Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in Cooperatives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Developments in the Theory of Networks

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

Abstract

A cooperative business consists of a cooperative society and a cooperative business firm. The society of members intends to control the business in such a way as to focus the business operations on its interests. The two organizational units tend, however, to follow different behavioral logics. Borrowing some core concepts from classical sociology, Gemeinschaft norms rule within the memberships, while Gesellschaft norms dominate the business firms. Thereby it may be difficult to accomplish alignment between the membership organization and the business organization in order to be competitive. This paper addresses the difficulties of following the different logics by exploring Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft within agricultural cooperatives with a focus on the membership logics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baron M-L (2007) Defining the frontiers of the firm through property rights allocation: the case of the French Retailer Cooperative Leclerc. Rev Soc Econ 65:293–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhuyan S (2007) The ‘people’ factor in cooperatives: an analysis of members’ attitudes and behavior. Can J Agric Econ 55:275–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijman J, Hendrikse GWJ, Van Oijen AACJ (2007) Accommodating two worlds in one organization: changing board roles in agricultural cooperatives. International Society for New Institutional Economics. Reykjavik, Iceland

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgen SO (2001) Identification as a trust-generating mechanism in cooperatives. Ann Public Coop Econ 72:208–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo-Ureta BE, Lee TC (1988) Socioeconomic and technical characteristics of New England dairy cooperative members and non-members. J Agric Coop 3:12–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt L, Wirth ME (1990) Assessing the effectiveness of a farm supply cooperative: A comparison of farmer and manager viewpoints. J Agric Coop 5:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain JL, Toensmeyer UC, Ramsey S (1989) Cooperative and proprietary firm performance as viewed by their customers. J Agric Coop 4:81–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaddad FH, Cook ML (2004) Understanding new cooperative models: an ownership-control rights typology. Rev Agric Econ 26:346–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enander J, Melin A, Nilsson J (2009) Social influences in forest owners’ choice between cooperative and investor-owned buyers. http://pub-epsilon.slu.se/1257/

  • Fahlbeck E (2007) The horizon problem in agricultural cooperatives – only in theory? In: Karantininis K, Nilsson J (eds) Vertical markets and cooperative hierarchies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 255–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton JR, Adamowicz WL (1993) Factors that influence the commitment of members to their cooperative organization. J Agric Coop 8:39–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Furubotn E, Pejovich S (1972) Property rights and economic theory: a survey of recent literature. J Econ Lit 10:1137–1162

    Google Scholar 

  • Golovina S, Nilsson J (2009) Difficulties for the development of agricultural cooperatives in Russia: the case of the Kurgan region. J Rural Coop 37:52–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray TW, Kraenzle CA (1998) Member participation in agricultural cooperatives: a regression and scale analysis. RBS Research Report 165. US Department of Agriculture, Rural Business – Cooperative Service, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakelius K (1999) Farmer cooperatives in the 21st century: young and old farmers in Sweden. J Rural Coop 27: 31–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MH, Morrow JL Jr, Batista JC (2002) The impact of trust on cooperative membership retention, performance and satisfaction: an exploratory study. Int Food Agribusiness Manag Rev 5:41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrikse GWJ (2005) Contingent control rights in agricultural cooperatives. In: Theurl T, MeijerEC (eds) Strategies for cooperation. Shaker Verlag, Aachen, pp 385–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogeland JA (2006) The economic culture of US agricultural cooperatives. Cult Agric 28:67–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James HS Jr, Sykuta ME (2006) Farmer trust in producer- and investor-owed firms: evidence from Missouri corn and soybean producers. Agribusiness: Int J 22:135–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen K (1990) Factors associated with the selection of cooperative vs. proprietary handlers of milk in Tennessee. J Agric Coop 5:27–35

    Google Scholar 

  • King RP (1995) The future of agricultural cooperatives in North America: discussion. Am J Agric Econ 77:1160–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein KK, Richards TJ, Walburger A (1997) Determinants of co-operative patronage in Alberta. Can J Agric Econ 45:93–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krstevska A, Nilsson J (2009) Conditions for structural change in the Macedonian dairy industry. The dairy farmers’ choice of processors. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on Economics and Management of Networks, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang KA (2006) Cognition, agency theory and organizational failure: a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool case study. Master thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen CV (2005) Member satisfaction and participation in modern Danish cooperatives – a comparative analysis of the organizational characteristics of Arla Foods, Danish Crown and DLG. Master thesis. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Food and Resource Economics Institute (FOI), Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels R (1968[1911]) Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Misra SK, Carley DH, Fletcher SM (1993) Dairy farmers’ evaluation of dairy cooperatives. Agribusiness: Int J 9:351–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson J, Ohlsson C (2007) The New Zealand dairy cooperatives’ adaptation to changing market conditions. J Rural Coop 35:43–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson J, Kihlén A, Norell L (2009) Are traditional cooperatives an endangered species? About shrinking satisfaction, involvement and trust. Int Food Agribusiness Manag Rev 12:103–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Österberg P, Nilsson J (2009) Members’ perception of their participation in the governance of cooperatives: the key to trust and commitment in agricultural cooperatives. Agribusiness: Int J 25:181–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydberg C (2009) Changing Fonterra’s ownership model? Changing Fonterra’s ownership model? Master thesis 564, Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryjan Y (1989) Impossible organizations: self-management and organizational reproduction. Greenwood, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tönnies F (1957) [1887]Community and society. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bekkum OF, Bijman J (2006) Innovations in cooperative ownership: converted and hybrid listed cooperatives. Paper presented in 7th international conference of management in agrifood chains and networks, Ede, Netherlands, May 31–June 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Krogt D, Nilsson J, Høst V (2007) The impact of cooperatives’ risk aversion and equity capital constraints on their inter-firm consolidation and collaboration strategies – with an empirical study of the European dairy industry. Agribusiness: Int J 23:452–472

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, 1738, Office T8–56, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    George Hendrikse

Authors
  1. Jerker Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Hendrikse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Hendrikse .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, MaE, Jyväskylä, 40014, Finland

    Mika Tuunanen

  2. Fak. Sozial-u.Wirtschaftswiss., Inst. BWL / LS Organisation, Universität Wien, Brünner Str. 72, Wien, 1210, Austria

    Josef Windsperger

  3. Centre Recherche en Economic et, Management (CREM), Universite de Rennes 1, rue Jean Macé 11, Rennes CX, 35708, France

    Gérard Cliquet

  4. School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burg. Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam, 3000 DR, Netherlands

    George Hendrikse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nilsson, J., Hendrikse, G. (2011). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in Cooperatives. In: Tuunanen, M., Windsperger, J., Cliquet, G., Hendrikse, G. (eds) New Developments in the Theory of Networks. Contributions to Management Science. Physica, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2615-9_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation