Open Access
BIO Web of Conferences
Volume 3, 2014
37th World Congress of Vine and Wine and 12th General Assembly of the OIV (Part 1)
Article Number 03008
Number of page(s) 7
Section Economy and Law
Published online 04 November 2014
  • Sexton, R. J., Lavoie, N., 2001, “Food Processing and Distribution: An Industrial Organization Approach.” (Chapter 15, Volume 1B) in Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edited by Gardner B. and G. Rausser, Elsevier, North Holland, 863–932 [Google Scholar]
  • Hendrikse, G.W.J., 1998, Screening, Competition and the Choice of Marketing Cooperative as an Organizational Form, J. Agricultural Economics, 49(2): 202–217 [Google Scholar]
  • Hendrikse, G.W.J., 2007, On the Co-existence of Spot and Contract Markets: the Delivery Requirement as Contract Externality, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 34(2): 257–282 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hansmann, H., 1996, The Ownership of Enterprise. Belknap Harvard [Google Scholar]
  • DRV, 2012, “Entwicklung der Winzerge-nossen-schaften.” Available at [Google Scholar]
  • Schamel, G., Schubert, S. F., 2012. “A Dynamic Optimal Control Model of Crop Thinning.” Paper presented at the 2012 Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists in Foz do Iguacu, Brazil [Google Scholar]
  • Hoffmann, R., 2005, “Ownership Structure and Endogenous Quality Choice: Cooperatives versus Investor-Owned Firms”, J. Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 3(2), Article 8. Available at [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pennerstorfer, D., Weiss, C., 2013, “Product quality in the agri-food chain: Do cooperatives offer high-quality wine?” European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(1), pp. 143–162 [Google Scholar]
  • Hanf, J., Schweickert, E., 2014, “Cooperatives in the balance between retail and member interests: the challenges of the German cooperative sector.” Journal of Wine Research, 25: 32–44 [Google Scholar]
  • Bonus, H., 1986, “The Cooperative Association as a Business Enterprise: A Study in the Economics of Transactions,” J. Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142(2): 310–339 [Google Scholar]
  • Albaek, S., Schultz, C., 1998, “On the relative advantage of cooperatives.” Economics Letters, 59: 397–401 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Frick, B. 2004, “Does ownership matter? Empirical evidence from the German wine industry.” Kyklos, 57: 357–386 [Google Scholar]
  • Bogetoft, P. 2005, “An information economic rationale for cooperatives”. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32: 191–217 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schamel, G., 2007, “Auction Markets for Specialty Food Products with Geographical Indications.” Agricultural Economics, 37(2–3): 257–264 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rosen, S., 1974, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,” J. Political Economy, 82: 34–55 [Google Scholar]
  • San Martin G., Troncoso J., and Brümmer B., 2008, “Determinants of Argentinian Wine Prices in the U.S.,” J. Wine Economics, 3(1), 72–84 [Google Scholar]
  • Schamel, G., 2009, “Can German Wine Cooperatives Compete on Quality?” Paper presented at the 27th International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China [Google Scholar]
  • Schamel, G. 2009, “Dynamic Analysis of Brand and Regional Reputation: The Case of Wine.” J. Wine Economics, 4(1): 62–80 [Google Scholar]
  • Shapiro, C., 1983, “Premiums for high quality products as Returns to reputations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 659–679 [Google Scholar]
  • Tirole, J., 1996. “A theory of collective reputations (with applications to the persistence of corruption and to firm quality),” Review of Economic Studies, 63: 1–22 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Delmas, M., L. Grant, 2010, “Eco-Labeling Strategies and Price-Premium: The Wine Industry Puzzle,” Business and Society, 49(4): 1–39 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.