Aspirations to farm ‘better’ may fall short in practice due to constraints outside of farmers’ control. Yet farmers face proliferating pressures to adopt practices that align with various societal visions of better agriculture. What happens when the accumulation of external pressures overwhelms farm management capacity? Or, worse, when different visions of better agriculture pull farmers toward conflicting management paradigms? This article addresses these questions by comparing the institutional manifestations of two distinct societal obligations placed on California fruit and vegetable farmers: to practice sustainable agriculture and to ensure food safety. Drawing on the concept of constrained choice, I define and utilize a framework for comparison comprising five types of institutions that shape farm management decisions: rules and standards, market and supply chain forces, legal liability, social networks and norms, and scientific knowledge and available technologies. Several insights emerge. One, farmers are expected to meet multiple societal obligations concurrently; when facing a “right-versus-right” choice, farmers are likely to favor the more feasible course within structural constraints. Second, many institutions are designed to pursue narrow or siloed objectives; policy interventions that aim to shift farming practice should thus anticipate and address potential conflicts among institutions with diverging aspirations. Third, farms operating at different scales may face distinct institutional drivers in some cases, but not others, due to differential preferences for universal versus place-specific policies. These insights suggest that policy interventions should engage not just farmers, but also the intersecting institutions that drive or constrain their farm management choices. As my framework demonstrates, complementing the concept of constrained choice with insights from institutional theory can more precisely reveal the dimensions and mechanisms that bound farmer agency and shape farm management paradigms. Improved understanding of these structures, I suggest, may lead to novel opportunities to transform agriculture through institutional designs that empower, rather than constrain, farmer choice.

中文翻译：

---

当农民被拉向太多方向时：比较加州农业食品安全和环境可持续性的制度驱动因素

由于农民无法控制的限制，“更好”耕种的愿望在实践中可能会落空。然而，农民面临着越来越多的压力，需要采用与改善农业的各种社会愿景相一致的做法。当外部压力的累积超过农场管理能力时会发生什么？或者，更糟糕的是，当不同的更好农业愿景将农民推向相互冲突的管理范式时？本文通过比较加州果蔬农民所承担的两种不同社会义务的制度表现来解决这些问题：实践可持续农业和确保食品安全。借鉴约束选择的概念，我定义并利用了一个框架进行比较，该框架由五种影响农场管理决策的机构组成：规则和标准，市场和供应链力量、法律责任、社会网络和规范，以及科学知识和可用技术。出现了几个见解。一、农民要同时履行多项社会义务；当面临“右对右”的选择时，农民可能会倾向于在结构性约束下更可行的路线。其次，许多机构旨在追求狭隘或孤立的目标；因此，旨在改变耕作方式的政策干预措施应预测并解决具有不同愿望的机构之间的潜在冲突。第三，不同规模的农场在某些情况下可能面临不同的制度驱动因素，但在其他情况下则不然，这是由于对普遍政策和特定地点政策的偏好不同。这些见解表明，政策干预不仅应该让农民参与，还应该让推动或限制他们的农场管理选择的交叉机构参与进来。正如我的框架所表明的那样，用制度理论的见解补充约束选择的概念可以更准确地揭示约束农民能动性和塑造农场管理范式的维度和机制。我认为，更好地理解这些结构可能会带来通过制度设计来改变农业的新机会，这些设计赋予农民选择权，而不是限制农民选择。用制度理论的见解补充约束选择的概念可以更准确地揭示约束农民机构和塑造农场管理范式的维度和机制。我认为，更好地理解这些结构可能会带来通过制度设计来改变农业的新机会，这些设计赋予农民选择权，而不是限制农民选择。用制度理论的见解补充约束选择的概念可以更准确地揭示约束农民机构和塑造农场管理范式的维度和机制。我认为，更好地理解这些结构可能会带来通过制度设计来改变农业的新机会，这些设计赋予农民选择权，而不是限制农民的选择。