Challenges and methodological flaws in reporting the global land rush: observations from Tanzania

Abstract

Since international awareness of a global rush for land has grown from 2008 onward, various databases and reports have attempted to provide an overview of the situation by compiling information on individual land deals. While providing such an overview is challenging owing to the dynamic and untransparent nature of the investments, flawed methods of using and citing data are aggravating that challenge and allowing dissemination of inaccurate information. The consequences are an unnecessarily blurred picture of the land deal situation and thus an inadequate basis for related political decisions or social actions and a misleading starting point for new research projects. In this article we demonstrate some of the flaws in the use of data and their consequences, with examples from fieldwork and literature on Tanzania. The paper illustrates and contributes to the evolving debate on appropriate research methodologies for studying the global land rush. Since international awareness of a global rush for land has grown from 2008 onward, various databases and reports have attempted to provide an overview of the situation by compiling information on individual land deals. While providing such an overview is challenging owing to the dynamic and untransparent nature of the investments, flawed methods of using and citing data are aggravating that challenge and allowing dissemination of inaccurate information. The consequences are an unnecessarily blurred picture of the land deal situation and thus an inadequate basis for related political decisions or social actions and a misleading starting point for new research projects. In this article we demonstrate some of the flaws in the use of data and their consequences with examples from fieldwork and literature on Tanzania. The paper illustrates and contributes to the evolving debate on appropriate research methodologies for studying the global land rush.

Small-scale land acquisitions, large-scale implications: Exploring the case of Chinese banana investments in Northern Laos

“…However, studies have begun to challenge this focus (e.g. Bräutigam and Zhang, 2013;Edelman and León, 2013;Locher and Sulle, 2014). By contextualising 'land grabbing' in ways that reveal the complexity of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.028 0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.…”

Transnational land investment web: land grabs, TNCs, and the challenge of global governance

“…The five actors and institutional spheres are: First, private companies involved in land deals via regular institutional platformsboth within the EU (van der Ploeg, Franco, & Borras, 2015) and outside the EU (e.g. Locher & Sulle, 2014). Second, finance capital companies actively engaging in land-based overseas investments (Daniel, 2012).…”

Repossession, Re‐informalization and Dispossession: The ‘Muddy Terrain’ of Land Commodification in Turkey

“…Given the disparate issues it covers, the term ‘land grab’ remains inconsistently defined and poorly understood (Holmes ). There are also significant methodological problems in collecting and presenting reliable data and documenting the process itself (Locher and Sulle ). Nevertheless, land‐grabbing is a useful concept.…”