Farm

Factory farming can be perceived as an enterprising activity that is aimed at increasing the animals’ productivity at the lowest cost  possible so as to increase the profit margins while meeting the huge market demands.

The factory farms normally hold a large number of animals, and mostly cows, pigs, chickens and also turkeys indoors, and the purpose of holding these animals is to produce milk, meat and eggs at the cost effective production level. A wide range of artificial applications are practiced in order to improve the animals’ health and production and they include  the application of growth hormones, vitamin supplements and also the use of antimicrobial agents.

Due to the large number of animals within a small area, their movements and actions are restricted as these movements and actions are considered to be unnecessary, as the main objective of the farm is to increase productivity which will definitely imply high profits.

The breeding of these animals while in factory farms is controlled by limiting the animals to the production of certain breeds which are likely to be productive depending on the manipulated genetically compositions.

The paper emphases on the various practices in the factory farms on animals and their impact on the animals, the environment and also the effect on humanity as the consumers of these products. The paper ends by giving the possible measure that can be put in place to correct evils of factory farms if any as identified in the following arguments.

The treatment of animals in factory farms can be perceived as being unfair if the animals are to be regarded as living things which are liable to respond to irritations and other stimuli. The animals that are held in the factory farms are treated unfairly at the expense of the farm owners trying to maximize their profits, hence treating animals like just production units.

The animals in factory farms  which are held for the production of meat, eggs and milk are subjected to animal abuse, genetic compositions are alterations to produce the desired breeds with high productivity levels, they are over crowded and confined in cages which restricts their movements and certain behavioral actions, they are subjected to cruel mutilation, they are handled in a harsh manner, neglected, and they are slaughtered in an inhumane manner (Seitz 216).

All the above mentioned unfair treatment of the animals in factory farms has been occurring and is certain to continue increasing as the demand for the products from these animals increase.

This scenario of animal abuse has been enabled by the fact that there is no federal  legal protection for these animals like in the case of dogs and cats where these acts are likely to be illegal, which portrays the biasness in the application of law (Francione & Watson 145).

The farm animals are equivalent to dogs and cats who are cherished as champions as they less sensitive, intelligent and responsive to pain than the dogs and cats thus they need a fair treatment.

The animals that are kept in cages, are deprived their freedom to move and also the liberty to exercise, and rather their energies are preserved so as to increase their productivity (Armstrong and Botzler 180). The animals are fed with drugs with an aim of fattening them faster and getting genetically manipulated to grow faster, produce a lot of milk than they can produce naturally and also the laying of eggs made quicker and the quality of eggs ensured.

This treatment of the factory farm animal is unfair because it is likely to impose stress on the animals making them to develop some behaviors which are not natural because they are over strained to meet a given production level which is high above the natural level, thus over capacity utilization.

This situation also posses the risk of loosing the indigenous breeds due to the genetic manipulation, which eliminates the indigenous traits in animals.

There is also a risk of a certain species of animal going into extinction as the genetically modified animals are meant for some specific purposes like the production of meat, egg or milk, while ignoring to consider the future existence of these animals because these genetically modifications are meant to meet the immediate need for profit maximization and not considering the possibilities for the animals to ensure generational progress, without forgetting side effects inherent in the manipulations which might come up later in the future generations including the infertility of the animals (Kistler 90).

The Family in History as we would hear perhaps from old folks who are still living in some rural areas is a picture of husband and wife and kids living simply outside urban area. According to Arlene Skolnick, “throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, well over 90 percent of the American family lived in small rural communities” (Skolnick 79) and every one is busy as all members of the family work be it in the farm, or in a shop, or maybe in the home.

In Skolnick’s comparative study of the families then and now, she only noticed slight difference and this is in terms of size of family members. She noted that a “typical house hold in the 1790 included about 5. 6 members compared to about 3. 5 today” (Skolnick 79). During this period, married women were usually home maker specially those who belong to middle class family, but poor married young women and widows worked in the factories. Mara Dunleavy noted that during the early 1800s adult female role include the responsibility to have children and to care for them.

She also had to take care of the house under her husband’s supervision. Also, she is expected by her husband in farm or garden labor. The husband on the other hand is responsible for the financial needs of the family. During this period, most men had farm or were working as farm laborers or what ever skill that got them employed. The husbands were also responsible to support and defend his family, and are expected to be strong, independent and reliable. They were to work in the field and to market his farm product.

The married women role of running the household and to care for children were indeed a full time job as it also includes cleaning the house, preparing and cooking the foods, bottling and canning the produce of the farm, and provides for all the need of the husband and the children as well. Children had also their own role. They were taught these roles at their young age particularly how to farm for the boys and how they could provide for in their families in the future. Children were also sent to school and were taught the basic academic subject as higher education was available during this time.

Girls on the other hand, were taught the household chores and some basic education, but higher educations were not available for women until 1837. Dunleavy pointed out that even when higher education were opened for women in 1837 but it only offered limited degree not enough to provide them career alternatives, rather they were taught how to be a good wives and mothers. Arlene Skolnick pointed out that “differences between the American family in colonial times and today are not at all stark; the similarities are striking” (Skolnick 79).

But these similarities could maybe only apply in the social climate of both periods. Indeed there is a striking contrasts in the roles those men, women and children that they are now doing and the roles that family members had assumed during the colonial times. How Have Things Change Skolnick noted that during the civil war period American attitudes toward the family had profoundly changed. The reason for this is the gradual transformation of America into an urban, industrial society during the early decade of the 19th century.

Skolnick further noted that in 1820, “less than eight percent of the population lived in cities but by 1860 it rose to twenty percent and by 1900, that figure had doubled. But the benefit of industrialization did not immediately affect the structure of the family” (Skolnick 80) However, there was a decline in the size of the family though most of the social condition remained about the same. But the industrialization had a lasting effect on the family as the whole members don’t have to work as independent workers. Men can work in the offices and factories while wives concentrate in the house to take care of the children now going to school.

Mara Dunleavy contends that during the twentieth century, women’s role gradually moved into male dominated labor force and the home became a meeting place mainly for the family to gather together. According to Clarence Roberts, during the industrial revolution period men worked too far from their home and were usually tucked away in offices or factories (Roberts). Men became the bread winner to a great extent of the family while women left in charge of the children and the home. Roberts pointed out that this was thought to have helped destroy the equalitarian position of women in the family.

During this period too, Roberts noted that children could now help earn for their families as they could work in factories even with out the approval of their elders. Roberts further noted that home training and instruction was now replace by formal education in public school and work in the factories. Dunleavy pointed out in his article published on line entitled “How Changing Sex Roles Have Affected the Family Unity in the United Stated,” that during the World War II there was a large shortage of men. Because of this shortage, women took the vacancies as men were sent abroad to join the war.

Women took active roles in the male dominated work traditionally. Since then, women’s roles broaden and some began making careers outside of their homes for themselves. Since then up to now, more changes had taken place although children still work but authorities see to it that it would not hinder their education, thus making work schedule only on Saturdays. How Have They Remained the Same? There is no doubt that everything about the family life had changed to a great extent. The traditional family had also changed and even affected by this change because of the women’s quest for equality with men.

Many things reflect great changes in the family life since the 1800s. Perhaps the only thing that has not significantly change is the social climate which still features almost the same social condition. Early premarital pregnancies, abortion, marrying age, premarital sex, and divorce were just some of the issues of the past that still ring in the present society. It was in this area that Arlene Skolnick noted that there was striking similarities between the families of the past and the families of the present. Why do you Think that something have Changed Over time?

There were indeed some things that had changed over time in the lives of the families in history. One of these things is, with the rise of industrialization men went to urban cities to seek for work in factories or offices for their families. Their farm lives were suddenly left behind, and the duties of the wives had changed from equally working with men in the farm to just manage the home and to take care of their children. This change went over time that women found themselves already in the situation, before they realize their utter dependence on their husband.

The reason for this is nothing else than economic. Men sees the opportunity for economic advancement which their farm lives could hardly provide. Family relationships particularly extended families have changed over time as every one had the opportunity to work. The once conjugal work of the disappeared and was replace by men as bread winner of the family. Children too have had experienced changed over time as they were now income earners too. All these changes were hue mainly to the economic opportunity bought by the advent of industrialization and the men’s desire to improve their family lives.

Work Cited Dunleavy, Mara. “How Changing Sex Roles Have Affected the Family Unit in the United States. ” Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. http://www. yale. edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/6/82. 06. 09. x. html Roberts, Clarence Jr. “The Changing Family: How Changes in the Family Reflect Social and Economic Changes in Society. ” Yale-New Haven teachers Institute. Vol. 4, 2007 http://www. yale. edu/ynhti/curriculum/guides/1990/4/90. 04. 08. x. html Skolnick, Arlene. “The Paradox of Perfection”(given file)

By looking at the historical highs and lows and the American agricultural sector, these constitute a success story. The early 1900’s saw the golden age of agriculture with many thriving farmlands across the United States. With many farms, competition heightened and together with other economic factors resulted to the decline in the agricultural sector in the late 1920s up to the early 1930s resulting to the bankruptcy of many small farms. Abandoned lands became residential and commercial areas while the farms that remained became large farmlands that grew because of technological advancements.

This transformed the composition of the agricultural sector from many small to medium farmlands to niches of large farmlands driven by large capital investments and technological development. Government policies conducive to the growth of the agricultural sector also contributed to the further development of the agricultural sector. Although many small farms closed, the long-term impact of changes in the agricultural sector is the decline in farm poverty because of higher productivity and lower prices from the abatement of competition to a certain extent.

Although, contemporary agricultural sector has not regained the position it reached during its golden age, growth is sustainable. (Gardner 1-3) The present agricultural sector survived because of four factors. First is capital investments, in which the banking and financial sector played an important part. Second is sustained productivity due to the development of technological tools and processes. Third is government support for researches in the agricultural sector to support sound policymaking.

Fourth are the price-support programs of the government for stability that benefits farm owners by enabling them to gain sufficient profits to sustain continued production as well as consumers through lower prices so that food constitutes less than ten percent of the budget of consumption of American households. (Gardner 337) Methods of Production and Distribution Production and distribution in the American agricultural varies between the large and small farms.

In the case of the large farms, the method of production targets the mass market and takes advantage of economies of scale and the mode of distribution is through mass- marketing outlets such as large supermarkets and other retail venues widely accessible to consumers. There are large farms that have been able to produce more than one agricultural product and these distribute products within economies of scope by bundling complementary goods. Large farms achieve economies of scale by using high-technology tools and processes and taking advantage of the abundance of workers in the labor market.

Production in large farms use tractors to till land, small planes to spread pesticides over vast tracts of land, regulated water sprinklers, and other implements or even biotechnology by using pest or weather resistant varieties of seeds, vaccines for livestock, and weight control systems. Although these involve costs, it is only on a one-time basis with cost-savings accruing in the long-term, and technology supports mass production. Large farms also depend on contractual workers for the necessary manual work and the abundance of unskilled labor especially coming from Mexico has allowed farms to cut back on cost.

Due to cost-efficiency, large farms are able to cut-down on production costs and ensure high yields resulting to the ability to offer competitive market prices. As such, large farms are able to gain large supermarkets as distribution channels by offering a bigger mark-up price and gains for the retailers. (Paul and Nehring 526-528) In the case of the small, farms, production depends on its cost structure, revenue generation, and market so that methods of production implements basic technological tools and processes together with manual labor.

The low scale of production of small farms led to niche marketing targeting only a limited market to ensure sales. Distribution channels are through on-site retail outlets, groceries, and specialty stores. (Paul and Nehring 526-528) Market Structure and Concentration Market structure of the American agricultural industry experienced greater degrees of concentration. Technological developments have segmented the American agricultural industry into two groups.

One are the limited number of large farms that, in a way, can be considered as operating within an oligopoly or even nearing monopoly, except only for the government prerogatives to intervene to protect public policy. The other is small farms operating in an atomistic structure so that these do not have any significant effect on prices. There is a wide gap between the large and small farms in terms of productivity and market impact, with the large firms operating with large capital and employing high technology processes while households usually run small farms with limited workers using technological tools that fit their expenditure range.

This resulted to high barriers to entry and exit. Contrary to estimates, the number of farms in the American agriculture sector experienced little change in the number of players since there are around 2. 1 million farms remaining with an average of . 25 percent decline rate. This is because the large firms have remained stable with expansion through the mergers or the acquisition of small farms. Movement occurs in the case of small firms through the entry of small farms specializing on certain agricultural products for niche markets to succeed in becoming part of the agricultural market.

In addition, the difference in farmland also widened with the large farms producing on more than 1,000 acres of land while small farms only have less than 50 acres. (Ahearn, Yee, Korb 1182) Due to the segmentation of the American agricultural sector into a few large farms and many small farms, agricultural production is concentrated in the large firms contributing two-thirds to the primary agricultural production in the United States of grains, fruits and vegetables, and livestock. The remaining one-third comes from small farms. (Ahearn, Yee, Korb 1183)

Degree of Foreign Competition The degree of foreign competition in agricultural trade has grown because of the rise in the importation of agricultural products by the United States. This means that foreign competition has escalated due to the entry of agricultural imports, especially from developing countries. Projections show that in the next years the balance of trade would tip in favor of agricultural imports. During the 1980s up to the early 1990s, the United States is a string player in the export of agricultural products so that exports exceeded imports.

By the mid-1990s, the surplus in agriculture trade has declined from $27. 3 billion to $10. 5 billion so that even if agricultural exports continue to increase, the volume of imports is also doubling. This was due to the rise in agricultural export prices as the American economy experienced growth. Economic growth also fuelled agricultural imports since Americans had the income to purchase foreign products that flooded the market due to price differences. (Jerardo) Now, growth and patterns of consumption would further fuel the growth in the imports of agricultural products.

Rise in consumption together with the growing exposure of American consumers to international cuisine would continue to favor the importation of agricultural products. The consumption of foreign agricultural products should increase from 13 percent in the next years. (Jerardo) The major competitors of the United States in agricultural trade are China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and other agriculture-based economies in Latin America. These countries have large populations but these are also primarily agricultural economies owing to favorable climate conditions and low labor cost.

Raw agricultural products come from Mexico and the Latin American countries because of geographic proximity while processed foods, which comprise 62 percent of food consumption of Americans, come from China, India and Indonesia. (Jerardo) Industry Leaders The agricultural sector in the United States is a mix of sub-sectors such as livestock or fruits and vegetables, seeds or feeds, packing or processing, and research and development. The industry leaders have stakes in many or all of these sub-sectors to ensure their competitiveness, industry position, and market share.

Leaders in the agricultural sector comprise not really of the owners of farmlands but the firms controlling the agricultural sectors encompassing production, harvesting, processing, packaging, transport, and export of agricultural products. Large farms and agricultural firms have created clusters to gain access to these different sub-sectors. The clustering is dynamic depending on the shifts brought about by mergers and acquisitions. Currently, there are three clusters comprising the leading agricultural sector players. (Helper 1288) Cargill/Monsanto.

Cargill is a large firm engaged in the seed operations including research. It has a large capitalization and control over farmlands along the Ohio and Illinois River basin. Cargill purchased continental grain to gain access to corn, wheat and soybeans production along the Mississippi River for export. Monsanto is widely engaged in biotechnology and it has acquired patent over genetic products that ensure better yields through more resistant agricultural produce. Cargill entered into a joint venture with Monsanto in 1998 to gain access to the patented genetic products by offering its large capitalization as incentive.

Cargill/Monsanto focuses on the production, processing, packaging, marketing, and export of seeds as well as corn, wheat and soybean products. (Heffernan) ConAgra is engaged in various sub-sectors as a top-three flour miller, top-four corn miller, top-three live stock feed producer, top-two in cattle slaughtering, top-three pork processor, and top-five broiler producer and processor. United Agri Products, a subsidiary also engages in seeds, fertilizers, and other agricultural chemicals as well as biotechnology. It has its own packaging and processing plants as well as land and water transportation subsidiaries.

It collaborated with ADM for the operation of a grain export facility. ConAgra also has a stake in production, processing, distribution and export of grains and livestock. (Heffernan) Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) constitutes the largest processor of agricultural products such as corn, soybeans, wheat and cocoa. It collaborates with farm cooperatives to obtain raw agricultural products for processing or gained shares in firms engaged in agricultural production such as Growmark, Countrymark, United Grain, and Riceland.

It has expanded into the other sub-sectors through a join venture with Novartis to gain access to seeds, biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals. It has also engaged in the raising, slaughtering and processing of livestock through joint ventures with Consolidated Nutrition and AGP. ADM has also been able to participate in the major sub-sectors. (Heffernan) Thus, the agricultural sector in the United States operates through corporate farming. Scarcity of Land Scarcity of agricultural land the in the United States pertains to the land use conversion and degradation of agricultural lands due to the use of chemicals.

Land conversion decreases farm size while land degradation reduces productivity or causes shift in production from one agricultural product to another. This also pertains to the comparison of agricultural production with the consumption of agricultural products. In the United States, agricultural lands constitutes 46 percent of the land base, which remains a significant percentage share considering the massive industrialization of economic sectors. Of the 2. 3 billion acres of land comprising the United States, 442 million acres comprise croplands and more than 500 million acres of farmsteads, pastures and ranges.

Conversion of agricultural lands is not significant so that in the past thirty years, only six percent of agricultural lands have been converted for other purposes. In terms of land degradation, reports have not raised alarm on the rate of land degradation. In terms of food consumption, the increase in food imports is fuelled by change in consumption patterns and not the inability of agricultural lands to support the food needs of Americans. Moreover, the U. S. remains a major food exported. Land scarcity does not constitute a major problem in the American agricultural sector.

(Brady) Impact of Ethanol Production on Wheat Production and Cost to Consumers The government has implemented a fixed subsidy on ethanol at a floor rate of 40 cents for every gallon and a ceiling rate of 60 cents per gallon. The subsidy served as an incentive for production of ethanol as an alternative source of fuel in the United States. Relative to price of crude oil, ethanol is slightly cheaper depending on the volume of production. However, in the early 2000s, the price of crude oil skyrocketed to as much as $80 per barrel.

The huge difference in price opened opportunities for the expansion of ethanol production because of the fixed subsidy together with the room for price increase that would still be below crude oil prices but constituting significantly higher prices than its previous market offering. This means that some farmers have shifted to the sowing of raw materials of ethanol leading to a decrease in the number of farmers and farmlands producing agricultural products. This in turn led to the rise in the prices of agricultural products such as wheat and even soybeans.

In addition, other alternative sources of energy have gained momentum such as corn. Although corn receives lower subsidy compared to ethanol, the engagement of the agricultural sector in alternative sources of energy could significantly affect the volume of production of other agricultural products that would prove costly for consumers in the form of higher food prices. This effect has led to the emergence of the issue of food-fuel prioritization. (Tyner and Taheripour 1303) This is yet to be resolved and this would continue to become an issue in the agricultural sector until the next decade.

Conclusion Outlook for the American agricultural sector in the future points to a positive situation because the United States would continue to become a major player in agricultural exports while providing agricultural products to the domestic market. However, there are a number of policy issues that requires due consideration. First, forecasts of balance of trade shows a further decline in agricultural trade surplus with some even suggesting the probability of trade deficit.

This is because even if agricultural production experiences growth, the flood of imported food products could be greater, especially when these food products become cheaper as the price of domestically grown agricultural products increase. This will have a significant adverse impact on the American agricultural sector. Even if there is no food shortage, the flooding of cheaper agricultural products could contribute to the decline in the agricultural sector. The government needs to assess its import policies to balance consumer demand with the viability of the agricultural sector.

Second, land use and agricultural production needs assessment, since this falls within federal and state regulation, especially in the context of the food-fuel debate. The rising prices of agricultural products could be eased through the application of a flexible instead of a fixed subsidy rate together with the continued investment in research and development to justify the continuation of subsidies for ethanol and even the focus on fuel from corn. It has been thirty years since the government started implementing subsidies on ethanol but ethanol as an alterative fuel has yet to become a commercial source of energy as intended.

Thus, government policies on price support and agricultural research has played an important role in the growth of the American agricultural sector and this will not change in the future since the issues faced by the agricultural sector fall within the area of policymaking and subject to government regulation. Works Cited Ahearn, Mary Clare, Jet Yee, and Penni Korb. “Effects of Differing Farm Policies on Farm Structure and Dynamics. ” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87. 5 (2007): 1182-1189. Brady, Michael. “Land Use, Value and Management. ” 18 October 2005.

USDA Economic Research Service. 26 April 2008 <http://www. ers. usda. gov/Briefing/landuse/> Gardner, Bruce. American Agriculture in the Twentieth Century: How it Flourished and What is Cost. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Heffernan, William. “Study on Concentration in U. S. Agriculture. ” 5 February 1999. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. 26 April 2008 <http://www. greens. org/s-r/gga/heffernan. html> Helper, Susan. “Empirical Research in an Increasingly Concentrated Industrial Environment: Discussion. ” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89. 5(2007): 1288–1289.

Jerardo, Alberto. “The U. S. Agricultural Trade Balance… More than Just a Number. ” 1 February 2004. USDA Economic Research Service. 26 April 2008 <http://www. ers. usda. gov/amberwaves/February04/Features/USTradeBalance. htm> Paul, Catherine, and Richard Nehring. “Product Diversification, Production Systems, and Economic Performance in U. S. Agricultural Production. ” Journal of Econometrics 126. 2(2005): 525-548. Tyner, Wallance, and Farzad Taheripour. “Renewable Energy Policy Alternatives for the Future. ” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89. 5 (2007): 1303-1310.

The two novels, Animal Farm by George Orwell and Lord of the Flies by William Golding were both written over 50 years ago, meaning there is much to be said about both. All you have to do is type in the name of each of the novels into Google and out pops tonnes of information about each. If someone were to research enough of the two books they would be able to see that they are quite similar in plot and themes. Both books take a look at a newly built society which is slowly destroyed by the characters or people within them.

The concept of one having power over the rest is what corrupts the societies and ends in death and adversity for all others within the society. The authors both use their characters in the novels to portray what society might be like in that type of situation and use their actions to demonstrate how it can fall apart if the correct steps are not taken to maintain a functioning society. Therefore, both authors show how power can corrupt a society and create great hardship for the people ruled through its stimulating characters and their fraught actions.

The main characters in both of the books are the ones who ultimately cause the societies to crumble. In Animal Farm George Orwell uses pigs to satire the leadership of Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky and how they manipulated their people into thinking what they are doing is right (NovelGuide). The pigs led a revolution on the farm owner to take the farm and leave it in the hands of all of the animals, instead of man. They stated that the farm would be run by the animals with no rules other then that to never act like a human (Orwell).

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which (Orwell 88). At the start of the revolution, there was no clear ‘leader’ of the animals and they did as they pleased, however the much smarter pigs started changing some of the rules that were set forth to make sure none of the animals would behave the way the humans had.

The much smarter pigs took advantage of all of the other animals and started changing rules, giving them increasingly more power over the group. In the end, the power hungry pigs ended up becoming exactly what they set out to destroy, humans. The result of this corruption of power ended with a couple animals dying and others working night and day endlessly. In the novel Lord of the Flies author William Golding uses children lost on a deserted island to represent a newly formed society.

Two boys choose to take different approaches to surviving on the island and running the rest of the group, so they split up into their own little societies. Jack, one of the leaders chooses a more violent role of surviving; he disagrees with the methods of Ralph (the other leader) and takes command of most of the boys (Golding). Jack began his adventure on the island as a normal boy just like any of the others, however after he was elected into power by all of his friends, it quickly got to his head. “I agree with Ralph. We’ve got to have rules and obey them.

After all, we’re not savages. We’re English, and the English are best at everything. So we’ve got to do the right things” (Golding 42). The power which is corrupting Jack causes him to do many things no person would think of doing while trying to survive (Bookrags). In the end, Jack’s power ended in the deaths of two boys and the utter destruction of an island. All in all, power was what lead the main characters in each of the novels to corrupt a society they had longed to be apart of, leading to deaths of others and the hardship of the rest.

Both the pigs and Jack used manipulation and their power to control the others in their respective societies. Within Animal Farm the pigs used their smarts to out wit and manipulate the others into giving them power over the rest. When the revolution first happened, the animals established ‘The Seven Commandments’ which consisted of rules preventing any animal from acting like a human (Golding). Over time the farm animals grew suspicious of the pigs actions and reverted back to ‘The Seven Commandments’, which was no use since the pigs were the only ones that could read, and they changed the rules in their favour.

‘It says, “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets”,’ she announced finally. Curiously enough, Clover had not remembered that the Fourth Commandment mentioned sheets; but as it was there on the wall, it must have done so (Orwell 42). Over time the pigs became more and more like the humans, and with no questions asked as well since none of the animals understood what the pigs were up too. The pigs used the saying “Four legs good, two legs bad” to justify most of their actions to the less intelligent animals (NeoEnglishSystem). The pigs rise to power and

the corruption of the animal farm was aided by the smarts the pigs possessed over the other less clever animals. In Lord of the Flies, main character Jack uses persuasion and other un-ethical tactics to recruit other children into joining his ‘group’. Some of these tactics include threatening and bribing the others in order for him to gain power over the majority of the kids on the island (Bookrags). Jack’s methods of gaining the majority of the boys on the island results in him having complete power of what goes on, on the island.

“Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood! ” (Golding 168). Jack orders an attack on the so called ‘monster’ that is living on the island with them. Without second guessing him, his tribe attacks the ‘monster’ which turns out to be one of the boys. All in all, the corruption of the others in the society by the leaders using manipulation and other methods to gain power is what leads to the ultimate demolition of the two novels societies.

Due to their mad hunt for power and the means they went through to achieve it, the pigs and Jack had a bunch of repercussions for their actions against their respective societies. The pigs used their brains as a way to gain power and control of their group of animals, however by doing this it resulted in the deaths of a couple of the animals as well as the expulsion of one of the other pigs (Orwell). About half the animals on the farm rushed out to the knoll where the windmill stood. There lay Boxer, between the shafts of the cart, his neck stretched out, unable to even raise his head.

His eyes were glazed, his sides matted with sweat. A thin stream of blood had trickled out of his mouth (Orwell 74). Even though the pigs are the ones that organized the revolution on the humans, they ended up becoming what they had feared. They over worked the other farm animals and made them think it was all for a better cause (NeoEnglishSystem). Lord of the Flies’ main character Jack also had major repercussions for his actions. Jack did not put him self in the leadership role, he was chosen by Ralph to help him run the group of boys.

Things quickly got out of hand for Jack and he soon wanted to lead all of the boys by himself instead of with Ralph. Jack’s actions to get into power are what corrupted the small society of boys and those actions came with the repercussions of death for two of the boys and the near death experience for another. If anyone peered under the bushes and chanced to glimpse human flesh it might be sameric who would pretend not to see and say nothing. He laid his cheek against the chocolate coloured earth, licked his dry lips and closed his eyes.

Under the thicket, the earth was vibrating very slightly; or perhaps there was a sound beneath the obvious thunder of the fire and scribbled ululations that was too low to hear (Golding 220). Jack told his tribe that they needed to kill Ralph and the only way to find him was to burn the jungle down. Ralph ran for his life away from the blood thirsty tribe of children and the fire (Cliffnotes). Jack’s actions to gain power have dire repercussions for the two boys who ended up dying and Ralph who was chased and nearly killed if he had not ran into a Naval Officer.

All in all, the actions of the main characters who attempted to gain power over the others in the society were what eventually lead to the corruption of both societies. In conclusion, both William Golding and George Orwell do an amazing job of demonstrating how power can corrupt a society by using their characters in their novels. Both of the novels give the reader an insightful look at how society might be if the leaders of our countries grew corrupt with the power that they held over the rest of society.

Wendell Berry’s essays “What Are People For? ” and “The Work of Local Culture” both examine the farming profession, which has in recent years been demeaned as the rural population falls and large “agribusiness” replaces smaller family farms. Berry argues in both pieces that farming is not an outdated lifestyle, but a necessary profession. In “What Are People For? ” Berry discusses the exodus from farm to city since World War II, attributing it to failures in agriculture.

However, he disagrees with claims that failed farmers deserve their lot, or that the farm population has a large surplus; he comments that “It is apparently easy to say that there are too many farmers, if one is not a farmer” (123). Berry maintains that “our farmland no longer has enough caretakers” (124) and that the rural exodus has harmed both urban and rural America alike. Agribusiness has not only harmed small farmers but also the soil itself, and displaced rural people are not often absorbed into the urban economy.

Berry sees farming as a necessary occupation, which is needed even more urgently in light of soil erosion and other damage done to fertile agricultural land. It is not simply a job or lifestyle, but a crucial stewardship of nature. Farming is a skill, and well-managed farms and healthy soil are proof; agribusiness’ reliance on machinery and destructive methods may be “modern” but ultimately counterproductive. What people are for, he implies, is to work and maintain the land.

In “The Work of Local Culture,” Berry makes a more developed argument in favor of human stewardship of farmland and claims that a “good local culture” of farm people is required to perform this important work. He sees farmers not simply as a rural dweller, but as skilled professionals better able to manage agricultural land than big businesses, because they possess intimidate, detailed knowledge of the land, from the weather to its natural processes and its smallest attributes. Land is becoming rapidly despoiled, and only knowledgeable farmers can remedy this danger.

“Practically speaking,” he writes, “human society has no work more important than this” (155). Farmers form the “local culture,” which he defines as “the history of the use of the place and the knowledge of how the place may be lived in and used” (166). It is based less on money than on community, shared knowledge and experiences, and rapidly vanishing skills of managing the land. The local culture can and must educate others in how to maintain and use fertile land, generate its own economy, and maintain its sense of community.

Farming is more than a job, but also an important part of a rural way of life that is vanishing rapidly (and should not). Himself a farmer, Berry sees farming not simply in economic terms, but almost as an art or craft, requiring skills and attention to more than just economics. He does not pit city against country and argue for the latter’s superiority; instead, he sees their interdependence and spends relatively little time condemning urbanites.

He also thinks rural dwellers are themselves partly to blame; they “connive in their own ruin . . . [and] allow their economic and social standards to be set by television and salesmen and outside experts” (157). Berry’s essays convey the importance of farming as a vocation devoted to caring for the land and providing a foundation upon which society is based. It involves more than simply growing food or raising livestock; it forms the foundation of rural communities and entails important skills required to keep land productive.

In his view, agribusiness and modern economics are no substitute for the skills of a traditional farmer equipped with intimate knowledge of the land He does not disparage cities or modernity, preferring instead to firmly define and defend the agrarian way of life as the weakened foundation of American society – a foundation that urgently needs repair. Berry, Wendell. What Are People For? San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990.

Introduction

This review of literature seeks to ascertain the impact of the Zimbabwe land reform and redistribution programme on commercial farm workers employed in the targeted white-owned farms. To achieve this goal, it seeks to explore the different ways through which the land distribution programme affected these farm workers, examining the assumption that farm workers were better off prior to the commencement of the redistribution programme, and analyzing whether its effects were positive or negative.

This section provides the necessary background information enabling the development of a better understanding of the situation surrounding the land reform programme. It combines a variety of input from different sources. Material that has been published by other authors on the subject augments its findings and inferences. The first part delves into the political history of land distribution in Zimbabwe and how the farmlands ended up in the hands of the white minority. The following parts explore the impact of the land acquisition programmes on farm workers hitherto employed on the commercial farms.

History of land distribution and control

Zimbabwe inherited the highly unequal land ownership from apartheid Rhodesia. Its roots lie in the colonial era when colonialists and businessmen of European origin settled in the country and began cultivating its fertile lands (Alexander, 2006; Chan, 2003). The black indigenous population was pushed out of these rich farmlands onto arid areas which had limited productive potential. These white farmers continued their settlement and cultivation of these lands long after Zimbabwe gained its independence from Britain in 1979 (Mutangi, 2010).

By 2002, a huge portion (up to 70%) of rich farmland was still held by about 4500 white farmers, with their commercial enterprises producing crops for export. In stark contrast, a million indigenous families were crowded in communal areas barely eking out a living in arid regions which were not quite suitable for agriculture (Scoones I., et al, 2010).

This scenario reveals that land distribution in Zimbabwe was unequal and unfair and outlines the context of this exploration (Buckle, 2001). The land redistribution programme through reforms on land ownership was therefore designed to render justice to the black population that had suffered this inequality for years (UNDP, 2002). It was initiated in an effort to distribute land equitably between the historically disenfranchised blacks and the white minority who ruled the country from 1890 to 1979 and who by this latter year only comprised about 3% of the country’s population but owned and controlled over 60% of its arable land (Government of Zimbabwe, 1998). Land reform is among the tools employed in the fight against poverty in most developing countries. Its proponents claim that it is an instrument that enables the pursuit of social equity (Sachikonye, 2003).

Process of land redistribution and acquisition

This land redistribution process was initially slow and orderly between 1980 and 1999 but it turned into forceful acquisition and eviction between 2000 and 2002 with the implementation of the fast-track land resettlement programme (FTLRP) (Mutangi, 2010). In this latter phase, marked by violence and coercion, 11 million hectares of commercial farmlands controlled by white farmers were acquired for redistribution. It is estimated that through this programme, 300, 000 small farmers were resettled while about 30, 000 black commercial farmers had, by 2002, received land to establish their venture (Mutangi, 2010). The compelling case for such land reforms and distribution was one of historical redress and was desirable as an outlet for small scale farmers congested in communal areas and an increasing number of landless citizens (Scoones, et al., 2010).

Criticisms of the programme

The land redistribution programme became a sensitive issue that received widespread local and international interest and criticism, though this significantly focused on the plight of the farmers and their ventures, with the plight of farm workers receiving little attention, if any. It was widely criticized with many politicians believing that the problem could have been tackled differently (Chambati and Magaramombe, 2008). The Zimbabwean economy in general suffered disastrous consequences as a result of this programme and its effects, as it is dependent on agriculture as one of its major sources of foreign revenue and employment. Its effects were not just on the agricultural sector, but were felt in the entire economy considering that agriculture is a major sector of the country’s economy (UNDP, 2002). It resulted in a shortage of food, inflation and a surge in unemployment figures, particularly of the commercial farm workers (FCTZ, 2002b).

Many of the farms could not achieve the same output as in the past under ownership of the white settlers and farmers. By its completion in 2002, the land distribution programme and the reforms had resulted in the loss of jobs of more than fifty percent (50%) of commercial farm workers (Mutangi, 2010). Much of the claimed land was corruptly acquired by high ranking officers of the police and army, officials of the ZANU PF party, among other elite (Moyo, 2003). Despite claims of success in settlement of indigenes, several million of the black workers in the white-owned commercial farms suffered exclusion from the redistribution of land, with many losing their jobs, homes and lives (FCTZ 2002b).

However faulty its execution, it cannot be denied that the process brought about a more equitably distributed land better than what prevailed in the past. Land reform in Zimbabwe has resulted in substantial resource distributions since independence in 1980, achieving its primary objective (Chitiyo, 2002; Moyo, S., 2003). Although the disadvantaged black community obtained resettlement, the capacity of the new arrangements to offer significant employment is however questionable. Evidence from Mazowe indicates that the majority of the ‘new’ farmers have little capacity to produce food for export and mainly only grow food crops. This situation requires that the government and the private sector come up with initiatives to revamp export (Masanganise and Kambanje, 2008).

Impact of the land reforms on commercial farm workers

In assessing the situation of the farm workers and the effect of the land reform, we ask, how did these farm workers fare in the aftermath of the reforms and what was their fateWhat was the broad impact on them and their livelihoods, given the drastic decline in crop output from the commercial farms?

This land reform programme and especially the fast-track land resettlement programme (FTLRP) resulted in massive unemployment of the commercial farm workers. Many lost their jobs in the commercial farms (FCTZ, 2002b). Prior to this land reform and redistribution, an estimated 350,000 workers were employed on commercial farmlands owned by white farmers but by 2003, a third of the original workforce was still employed in the plantations and farms. Some of the new owners who took over these farms lacked adequate finances and/or expertise to manage commercial farms and enterprises (Chambati and Magaramombe, 2008). With the turmoil, there was widespread displacement of markets and disruption of the normal processes of business resulting therefore in a reduction both in demand and production (Scoones, et al., 2010).

Some farm workers, however, got land through the programme, including some who got small pieces in the farms on which they previously worked, but they constitute a minority and a small percentage of the total number of beneficiaries (Moyo, 2003). This is in spite of the government’s 1998 land policy that stated clearly that farm workers were also entitled to land under the programme (Government of Zimbabwe, 1998). A constitutional amendment passed and signed into law in 2005 was, however, a setback to the new farmers and to the success of the redistribution. It sought to nationalize farmlands acquired through the fast-track resettlement program, depriving land owners the right to challenge the expropriation by government (Chan, S., 2003). Such incidences generate anxiety and uncertainty and have challenged the confidence of most of the new farmers in their new ventures with fears of interference by the state and other actors in their endeavours.

Historically, there were migrations of people from other countries as well as local areas to work in the commercial farms. A study in 1999 by the General Agriculture and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ) estimates alien farm workers at about a third of the total population of farm workers. Due to illiteracy and lack of insight, these migrant workers despite their residence in the country for lengths of time adequate for naturalization (5 years), did not apply for citizenship (GAPWUZ–FOS–Belgium, 1998). They therefore, under such circumstances as the FTLRP and the subsequent upheaval and violence, suffered greater marginalization with their alien status. This group often lacks political representation as some politicians are not interested in them because they are not citizens and cannot vote.

Drawing from field material gathered from FCTZ’s study in October and November 2002 in eight provinces, about 90 percent of 160 farms surveyed experienced drastic declines in their production or complete halts. Consequently, most of their workers lost their employment, worsened by eviction orders from government following forced acquisitions FCTZ, 2002b). In the sampled survey, only a quarter of the workers received severance packages after the loss of employment, an essential cushion.

Based on this survey conducted in the sampled 160 farms in eight provinces and households of 977 farm workers, as well as interviews with various stakeholders in the commercial farming sector, a report of the Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), indicates that most of the farm workers face many difficulties with up to two-thirds of them jobless and landless (FCTZ, 2002b). They lost entitlements to social services such as health and education, to subsidized food and to housing – entitlements that were granted on the commercial farms (FCTZ, 2002b). The Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ) is a non-governmental organization that has committed itself to the empowerment of farm workers.

With the eviction of farm owners, the maintenance and running of on-farm schools, early childhood educational centres and farm clinics suffered and most closed down. Change in ownership led to the restriction of access to housing, safe water, schools and clinics that still ran (Buckle, C., 2001). Under the take-over, their access to housing became most insecure with evictions from farm houses by new settlers and farmers occurring often. Those evicted had to seek shelter and livelihood in mushrooming informal settlements (referred to as squatter camps) around the farms such as those in Concession, Chihwiti and Gambuli (Sachikonye, 2003; FCTZ, 2002).

Some of them in desperation resorted to illegal settlement on private property and other prohibited areas. This kind of desperation was often a result of the large number of farm workers that have severed their ties and relations to communal communities and lands who, therefore, did not have areas and lands to go back to with their loss of status (Chambati and Magaramombe, 2008). Some continued their stay on the farms with an uncertain future due to the fact that they were often at the mercy of the new owners or on insecure tenure provided by people who delegated themselves the role and status of village heads. Most have had to work to earn their stay in these compounds or risk eviction (Kibble and Vanlerberghe, 2000). This is despite the fact that remuneration in such instances is usually meagre and is not paid at agreed rates and times.

The loss of regular income, however, undoubtedly undermined the livelihoods of these households, making life in the farms more desirable and worthwhile. Withdrawal of regular wage and other essential services such as accommodation and sanitation challenged the capacity of households to provide food and basic care to the sick, especially those suffering from HIV/AIDS (Honye and Tavugara-Mpofu, 2010). The provision of Home-Based Care for these people living with HIV and AIDS is among the services that have been challenged, and which were better offered on the farms (Buckle, 2001). Their social situation has led to the unfortunate shortage of food amongst these farm workers following their job losses. Their descent into these challenges though due to a number of factors has primarily been due to the FTLRP (Sachikonye, 2003). Alexander (2006) notes that the farm workers have become a poor, unstable class constantly drifting and almost suffering destitution.

The farm workers fell victim to the youth militia, members of the ZANU PF party, war veterans, uniformed police and traditional leaders among other implementers of the fast-track programme who viewed them as belonging to the same constituency as the farmers targeted. They suffered beatings, were held hostage, were intimidated and forced to intimidate others and were also forced to join ZANU PF and to attend political meetings (Chan, 2003). The farm workers have continued to suffer violence during such occupations linked to the support offered by farmers to the opposition, a stand which the workers were perceived to also hold. The workers were also targeted in an endeavour to deprive the white farm owners of allies and support for their commercial activities (Sachikonye, 2003)

There is a widespread loss of permanent worker status on farms with those that have managed to remain in employment having to engage under contract or piece-work arrangements. This arrangement is necessitated by the inability of the small farmers resettled and the new commercial farmers to garner adequate financial resources and production capacity. Although farm workers were most affected and displaced, those in plantations (often excluded from acquisition) continue to work though under very poor conditions (Mutangi, 2010).

A number of the piece jobs that these farm workers take up are however seasonal with little or no work during the dry seasons of the year. This is due to the reliance of the new black farmers on natural rains as there is hardly a continuation of the irrigation initiatives that the white commercial farmers had on their farms (Magaramombe G., 2001). These farm workers are, under these circumstances, short of income through a significant part of the year.

Their situation compared to their past life

Contrasted to their current situation, it can be noted that it was however not all rosy in the farms as the workers often did not have adequate safety nets covering security of tenure and retirement and were a marginalized and vulnerable. Their social and political rights were restricted for many years (Sachikonye, 2003; Scoones, et al., 2010). Since colonization, the commercial agriculture sector in Zimbabwe provided the lowest job security, wage and living conditions. Even before the FTLRP, farm workers constituted the extremely poor of Zimbabwe, exacerbated by their marginalization. Their bargaining power has often been weak and insufficient to result in any beneficial changes in their conditions (Sachikonye, 2003). Though forming the largest proportion of the proletariat, farm workers form one of the poor segments lacking access and rights to land and housing (Magaramombe, 2001).

Coping strategies of the ex-farm workers

Magaramombe (2001) notes that these jobless farm workers have had to adopt various strategies to cope including informal trade, fishing and hunting for survival, gold-panning, and piece-work. Other coping activities include the vending of agricultural products such as fruits and vegetables, as well as second-hand clothing in the farms and neighbouring towns and mines.

Despite the large job losses, evidence suggests that up to 50% of the farm workers, a considerable proportion, remain living on farms (Moyo, 2003; Sachikonye, 2003b). Some have resorted to borrowing of land or leasing small sections in order to grow food crops to sustain their families and to earn a living. In this endeavour, they are constrained often by lack of inputs such as fertilizer and the increase in workload as they attend both to their casual work and their farms.

The piece-jobs that they take up are not any better as they are neither secure nor well remunerated (not even to the level of the permanent jobs) and have no basic benefits such as leave and medical care and backing (Sachikonye, 2003). The capacity of these farm workers to secure other forms of employment other than in the farmlands is limited by their low education levels. Several of the farm workers have resorted to working for food, running away from the constraints of the minimum wage, with the minimum wage provision in law evidently inadequate. The authorities announced a new minimum wage to please the new settlers who lacked the capacity to pay the workers (FCTZ, 2002b).

Social protection services and support initiatives

Several social protection services are run by the government of Zimbabwe and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including Public Assistance, Assisted Medical Treatment Order, Cash transfers and Basic Assistance Modules. Several NGOs also run programmes that seek to strengthen rural livelihoods through small grain production, livestock rearing and support of several other income generating projects (UNDP, 2002). Despite the availability of these services there is widespread lack of awareness on the part of the potential beneficiaries including the ex-farm workers. In a study analyzing the situation of former commercial farm workers in Zimbabwe a decade after the FTLRP with focus in Mazowe district (Honye and Tavugara-Mpofu, 2010), 23% of respondents indicated that they were unaware of these programs and only 2% of them were beneficiaries.

Conclusion

Though land reform is a prominent tool used in poverty alleviation in any country, addressing imbalances in land ownership and control, it can be seen from this review of literature regarding the chaotic land reform and redistribution programme in Zimbabwe that it created a number of challenges to the overall economy, the owners of commercial farms and of particular interest to this study, the farm workers.

Farm workers were affected adversely through loss of employment and therefore their livelihoods, interruption of education and the interruption of various essential services, as well as, loss of accommodation, among other basic human rights. Primarily implicated are events resulting from the start of the FTLRP. Most of them live in appalling conditions in informal settlements around the farms they previously worked, or illegally in private property and prohibited areas, lacking food, security and sanitation. Very few still retain their permanent employee status especially in the plantations but their working conditions are dire with meagre pay. For some, their job status has dropped to casual worker, which is characterized by seasonal engagements with the new farmer’s reliance on natural rains forgoing irrigation.

With their low education levels hindering their capacity to find other work, they have resorted to piece-work on farms to survive, as well as other ventures such as hunting, gold panning, vending of products, hunting and fishing. Some have resorted to working for food avoiding the constraints of the newly set minimum wage which is inadequate while some borrow or lease land from the new farmers for subsistence agriculture which they alternate with casual labour.

Their lives on the commercial farms before the FTLRP was, however, not entirely rosy, though the provision of basic essentials and a regular income made the conditions then far better for them than what they presently have.

References

Alexander. J., 2006. The unsettled land: State making and the politics of land in Zimbabwe 1893-2003. John Currey, Oxford.

Buckle, C., 2001. African Tears: Zimbabwe Land Invasions, Johannesburg: Covos Day

Chan, S., 2003. Robert Mugabe: A Life of Power and Violence, London: IB Taurus

Chambati, W., and G., Magaramombe, 2008. “The abandoned question: Farm workers.” In S. Moyo, K. Helliker, and T. Murisa, (eds.). Contested Terrain: Land Reform and Civil Society in Contemporary Zimbabwe. Harare: AIAS.

Chitiyo, K., 2002. Harvest of Tongues: Zimbabwe’s ‘Third Chimurenga’ and the Making of an Agrarian Revolution, Mimeo.

Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), 2002. Concession Informal Settlement: Mazowe District, Mashonaland Central, Harare

Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), 2002b. The Situation of Commercial Farm Workers after Land Reform in Zimbabwe 91

Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), 2005. Report of the Workshop on Housing and Tenure Security for Farm Workers in Newly Resettled Areas For the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Lands and Agriculture. 16 October 2005

GAPWUZ–FOS–Belgium, 1998. Summary of Survey Particulars: Jan-April 1998 survey of farm workers in Zimbabwe, Harare.

Government of Zimbabwe, 1998. Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase 2: A Policy Framework and Project Document. Harare: Government Printers.

Honye, C., and Tavugara-Mpofu, 2010. Understanding Livelihoods of Former Farm Workers in Zimbabwe. An Insight from Ivador Farm, Mazowe PRP LIME Baseline

Kibble, S., and P., Vanlerberghe, 2000. Land, Power and Poverty: Farm Workers and the Crisis in Zimbabwe, London: CIIR

Masanganise, P., and Kambanje, 2008. Agricultural production and land reform in Zimbabwe: A case of Mazowe District

Magaramombe G., 2001. Rural poverty: Commercial farm workers and Land Reform in Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the SARPN conference on Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa Pretoria 4th and 5th June 2001.

Moyo, S., 2003. Land redistribution, allocation and beneficiaries. Mimeo

Mutangi, G., 2010. “The changing patterns of farm labour after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme: The case of Guruve District.” Livelihoods after Land Reform in Zimbabwe. Working Paper 13. Livelihoods after Land Reform Project. South Africa: PLAAS.

Sachikonye, L. M., 2003. Land reform for poverty reductionSocial exclusion and farm workers in Zimbabwe. Paper prepared for a conference on “Staying poor: chronic poverty and development policy” organized by the IDMP, Manchester University, April 2003.

Sachikonye, L. M., 2003b. The Situation of Commercial Farm Workers after Land Reform in Zimbabwe .A report prepared for the Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe.

Scoones I., et al, 2010. Zimbabwe’s Land Reform – Myths and Realities. Weaver Press

UNDP (2002) Zimbabwe Land Reform and Resettlement: Assessment and Suggested Framework for the Future, Interim Mission Report, Harare

Case 1 Feed R&D or Farm It Out?

The predicament that RLK Media is facing is losing their market share in the products that they manufacture and sell, without a new product to offer its customers and with the very competitive pace that the other players in the industry are churning up new products; RLK Media needs a miracle to turn around their present state. The strength of RLK Media is their brand equity status, as the first innovative and high-end manufacturer of speakers; their brand has become synonymous with top quality and high-priced products and recognized by consumers. Lars Inman as CEO is frustrated at how the company is doing and has been pressured by the company chairman to produce results in a year. The R&D department has come up with a potential product that would make or break the company, Lars is thinking of bringing the product to production but the costs of hiring software developers for the specific project is too costly and beyond that of the company at the present.

The trend of outsourcing R&D has come into his mind but the chief researcher had been fighting it off for a long time and would make it very difficult to do so. Outsourcing in general terms had started from administrative functions to even product operations. The prime attraction that outsourcing has is that it is low in costs and almost delivers the same quality of work although it is very risky especially if the company do not have a trustworthy partner, there is also the risk of confidential information leaking out, miscommunication that could disrupt the company’s operation and other loopholes inherent in this form of transaction. The option is to establish a relationship with the firms that could actually become a trusted partner and to look for trustworthy firms.

In the years of existence that the company has existed it never had the need to outsource until now, but the rest of their competition had been outsourcing R&D for last couple of years and were able to produce the same quality product at a lower cost and hence had been quite profitable as compared to RLK Media. Since Lars do not have experience with outsourcing firms, he researched through the most trusted companies and came up with Inova as the most trusted and reliable contracting software company located in New Delhi. Using a transactions cost economics approach, it is evident that RLK will be spending less budget allocations for R&D to complete the product if it uses Inova to develop the software for them, however with the contract demands of Inova to have a 5% royalty from the sales would be another form operational cost and may pose problems in the future as to proprietary rights.

The transaction that RLK Media is planning to have with Inova is for the firm to develop the software they need to launch the new product whose concept and design had already been developed internally by the company. In this terms, it is highly profitable for RLK to outsource the software development which is a highly asset specific transaction since it is a new product and the software would be written from scratch and Inova have the qualified people to do it albeit expensively. The environment at present wherein the transaction for outsourcing will be made is a highly competitive one, and since Inova had just severed ties with a strong competitor, it is beneficial to RLK since they would be clearly ahead of the competition now that is does not have the software developer to supplement their R&D.

However since RLK do not have the experience in outsourcing, the transaction is uncertain in the sense that the company does not have the assurance that Inova will deliver what they promised and whether the product would become a hit in the market. The parties involved in the transaction will be RLK Media and Inova, on the part of RLK the R&D unit will be in constant communication with the engineers in Inova to make sure that specifications will be followed. But since the chief researcher have a negative attitude to the idea, he might become a problem to the efficient implementation of the transaction, but since he is too talented to let go, he should be treated sensitively and give him the opportunity to become involve in the process.

Clearly, Lars had issues with the security of the transaction since he needed to fly to New Delhi to see Inova, whether it is as efficient, effective and excellent as it is. He had been communicating with Inova previously through phone calls but after reading the firm’s proposal, he needed to see it for himself. Obviously, RLK Media will be investing in an uncertain transaction that could make or break the company, but the other option is simply not feasible at the moment.

Case 2  A Blogger in Their Midst

Lancaster-Webb is the topmost producer of medical disposables and it has been a profitable company since it started. It is obvious that Lancaster-Webb had closed major deals with important clients and has often stayed well ahead of their competitors. Will Somerset the CEO of the company has just found out that one of their employees has become a huge celebrity in the blogging community and has inadvertently affected the company by sharing sensitive information to a large number of people regarding company policies, product development and even its relationship with its clients.

Apparently, Glove Girl’s blogging habits have influenced a large number of people although her intentions for blogging may have not been malicious or in bad faith. In the case, Glove Girl’s influence was apparent in how she was able to make an old product gain greater sales and how she could change the public’s view of the company and even those of their clients. Will Somerset have just learned of the Glove Girl during a conference and it speaks of how little or nonexistent is knowledge management in the company. The flow of communication is inefficient in the sense that the CEO is the last to know about a potentially damaging or helpful employee and since there had been actions taken by the management to control the blogging activity; this had not been made known to him.

Sensitive information is not protected in the company, as Glove Girl had good insider information and she had even aroused sentiments among those who read her blog by her candor and honesty. Internal control is very low in Lancaster-Webb, she could even post her blog using the company terminals and she had also linked her site with the company’s own therefore identifying herself as an employee of the company. This means that there are no restrictions to employee use of the internet; employees do not have a clear idea of the rules and regulations in protecting company information as well as being consciously aware of violating confidentiality clauses in her contract.

The company has to establish ethical standards in employee behavior that respond to technological advancements, clearly many of its employees are using the internet for different purposes and it’s only the CEO who have not kept up with it. Another issue for the knowledge management program is that, there had been very little information available on how to handle the situation caused by Glove Girl, whether Will likes it or not, Glove Girl had been beneficial to the company as evidenced by the positive reaction of the people she reached. It was clear that Will was not sure of how to respond or what to do about the blogger in their midst.

Case 3 P&G

P&G have become an enormous global company and much of it is due to the fast tracked R&D program that they have. The company has dealt with diminishing product performance because it failed to innovate and produce truly innovative and new products. It is a fact that with the large numbers of employees and offices the company has, it is difficult to get together and be bale to come up with new ideas for the company. Hence, P&G has set up virtual teams to take care of the R&D aspect of the company. The virtual teams are more cost-effective since it would save the company from travel expenses and there is a constant flow of information since everyone is connected and the discussion can be steered to the most relevant topics that they need. Virtual teams as shown by P&G generate more creative ideas and it has been a large source of product innovation for the company. With a large number of people participating in the discussion, unique solutions and ideas can be identified and elaborated on right there and then as well as avoid group think and loud people taking over the discussions.

However, virtual teams need to be made up of team players who are willing to share information and learn from each other. The virtual teams in the case of P&G had thrived due to the knowledge management set-up that they have. The company is now developing a program that would enable their R&D unit from all over the world to access codified materials and researches and experiments. This would allow researchers from Asia to check whether researchers in North America had done the research and in what areas they could improve it and whether it has failed and better left alone. The program also allows the other personnel who need the information like company lawyers who need the experiment notebook for litigation and patent cases. Lastly, the program also has started with automation of the research process which would eventually lead to a highly digital, codified and easily accessible knowledge base. However, P&G has given importance to face to face interaction in terms of virtual teams and from the observation of successful companies with effective knowledge management strategies; it is better if P&G will use the codified strategy and use the other to supplement it.