Dominika Milczarek-Andrzejewska

Farmers’ organisations in the European Union are usually portrayed as strong interest groups, possessing significant resources and able to influence state policy in many ways. This picture, however, conflicts with the situation in many new EU member states. In addition, there is a lack of in-depth research on the power of farmer organisations in postsocialist countries. This paper therefore aims to empirically explore the perceived power and resources of national farmers’ associations and the channels they use to influence agricultural policy. Members’ subjective beliefs were investigated, as they may provide additional information on the effectiveness of interest groups’ activities, such as the farmers’ mobilisation process. Using unique micro-survey data and structural equation modelling, it was shown that farmers’ associations in Poland are perceived by their members as more powerful if they have more resources, especially those stemming from cooperation among organisations.

Agricultural land plays several functions; it is both an economic resource and a natural, cultural, and symbolic asset. The multifunctionality of agricultural land may, nevertheless, give rise to conflicts over its use and, as a result, generate significant economic costs. However, economists...

One of the key challenges in improving our understanding of farmers’ relations with input suppliers is that we do not have direct information about farmers’ bargaining power vis-à-vis their input providers. To overcome this problem, this study used farmers’ self-reported assessments of their position in the supply chain. Using unique micro-survey data from the dairy sector in Poland, we constructed a proxy of farmers’ bargaining power and showed that it helps to explain discounts at which farmers buy feed from input suppliers, in addition to what is explained by the standard variables.

This special issue was inspired by the release of the Rural Policy Review of Poland published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2018 (OECD 2018). Two other important reports on rural areas in Poland were also published in 2018: “Rural Poland: Rural Development Report” (FDPA 2018)1 and “Rural Development Monitoring: Phase III” (Stanny, Rosner and Komorowski 2018).2 All these reports stress the rapid pace of rural development in Poland since its accession to the European Union in 2004 and, at the same time, show that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the cohesion policy have supported the modernisation process of Polish farms, household and business income growth, infrastructural and educational improvements for rural residents, etc. However, the agricultural sector and rural areas in Poland still face several serious challenges and limitations. The most important include: the severe fragmentation of the agrarian structure, a low level of productivity in farming as well as of innovation in agricultural production, a low level of investment competitiveness in rural areas, and continuing gaps in infrastructure and accessibility to public services especially in more remote rural municipalities. This is why questions about the shape of rural development policies in Poland are still topical even though the most recent tendencies have shown significant improvements in most intervention areas

This article aims to contribute to the existing studies on the influence of interest groups on agricultural policies. The goal of the article is to assess the tangible and intangible resources of farmers’ associations in Poland, as well as the channels they use to influence agricultural policy. With this aim, an interdisciplinary model based on exchange theory was elaborated. The article draws on two empirical sources: first, in‐depth interviews with leaders; and secondly, a survey with members of these organisations. According to the leaders, farmers’ associations may influence agricultural policy only to a small degree. This results from their insufficient resources, especially those that are useful for politicians (e.g., expert knowledge). The second obstacle stems from the lack of unity and cooperation between these associations. However, members of farmers’ organisations paint a very different picture of farmers’ organisations: regardless of the type of organisation they belong to, they perceive it as very active and well‐endowed with tangible and intangible resources.

Purpose: While it is commonly argued that food supply chains are characterized by severe imbalances of power between contracting parties, there is an insufficient understanding of the factors affecting the negotiating position of farmers. The purpose of this paper is to provide quantitative evidence documenting the position of farmers and to explain variation in farm gate prices in the dairy supply chain by using unique micro-survey data from Poland. Design/methodology/approach: The bargaining power of farmers is elicited from their self-reported assessment about how confident they feel in their relationships with both the processing industry and input suppliers. Findings: Using econometric modelling, it is shown that farmers who perceive themselves as having a relatively “strong position” in the food chain receive a higher milk price from dairy companies. Research limitations/implications: While this result comes with some caveats, it suggests that the self-reported beliefs farmers hold about relations with their contractors may reveal additional insights into the distribution of power throughout the food chain. Originality/value: Compared to the existing studies, the paper offers two innovations. First, to construct a proxy for farmers’ bargaining power, their subjective opinion on how easy they could be substituted for by their contractors is used. In effect, the paper goes beyond the standard measures which focus on farm size or its location. Second, it investigates farmers’ relationships vis-à-vis both processing industry and input suppliers. Consequently, this paper is the first to analyze power relationships by explicitly taking into account three stages of the supply chain.