Is corporatization the way out for agriculture and marketing cooperative products?

In recent years, the idea that corporatization would be the solution to some of the difficulties experienced in agriculture and in marketing the products of agricultural cooperatives has been brought to the agenda. This topic continues to be relevant today.

Before quoting from an article that sheds light on this subject, it is useful to briefly look at the differences between cooperatives and companies.

What are the differences between cooperatives and companies?

The goal of companies is to generate the highest level of profit from the invested capital. To achieve this, they try to pay raw material producers and workers as little as possible, and make consumers pay more.

In cooperatives, the ownership and management duties are undertaken by the members.

In companies, profit is distributed based on the capital contribution shares of the partners; in cooperatives, profit is distributed based on the transactions made by the members.

In companies, partners may not know each other, and shares can be bought and sold on the free market. In cooperatives, membership certificates can be transferred with the approval of the cooperative.

In companies, if an individual or family owns more than 50 percent of the company's capital, they dominate the company. In cooperatives, the limit of partnership an individual can hold is restricted by law (See: Why is Cooperativism in Agriculture Important?-m-turkmenoglukoopvakfı.org.tr)

It is known that corporatization in agriculture is a model imposed by the neoliberal system. However, there are very few articles on the fact that corporatization will not be the solution for marketing the products of agricultural cooperatives. An article examining this issue was written in recent years by Çağatay Özcan Kokulu, one of the most competent people in İzmir regarding agricultural cooperativism. Since Kokulu's article remains current, I find it useful to reiterate it.

Çağatay Özcan Kokulu shows us the way.

In his article titled "The Historical Line of the Köy-Koop İzmir Union," Kokulu wrote that "the İzmir Agricultural Village Development Cooperatives Union was established in 1971, and the union owned agricultural-based industrial and large agricultural facilities such as 28 olive oil factories, six medium-sized dairy processing plants, 10 milk collection and agricultural input supply facilities, two pickled olive facilities, one pine nut processing facility, one animal slaughterhouse, two forest products processing (box, crate) factories, 25 decares of greenhouse vegetable and flower production, and one fruit sapling production facility, and employed 58 people in the 1980s."

Kokulu explained the reason for this success as follows: "One of the most important factors in the development of the Köy-Koop İzmir Union, as much as its correct direction of investments and credibility, is its democratic structure. It is the creation of a structure where everyone finds themselves and has the opportunity to 'have a say'."

Kokulu also wrote: "A continuous bond was established that ensured business integrity between the union and the unit cooperatives. That bond is that all accounting records and income-expense documents of all cooperatives were kept at the Union headquarters. While these transactions ensured the supervision of the units, prevented mistakes, and maintained authority and discipline, the relationship between the union and the units remained constantly alive and vibrant."

Kokulu stated, however, that in the period corresponding to after 1980, the management of the Köy-Koop İzmir Union fell into the hands of the Ata Ünver team, and this team convinced the unit cooperatives by putting forward justifications such as faster decision-making, faster implementation, and cost savings through corporatization, and a company called TASTAŞ was established.

At the end of his article, Kokulu explained that "with corporatization, 105 decares of land were sold and squandered, stands at the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Market numbered 53, 55, and 29 were sold off, stores in İzmir and Ankara were closed, the loan to be given to the integrated facility to be established on the 105-decare land was withdrawn due to lack of trust, TASTAŞ caused three cooperatives to go bankrupt, producers' debts and SSK and tax premium debts were not paid, and the traditional structure of Köy-Koop was lost, and in short, Köy-Koop İzmir lost everything."

Based on Kokulu's article, I would like to conclude my article "Is Corporatization the Way Out for Agriculture and Marketing Cooperative Products?" as follows.

First: Kokulu has shown us through his experience that corporatization is not the way out for marketing the products of cooperatives established by small and medium-sized agricultural enterprises based on family labor. As a doyen of cooperativism, he did not bow to the prevailing wind. As a requirement of my socialist understanding, I sign my name to Kokulu's article.

Second: The point reached by the externally dependent neoliberal economy in Turkey and the companies that are its tools has been exploitation and the deterioration of income distribution. Especially in agriculture, farmers have become impoverished, rural areas have begun to empty out, the increase in unit agricultural production has declined, and as a result, there has been and continues to be an explosion in agricultural product imports. Moreover, consumers have become unable to access agricultural products. For this reason, proposing solutions with companies, which are again tools of the neoliberal economy, under the guise of some taking a stance against the neoliberal economy, cannot prevent the collapse in agriculture.

What happened in the past also illuminates our future. What is the use if lessons are not learned from the past?

Prof. Dr. Mustafa Kaymakçı

[email protected]