This document has been made available in electronic format by the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)

March, 1998
(Source: ICA Review, Vol. 91 No. 1, 1998, pp.32-47)

Globalization & Restructuring of Canadian Wheat Industry
by Javier Caceres*
************************************************

Introduction --------------- The pace and the scope of the changes happening to the western Canadian wheat industry are staggering. Many farmers may have difficulty in grasping the magnitude and implications of such changes. While the debate is being focused on domestic political aspects of issues such as the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and the role of co-operatives in agriculture, no noticeable attempt has been made to bring into focus the real influence of aspects like the globalization framework and the role international trade agreements are having in the overall process.

The politics of the grain industry and aspects related to organizations like the co-operatives or the Canadian Wheat Board are historically, consistently very contentious issues with the farm community, particularly when attempts are made to introduce changes altering the power or property rights relationships between institutions and farmers. At present, farmers seem to be acting like observers rather than participants in the events surrounding the restructuring of their industry. That could be interpreted as an inability of farmers to grasp the complexities of the issues or the lack of strategic responses to manage the direction of change.

The restructuring trends are pointing to an inexorable shifting from the traditional Canadian farmer ownership of the wheat system to one of transnational domination. Recently, US based companies have been positioning themselves in Canada and that may lead these companies to dictate the form and shape that the Canadian wheat sector will take in the future.

The aim of this paper is to identify the relationship between the globalization of the agriculture and the agri-food system and the restructuring of the Western Canadian wheat industry . The approach is a wide ranging attempt to offer an understanding of the forces behind the globalization and provide a sense of the direction that such forces are having in the events shaping the industry. There will be errors or shortcomings in emphasis, but the potential addition to the extent and scope of the debate on the issue make the risk affordable.

Globalization and Co-ops ------------------------------ Co-operatives are confronting globalization by emphasizing economic efficiency and developing alliances with external partners. The focus is primarily on the competitiveness of a large business organization and leaving behind co-operative concerns with social aspects of rural life and communities.

In analysing the co-operative response to globalization, Munkner identified four dangerous trends which threaten co-operative identity and move co-operatives closer to the company or corporation Model.1 Le Heron's analysis of agriculture organizations being integrated into the global economy led him to indicate that once producer marketing boards or co-operatives have adopted the operations norms of the company or corporation model, there is no basis for distinction among them.2

Munkner identifies the following trends: ------------------------------------------------ a. Commercialization of Co-operative Enterprises:- Growth, market share and competitiveness become co-operative management priorities. Co-operative management is replaced by new staff sourced in the labour market on the basis of business qualifications acquired in commercial companies. Business activities are expanded creating conditions to seek external funding and the emphasis shifts to make profits to satisfy outside investors. Economic success of the enterprise becomes the main goal of the co-operative while member information, co-operative education and promotion decline.

At the beginning, there are legal safeguards that only members can serve on the Board but later the constraint is eliminated. Members become customers and success is measured in customer satisfaction. Over time, the Board will consider mainly growth and profits of the co-operative enterprise arguing that without a profitable enterprise there is no future for the co-operative and its members. In the final stage, members influence and control is excluded and the business enterprises can be taken over by private companies.

b. Option for Growth:- Growth by alliances, mergers and concentrations are the preferred patterns of co-operatives entering into the globalization business over the option of maintaining local structures close to communities or members, organized in a vertically integrated system. This pattern of growth tends to attract a large, heterogeneous membership group unable to agree on common objectives and to control the management of the co-operative. A divided heterogeneous membership helps to create the conditions for the Board of Directors to take decisions as largely uncontrolled trustees of the co-operative.

c. Co-operative Identity:- The identity principle of co-operatives provides the general rule that the users are the co-owners, the ones that control and benefit from the enterprise. Over time this principle is gradually and increasingly abandoned by expanding business with non-members, by privatizing the co-operative and listing shares in stock exchanges to open investment of capital in co-operatives to outside investors. Some co-operatives are inviting persons to join the organization as "investor members" and accepting board members from outside the membership group.

d. Degradation of Member Participation:- Over time there is a degradation of member's participation in the co-operative. It could take forms like degradation in decision-making, capital formation, patronage as well as in informal, social and democratic activities. It is being reflected in a low level of co-operative consciousness on the part of the members who have no feeling of belonging, no sense of ownership and accept no responsibilities for the future of the co-operative.

In terms of participatory activities, the memberships of agricultural co-operatives are heavily oriented to manual or technological activities with not much intellectual debate about co-operatives. Without a strong programme of democratic education and sharing of information and a more open representative, not delegatory, democratic set-up, members are almost unable to follow the growing complexity of the co-operative business. The gap between members and managers in terms of qualifications and information is so large at the end that it makes it almost impossible for members to catch up.

Member participation in capital formation is reduced when the co-operative goes public. Their role as co-owners, controlling management by the threat of canceling membership, loses much of its importance when profit of the economic enterprise becomes the driving force behind the co-operative. When profits are allocated to shares and not being paid back as patronage refunds, the members cease to be the principal stakeholder in the co-operative.

Membership becomes less important when the services and goods offered by the co-operative are practically open to the public at large. Incentives for membership disappear when business with non-members becomes the rule. In the privatization of the co-operative the focus is on economic success and cutting all costs for activities not directly justified in economic terms. Staff positions for members' education, information, relations or involvement in public policy issues as well as organizing informal contacts with and social activities for members beyond professional advertising, market research and public relations are cut. Most member relations activities tend to be perceived as unproductive costs. Member orientation, member promotion and member control lose their base, resulting in co-operatives neglecting the members and the members responding by neglecting the co-operative.

According to Moss Kanter, the real problem for co-operatives as local organizations is not globalization, but isolation and poor leadership.3 The challenge is to forge linkages to each other or develop global networks of co-operatives. Some co-operatives are developing alliances that are totally incompatible in values. The goal should be to test compatibility on broad historical, philosophical and strategic dimensions, common past experiences, values and principles and common ideas for the future. Managers and analysts should be responsible for examining financial or economic viability but the leaders and the members of the co-operative should be responsible for assessing the intangible aspects of compatibility. To succeed, co-operatives need to increase their stocks in global assets like concepts, competence and connections which are in direct relationship with investment in innovation, education and co-operation.

Networking is also the solution advanced by Clegg and Porras.4 In their view, networking could be an effective co-operative response to globalization on the understanding that networking is a strategic arrangement through which co-operatives set up a web of close relationships that form a variable system geared to provide products or services in a coordinated way. To develop a network, trust is being identified as the crucial factor.

Theoretical principles of co-operatives suggest that trust should be less problematic in co-operatives. Reality, however, tends to indicate that development of trust at the membership level is possible, but not in the middle and upper levels of co-operative hierarchies where power struggles are common and the boundaries between co-operatives and competitive commercial organizations blur.

McPherson suggests that co-operatives fulfill only some of their potential through what they do for members at the local level. In his view, co-operatives achieve their full potential only by effectively amassing their social and economic power in a wider framework.

Globalization makes it desirable and increasingly more necessary for co-operatives to pool resources at the national and international level.5 There will be no major disagreement with McPherson's assertion, providing that co-operatives maintain their orientation to their internal co-operative function and use their economic, social and political power to foster the well being of the membership at large, and not the corporate structure itself. It is easy to find examples of co-operatives assuming social and political representation of members as a marketing technique to foster the corporate interest of the institution.

One of the fundamental characteristics of co-operative enterprises is the methodology used to measure efficiency. The most common approach in a market economy is to use financial or economic efficiency. Co-operatives need more comprehensive parameters to take into account the orientation to member services.

Munkner (6) advances the idea of evaluating co-operatives at three levels of efficiency:

a. Institutional efficiency:- Assessing the co-operative as a business enterprise on the basis of the allocation of resources and its financial situation.

b. Member oriented efficiency:- assessment of the advantages of being a member of the co-operative. The measure will be given by the impact of the co-operative on the family farm for example. Efficiency could be measured as a feedback mechanism from the members comparing benefits of co-operatives over private companies operating the same type of business.

c. Development oriented efficiency:- This is related to the interface between the co-operative and the local community. What is the impact of the co-operative on the local community in aspects like employment creation, services provided, etc.?

The member and development-oriented criteria of co-operative efficiencies could be considered as just another cost by non co-operative managers. These criteria could be challenged by them because of their impact on institutional efficiency. Conflict among the three criteria will be far deeper in publicly traded co-operatives with outside investors.

The Western Canadian Wheat Industry ---------------------------------------------- Canada produces over 5 per cent of the world wheat output and is the second largest wheat exporter accounting for roughly 20 per cent of world shipments. With a worldwide reputation for high quality, reliably graded wheat, Canada exports about 75 per cent of the wheat it produces.7

The western Canadian wheat industry is a system composed of several parts, each one performing a specific function in the production and marketing of wheat. The system begins with the farmer and ends up with the consumer. In between there are a set of institutions, regulations and infrastructure to facilitate the movement of the grain from the producer to its final destination.

The traditional Canadian grain system of the postwar era is unravelling. Deregulation, free trade, international agreements, erosion of the farmers' constituency power, strong ideological divisions in the farm community, privatization of co-ops, transnationalization of the grain handling system through entrance of US based companies, weakening support and potential demise of the CWB, retrenchment of the Canadian state and the lack of leadership and vision to develop politically sustainable alternatives are finally transforming the grain sector of Western Canada.

Three elements of the overall system will be considered in this section: the producer, the co-operative system of grain handling and the Canadian Wheat Board as the sole marketing agency for domestic wheat for human consumption and wheat for the export market.

Western Canadian Wheat Producers ------------------------------------------- According to the 1996 annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board, there were close to 115,000 delivery permit books issued to Western Canadian grain producers. On a ten year average, the 1986 to 1995 period, Western farmers produced 26.7 million tonnes of wheat annually and exported 19.8 million tonnes.8 Wheat, although declining in relative importance to other crops, is still the predominant source of farm income in the Prairie region.

Farms in the three prairie provinces are, on average, the largest of Canada. In Saskatchewan, the average size of a farm is 442 hectares. Data from the 1991 Census indicated that family-operated farms accounted for 98.2% of all census farms in Canada.9

The predominant operating arrangement on Canadian farms are family- single operator farms which have characteristics such as: specialized production and skills, a relatively low level of self-sufficiency, a "value added" orientation, the exchange of inputs and output takes place within a market context, highly individualistic and entrepreneurial. Practical knowledge predominates over theoretical knowledge.

Individually, the family farm is an atomistic unit of production producing a standardized commodity and lacking market power. They are price takers on both the input and output side of their operations. Farmers are price takers in regulated or deregulated markets.

Family farm operators were fully aware that they did not have enough power and resources to achieve some general goals for agriculture on their own. In the search for power and resources family farm operators used a co-operative strategy to establish institutional and regulatory structures ancillary to the operations of the farm unit. Among other things, co-operatives were developed for the purchasing of agricultural inputs and initially to market grains. A subsequent orderly marketing system for wheat focused on insulating producers from the vagaries of world market forces. All of this was done at the time at which Canada was in a position of managing national economic growth. Farmers developed political linkages supporting domestic commercial grain production as part of a national economic growth strategy.

Deregulation of the grain transportation system and liberalization policies for the agricultural sector represent a process of de-nationalization of agriculture and the dismantling of institutions and regulatory structures established to support farmers during a different political era. Today, the wheat economy is in transition from a residual national principle with government support and involvement in the agriculture sector, to an emergent global principle of relatively free trade and capital movement accompanied by a retrenchment of government activities in the economy. The restructuring of the agriculture sector must be viewed as a complex, interrelated process in areas such as production, handling, transportation, and trade, connected to, and driven by, imperatives within the international economic system. Deregulation and liberalization of the Canadian grain marketing system, for example, will contribute to the globalization process in the agriculture and grain sector.

From a political perspective, the presence of farmers in the national policy arena has been drastically reduced. This is in accordance with the trend that national policy making capability has been reduced and or substituted by WTO rules for national political economic regulation. With increasing emphasis on individuality, farmers' adaptation to changing market conditions will reinforce the polarization trend in the farm community between a minority of highly capitalized, large scale farm enterprises, which account for a growing proportion of total agricultural production, and a vulnerable majority of inadequately capitalized farms whose ability to provide operators with a livelihood is being increasingly undermined. This polarization is also being reflected in the relationship between co-operatives and farmers. The more successful co-operatives are as a business, the more they tend to reinforce the prevailing market forces favouring large operators.10

As in other relevant aspects of domestic farm politics, Western Canadian farmers are showing contradictory tendencies in dealing with the globalization process and the transnationalization of the industry. The most clear example is the narrow, continual and unresolved debate about the future of the wheat industry and the questions around political regulations or re-regulations and social ownership of the grain handling and marketing systems. It is possible to differentiate two tendencies, a "residual tendency" and an "emergent political economic tendency".11

The residual tendency tends to support the Canadian Wheat Board, the maintenance of a government regulatory framework, a co-operative system driven by service to the members and a national set of policies over an international set of rules. The "residuals" are driven by the use of the food and are in the agriculture activity because of its food production value. The membership of the National Farmers Union, some elements of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee, very few academics and bureaucrats, middle level management of the Canadian Wheat Board itself and segments of the membership of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba Pools are in this tendency. It is possible that some farmers are here because of their inability to position themselves for the changes at the right time or because of a denial of globalization as a contradictory political process forcing mechanisms to restructure institutions of a different political era.

Farmers in the emergent tendency support the deregulation of the industry, they do not have major concerns with the transnationalization process, they see themselves close to the corporate model and are against government intervention in the economy. This tendency accepts the globalization process

Notwithstanding that the overall direction is still unclear. The emergent tendency firmly believes that existing Canadian structures for grain marketing are no longer feasible due to the economic restructuring of the global agricultural system. The emergent tendency is being driven by the exchange value of the food and for them agriculture is just a business related to food production. Major representatives of this tendency are found in commodity basis organizations, United Grain Growers, governments, management of co-operative enterprises, segments of the membership of the three prairie pools, traders, agribusiness and others. One of the characteristics of this group is their tendency to develop an international network of contacts with similar organizations. The political participation of this group is far more open than with those farmers in the residual tendency.

Because of the wide divergence on these two groups the final position of the industry toward the globalization process will not be reached through a consensus or political accommodation but by one group overcoming the interest of the other with strong political support from the government. If the residual tendency is able to evolve to open the debate on the future of the industry in a globalized context, there will be an opportunity to make strategic political choices regarding the future of the industry in the context of the values and principles of this tendency, but in an institutional framework associated with the globalization process.

Western Canadian Wheat Handling System ---------------------------------------------------- There are two major sectors in the Western Canadian grain handling business: co-operative and non-co-operative. The co-operative sector controls between 50 to 70 per cent of the total grain handling system. The non-co-operative sector has about 5.7 % of elevator capacity and about 9 per cent market share.12 In recent months, major US based transnationals have either entered or increased their presence in the Canadian market on their own or through joint ventures. Archer Daniels Midland, for example, entered into an alliance with United Grain Growers of Winnipeg.13

There are four major grain handling co-operatives in Western Canada: United Grain Growers (UGG), Manitoba Pool Elevators (MPE), Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (SWP) and Alberta Wheat Pool (AWP) . Created out of the Prairie agrarian movement at the turn of the century, these co-operatives represented the aspirations of western grain farmers in a specific historical situation to achieve some economic and social fairness in a market economy. The co-operatives were created not to maximize institutional profits but to support the socio-economic feasibility of the family farm by decreasing input costs, by producing farm supplies and by marketing grain on behalf of farmers.

Two of these co-operatives have been privatized and listed on the Toronto Exchange. United Grain Growers was the first of the western co-operative grain handlers to issue public shares in 1993 and entered into an alliance with ADM in 1997. In 1996, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool became the second publicly traded co-operative and was transformed into the largest Canadian publicly trading agri-business company listed in the Toronto Exchange.

The term "privatization" when applied to co-operatives is used to cover the property relationship in the economic context of the co-operative in which assets and control formerly in farmers' hands are now shared with private non-farmer interests. According to Dominion Bond Rating Service (DBRS), in order to survive over the long term a privatized co-operative will have to be more focused on maximizing profits and less on high levels of services. 14

The growth or survival strategy for the grain handling co-operative sector is being centered on two economic models, the company or corporation/ model implemented by UGG and SWP and the Co-operative model maintained until today by MPE and AWP. According to D. Loewen 15, Chief Executive Officer of SWP, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool chose a financial strategy that broke tradition with conventional co-operative methods because farmers recognized that institutions are not immune to those changes affecting the business world such as competition, deregulation, industry consolidation and globalization. The strategy brings this co-operative into the pure company model of enterprise and shows the validity the trends, problems and limitations identified by Munkner.16

Efficiencies and global expansion are the themes behind the privatizing of Canadian co-operatives. In the case of the grain industry, it seems to be a strategy to deal with transnationals entering the local market but the policy analysis of the strategy tends to downplay the fact that Canadian companies may be driven out of business not because of inefficiencies but for the lack of enough financial resources to sustain the co-operative or company against the huge financial power of the transnationals. Logic indicates that in a financial competition alone, the odds will be against local companies. Social and developmental considerations could be the real key to success.

The two other co-operative organizations (MPE and AWP) may be working under the assumption that they do not have enough power and resources to achieve their goals on their own and must co-operate in the search for power and resources. A recent failed joint attempt to take over UGG is a demonstration of this approach. The growth strategy for these two co-operatives should be based on stability by maximizing the benefits of their size, maybe down-sizing, but bringing the members' role into focus and paying far more attention to the local-global linkages necessary for the implementation of a co-operative strategy.

With the changes in the industry, it will be difficult for these co-operatives to achieve internal growth in their scope of operations and geographical territory. New entrants and potential consolidation in the grain handling business seem to indicate a retrenchment strategy to reduce the costs of doing business. However, a strategy of networking or joint partnership is still possible. Rather than acquiring other competitors, co-operatives could enter into an overall joint venture including the absorption of the marketing capabilities of the CWB before full deregulation is implemented.

This approach would maintain a competitive position for Canadian farmers in the global economy and would improve corporate performance. It is difficult to design or implement such joint partnership in the present power structure of the co-operatives and it may be necessary to transfer the implementation to a joint commission dealing with the restructuring of the organization, rationalization of the functions and procedures to maximize the benefits of the arrangement and to return democratic power to grass roots members. Grass roots organizations will be the key to creating the compatibility of values of the new structure and to bringing the residual group behind this alternative.

Western Canadian Wheat Marketing System ----------------------------------------------------- Western Canadian wheat for domestic human consumption and for export purposes is marketed under Federal legislative control. The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 with the broad objective of marketing wheat as well as barley to the best possible advantage for producers. The Board does not own any infrastructure and uses the primary or terminal elevators of the co-operative and non co-operative sector in performing its marketing functions. The Board does have statutory monopoly power and a number of administrative tools to carry out its mandate. The most important features of the Wheat Board in the present regulated marketing environment are single desk selling, the quota system for deliveries and the price pooling arrangements.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a creation of the period when Canada was in a position of managing economic growth because the nation state was the political anchor for global access. It is a representation of national economic principles of economic organization and managed trade.

A position for or against the Canadian Wheat Board is, in the end, part of a normal political rationality. The Federal government, notwithstanding its vocal support for the Board, will be forced by international and domestic pressure to weaken the power of the board as a first stage, and later move to total elimination. Farmer, co-operative and Federal government actions reveal practical contradictions in their ideological rhetoric supporting the Board. The CWB owes its existence to strong support from a majority of farmers in Western Canada. Today, close to one-third of those farmers are against a marketing monopoly. The other two-thirds support the Board system, but they demand competition in the input market. Co-operatives are being oriented to maximize profits and not services to farmers and an open grain marketing system could provide these co-operatives with profit maximization opportunities. Government is pushing for a global agenda of deregulation, competition and strong emphasis on private enterprises, but actual extension of government policy to the grain sector is being tempered by political reality. The ambivalent position or policies at the farmer, co-operative and government levels will exacerbate the political debate about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

In 1995 the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food established a Grain Marketing Panel to conduct a comprehensive review of Western Canada grain marketing issues. The panel was able to confirm a deep and fundamental division among Western Canadian farmers. While there are still many farmers who strongly support the marketing of wheat and barley through the Canadian Wheat Board, the Panel recognized that there is a growing number of farmers who are asking for more options and flexibility in the marketing of all grains. In response to this open division, the Panel proposed that the Canadian Wheat Board Act be amended for two main purposes, one to allow for a change in the governance of the CWB and, two, to provide for greater flexibility in the operations of the Board and in the services it provides to farmers.17

In the marketing of wheat, the panel proposed that the advantages of the present marketing system be preserved but farmers should be offered the option of selling a portion of their wheat outside the pool through the use of spot and forward cash prices offered by the Board under basis contracts. The Panel also proposed that unlicensed varieties and organic wheat be marketed outside the jurisdiction of the CWB, with the Board being able to participate on a voluntary basis.

On October, 1996 the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food indicated that the government was preparing legislation to change the CWB structure, governance and accountability, to provide the CWB with more flexible operations and improve the cash flow to farmers and put in the hands of the new structure more decision making capabilities about the Board marketing jurisdiction. The legislation is now in the House of Commons and being rejected by most western farmers organizations.

A central political issue in the CWB debate is the relationship between the economy, business and the state, and what is emerging is a deep change in the relationship between the state and the economy. The economic reach of business or capital is now measurably larger than the political reach of the national state. The accumulation of capital takes place on a transnational scale, well above the nation-state in which local units are operating.

Globalization is a challenge to the traditional relationship between the economy and the state and that challenge must be confronted at the local- global interface by farmers themselves. It is a stated policy of the Canadian government to remove its interference from the market and leave economic development and growth to the private sector. It is logical to assume that the government will not repress almost one third of the Western Canadian farmers, to enforce an institution that is becoming dysfunctional on the basis of government policy.

The future of the Board should be analysed by putting the regulatory changes into a global perspective. The Western Canadian wheat industry was globalized at the marketing level and the new policy needs to focus on how farmers might best interconnect with the new globalized wheat market. The potential options are:

a. Through transnational companies directly; b. Through transnational companies implementing short term tactical alliances with Canadian based companies; or c. Through an integrated system of their own but in the context of the new globalized regulatory scheme.

The residual group is working under the assumption of a continued workability of existing Canadian policies for grain marketing, notwithstanding the economic restructuring of the global agricultural system. The above three choices will prevail whether the choice will be actively defined or passively accepted. The institutional framework associated with the Canadian Wheat Board will evolve in line with the emerging shape of the institutional framework associated with the globalization process.

There will be little agreement about a regulated market system being enforced in a sea of rules motivated by competition principles and an uneven relationship with other regional, national, continental or international agricultural economies. The debate on co-operation must be extended to incorporate the central, catalytic role of transnational agri-food corporations in structuring the new world and Canadian agriculture and confronting the paradox in the relationship of a small site of economic regulation in Canada related to a larger deregulated site in the world market.

In the end, a long term politically sustainable policy can be achieved only if the agricultural policy debate is taken away from the institutional framework that was created in the first part of this century. Government must recognize that the management of conflict, alliances and consensus among the different economic interests should include the grass roots. The new framework must include the fact that the historical forces organizing agriculture are global forces representing a new stage of development of the capitalistic system, that increasingly the main organizations bringing about significant changes in agriculture are organized globally and increasingly the form of agriculture in this era involves the organization of integrated agro- production-marketing systems. The challenge is how to connect the Canadian agricultural co-operatives and farmers with the global tendency.

Conclusions ---------------- Globalization as a powerful restructuring influence is changing the political, economic, and social relationships between peoples, organizations, and institutions. The world economy is going into a process of deep integration under a management process located in supranational institutions.

The delegation of power to supranational institutions is being done in the context of international trade agreements weakening the power of national states and its relationship with the economic sectors, institutions, and citizens at the state level.

A specific manifestation of the globalization is the weakening of institutional and regulatory structures supporting economic sectors like agriculture or organizations like co-operatives.

The inability to conceptualize globalization and its impact on the ideological roots of co-operation is allowing the implementation of a short term co-operative survival strategy. This strategy emphasizing the commercialization of the co-operative enterprise and economic efficiencies as well as access to outside capital is changing the proprietary relationship between members and co-operatives.

A more sustainable co-operative response is needed to be structured on the basis of real co-operation, strong leadership and promotion of co-operative assets such as concepts, relationships, investment in innovations, education, and member relations.

Co-operatives need to develop a proper conceptualization of the problems related to globalization and create responses at the local level but in accordance with the general trend of globalization. The future of co-operatives and ancillary institutions need to be examined in the context of the local-global interface through an integrated system inserted in the new globalized deregulated scheme. The assessment of co-operative efficiencies needs to take into consideration members, institutional and development oriented efficiencies in addition to the corporate principle of economic efficiency.

Bibliography ---------------- Bernstein, Henry et al., eds. The Food Question: Profits Versus People, Monthly Review Press, New York, USA. 1990.

Canadian Wheat Board, The Canadian Wheat Board 1995-1996 Annual Report, Marketing for the Future, The Canadian Wheat Board, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1997.

Clegg Stewart and Porras Salvador, Co-operatives: Characteristics of Innovative Enterprises, Co-operatives Key Issues Conference, Co-operatives Managing Change into the 21st Century, NSW Registry of Co-operatives, Co-operatives Federation of NSW Ltd., Asia-Pacific Co-operative Training Centre, Sydney, Australia, October 1995.

Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, The Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Oxford University Press, New York, USA, 1995.

Goodman, David and Radclift Michael, Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology and Culture. Routledge, New York, USA, 1991.

Goodman, David, Sorj Bernardo and Wilkinson John, From farming to Biotechnology, A Theory of Agro-Industrial Development. Basil Blackell Ltd., New York, USA, 1987.

Grispun, Ricardo and Kreklewich Robert, Consolidating Neoliberal Reforms: Free Trade as a Conditioning Framework, Studies in Political Economy, 43, Spring 1994.

Heilbroner, Robert, Twenty-First Century Capitalism, The 1992 Massey Lectures, House of Anansi Press Limited, Concord, Ontario, 1992.

Lash, Christopher, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, W.W Norton & Company Inc., New York, USA, 1995.

Lawrence, Robert, Bressand, Albert and Ito Takatoshi, A Vision for the World Economy, Openness, Diversity, and Cohesion, The Brooking Institution, Washington, USA, 1996.

Le Heron, Richard, Globalized Agriculture Political Choice, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 1993

Levitt, Theodore, The Globalization of Markets, Harvard Business Review, May-June 1983.

Loewen Donald, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Chief Executive Officer Remarks to Investor Meetings, April/May/June 1997. Unpublished notes from INTERNET.

Lubbers Ruud, The Globalization of Economy and Society, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Boston, USA. Paper from INTERNET, 1997.

Lubbers Ruud, Globalization: Towards a New Perspective on Political Economy, Tilburg Address, University of Tilburg, Netherlands. Paper from INTERNET, 1997.

Lubbers Ruud, Globalization: An Exploration, University of Tilburg, Netherlands. Paper from INTERNET, 1997.

Lubbers Ruud, Globalization and Governments, Remarks to The Club of Rome, December 1996. Paper from INTERNET.

Lubbers Ruud, Trends in Economic and Social Globalization: Challenges and Obstacles, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Boston. USA. 1996.

McMichael, Philip, Globalization: Myths and Realities, Rural Sociology, Volume 61, Number 1, 1996.

McMichael, Philip, ed. The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems. Cornell University Press, New York, 1994.

McMichael, Philip, World Food System. Restructuring under a GATT regime, Political Geography, Vol 12, No 3, May 1993.

McPherson, Ian, The Co-operative Identity in the Twenty-First Century, ICA, 1995.

Miner, William et al., The International Trade Policy Environment for Western Canadian Grains. A Paper prepared for the Western Grain Marketing Panel, Ottawa, Ontario, 1996.

Morgan, Dan, Merchants of Grain, The Viking Press, New York, USA, 1979.

Moss Kanter, Rosabeth, World Class: Thriving Locally in the Global Economy, Simon & Schuster, New York, USA. 1995.

Munkner, Hans-H, The Role of Co-operatives in the 21st Century, Co-operatives Key Issues Conference, Co-operatives Managing Change into the 21st Century, NSW Registry of Co-operatives, Co-operatives Federation of NSW Ltd., Asia-Pacific Co-operative Training Centre, Sydney, Australia, October 1995.

Ortega y Gasset, Jose, The Revolt of the Masses, W.W. Norton & Company Inc, New York, USA. 1964.

Ramonet, Ignacio, Regimes Globalitaires, Le Monde Diplomatique, No 514 - 44 anne, Janvier 1997.

Richie, Mark, Globalization v. Globalism: Giving Internationalism a Bad Name, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, USA, 1996. Paper from INTERNET.

Schroeder, David, Weir, Bob and Schroeder, Walter, The Canadian Grain Industry, An Industry Study by DBRS, Toronto, Ontario, 1997.

Statistics Canada, farming Facts 1995, Statistical Insights on Canadian Agriculture, catalogue 21-522E, Ottawa, Ontario, 1996.

Thurow Lester, Head to Head, William Morrow and Company Inc. New York, USA, 1992.

Thurow, Lester, The Future of capitalism, William Morrow and Company Inc., New York, USA, 1996.

Ufkes, Frances M., Trade Liberalization, Agro-Food Politics and the Globalization of Agriculture, Political Geography, Vol 12, No 3, May 1993.

Wallace, Iain, Toward a Geography of Agribusiness, Progress in Human Geography 9, 1985.

Waters Malcom, Globalization Routledge, New York, USA, 1995.

Western Grain Marketing Panel, Grain Marketing, The Western Grain Marketing Panel Report, Ottawa, Ontario, 1996.

Wilson William, Transnational Grain Firms: Evolution, Strategies and Perspectives on Changes in Canadian Grain Marketing. A Paper prepared for the Western Grain Marketing Panel, Ottawa, Ontario, 1996.

References -------------- 1 Munkner, Hans -H, The Role of Co-operatives in the 21st Century, Co-operatives Key Issues Conference, "Co-operatives Managing Change into the 21st Century", NSW Registry of Co-operatives, Co-operative Federation of NSW Ltd., Asia-Pacific Co-operative Training Centre, Sydney, Australia, October 1995.

2 Le Heron, Richard, Op. cit., 1993.

3 Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, Op. Cit. 1995 pages 117, 118.

4 Clegg Stewart and Porras Salvador, Co-operatives: Characteristics of Innovative Enterprises, 1995 Co-operatives Key Issues Conference, Co-operatives Managing Change into the 21st Century, NSW Registry of Co-operatives, Co-operative Federation of NSW Ltd., Asian-Pacific Co-operative Training Centre, Sydney, Australia, 1995.

5 MacPherson, Ian, The Co-operative Identity in the Twenty-First Century, 1995. Unpublished paper from INTERNET.

6 Munkner, Hans-H. op. cit., 1995.

7 Canadian Wheat Board, The Canadian Wheat Board 1995-1996 Annual Report, Marketing for the Future.The Canadian Wheat Board, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1997.

8 Canadian Wheat Board, op. Cit. 1997.

9 Statistics Canada, Farming Facts 1995, Statistical Insights on Canadian Agriculture, Catalogue 21-522E, Ottawa, Ontario, 1996.

10 Wallace Iain, Op. cit. 1985.

11 For a more complete explanation, see Philip McMichael, Op. cit. 1994.

12 Schroeder David, Weir Bob and Schroeder Walter, The Canadian Grain Industry, An Industry Study by DBRS, Toronto, Ontario, 1997. Table 12

13 The Western Producer, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Several issues, 1997.

14 Schroeder David et al. Op. cit. 1997.

15 Loewen, Donald K. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Chief Executive Officer Remarks to Investor Meetings, April/May/June, 1997. Notes available from INTERNET, 1997.

16 Munkner, Hans-H, Op. cit., 1995.

17 Western Grain Marketing Panel, Grain Marketing, The Western Grain Marketing Panel Report, Ottawa, Canada. 1996.

---------------------- * Mr. Caceres is a private consultant working in agricultural, transportation and co-operative matters at the national and international level. He has done policy and economic analyses for a number of clients ranging from private companies to Canadian and international organizations