|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
162622
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the past decade, agricultural investment has been presented as a catchall solution to a converging set of global crises, often with poor rural communities as the proclaimed beneficiaries. Yet the promises of such investment, such as poverty alleviation and improved food access, are routinely at odds with realities on the ground. This article offers frameworks for analysis of agricultural investment that are grounded in the realities of small-scale food providers, drawing from two studies. The first study employs a right to food framework to identify the main channels through which food for consumption is procured by small-scale food providers and the factors impacting these channels. It draws on empirical data from within the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), an investment model promised to lift rural communities out of poverty, which reflects a regional trend. Based on the shortcomings of the large-scale investments examined, the second study employs a food sovereignty framework to explore alternative forms of investment envisioned and/or already being put into practice by small-scale food providers in the SAGCOT area and elsewhere in Tanzania. While two different frameworks formed the basis of two different studies, both the studies and their frameworks are interrelated. The final section of this article makes the case for why both the right to food and food sovereignty are essential lenses for understanding agricultural investment vis-à-vis small-scale food providers and the ways in which they can serve as complementary tools for effective analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
091820
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent sharp increases in food prices have prompted some food-importing countries to promote the acquisition of farmland abroad as a strategy to secure food supplies at affordable prices. Businesses are recognizing new opportunities for strong returns from agricultural investment, including agri-food, biofuels and other agricultural commodities. Dubbed 'land grabs' in the press, large-scale land acquisitions have kindled much international debate, in which strong positions are taken on the impacts of such investments on the environment, rights, sovereignty, livelihoods, development and conflict at local, national and international levels. This article provides an analysis of this complex and shifting situation, focusing on Africa and drawing on quantitative inventories of land acquisitions in four countries and on a small sample of land deals. The article lays out key trends and drivers, and discusses the main features of international land deals before analysing the main risks and opportunities involved, focusing on implications for local, national and global food security. The article concludes by outlining practical steps to make the renewed momentum in agricultural investment work for development, and avoid the pitfalls of exacerbated political tensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
154713
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Building on recent discussions of the role of public-private partnerships in governance, this article argues that we must be more critical of the goals set by PPPs, and pay closer attention to the ways in which gender-based inequalities are obscured or overlooked in the construction of global policy strategies. In particular, the Group of 8's New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition pledges to “act upon the critical role” played by women. Yet this article reveals that the New Alliance partnerships offer little in terms of substantive goals that address the gender inequalities experienced in rural land and labor markets, and instead appear to favor the expansion of trade without reference to the implications for rural food security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
164722
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is growing concern that farmland transfers lead to less agricultural investment, which may adversely affect agricultural productivity growth in China. Prior research has primarily focused on the differences between owned cultivated land and rented plots, but little is known about how farmland transfers between relatives, which are popular in rural China, specifically affect agricultural investment. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework of transaction cost economics to compare different contracting strategies in China's farmland rental markets. As farmland rental markets in China are immature, land transfer between relatives establishes bilateral governance, which has the advantage of addressing the opportunistic activities of both parties and can ultimately increase investment by tenants. Based on data from two waves of household surveys, we empirically examine the impact of bilateral governance on the application of organic fertilizer, an indicator for agricultural investment. Our findings show that apart from economic factors, kinship is important to the functioning of farmland rental markets in rural areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
156469
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The goal of this paper is to examine the impact of changes in China's rural land policy on agricultural investments. Dramatic changes occurred in China's rural land policies after 2000, including the extension of rural land contractual period, restriction of land reallocation among villages and villagers groups, elimination of agricultural taxes for responsibility land, and rapid development of rural land rental markets. These changes have given farmers more secure tenure on collectively controlled responsibility land and have strengthened farmers' income rights for responsibility lands, incentivizing them to increase their investments on responsibility lands. A panel data method was used to quantitatively investigate the impact of land policy changes on agricultural investment. We considered the application of organic fertilizer as an indicator for long-term agricultural investment, and compared the use of organic fertilizer between private plots and responsibility lands operated by the same household. The results showed that the difference in organic fertilizer use between private plots and responsibility land for the same household has become smaller from 2000 to 2008. Our findings suggest that recent changes in rural land policies have provided farmers incentives to increase land quality investment on their responsibility lands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|