Studies on competitiveness in agri‐food systems have been challenged by non‐standard approaches. Traditional studies are defined as the ones based on comparative costs and market participation of countries or industries. Since comparative costs and market shares are distorted by subsidies, especially for agricultural products, traditional approaches show inconsistent results. Discusses competitiveness in a dynamic way, based on comparative capacity of agribusiness chain co‐ordination. In order to study the competitive structure of the meat system in Brazil, this study followed the methodology adopted by Farina and Zylbersztajn, applied to different food systems. The traditional studies are based on methodologies that do not make clear the specific aspects of coordination as a source of competitive advantages. Aims at reinforcing the relation between coordination and competitiveness. The main conclusion is the need to create coordination devices to attend the demands in terms of quality, traceability, standardization and certification which are key elements to building dynamic capabilities to the insertion of the region on the global beef market.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zylbersztajn et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: