Agroeconomics: Theoretical Foundations and Evolution of Thought

Definition

Agroeconomics is a specialized branch of economic science that examines the specific socio-economic relations in agriculture shaped by the distinctive features of production, labor organization, and land use. It investigates the interactions between economic activity and biological processes, while recognizing the social and ecological functions of agriculture. This entry provides a comprehensive overview of agroeconomic thought, with particular emphasis on the evolution of theoretical schools and the development of the concept of agricultural multifunctionality.

1. Introduction

Agroeconomics constitutes a specialized branch of economic science that analyzes the distinctive features of agricultural production, labor, and land use within the broader context of socio-economic processes [1]. The origins of agroeconomic thought can be traced to the classical political economists—such as Adam Smith [2] and David Ricardo [3]—who identified land, labor, and capital as the fundamental factors of production [4]. In a different tradition, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, as a representative of the Marxist school (scientific socialism), framed these categories within the logic of the capitalist mode of production [5,6,7]. In their theoretical frameworks, agriculture occupied an important position; however, general economic principles were applied to it without sufficient consideration of the biological and ecological specificities of the agrarian domain.

By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, alternative approaches had begun to emerge that questioned the adequacy of classical models in explaining agricultural processes. Scientists such as Johann Heinrich von Thünen, Albrecht Thaer, Sergei Bulgakov, and Alexander Chayanov emphasized that agriculture possesses unique characteristics—biological cycles, land heterogeneity, and the resilience of family-based farming systems—and therefore requires distinct analytical tools. Their ideas laid the foundations for the establishment of agroeconomics as a separate scientific discipline.

As a result, two major and diametrically opposed schools of agroeconomic thought historically emerged. One sought to apply general economic laws to agriculture, treating it as an integral part of the capitalist system of production. The other emphasized the uniqueness of the agrarian sphere and the necessity of a distinct approach in both theory and policy. These debates exerted a significant influence on the institutional formation of agroeconomics across different countries and shaped the trajectories of its subsequent development.

In recent decades, particularly within the framework of the European Union, the concept of agricultural multifunctionality has gained wide recognition. According to this paradigm, agricultural activity is understood not only as a source of food, but also as a provider of ecological services, a means of landscape preservation, and a driver of sustainable rural development [8]. As a result, agroeconomics has broadened its analytical scope by incorporating elements of ecological economics, sociology, and political science.

Thus, contemporary agroeconomics can be regarded as a comprehensive analytical system that integrates classical economic approaches with the consideration of the biophysical and social dimensions of agrarian systems. Its evolution reflects broader intellectual and political shifts toward sustainable development, food sovereignty, and the recognition of the strategic importance of rural areas.

The purpose of this entry is to systematize the theoretical foundations of agroeconomics as an independent branch of economic science, to trace the evolution of key schools of thought from classical approaches to the concept of multifunctionality and sustainability, to highlight the contribution of Eastern European scholars (including Ukrainian and Polish authors) to the development of the discipline, and to compare national trajectories in the formation of agroeconomics. Additional objectives include: refining the operational definition of agroeconomics; identifying the key methodological nodes of analysis (land as a distinctive factor, biological cycles, institutional forms of farming, and cooperation); and formulating practical implications for agricultural policy and management (e.g., European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP/EU), land issues, cooperative models) (Methods Section in Supplementary Materials).

2. Classical Approaches to Agriculture

The origins of agroeconomic thought can be traced back to Ancient Greece and Rome, where the first key principles of rational household management were formulated. In Xenophon’s treatise Oeconomicus (ca. 430 BCE), agriculture is presented as a noble and fundamental activity underpinning social welfare. Oikonomia, in his view, encompassed not only production but also the management of the entire household, including the allocation of resources and the organization of labor [9]. He emphasized the importance of the master (owner) actively participating in the management of the household, as well as the notable role of women in agricultural labor—particularly within domestic farming systems, a feature that later resonated with Ukrainian agrarian traditions.

Marcus Porcius Cato (234–149 BCE), in his treatise De Agri Cultura (“On Agriculture”), regarded farming as the foundation of a subsistence-based economy oriented toward meeting household needs [10]. He emphasized the high moral value of agrarian activity, underscored the necessity of the landowner’s direct involvement in managing agricultural processes, and advocated for the rationalization of agrotechnical practices, including the strict regulation of labor and the use of slaves as the primary workforce.

Marcus Terentius Varro (BCE), in his treatise De Re Rustica (“On Agriculture” 1.17.3), cautioned against the inefficiency of large slave-based latifundia. He argued that the absence of the landowner’s direct involvement in agricultural activities rendered such estates unprofitable [11]. A similar position was later expressed by Columella (1st century CE), who, in his work of the same title (1.7.5), concluded that small plots of land cultivated directly by their owners were more productive [12].

Thus, already in antiquity, two fundamental principles of agroeconomics were articulated: the necessity of the landowner’s direct involvement in agricultural activity and the superiority of small, efficiently managed farms over large latifundia detached from the owner’s control. These ideas retained their relevance in the centuries that followed.

From Antiquity to the Enlightenment and the Classics, key agrarian ideas were not simply preserved but abstracted. Ancient authors linked productivity to owner supervision and a household-based division of labor (including women’s roles) and warned against large absentee latifundia [9,10,11,12]. Physiocrats retained the landowner concept via net produce yet treated it as a distributive rather than managerial category [13,14,15]; Classical economists pushed this abstraction further [2,3,4]. These ‘forgotten’ concrete dimensions—owner–operator management, the family household, and efficient scale—were recovered by later agrarian schools (Thaer, Thünen, Chayanov) under biological and spatial constraints [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24].

A new stage in the development of theoretical thought emerged during the Enlightenment with the rise of the Physiocratic school in France. François Quesnay (1694–1774) advanced the concept of the “natural order,” within which agriculture was regarded as the sole productive sector of the economy. François Quesnay’s Tableau Économique (1758) laid the foundation for Physiocratic analysis of agricultural surplus and circular flows [13]. He was the first to present a three-sector model of the economy, comprising the productive class (farmers), the sterile class (artisans and merchants), and landowners who received rent. This model anticipated modern agrarian balance schemes. Alongside François Quesnay, Jacques Turgot underscored that agriculture generates a net produce (surplus) beyond the subsistence and profits of the husbandman, elaborating this idea in his Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth (1766) [14]. While differing from Quesnay in several analytical points (e.g., capital and interest), Turgot maintained the primacy of agricultural surplus in national wealth [14,15].

Classical political economy laid the foundations for understanding agriculture through universal models of value, production, and distribution. Economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx regarded agriculture as a vital sector of the economy—not because of its biological characteristics, but due to its structural and historical role in securing economic reproduction.

Smith emphasized the importance of the agricultural surplus for the development of the division of labor and the growth of industry [2]. Ricardo developed the theory of differential rent, explaining differences in land productivity through the cultivation of progressively lower-quality plots [3]. Marx further elaborated these ideas by embedding agriculture within the broader logic of the capitalist mode of production, in which land, labor, and capital are bound by relations of exploitation [5]. Nevertheless, all three applied to agriculture the same analytical frameworks as to industry, disregarding biological cycles, the immobility of land, and the ecological specificities of agrarian activity [6,7].

These theoretical models treated agriculture as structurally analogous to other sectors, subject to the same laws of profit maximization and market competition. However, they overlooked the seasonality of labor, the long production cycles characteristic of agricultural output, and the existence of peasant households operating according to principles distinct from those of capitalism.

Despite these limitations, classical theories made an important contribution to agroeconomics by introducing such key categories as land rent, surplus value, and capital accumulation. These concepts remain in use in agrarian studies and have provided the foundation for subsequent critical reinterpretations that recognize the necessity of specific approaches to the analysis of agriculture.

As capitalism developed, the specific manifestations of capitalist economic relations in agriculture became increasingly evident. In practice, contrary to the assumptions of classical economic theory, the viability and efficiency of the family farm model were repeatedly demonstrated. On this basis, a second line of schools emerged, which today dominate Western European agrarian economics. The essence of these schools lies in their view of agriculture as one sphere of the economy that only partially “reflects” the broader capitalist political–economic system. At the same time, agriculture retains a degree of autonomy, and the structures of agrarian economies diverge from the central system, its overall dynamics, and its logic [25] (pp. 111–113).

3. The Emergence and Development of the Theoretical Foundations of Agroeconomics

The major contribution to the formation of the second line of thought was made by Western European classics of agrarian economics. The works of Johann Heinrich von Thünen, Albrecht Thaer, Theodor Brinkmann, Ernst David, Theodor Goltz, Eugène Laurent, Wilhelm Danz, and Paul Gross exerted a significant influence on the establishment of agroeconomics as a systematic discipline.

To avoid a mere sequence of authors and to make explicit the continuities and breaks, we group the contributions by themes (

Table 1. Thematic grouping of authors (continuities and breaks).

Theme/Concept	Key Idea (Very Short)	Representative Authors	Key Refs.
Rational farming and accounting	Farm rationalization; cost accounting; profitability at enterprise/field level	Thaer, Brinkmann	[17,26]
Spatial logic and market distance	Spatial organization; transport costs; zoning (rings)	Thünen	[16]
Motivation and supervision (vs. industry)	Specific incentives; seasonal constraints; limits of factory-style supervision	David	[18]
Land as a living system (bio-constraints)	Soil as living system; primacy of biological laws; degradation risk	Goltz	[19]
Peasant household economics	Labor–consumption balance; family demography; non-monetary aims	Chayanov	[20,21,22,23,24]
Cooperation and resilience	Integrated cooperation (procurement, processing, credit) for small farms’ resilience	Chayanov	[22]
Resilience to markets; small farms	Viability of small farms under price cycles; diversification and risk buffering	Tugan-Baranovsky	[27]
State, organization, and cooperation (RU tradition)	Institutional forms; role of the state/self-governance; sector-specific labor	Makarov, Chelintsev	[28,29,30]
Moral and cultural dimension	Agriculture as moral–cultural core; critique of reductionism	Bulgakov	[31,32]
Polish strand: associative economy and rural sociology	Associative economy; mutual aid; early rural sociology	Abramowski, Zweig, Oczapowski	[33,34,35]

Source: Authors’ compilation based on the cited works in this chapter [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36].

); each subsequent subsection references the relevant theme.

One of the founders of scientific agronomy and applied agroeconomics in Germany was Albrecht Thaer (1752–1828), whose work Grundsätze der rationellen Landwirtschaft (Principles of Rational Agriculture) became a pivotal milestone in shaping agricultural science as a synthesis of practical experience, biophysical knowledge, and economic calculation. Thaer introduced the concept of “rational farming,” grounded in the optimization of natural resources, appropriate crop rotation, and the integrated consideration of agronomic and economic factors. He conceived agriculture as a system in which nature, labor, capital, and knowledge interact, thereby anticipating many contemporary approaches to sustainable land use. His framework laid the foundation for distinguishing agriculture as a distinct branch of the national economy, governed by internal laws different from those of industrial production [26] (pp. 166–167).

Johann Heinrich von Thünen (1783–1850), in his seminal work Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie (The Isolated State in Relation to Agriculture and National Economy), laid the foundations of spatial analysis in agroeconomics. His well-known concentric zones of agricultural production, defined by their distance from the market, became not only an economic model but also an analytical tool for examining agricultural specialization and transportation costs. Thünen’s model demonstrated that the structure of agriculture is shaped not only by internal factors of the farm economy but also by exogenous conditions—market dynamics, logistics, and urbanization. This work exerted a profound influence on the development of regional economics, agricultural geography, and landscape planning [16].

Theodor Brinkmann (1891–1951), a representative of the so-called “Bonn School” of agroeconomics, contributed significantly to the systematization of accounting and analysis in agricultural production. His works Betriebslehre der Landwirtschaft (Economics of the Agricultural Enterprise) and Die Rentabilität der Landwirtschaft (Profitability of Agriculture) formalized the methodology for analyzing costs, revenues, profitability, and efficiency in farming. Brinkmann emphasized the importance of individual accounting, planning, and differentiation of farm types according to natural conditions and organizational structures. He was among the first to apply quantitative methods to agroeconomics at the enterprise level, thereby paving the way for agribusiness analysis and farm management economics [17].

A distinctive contribution to the development of agrarian thought was made by Eduard David, author of the seminal monograph Sozialismus und Landwirtschaft (Socialism and Agriculture, 1903), in which he criticized proponents of the classical theory of capitalist farming for underestimating the specific nature of agricultural labor. David emphasized that agriculture requires the presence of intrinsic worker motivation, since it lacks the typical supervision found in industrial production processes. In his view, agricultural activity is not merely a form of economic functioning but rather a “cosmos of living beings,” within which the very substance of human life is realized [18] (1903, p. 49).

Complementing this line of thought, Theodor Goltz emphasized the fundamental distinction between agriculture and industrial production. In particular, he argued that the primary element of agricultural production is land, which functions as a living organism governed by its own internal biological laws. Goltz maintained that any agricultural technology must be adapted to these laws; otherwise, human activity may not only reduce soil fertility but also inflict irreparable damage on the natural environment [19] (pp. 42–43).

The aforementioned authors—representatives of agrarian thought in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland—laid the foundations of analytical models in which agricultural production was conceptualized as a distinct and complex form of economic activity. These models relied on quantitative methods, incorporated factors of location and specialization, profitability, and the sustainability of agricultural systems, and developed tools for measuring productivity, cost structures, and the optimization of agrarian landscapes in accordance with natural and climatic conditions. These approaches exerted a significant influence on the development of agroeconomics in the twentieth century and remain highly relevant in contemporary models of agrarian management and sustainable development.

At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, national schools of agroeconomic thought emerged in several countries, seeking to critically reinterpret the universalist assumptions of classical economic theory. These schools placed particular emphasis on the specific features of agricultural production, forms of land tenure, and the family-based organization of labor, conceptualizing the peasant farm as an autonomous and resilient socio-economic formation.

In Russia and Ukraine, two parallel intellectual traditions took shape: the empirico-economic school of Alexander Chayanov [20] and the religious–philosophical agrarian thought of Sergei Bulgakov [31].

Chayanov laid the foundations of a formalized economic theory of the peasant household, derived from the principle of balancing labor and consumption [21]. In contrast to the marginalist and neoclassical approaches, which applied universal models to the agrarian sector, Chayanov conceptualized the peasant household as a unique, labor-oriented system governed by its own internal laws of functioning. Complementing his theory of the labor-based peasant economy, Chayanov, in his work The Main Ideas and Forms of Organization of Agricultural Cooperation, proposed a classification of social types of peasant households differentiated by the degree of hired labor involvement, economic specialization, and level of autonomy [22] (p. 92).

Chayanov argued that the further development of the peasant sector was impossible without cooperation, which could compensate for the shortage of capital, machinery, and logistics. He proposed a model of “integral agricultural cooperation,” in which peasants retained private property rights while pooling resources for joint product marketing, processing, technical services, and credit provision [22]. Such cooperation, in his view, enabled peasant households to maintain resilience and adapt to the conditions of the market economy without undermining their social structure.

Rejecting both capitalist and Marxist frameworks, he argued that the peasant economy operates according to internal logics in which the priority is given to family reproduction rather than profit maximization [23]. His model emphasized the cyclical nature of agricultural labor, demographic fluctuations, and the influence of family structure on economic behavior [24]. This type of household economy is characterized by a high degree of self-regulation and resilience, particularly under conditions of limited access to markets and capital.

Chayanov’s ideas have had a significant influence on contemporary conceptions of agrarian sustainability and the multifunctionality of agriculture.

A significant contribution to the theoretical understanding of the specificity of peasant households was also made by M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, who emphasized their resilience to market fluctuations and relative independence from agricultural price dynamics. In his view, such households, oriented toward meeting the everyday needs of the family, could function and develop with substantially lower gross and net income compared to large capitalist enterprises [27] (p. 64). Moreover, Tugan-Baranovsky investigated issues of agricultural cooperation, focusing on the motivations of peasants to participate in cooperatives and substantiating the socio-economic advantages of cooperative forms of organizing agricultural production [36] (p. 410).

Among the scholars who developed original concepts of agrarian economics, closely aligned with the ideas of A. V. Chayanov, were M. S. Makarov and O. A. Chelintsev. Makarov emphasized the significance of social organization and peasant cooperation as the foundation of sustainable agrarian development, advocating for active state involvement in regulating agricultural markets with due consideration of the specific nature of rural labor [28]. Chelintsev, in turn, focused on the study of land structure and rational land use, drawing on empirical analyses of peasant households across different regions [29]. His works contributed to the development of scientific approaches to agricultural zoning and to the adaptation of agrarian policy to the diversity of natural and social conditions [30].

Bulgakov emphasized the moral and civilizational significance of peasant labor, conceiving agriculture as the spiritual and social core of the nation (Bulgakov, S. Kapitalizm i Zemledelie; Bulgakov, S. Philosophy of Economy). In his works Philosophy of Economy and Capitalism and Agriculture, he criticized reductionist economic models and proposed viewing the economy as a spiritual, ethical, and cultural practice. Bulgakov interpreted the peasantry as a distinct form of existence, in which economic activity was inseparably intertwined with family life, religious beliefs, and ethical norms [31]. His ideas broadened the understanding of the agrarian question, incorporating not only economic efficiency but also anthropological, civilizational, and cultural dimensions [32].

In Poland, agrarian thought developed in close connection with political struggle and the cooperative movement, shaping a distinctive approach to the agrarian question. The scientist Edward Abramowski advanced the idea of an associative economy, based on the voluntary self-organization of rural communities as an alternative to both capitalism and centralized socialism [33]. The economist and sociologist Ferdinand Zweig examined the class structure of the countryside and the vulnerability of small farms under market conditions [34]. The agrarian scholar Michał Oczapowski, as early as the nineteenth century, pursued an interdisciplinary approach that integrated agronomic and economic knowledge, thereby anticipating modern concepts of sustainable land use [35]. Together, these ideas shaped an original Polish perspective on the agrarian question, combining scientific reasoning, ethical principles, and social engagement.

In parallel, similar theoretical approaches were developed in Western European countries, where the peasant household was viewed as a rational response to ecological constraints and market instability [37].

In Western European countries, according to research findings [38], the key themes of agroeconomic analysis of agricultural enterprises have been social and environmental efficiency.

Throughout the twentieth century, scientific and technological progress, together with the expansion of chemical and new biological means of production, did not narrow but rather broadened the socio-economic essence of agriculture and its corresponding forms and methods of management, by incorporating the ecological dimensions of agricultural activity.

In agroeconomics, it has become widely accepted that the overall effect of agricultural production should be evaluated not only by specific (economic) indicators but also by social ones. The former characterize the production of goods, while the latter reflect the impact on the ecological environment [39] (pp. 330–333). The economic effect is determined by the market and is subject to valuation, whereas the ecological effect lacks a market-based measure and thus requires non-market accounting mechanisms.

In agriculture, economic outcomes must be aligned with the ecological balance in order to obtain a truly comprehensive instrument for evaluating agricultural activity [40] (p. 54).

More recent studies [41] emphasize the importance of co-producing knowledge and integrating scientific evidence with farmers’ experiential and local knowledge to enhance the sustainability and adaptability of agrarian systems.

4. Evolution Toward Multifunctionality and Sustainability

At the turn of the twentieth to the twenty-first century, the conceptual framework of agroeconomics expanded substantially beyond its traditional focus on production efficiency, profit maximization, and land-use optimization. This transformation was driven by the growing recognition of the broader ecological, social, and cultural functions that agriculture performs within both rural and global systems. The key concept of multifunctionality in agriculture emerged, encompassing roles such as food production, environmental protection, landscape preservation, rural employment, and the safeguarding of cultural heritage. Within the multifunctional approach, agriculture is understood not only as a source of food production but also as a foundation for sustainable territorial development, the preservation of landscape and biological diversity, food security, and rural employment.

This entry adopts the multifunctionality paradigm, recognizing that agriculture today generates food, environmental services, and socio-economic value across territories. In this perspective, urban agriculture, organic farming, and rural tourism exemplify contemporary functions supported by international and EU policy frameworks and are therefore integral to the analysis that follows.

Urban agriculture extends food production into urban and peri-urban spaces, improving short supply chains, dietary access, and social inclusion while contributing to circular resource use and green infrastructure. Within a multifunctional lens, it links agriculture to territorial planning and urban well-being.

Organic farming operationalizes ecological goals by adopting production methods that sustain soil health, reduce external inputs, and enhance on-farm biodiversity. As such, it is widely treated in policy and scholarship as a core pathway toward sustainability within agri-food systems.

Rural tourism functions as an accompanying activity that diversifies farm revenues, strengthens place-based cultural assets, and incentivizes the stewardship of landscapes and ecosystem services. Its recognition within rural development instruments underscores that agricultural value is created not only through marketable commodities but also through public goods and experiential services.

Together, these functions exemplify how multifunctionality translates into concrete practices supported in international debates and EU policy frameworks oriented to sustainable rural development and agri-environmental outcomes.

At the international level, the concept of multifunctionality gained recognition through a series of discussions consolidated in key strategic documents:

• United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, 1992) [42];
• Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1994) [43];
• World Food Summit (1996) [44];
• Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) [45].

At the core of these discussions were the following issues:

• the intrinsic interrelationship between agricultural production, the environment, and rural development;
• the role of agriculture in ensuring national food security and sovereignty;
• the specificities of international trade in the context of recognizing the multifunctional character of agriculture.

Among the key conclusions formulated in the course of these discussions, the following can be highlighted:

• multifunctional agriculture, by simultaneously fulfilling economic, social, and ecological functions, contributes to the formation of a sustainable model of territorial development based on respect for the environment;
• the social and ecological functions of the agrarian sector (food security, employment, demographic stability, soil and water protection, among others) should be regarded as public goods that must be supported by the state regardless of their market profitability;
• the recognition of multifunctionality in the agrarian sector implies a reconsideration of the universality of trade liberalization principles as applied to food markets, necessitating the adaptation of national agricultural policies to the objectives of sustainable development and domestic priorities.

Multifunctionality was institutionalized in international policy, particularly within the frameworks of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), FAO, and the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which began to directly support the objectives of rural development, biodiversity, and climate action. This shift was further reinforced by the concept of sustainable agriculture, which integrates ecological integrity, economic viability, and social justice.

In the European Union, the principles of multifunctional agriculture formed the foundation of long-term sustainable agricultural policy, as enshrined in the Amsterdam Treaty (1999) and the “Agenda 2000” Action Plan. These documents established the need to account not only for productive but also ecological, landscape, cultural, and social roles of agriculture. For example, the French Agricultural Orientation Law explicitly states that agricultural policy must consider economic, environmental, and social functions, support sustainable development, employment and farm succession, and ensure the stewardship of rural landscapes [46] (in line with the CAP reforms under Agenda 2000 [47]).

The paradigm of multifunctionality also redefines the value of agricultural land and labor. Alongside market outputs, agriculture is recognized as a source of positive externalities such as ecosystem services, the vitality of rural areas, and the potential for climate change mitigation. As a result, economic assessment increasingly incorporates non-monetary methods, payment schemes for ecosystem services (PES), and sustainability indicators.

Thus, agroeconomics has evolved from a production-oriented discipline into a multidimensional field of knowledge focused on the sustainability of agri-food systems and their contribution to broader societal transformations. This shift aligns with global agendas such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which underscore the role of agriculture not only in eradicating hunger and poverty but also in fostering responsible consumption, ecological justice, and resilient rural communities.

5. National Variations in the Formation of Agroeconomics

The development of agroeconomic thought did not follow a uniform trajectory across countries but rather reflected the diversity of historical conditions, institutional systems, natural resources, and agricultural policy priorities. While Western agroeconomics—particularly in the United States and Western Europe—evolved primarily within the framework of neoclassical economics, independent schools of thought emerged in other regions, shaped by specific socio-political and agrarian conditions.

To ensure balanced regional coverage, we first synthesize the core trajectories in the United States and Western Europe and then relate them to Latin America’s distinct path (

Table 2. Regional trajectories of agroeconomics.

Region	Dominant Analytical Focus	Institutions and Policy Anchors	Farm Structure and Organization	Signature Scholarly Themes	Key Refs.
United States	Applied microeconomics; farm management under risk/uncertainty; quantitative decision tools	Land-grant universities; extension services; productivity-oriented policy	Large, capital-intensive farms; integration in value chains	Risk, technology adoption, optimization, industrialization of farming	[48,49]
Western Europe	Multifunctionality; institutional/eco-social embeddedness; land and planning	CAP and national traditions; ordoliberal/legal planning; welfare-state eco-standards	Mixed/family farms; territorial approaches; agri-environmental schemes	Public goods, rural development, biodiversity, policy integration	[50,51,52]
Latin America	Dual agrarian structure; peasant resilience; agroecology and social movements	Unequal land tenure; social and solidarity economy (SSE)/coop experiments; rights-based agendas	Latifundia vs. smallholders; high inequality of land access	Agrarian question, dependency, agroecological transition, peasant agency	[53,54,55,56,57,58]

Note: Source: Authors’ compilation based on the cited works in this chapter [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61].

).

In the United States, agroeconomics developed in close connection with the system of land-grant universities and agricultural extension services. The primary focus was on production efficiency, integration into the market environment, and decision-making at the farm level under conditions of risk and uncertainty. The application of quantitative methods, farm management, and microeconomic approaches endowed the discipline with an applied and managerial character, consistent with the objectives of scaling up industrial agriculture and advancing technological innovation [1,48].

In European countries—particularly in France, Germany, and the Scandinavian states—agroeconomics evolved in closer connection with institutional, historical, and ecological contexts. The French tradition was characterized by its emphasis on the multifunctionality of agriculture, rural development, and structural transformation [49]. The German school, influenced by the cameralist tradition and ordoliberalism, advanced approaches that integrated land management, rural planning, and legal dimensions [50]. In the Scandinavian countries, principles of ecological economics and the welfare state were incorporated into agricultural policy [51].

Eastern European countries—including Poland, Hungary, and the former republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)—followed a different trajectory shaped by centralized planning and the collectivization of agriculture [52]. In these countries, agroeconomics was often linked to macroeconomic planning, land reform, and the ideological discourse of rural development [60]. Despite the rapid liberalization of markets in the 1990s, historical legacies continue to influence institutional structures and approaches to agricultural policy [61].

Agroeconomics in developing countries, particularly in Latin America, has coalesced around a dual structure: historically entrenched latifundia alongside numerous smallholders, with deep inequalities in land access [53,54,55]. Latifundia are associated with land concentration, under-utilization, displacement of family farms, environmental losses (soil degradation, biodiversity decline), and social conflict, creating barriers to inclusive growth and sustainable development [54,55,56,57,58]. Against this background, smallholders persist through adaptive strategies, forms of cooperation/social and solidarity economy, and agroecological approaches; social movements (e.g., La Vía Campesina) have shifted agendas toward rights-based and sustainability-oriented solutions [50,59]. As a result, the analysis of Latin America complements the dominant frameworks, underscoring that secure land-rights distribution and institutional support for smallholders are necessary conditions for the long-term resilience of agrarian systems [53,54,55,56,57,58,59].

These national differences highlight the continued development in practice of two opposing directions of agroeconomic thought, shaped by historical–institutional conditions, agrarian traditions, land tenure models, and globalization processes.

6. Contemporary Challenges and the Transformation of Agroeconomics

Contemporary agroeconomic science stands at a critical juncture, confronted with multidimensional challenges that call into question the foundations of its traditional paradigm. Climate change, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, water scarcity, geopolitical instability, and deepening rural inequality have exposed the limits of a production-oriented model of agriculture focused narrowly on efficiency [62]. At the same time, the global food system is increasingly shaped by transnational value chains, digitalization, financial flows, and growing consumer demand for sustainability, transparency, and ethical production.

One of the most critical challenges is the ecological sustainability of agricultural production. Traditional models of agroeconomics, oriented toward yield maximization, are increasingly recognized as inadequate for accounting for ecological externalities [63]. This has stimulated the development of new approaches—ecological economics, agroecology, and systems thinking—which emphasize sustainability, circularity, and the integration of socio-ecological feedback.

The second vector of transformation is associated with a re-evaluation of the role of small-scale and family farming [64]. Long overlooked within the framework of mainstream economic theory, these models are now regarded as flexible, resource-efficient, and multifunctional [65]. The COVID-19 pandemic further demonstrated the importance of localized food systems and social cohesion under conditions of systemic disruption [66,67].

Digital transformation and the growing role of artificial intelligence are profoundly reshaping the tools of agroeconomic analysis, farm management, market access, and knowledge dissemination [68]. Agroeconomics must adapt to these changes by incorporating precision farming, big data analytics, and intelligent decision-support systems, while simultaneously subjecting their social and ethical implications to critical scrutiny [69].

Finally, there is growing recognition of the need for a transdisciplinary and inclusive approach in agroeconomics. The integration of knowledge from ecological sciences, sociology, political ecology, and systems of traditional local knowledge enables the discipline to more effectively inform agricultural policy, foster innovation, and contribute to a just transition toward sustainable food systems.

7. Conclusions and Prospects

Agroeconomics, as a scientific discipline, has undergone a profound evolution, shaped by shifting paradigms in agricultural development, policy, and global environmental and socio-economic dynamics. From its early roots in classical political economy and land-centered theories, it has developed through stages that reflect changing priorities: modernization, structural adjustment, rural livelihoods, multifunctionality, and sustainability.

The “agrarian question,” once focused primarily on land reform and peasant production, has expanded into a complex web of interrelated issues involving environmental degradation, rural–urban divides, food sovereignty, and the socio-political agency of farming communities. National traditions have shaped distinct schools of agroeconomic thought, underscoring the importance of historical, cultural, and institutional contexts in agricultural development strategies.

In the face of escalating global challenges—climate change, biodiversity loss, geopolitical instability, digital disruption, and growing demands for food system transformation—agroeconomics must continue to adapt. The discipline is increasingly called upon to move beyond its traditional analytical tools and adopt a more integrative, interdisciplinary perspective that aligns economic reasoning with ecological realities and social justice.