Food & Water featured

We need less competition

June 2, 2023

The other day, I was sent a survey from the Swedish Competition Authority about competition in the food sector. It was triggered by the current rapid price increase of food. As I am a farmer, they wanted to know my views. They asked questions such as: “How do you experience competition in your field of activity?” with alternatives to tick such as different shades of good or bad. One open-ended question was “What can be done to increase competition in the food chain?” There I replied: “Competition should not increase but rather be restricted”.  

I wrote to the Authority that “Your survey is based on the belief that competition is something inherently good, and that more competition is better than less competition. This is a belief without any basis in reality or human experiences. Stiff competition among the farmers in the world is mainly negative and competition is also a major driver of exploitation of nature.”

I shared my response and some thoughts about this in social media and I realized that people have very different views on competition.

To begin with, many see “monopoly” as the antonym to competition, so they defend competition as a support of the small firms against the big players. For sure, in the food industry and retail, the big actors have far too much power. In Sweden, the biggest retailer, Ica, has a 50% market share and two others share most of the reminder. A few food industries control most of the food production in European countries. But this market domination is the result of market competition and it will not be cured by more of the same.

In a “free market” (if one such were ever to exist) there are many economies of scale in transport, production, marketing, packaging and retail which will favor the bigger actors. When buyers become fewer it becomes more difficult for small farmers as big buyers favor big suppliers and big buyers have few central purchasing offices and distribution centers. In addition, farmers’ main competitors are other farmers and with a freer market this competition is more intense. That farms can’t make profit is just a direct function of competition and as it should work according to the text books.

Also in the farm sector, there are clear economies of scale. The larger farms don’t have higher revenue or yields per acre, but they simply have lower costs. For farmers who can’t participate in this stiff competition there is no way out – or rather there is only the way out – get out!. In some parts of the world, the available nature resources are clearly limiting the possibilities for large scale farming which means that farming more or less disappears. This can be observed on all scales from regional to global.

For sure, there can also be spaces for niche brands and small players. As soon as a niche becomes commercially interesting, however, the big actors will join in or one of the original actors will outgrow the others. This can clearly be seen in the organic sector, on all levels from farms to shops.

On a macro-economic level, competition is the main driver of increased productivity, which sounds good, eh?

But sorry, increases in labor productivity lead to increased use of resources and increased consumption. In a world without competition the shoemaker that finds out a way to produce the same number of shoes in half the time can go fishing half the day, but when there is competition, such an invention will lead to lower prices and the need to produce more to keep income the same. Fishing will have to wait – and we can all have more shoes.

In reality, the antonym to competition is not at all monopoly but is rather cooperation and solidarity.

The transformation of the food system can’t just focus on methods (such as organic, regenerative) or technologies but must also change how we share and distribute food. To move food out of competitive markets and into direct relationships built on cooperation, solidarity and trust should be a main goal. The good news is that the goal can also be the strategy at the same time. So you can begin today (if you haven’t already begun) and build a new system, one carrot at a time.

My views of how to organize food production and distribution built around relationships and landscapes are more elaborated in this article:

Towards a landscape diet and communal landscape management

Of course, competition in some sense has always been there and to some extent it may motivate us to do better make more beautiful things or cook the best meal. But by and large, competition appeals to less flattering streaks in the human character so there is no need for us to promote or encourage it. And certainly there is no justification to make competition into some kind of ideology or main view of the world.

 

Teaser photo credit: Mr T / Smallholding. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smallholding_-_geograph.org.uk_-_543698.jpg. This image was taken from the Geograph project collection. See this photograph’s page on the Geograph website for the photographer’s contact details. The copyright on this image is owned by Mr T and is licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license.

Gunnar Rundgren

Gunnar Rundgren has worked with most parts of the organic farm sector. He has published several books about the major social and environmental challenges of our world, food and farming.


Tags: Building resilient food and farming systems, competition, cooperation

Comments

We changed commenting systems on September 10, 2026 as part of a site-wide functionality and security upgrade. Your past comments have not disappeared, and you can still log in with your old Disqus account credentials if you wish. Contact us with any questions.

Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Green Degrowth Champion
Green Degrowth Champion
3 years ago

So success goes to the most cooperative: the more cooperative flourish and live happier less stressful lives, and the less cooperative go under.

That’s still a competition!

Gunnar Rundgren
Gunnar Rundgren
3 years ago

sure, if you use the word “competition” in that sense. But that gives the word a kind of circular meaning and defines it by the result, i.e. everything that is good is a competition.

Green Degrowth Champion
Green Degrowth Champion
3 years ago

Yes it’s circular. Cooperation and competition are two sides of the same coin, you can’t find one without the other.

Green Degrowth Champion
Green Degrowth Champion
3 years ago

If you want an organic permaculture world, you have to compete with industrial farming.
Everything on this site is in competition with things on other sites. It’s a team building site for a certain world view in competition with other world views.
I had a similar conversation with a guy in XR. I said he’s in competition with the oil industry, he said he wasn’t competing at all. Deontological ethics maybe. But I think he is still in competition.
Either team oil makes CO2 go up, which is lose, or team XR makes CO2 go down, which is win.
Maybe a vital ingredient to winning is realising it’s a competition.

Green Degrowth Champion
Green Degrowth Champion
3 years ago

Good example. The better Sapolsky’s crew cooperate on studying baboons, the more likely the Nobel prize.

Green Degrowth Champion
Green Degrowth Champion
3 years ago

hm

Green Degrowth Champion
Green Degrowth Champion
3 years ago

“In Sweden, the biggest retailer, Ica, has a 50% market share and two others share most of the reminder. A few food industries control most of the food production in European countries. But this market domination is the result of market competition and it will not be cured by more of the same.”

OK, so, – I’m taking a guess here – in an ICA store the manager works to form a group of employees that cooperate well as a team. Employees are selected on their potential for effective cooperation. The effective cooperation within the company results in market domination.
How do you have competition without cooperation, and vice versa?

PattiMichelle Sheaffer
PattiMichelle Sheaffer
3 years ago

Yes, our big, unique cerebral cortices have nonetheless inherited certain inescapable physical realities. And there’s no guarantee that we’re smart enough to “think our way out of” the painful realities. The written and unwritten (archaeological) record indicates that 10,000+ years of trying to do so have all resulted in the same general outcomes.

Of course, now we have vastly more agency and vision, but also delusion, than any time in the past. What will be the outcome? It is a certainty that some of us will find out.

It would be useful to have textbooks, organized according to local and bio-regional locations, with possible locally-relevant remedies to failure of the regional/global transport system. To include at least remedies for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and organization. But it’s unlikely that knowledge of this is actually available to us – because like Biosphere-II – current sustainability attempts exist within an operating global system.

https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI

A problem is that competition, per se, is not linearly independent of many other important aspects of our existence – such as making vaccines and other medical necessities, raising vast quantities of food, and many other such core civilizational activities.

Jason Bradford
Jason Bradford
3 years ago

In my ideal world some professional farm manager helps groups of people grow food for themselves. It truly is difficult to make enough money from selling food to people (which is absurd) but it isn’t hard for people to grow a lot of food for themselves. The farm manager would set up a farm like a glorified community garden perhaps. But instead of little plots, people would get significant space to do what they want. Grow enough summer and fall veggies as well as staples like corn and beans. Share some processing infrastructure so they can get the food clean and put in storage well.