally, the remaining 5% of cooperatives have more than
300 members, generally reflecting the fusion of two or
more medium-sized cooperatives, or the absorption of
several small cooperatives by a larger cooperative. These
large cooperatives are typically highly competitive, and
most of their members have entered them from smaller
cooperatives because of the better services offered. The
members who ‘desert’ small cooperatives for larger
cooperatives tend to be the more dynamic larger
producers, so that smaller cooperatives tend to suffer
continued erosion of their most valuable membership.
This problem has perhaps not been fully assimilated by
many cooperative managers: 41% of managers considered
private companies to be their main competitors, versus
only 10% who considered their main competitors to be
other cooperatives. Surprisingly, 19% of respondents did
not consider their cooperative to be subject to any sort of
external competition.
Only 50% of the cooperatives had approximately equal
numbers of male and female members; in the remainder,
most members were male (Table 7). There is, however, a
clear tendency for women to become increasingly
involved in cooperatives, reflecting the ongoing broad
sociological trend towards equal opportunities for women

194 Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 35, No 3


Table 7. Total number of men and women in the 67 cooperatives
for which member sex data are available.
Members No %
Men 3,176 56.9
Women 2,478 43.6
Legal persons 32 0.6
Total 5,686 100.0
(which is in fact rather well advanced in Galicia, where
society has traditionally been to some extent matriarchal),
and increasing involvement of women in farms for
diverse other reasons (the husband takes paid work; the
husband retires; a daughter is the sole inheritor; a young
woman enters the agricultural sector, etc). In such
situations, women take control of the farm, and evidently
participate actively in decision making (González and
Gómez-Benito, 2002).
The ongoing technological changes that have affected
agriculture throughout the world (Biggs, 1990; Horton
and Mackay, 2003) have of course affected agriculture and
livestock farming in Galicia. These changes have meant
that farmers require increased training (Ferleger, 1990),
and indeed training – mainly applied professional train-
ing – has been one of the principal activities of
cooperatives in Galicia. About 61% of the cooperatives
included in the present study reported some sort of
training for members, and 54% reported having
permanent teams offering technical support. Training
services typically comprise short courses aimed at
increasing understanding of different aspects of
production and processing, and the application of new
technologies. Technical support services focus on areas
including animal nutrition, milk quality, breeding,
business management and soil analysis. About 19% of the
67 cooperatives offer commercial support to help farmers
to purchase agricultural inputs or to sell products.
Diverse other services are increasingly being
demanded by the members of cooperatives, notably
substitution services, whereby the cooperative has
personnel that can tend a member ’s farm on a regular
basis (eg weekends or holidays) or in emergencies (eg
illness, accident). Offering such services is of course costly
and complex, and to date no Galician cooperatives offer
them; however, all of the medium-sized and large
cooperatives included in this study reported that they
were giving serious consideration to this possibility.
Another widely demanded service is vertical
integration: in other words, product processing and
retailing by the cooperative, rather than sale of
unprocessed products to processing and marketing
companies (see Hind, 1997).
Cooperatives are legally classed as non-profit
organizations, but nevertheless evidently have financing
requirements (Ghatak and Guinnane, 1999). Almost 90%
of the cooperatives considered in the present study were
able to finance themselves through membership dues and
through profits. In 82% of cases the respondent
considered this to be the best source of funding.
In addition, about 67% of the cooperatives received
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 35, No 3
Agricultural cooperatives in rural development
some sort of public support. This source of funding in
most cases constituted a relatively small proportion of the
total; furthermore, fewer than 35% of respondents
considered that it should be increased.
A third potential source of funding is from cooperative
credit organizations (see Emmons and Schmid, 2002),
although such organizations have to date been of little
importance in Galicia by comparison with other parts of
the world (see Besley et al, 1993); as noted, there is
currently only one agricultural credit cooperative. Of the
67 cooperatives considered in the present study, about
29% have sought credit from banks, while only 15% have
sought credit from cooperative credit organizations.
Interestingly, 50% of respondents reported that they did
not know anything about how cooperative credit
organizations worked, while another 20% considered that
these organizations worked badly or not very well, in that
they did not meet their putative aim of channelling
financial resources to cooperatives in the primary sector.
Despite these apparently negative attitudes, however,
99% of respondents considered that there was a need for a
strong cooperative credit organization that ploughed its
profits back into the agricultural sector and thus
contributed to that sector ’s development and
sustainability.
The future of the cooperative movement in Europe is
closely tied to the economic capacity of farmers (Allanson
and Hubbard, 1999). In the present study, only 10% of
respondents considered the agricultural sector to have a
good future. Most respondents pointed to the need for
modernization of farms, and noted that modernization
was most likely to be implemented in large or medium-
sized farms run by dynamic and well trained owners.
The causes of the widespread pessimistic vision of the
future of the agricultural sector basically derive from past
experience: farm abandonment, often favoured by public
subsidy, and particularly severe in mountainous areas;
ageing of the farming population; lack of generation-to-
generation continuity; declining milk and meat prices
coupled with the increasing cost of agricultural inputs;
insufficient and excessively costly milk production
quotas; excessive capital investment costs; low
profitability; excessive workloads; excessive pressures on
farmers; problems relating to land ownership and use
(fragmentation of land ownership, and the widespread
refusal of landowners to rent land, preferring to maintain
it as non-productive); widespread uncertainty in the
sector, above all as regards pricing and environmental
policies; little support from the public administration
(both in terms of financial support and technical support);
and the lack of professionalization and dynamism of
individual farmers.
However, and despite these generally negative percep-
tions of the outlook for the Galician agricultural sector,
our respondents suggested a number of ways by which
the current situation might be improved. The most
important way forward (mean rating 8.5, on a scale of
0–10) was judged to be increased support from the public
administration, specifically technical and legislative
support as opposed to direct financial subsidy. The
second most important way forward was judged to be
improved land access, for example through land
concentration programmes to combat fragmentation,
195
Agricultural cooperatives in rural development
creation of a land bank, and elimination of subsidies
favouring reforestation of agricultural land. As regards
the dairy sector in particular, respondents argued for the
creation of an interprofessional association, increased
professionalization, increased production quotas, and
regulation of milk prices.
About 55% of the 67 respondents considered that the
future outlook of their cooperative was bad or not very
good; most of these respondents were from the smaller
cooperatives. About 40% of respondents considered the
future outlook of their cooperative to be good, despite the
numerous problems facing the sector, for a number of
reasons: because Lugo has a strong livestock farming
tradition, because of ongoing mergers of cooperatives,
and because larger cooperatives in particular are
increasingly stabilized and have the potential to optimize
membership figures.
As principal problems to be faced in the future,
respondents cited farm abandonment, ageing of the rural
population, and over-abundance of small farms. These
problems are coupled with low milk and meat prices, and
quota limitations. Respondents also noted that most
livestock farmers had little interest in cooperative
organization, and were easily manipulated by big
companies.
The most widely cited measures to increase the
profitability of cooperatives were merger (mean rating
7.9), and creation and marketing of own brands (mean
rating 6.9); however, many respondents pointed out that
this latter possibility was very difficult except for larger
cooperatives.
The future of the cooperative movement as a whole
was judged positive by 55% of respondents, who
considered that farmers were better able to defend their
interests when they formed part of a cooperative; indeed,
some respondents indicated that cooperative organization
was the only solution for the agricultural sector in Galicia.
About 69% of respondents stated that the failings of the
cooperative movement as a whole were more
organizational than financial.
Almost 80% of respondents considered that
cooperative organization was a viable way forward for
transformation of the agricultural sector in Galicia, largely
because production units are typically small and need to
be structured within a cooperative organization offering
technical support services and bulk purchasing power. In
addition, cooperatives aid production and marketing.
Only 16% of respondents – mostly managers of small
cooperatives – considered that the cooperative movement
did not offer a viable way forward for transformation of
the agricultural sector in Galicia; these respondents
typically cited the lack of cooperative spirit of agricultural
communities, and the lack of professionalization of
individual farmers.
As regards the possibility of cooperatives supplying
credit to farmers, for purchase of machinery or for other
reasons, most respondents (88%) stated that their
cooperative did not have the capacity to adopt such a
role; only 9% are able to offer this type of service. Most
respondents stated that they would view such services as
positive.
The aspects of cooperative function cited by
respondents as in need of improvement are listed in
196
Table 8. Aspects of cooperative function considered by respond-
ents to be in need of improvement.
Aspect Rating
Agricultural productivity 6.9
Business aspects 7.6
Professional training 7.8
Competitiveness at European level 6.7
Production technology 6.1
Increased role of women 6.5
Other 10.0
Note: The ratings shown are mean ratings of each aspect by the
67 respondents, on a scale of 0 (no need for improvement) to 10
(strong need for improvement).
Table 8, which shows that the aspects judged most
important were professional training and business
aspects. These responses are in line with the most widely
cited reason for membership of cooperatives, namely their
capacity to take advantage of economies of scale in
purchasing of inputs and sale of products.
Finally, 84% of respondents considered that
cooperatives had a positive impact on the quality of life of
their members, in line with the view that cooperatives
constitute a key agent for rural development.
Respondents typically cited the following reasons: the
services offered by the cooperative reduce the farmer ’s
workload and increase income; the cooperative acts as a
meeting place, and improves social quality of life; and the
cooperative helps ensure greater stability in product
sales.
As noted above, respondents from smaller cooperatives
tended to have more pessimistic attitudes, generally for
the reasons already mentioned.
Conclusions
Two aspects of our findings can be considered of central
importance. First, the 67 cooperatives included in the
present study showed considerable variation in size,
ranging from very small cooperatives with questionable
future prospects, to much larger cooperatives that are
currently striving to organize, modernize and
professionalize themselves as key actors in the sector.
Second, almost all of the cooperatives included in this
study are basically restricted to the primary sector,
without involvement in secondary processing or
marketing.
Many of the medium-sized and large cooperatives
considered here are dynamic organizations that clearly
constitute a powerful driving force for rural development.
There is a clear need to encourage the activity of such
cooperatives, above all because the future of rural
communities in Galicia – particularly as regards
production – is clearly dependent on the development of
organizational and financial structures that allow the
productive sectors to adapt to continually changing
markets and technologies.
Finally, it is worth noting that the situation of the
Galician agricultural cooperative movement as revealed
by this study is similar in many respects to that of
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 35, No 3

cooperative movements in other regions, and at other
times. Certainly, cooperatives show strong potential as
transforming agents in rural development; and in each
specific region we should aim to take advantage of the
cumulative experience gathered to date in other regions
worldwide.
References
Allanson, P., and Hubbard, L. (1999), ‘On the comparative
evaluation of agricultural income distributions in the Euro-
pean Union’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol 26,
No 1, pp 1–17.
Beiras, X. M. (1975), ‘A emigración: o seu papel na dinámica da
formación social’, in Garcia-Sabell, D., A Galicia rural na
encrucillada, Galaxia, Vigo, pp 39–73.
Besley, T., Coate, S., and Loury, G. (1993), ‘The economics of
rotating savings and credit associations’, American Economic
Review, Vol 83, No 4, pp 792–810.
Biggs, S. D. (1990), ‘Multiple source of innovation model of
agricultural-research and technology promotion’, World
Development, Vol 18, No 11, pp 1481–1499.
Bukenya, J. O., Gebremedhin, T. G., and Schaeffer, P. V. (2003),
‘Analysis of rural quality of life and health: a spatial ap-
proach’, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol 17, No 3, pp
280–293.
Chase, J. (2003), ‘Regional prestige: cooperatives and
agroindustrial identity in southwest Goias, Brazil’, Agriculture
and Human Values, Vol 20, No 1, pp 37–51.
Crecente, R., Álvarez, C., and Fra, U. (2002), ‘Economic, social
and environmental impact of land consolidation in Galicia’,
Land Use Policy, Vol 19, No 2, pp 135–147.
Díaz de Rábago, J. (1999), Obras Completas, Tipografia Paredes,
Santiago.
Duke, J. M., Marisova, E., Bandlerova, A., and Slovinska, J.
(2004), ‘Price repression in the Slovak agricultural land
market’, Land Use Policy, Vol 21, No 1, pp 59–69.
Emmons, W. R., and Schmid, F. A. (2002), ‘Pricing and dividend
policies in open credit cooperatives’, Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte
Staatswissenschaft [Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Econom-
ics], Vol 158, No 2, pp 234–255.
Ferleger, L. (1990), ‘Uplifting American agriculture – experiment
station scientists and the office-of-experiment-stations in the
early years after the hatch act’, Agricultural History, Vol 64, No
2, pp 5–23.
Fernández, A. (1988), ‘Reflexións sobre o cooperativismo agrario
actual en Galicia’, in Consellería de Agricultura, ed, Xornadas
sobre a producción de leite, Xunta de Galicia, Guísamo,
A Coruña, pp 157–170.
Fernández, G. (2002), Diez años de la agricultura gallega, Caixa
Ourense, Madrid.
Ferrier, G. D., and Porter, P. K. (1991), ‘The productive efficiency
of United-States milk processing cooperatives’, Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol 42, No 2, pp 161–173.
Filippi, M., and Torre, A. (2003), ‘Local organisations and
institutions. How can geographical proximity be activated by
collective projects?’ International Journal of Technology Manage-
ment, Vol 26, Nos 2–4, pp 386–400.
Ghatak, M., and Guinnane, T. W. (1999), ‘The economics of
lending with joint liability: theory and practice’, Journal of
Development Economics, Vol 60, No 1, pp 195–228.
Gómez, J. D. (2003), El cooperativismo agrario en la Unión Europea.
Instrumento de equilibrio socioestructural y territorial. XXIX
Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 35, No 3
Agricultural cooperatives in rural development
Reunión de estudios regionales, Universidad de Cantabria,
Santander.
González, J.J., and Gómez-Benito, J.M., eds (2002), ‘Una nota
sobre la evolución del mercado agrario en España’,
Agrícultura y sociedad en el cambio de siglo’, McGraw-Hill/
UNED, Madrid, pp 451–457.
Gónzalez, X. P., Álvarez, C. J., and Crecente, R. (2004), ‘Evalua-
tion of land distributions with joint regard to plot size and
shape’, Agricultural Systems, Vol 82, No 1, pp 31–43.
Guinnane, T. W. (2001), ‘Cooperatives as information machines:
German rural credit cooperatives, 1883–1914’, Journal of
Economic History, Vol 61, No 2, pp 366–389.
Hermann, A. J. (2002), ‘The Illinois Agricultural Cooperative Act:
the possibility of and procedure for denying the voting rights
of stockholders’, University of Illinois Law Review, Vol 4, pp
1177–1208.
Hernández, J. (1996), ‘Demografía de Galicia’, in Galicia
Xeografía, Tomo XVII, Hércules, A Coruña, pp 270–311.
Hind, A. M. (1994), ‘Cooperatives – under performers by nature
– an exploratory analysis of cooperative and noncooperative
companies in the agri-business sector’, Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol 45, No 2, pp 213–219.
Hind, A. M. (1997), ‘The changing values of the cooperative and
its business focus’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol 79, No 4, pp 1077–1082.
Horton, D., and Mackay, R. (2003), ‘Using evaluation to enhance
institutional learning and change: recent experiences with
agricultural research and development’, Agricultural Systems,
Vol 78, No 2, pp 127–142.
Jenkins, T. N. (2000), ‘Putting postmodernity into practice:
endogenous development and the role of traditional cultures
in the rural development of marginal regions’, Ecological
Economics, Vol 34, No 3, pp 301–314.
Juliá, J. F. (2002), El cooperativismo agrario y su contribución al
desarrollo rural. Libro blanco de la agricultura y el desarrollo rural.
Jornada Autonómica de la Comunidad Valenciana, Ministerio de
Agricultura, Pesca y Alimenación, Valencia.
Kollar, G., Viczian, Z., Fustos, Z., and Kollar-Hunek, K. (1999),
‘Quality assurance systems and information technology in
bioengineering’, Hungarian Journal of Industrial Chemistry, Vol
27, No 1, pp 63–66.
Lerman, Z., and Parliament, C. (1991), Size and industry effects
in the performance of agricultural cooperatives’, Agricultural
Economics, Vol 6, No 1, pp 15–29.
López, X. A. (1979), Economía e poboación en Galicia, Rueiro, A
Coruña.
Maseda, F., Díaz, F., and Álvarez, C. J. (2004), ‘Family dairy
farms in Galicia (NW Spain): classification by some family and
farm factors relevant to quality of life’, Biosystems Engineering,
Vol 87, No 4, pp 509–521.
Montolio, J. M. (1992), Las cooperativas en España: evolución y
perspectives, Instituto de Estudios Cooperativos, Universidad
de Deusto.
Munuera, J. L. (1997), Estudio sobre las entidades asociativas agrarias
de comercialización de la región de Murcia, Federación de
Cooperativas Agrarias de la Región de Murcia, Murcia.
Quach, T. X., and Kawaguchi, T. (2003), ‘A study on the role and
development of dairy cooperatives in Hanoi and Hochiminh
City – a case study of Phudong and Tanxuan dairy coopera-
tives’, Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture of Kyushu University,
Vol 48, Nos 1–2, pp 289–305.
Xunta de Galicia, ed (2003), ‘Libro Branco do cooperativismo en
Galicia. III Congreso galego de cooperativas’, Consellería de
Asuntos Sociais, Emprego e Relacións Laborais, Xunta de Galicia,
Santiago de Compostela.
197