Abstract
AbstractThe nature of small-scale seed companies and their role in sustaining genetic diversity are understudied in developed countries—not least Japan, which has nearly 1000 of them. In this in-depth survey, Ayako Kawai analyses findings derived from interviews with the heads of, and breeders in, three such firms. Historically, she notes, Japanese seed companies operate within close-knit networks and follow customary practices, which has helped to foster cooperation: they function as “diverse economies”, collectively agreeing on seed prices and trading as equal partners. Many of them also contribute to agrobiodiversity by maintaining open pollinated varieties, and in some rare cases, by developing new non-hybrid ones. Inevitably, these practices can put them at odds with market constraints such as the demand for mainstream traits. Kawai concludes that if free-market principles were applied wholesale to Japan’s seed industry, its predominantly value-led approach would suffer, with negative impacts on national crop diversity.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference15 articles.
1. Abe, N. (2015). Dentōyasai wo tsukutta hitobito [People who developed traditional vegetables: A modern history of ‘seed dealers’]. Nōbunkyō.
2. Bonina, J., & Cantliffe, D. J. (2004). Seed production and seed sources of organic vegetables. Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS. University of Florida. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-hs227-2004
3. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & Just, R. E. (2007). Researchability of modern agricultural input markets and growing concentration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(5), 1269–1275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01095.x
4. Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy: An ethical guide for transforming our communities. University of Minnesota Press.
5. Hisano, S. (1998). Shubyōjigyō no kōzō to kinō ni kansuru ichikōsatsu [The structure and functions of the Japanese seed system]. Review of Agricultural Economics, 54, 21–37.