i Patrick W. Staib Anthropology This dissertation is approved, and it ...

is not communal. Co-ops and member farmers must vie for development funds, increased
credit at lower interest rates, and higher exportable yields. Co-ops compete for farmers
and better markets. Farmers compete against each other and in many cases pit the co-ops
against one another. Many farmers are members of multiple co-ops and will export their
crop through whichever one seems better at any given time.
Although the cooperative model may represent a route toward democratic
organization in the countryside, a model for governance, it appears in my opinion to exist
as a way to control and document the activities of rural dwellers. As Doña Videlia
complained, “There was a time that the co-op worked for the farmer. Now the farmers
work for the co-op.” A long-time farmer and co-op member, Doña Videlia González
comment reflects how the current co-op arrangement resembles a form of debt peonage
that draws individuals in with promises of better prices and thorough technical support
and then binds farmers to debt arrangements that keep them subject to the
administration’s decisions.
There is a notable class disparity between cooperatives at a structural level. Some
cooperatives charge more for their services than others. The differences in administrative
cost and overhead fees are indicative of the higher cost a poor cooperative must pay for
services that they cannot provide internally. The wealthier cooperatives have lower fees.
All co-ops deduct a portion of the flat rate to the total processed amount of coffee to
cover the costs of storage, processing, export duties, and insurance. They also divide the
expense of costly certifications and the staff wages among member-farmers. Many small-
farmer cooperatives lack capital and infrastructure. Wealthier co-ops can afford to retain
portions of their harvest until the low season when demand is high and supply is, thereby
206