Collective Action Dynamics and Product Reputation

This chapter aims to analyse how the quality and reputation dimension is built and sustained through collective action dynamics. It explores the key features of collective action that underlie origin based product development and their protection through GIs. The chapter which departs from a literature review which identified the key dimensions of GI related collective action and structure the analysis. It then builds on the analysis of two highly contrasted cases, Karoo lamb and Karakul pelts, to deepen the understanding of the diversity of ways in which collective reputation can develop at industry level and of the different situations that this creates for implementing GI schemes. The discussion empirically confirms the importance of collective action to successfully exploit the benefits of collective reputation and shows that the capacity of industries to establish successful GIs critically depends on the collective basis on which product reputation has been built, as this determines an industry’s ability to act collectively in protecting the collective reputation. It is argued that distinguishing between collective action features attached to the building of the collective reputation and those linked to maintaining and protecting this reputation, creates an interesting direction for a more robust approach to collective action analysis oriented towards supporting GI implementation.

[1]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[2]  A. Marescotti,et al.  THE ROLE OF TYPICAL PRODUCTS IN FOSTERING RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE EFFECTS OF REGULATION (EEC) 2081/92 , 2001 .

[3]  Angela Tregear,et al.  From Stilton to Vimto: using food history to re-think typical products in rural development , 2003 .

[4]  S. Réviron,et al.  Which collective organizational pattern for geographical indications dominated by a leading processor? Similarities between case-studies from Mongolia and Switzerland. , 2008 .

[5]  B. Sylvander,et al.  Welcome to the club? An economic approach to geographical indicators in the European Union. , 2000 .

[6]  Joseph J. Cadilhon,et al.  Linking people, places and products , 2009 .

[7]  Jason A. Winfree,et al.  Collective Reputation and Quality , 2005 .

[8]  John Phillip Harison. Acocks,et al.  Veld types of South Africa. , 1955 .

[9]  D. Barjolle,et al.  Some factors of success for origin labelled products in agri-food supply chains in europe: market, internal resources and institutions , 1999 .

[10]  A. Lewin,et al.  The Coevolution of Network Alliances: a Longitudinal Analysis of An International Professional Service Network , 1999 .

[11]  Claude Ménard,et al.  Institutions, Contracts and Organizations , 2000 .

[12]  E. Chamberlin The Theory of Monopolistic Competition , 1933 .

[13]  M. Paus,et al.  Crystallisation of Collective Action in the Emergence of a Geographical Indication System , 2010 .

[14]  J. Kirsten,et al.  Linking farmers to markets through valorisation of local resources:the case for intellectual property rights of indigenous resources , 2011 .

[15]  Kasturi Das Socioeconomic Implications of Protecting Geographical Indications in India , 2009 .

[16]  K. Esler,et al.  Karoo veld ecology and management , 2006 .

[17]  R. Hinde,et al.  Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Collective Action , 2010 .