Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:30:32.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Key Role of Banks in the Lifecycle of Bordeaux Wine Cooperatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2018

Julien Cadot  and
Adeline Alonso Ugaglia
Julien Cadot
Affiliation:
ISG Paris, ISG Lab, 147 avenue Victor Hugo 75116 Paris, France; e-mail: julien.cadot@isg.fr.
Adeline Alonso Ugaglia
Affiliation:
Bordeaux Sciences Agro, ISVV, UMR 1065 SAVE - 1, cours du Général de Gaulle, 33 175 Gradignan cedex, France; e-mail: adeline.ugaglia@agro-bordeaux.fr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we investigate a possible conflict between two core objectives of cooperatives, members’ income, and continuity, by examining the link between debt and the price paid to producers for Bordeaux wine cooperatives, according to their downstream strategies: (1) the traditional strategy, which is to sell wine in bulk to négociants; (2) joining a federation of cooperatives which blends and puts the wine in the retail market; and (3) vertical integration. We show that downstream strategies are related to different lending regimes, making the relationship between banks and cooperatives a key issue for the lifecycle of cooperatives. (JEL Classifications: D230, G320, Q130)

Keywords

bankingcooperative federationcooperative financelifecyclevertical integration
Type
Guest Editor Günter Schamel: Symposium “Organization and Performance of Cooperative Firms in the Wine Sector”
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 309 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewer of the Journal of Wine Economics for helpful comments as well as well as to participants at the American Association of Wine Economists (AAWE) workshop in Bolzano, Italy, in 2017. They would like to acknowledge the support of the Fédération des Caves Coopératives d'Aquitaine (FCVA).

References

Abhervé, M. (2014). Mont Tauch, une coopérative viticole condamnée par le Crédit Agricole. Alternatives Economiques, 19 Avril 2014. Available at http://alternatives-economiques.fr/blogs/abherve (accessed 23 December 2014).Google Scholar
Benos, T., Kalogera, N., Verhees, F. J., Sergaki, P., and Penings, J. M. E. (2016). Cooperatives’ organizational restructuring, strategic attributes, and performance: The case of agribusiness cooperatives in Greece. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 32(1), 127–150.Google Scholar
Bijman, J., Iliopoulos, C., Poppe, K. J., Gijselinckx, C., Hagedorn, K., Hanish, M., Hendrikse, G., Kühl, R., Ollila, P., Pyykönen, P., and Van der Sangen, G. (2012). Support for farmers’ cooperatives – final report. European Commission, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/external-studies/2012/support-farmers-coop/fulltext_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Boone, C., and Özcan, S. (2016). Strategic choices at entry and relative survival advantage of cooperatives versus corporations in the US bio-ethanol industry, 1978–2015. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1113–1140.Google Scholar
Cadot, J., Alonso Ugaglia, A., Bonnefous, B., and Del'homme, B. (2016). The horizon problem in Bordeaux wine cooperatives. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 29(4), 651–668.Google Scholar
Chaddad, F. R., and Cook, M. L. (2007). Conversions and other forms of exit in U.S. agricultural cooperatives. In Karantininis, K. and Nilsson, J. (eds.), Vertical Markets and Cooperative Hierarchies, the Role of Cooperatives in the Agri-Food Industry (ch. 4). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Chaddad, F. R., Cook, M. L., and Heckelei, T. (2005). Testing for the presence of financial constraints in U.S. agricultural cooperatives: An investment behavior approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(3), 385–397.Google Scholar
CIVB (Comité interprofessionnel des vins de Bordeaux). (2010). Le plan « Bordeaux demain » : l'essentiel d'une stratégie de reconquête, Bulletin presse des vins de Bordeaux, 4, octobre/novembre 2010.Google Scholar
Cook, M. L. (1995). The future of US agricultural cooperatives: A neo-institutional approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(5), 1153–1159.Google Scholar
Cross, R. M., and Buccola, S. T. (2004). Adapting cooperative structure to the new global environment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1254–1261.Google Scholar
Cross, R. M., Buccola, S. T., and Thomann, E. A. (2009). Cooperative liquidation under competitive stress. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(3), 369–393.Google Scholar
De Moura Costa, D., Chaddad, F., and Furquimde Azevedo, P. (2013). The determinants of ownership structure: Evidence from Brazilian agricultural cooperatives. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 29(1), 62–79.Google Scholar
DRAAF. (2011). Recensement Agricole 2010: Analyse des résultats – viticulture girondine. Agreste Aquitaine, 7, November 2011 (4 pages).Google Scholar
Fares, M., and Orozco, L. (2014). Tournament mechanism in wine-grape contracts: Evidence from a French wine cooperative. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(3), 320–345.Google Scholar
Franken, J. R. V. (2014). Coordination of the California winegrape supply chain. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(2), 183–201.Google Scholar
Frenken, K. (2014). The evolution of the Dutch dairy industry and the rise of cooperatives: A research note. Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(1), 163–174.Google Scholar
Hansmann, H. B. (1988). Ownership of the firm. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 4(2), 267–304.Google Scholar
Liang, Q., and Hendrikse, G. (2016). Pooling and the yardstick effect of cooperatives. Agricultural Systems, 143, 97–105.Google Scholar
Moore, J. H., and Kraatz, M. S. (2011). Governance form and organizational adaptation: Lessons from the savings and loan industry in the 1980s. Organization Science, 22(4), 850–888.Google Scholar
Nourse, E. G. (1942). The place of the cooperative in our national economy. (1992) Reprint from American cooperation 1942 to 1945. Journal of Agricultural Cooperation, 7, 105–111.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. A., and Rajan, R. G. (1994). The benefits of lending relationships: Evidence from small business data. Journal of Finance, 49(1), 3–37.Google Scholar
Schamel, G. H. (2014). Wine quality, reputation, denominations: How cooperatives and private wineries compete? BIO Web of Conferences, 3(03008), 1–7.Google Scholar
Soboh, R., Lansink, A. O., Giesen, G., and Van Dijk, G. (2009). Performance measurement of the agricultural marketing cooperatives: The gap between theory and practice. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(3), 446–469.Google Scholar
Staatz, J. M. (1989). Farmer cooperative theory: Recent developments. Research Reports No. 52017, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Business and Cooperative Programs. Available at https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/rr84.pdf.Google Scholar
Theodorakopoulou, I. C., and Iliopoulos, C. (2012). Support for farmers’ cooperatives. Sector Report Wine. Wagenigen: Wagenigen UR.Google Scholar