Inequality and Social Conflict Over Land in Africa

By P. Peters. 2004

657 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Soil Science, Urban Studies

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b0ff639ac1ba39843d53b437991a9f72c36265e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. K. Deininger
2. P. Peters
3. D. Ali
4. P. Woodhouse
5. G. Feder
6. I. Scoones
7. R. Hall
8. T. Sikor

In Soil Science

1. K. Deininger
2. P. Peters
3. D. Ali
4. I. Scoones
5. G. Feder
6. P. Woodhouse
7. R. Hall
8. C. Lund

In Urban Studies

1. K. Deininger
2. D. Ali
3. P. Peters
4. G. Feder
5. T. Sikor
6. P. Woodhouse
7. C. Lund
8. R. Hall

Citations in the corpus

• A Vision for Human Well-Being: Transition to Social Sustainability (2012, positive): “Inequality may promote conflict within and between ethnic groups, classes and societies [4 ,68–74], and drive international immigration [75–77].”
• Plantations, outgrowers and commercial farming in Africa: agricultural commercialisation and implications for agrarian change (2017, background): “…on our varied findings across the nine case studies, we find dispossession and exclusion to be significant features of some of the sites, reflecting Peters’ (2004) argument that larger structural transformations limit negotiability in land and other social relations and, via social…”
• Green economy, degradation narratives, and land-use conflicts in Tanzania (2020, background): “Competition and conflicts over land in Africa have generally been increasing during the last few decades (Berry, 2002; Bob, 2010; Peters, 2004, 2009, 2013).”
• Land appropriation, surplus people and a battle over visions of agrarian futures in Africa (2013, background): “Other studies point to division and inequality (Amanor 1999, 2010, P.E. Peters 2004, Chauveau and Richards 2008, Colin and Woodhouse 2010).”
• Environmental and Gender Impacts of Land Tenure Regularization in Africa: Pilot Evidence from Rwanda (2011, background): “First, although interventions to recognize land rights can make everyone better off in principle, they easily degenerate into a zerosum game whereby powerful and well-informed individuals use privileged access to information to regularize land that does not actually belong to them or to speculativel”
• Special Issue: Access and property: a question of power and authority. (2009, background): “This frequently provides scope for accumulation for the powerful (Peters, 2004).”
• Green Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications of Imposed Innovation for the Wellbeing of Rural Smallholders (2016, background): “The transfer of the same strategies to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) had limited success, due in part to locally unsuitable seed varieties (Evenson & Gollin, 2003) and a lack of human and institutional capacity (Denning et al., 2009).”
• Legal Knowledge and Economic Development: The Case of Land Rights in Uganda (2006, background): “In fact, such limitations have led to problems related to gender discrimination (Khadiagala 2001, Tripp 2004), wealth bias (Goetz 2002, Peters 2004), and corruption (Fitzpatrick 2005).”
• Land Registration, Governance, and Development : Evidence and Implications for Policy (2009, background): “…to systematically register land may lead to speculative land acquisition on a large scale and set off a “race for the prize” that can polarize the landownership structure (Benjaminsen and Sjaastad 2002; Peters 2004) as powerful individuals use their informational and other advantages to grab land.”
• Roots of inequity: How the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices (2016, background): “The outcomes of these processes include marginalization of people based on gender, class and ethnicity, while deepening social conflicts (Kariuki 2004; Peters, 2004).”
• African farmer-led irrigation development: re-framing agricultural policy and investment? (2017, background): “In making such a claim we are aware that there is nothing inherently egalitarian about ‘local’ initiatives to raise agricultural productivity, which are as likely to precipitate processes of socio-economic differentiation and competition for land and other resources (Woodhouse, Bernstein, and Hulme ”