|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
077805
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this brief of an international fact-finding mission to the Philippines, Jennifer Franco reports on the killings of peasants demanding the implementation of agrarian reform allegedly by members of the military. In early June 2006, Franco took part in a fact-finding mission to investigate such killings in Bondoc Peninsula in the southern part of the island of Luzon and in Davao del Norte in the eastern portion of the southern island of Mindanao
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
124947
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Contemporary large-scale land deals are widely understood as involving the expulsion of people who, in turn, struggle instinctively to resist dispossession This is certainly true in many instances. Yet this chain of events evidently does not always occur: large-scale land deals do not always result in people losing the land, and many of those who face expulsion do not necessarily respond with the kind of resistance often expected of them. Indeed, much evidence shows that the nature of and responses to big land deals can (and do) vary across and within 'local communities'. Taking off analytically from a relatively narrow selection of cases, the expulsion-resistance scenario is too often assumed rather than demonstrated, thereby leaving many inconvenient facts undetected and unexplained. This suggests a need to step back and problematise the variable and uneven responses 'from below' to land grabbing, both within and between communities. This paper offers an initial exploration into why poor people affected by contemporary land deals (re)act the way they do, noting how issues and processes unite and divide them. This helps explain variation in political trajectories in the context of land grabbing today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
138463
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Land and food politics are intertwined. Efforts to construct food
sovereignty often involve struggles to (re)constitute democratic
systems of land access and control. The relationship is two-way:
democratic land control may be effected but, without a strategic
rebooting of the broader agricultural and food system, such
democratisation may fizzle out and revert back to older or trigger
newer forms of land monopoly. While we reaffirm the relevance of
land reform, we point out its limitations, including its inability to
capture the wide array of land questions confronting those implicated
in the political project of food sovereignty. Our idea of the land
framework of food sovereignty, described as ‘democratic land
control’ or ‘land sovereignty’, with working peoples’ right to land at
its core, is outlined, with a normative frame to kick-start a debate and
possible agenda for future research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
130420
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Chinese economic and social development in the past three decades has been typically state-led, in which capital and government officials are gradually allied through guanxi-a social psychological network that connects individuals with continued exchanges of favours, emotions and resources. This transforms many traditional characteristics of guanxi and encodes it with new features deeply rooted in institutional settings in contemporary China, which we term as neo-guanxilism. Although 'local state corporatism' has strong explanatory power in analysing the alliance of enterprises and local government, we argue that this type of neo-guanxilism could fill the gap uncovered by local state corporatism, mainly through emphasizing government officials as interdependent actors instead of viewing the local state as a collective, capturing not only the developmental but also the predatory aspects of local governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|