Harold Liversage of IFAD (the only multilateral institution that to my knowledge that focuses solely on smallholder farmers) has a new paper/blog post up regarding the recent interest in global land grabs. Three points of interest: first, land grabs are certainly not new, and the current focus on large scale acquisitions from foreign countries in some ways turns attention away from the longer term process of peasant dispossession at the hands of both global forces and local elites; second, there is nothing wrong per se with international investment, which can play a role in improving the livelihoods of small farmers; third, the problem at hand is more a crisis of land management in many countries.

I am sympathetic to all points, but think that he, along with most current institutional accounts of contemporary land grabs, have understated what is new in all of this. Much like colonialisms past, many of the large scale land acquisitions seem to show a lack of faith in markets to provide stable food and natural resource supplies to wealthy countries. If we no longer trust markets to provide, then gaining direct control over land resources via extra-economic means seems to be a more fruitful option for many.

IFAD social reporting blog: Responding to ‘Land Grabbing’ and promoting responsible investment in agriculture

Although research is being done and the picture is becoming clearer, we still do not have a good sense of the nature and scale of the demand for land and the actual number of acquisitions or long-term leases realised. It seems that many reported land deals have not materialised and of those that have, in many cases only a small portion of the land acquired (sometimes less than 10 per cent) is actually being exploited. At the same time, some deals appear to have gone through with very little public attention. Much of the research that has been done focuses on acquisitions greater than 1000ha or even 5000ha, thereby ignoring a large number of ongoing smaller acquisitions. Research has also tended to focus on acquisitions by foreigners although there is increasing recognition that in some countries (for example, India, Indonesia and Brazil) acquisitions by domestic investors contribute significantly more to a process of land concentration and growing inequalities.

From The Globe and Mail:

The idea of Muang Thai, “the land of the free,” has for years been expressed in its most extreme form as the freedom to exploit nature, environment, women, children. Yet conventional wisdom had it that a shared sense of identity would keep the social fabric from fraying beyond repair. This, too, has become a highly questionable proposition, particularly with ailing KingBhumibol Adulyadej apparently unable to intervene. It appears that Buddhism, the monarchy and the country’s long history as an independent regional player with a distinct language and culture are no longer enough to contain Thailand’s underlying fissures.

The Washington Post has a short review of three new books lamenting the possible end of Western democratic capitalism. The rise of China is but one challenge – citizens in West are also becoming more and more disinterested in freedom and more and more interested in holidays and sports cars.

Why this is posed as a battle between Western democracy and authoritarianism is somewhat befuddling. It seems much easier to see it as a defeat of democracy by capitalism. The tension is certainly not new, we’ve just recently forgotten about the tensions.

Kay seems to conveniently ignore the spread of Transition Towns, Slow Food and other movements that, taken together, are cobbling together a rather distinct political philosophy from the ground up. What ties these tother is that they don’t know where they are going – A Postcapitalist political philosophy that drives the right and the left bonkers.