Who Carries the Coordination? Institutional Architecture in Agrifood System Transitions

Abstract Purpose. Research on coupled innovation has shown how production, processing and markets depend on one another. Building on that work, this paper asks how the institutional arrangement carrying coordination allocates functions, obligations, resources, decision authority and exposure, and what follows when conditions change or an arrangement can no longer perform. Methods. We develop four questions as an analytical lens and apply them retrospectively to two histories of farmer-owned processing, reconstructed from published accounts: West Liberty Foods (United States) and Cork Marts–Irish Meat Packers (Ireland). We then examine Mycelia Inclusive Networks (MIN), as described in its Green Paper, as a design proposition. Findings. At West Liberty Foods, a producer buyout kept a processing outlet open and moved production responsibilities, capital commitments and risk to growers. At Cork Marts, processing ceased while the marts business continued, and the sources document producer coordination and participant outcomes after the exit only in part. The two histories show that organisational survival, functional continuity and participant outcomes need to be distinguished. They do not show that institutional form caused either trajectory. Conclusions. MIN proposes to allocate productive responsibilities, chain obligations, financial exposure and authority so that a community keeps a dependable livelihood base without requiring every venture to survive. We treat this aim as a hypothesis that depends on performable obligations, adequate resources, legitimate authority and feasible alternatives. MIN is not validated here, and field experience will show how far the proposition holds. Keywords: Institutional architecture; Coupled innovation; Coordination; Farmer-owned processing; Lock-in; Design; Agrifood transitions