Peasants and globalization : political economy, rural transformation and the agrarian question

By A. Akram‐Lodhi, C. Kay. 2010

209 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/abe3518bf35fce50d0af03ba4f6bcefcce83fd0f

How researchers see this paper

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

1. S. Isakson
2. T. Lavers
3. Alberto Alonso-Fradejas
4. P. McMichael
5. K. Paprocki
6. T. Li
7. J. Cons
8. Shepard Daniel

Citations in the corpus

• No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarian question, food sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity in the Guatemalan highlands (2009, background): “The translation – into English and then Spanish – of Chayanov and other foundational writings on peasant studies in the 1960s and 1970s unleashed a renewed debate about the viability of the peasantry (Watts 2009, Kay 2001).”
• Centering labor in the land grab debate (2011, background): “For the old and new 12For critiques of this linear narrative from different perspectives, see Kiely (2009), Araghi (2009), Watts (2009), Akram-Lodhi and Kay (2009), Bernstein (2010b). landless, the WDR insists, the way forward is wage labor in agriculture, in rural off farm work, or in urban areas.”
• Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean (2012, unknown): “…reason why we exclude from our land grab definition small- and medium-scale everyday 1We gratefully acknowledge the suggestion made by Marc Edelman for the key points contained in this paragraph. forms of dispossession by differentiation (see Araghi 2009), be it a Leninist or Chayanovian variant.”
• To Make Live or Let Die? Rural Dispossession and the Protection of Surplus Populations (2010, background): “Jason Read (2002) argues persuasively for a non-teleological or “aleatory” reading of capitalism, also present in Marx’s own historical writings, which examines how capital and “free” labour connect—or fail to connect—at particular conjunctures (see also Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2009:16–17).”
• Patterns of agrarian transformation in Ethiopia: State-mediated commercialisation and the ‘land grab’ (2012, background): “…grab is part of a broader neo-liberal project of globalisation, which privileges capital mobility and has unleashed processes that are creating a capitalist agrarian transformation in developing countries, threatening global de-peasantisation and proletarianisation (Araghi 2009, McMichael 2010).”
• Agrofuels in the food regime (2010, background): “…of the political impact of capital’s subordination of landed property, nor of political pacification of struggling farmers and peasants in North and South, today’s agrarian question concerns the implications of ‘agriculture without farmers’,6 on a world scale (McMichael 2009b, Araghi 2009).”
• Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh: interactions between neoliberal globalization, state interventions, power relations and peasant resistance (2013, background): “…data on inter-temporal trends in the land areas under the control of non-capitalist and capitalist enterprises in Noakhali are not available. structure becomes increasingly conducive to the expansion of capitalist production (Wood 2002, 36–37, 2006, 19–20, 2009, 49–50, Brenner 2006, 98).”
• Contextualising land grabbing: contemporary land deals, the global subsistence crisis and the world food system (2012, background): “So domestic land acquisition by emerging capitalist farmers is consistent with the problematic of the “agrarian question” – whether capitalism is transforming farming and agriculture, and, if so, how (Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2010).”
• Anything but a story foretold: multiple politics of resistance to the agrarian extractivist project in Guatemala (2015, background): “…between agricultural production and the ecosystem is pushed beyond the limit allowing for the biophysical reproduction of soil nutrients, underground fresh water sources and agro-biodiversity (see Foster 2000; Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2009; IAASTD 2009; Moore 2011; Mingorría et al. 2014, among others).”
• The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring (2012, background): “Land grabbing for biofuels and/or biomass, on the other hand, is undertaken largely by private investors and sometimes by governments through State Firms and Sovereign Wealth Funds (McMichael 2009b, ETC 2010).”
• Situating private equity capital in the land grab debate (2012, background): “…allocation of funds to private equity vehicles, as well as the creation of its own private equity investment vehicles, represents a disturbing trend of moving 9For similar critiques, see Kiely (2009), Araghi (2009), Watts (2009). development aid through nontransparent financial intermediaries.”
• Life in a shrimp zone: aqua- and other cultures of Bangladesh's coastal landscape (2014, background): “In this context of ecological crisis, a lack of food sovereignty results in depeasantization for poorer agrarian classes (Araghi 2001, 2009).2 The presence of food sovereignty, conversely, allows people to remain as peasants, though not necessarily to thrive or transcend inequitable class relations.”