Resistance, acquiescence or incorporation? An introduction to land grabbing and political reactions ‘from below’

Abstract

Political reactions 'from below' to global land grabbing have been vastly more varied and complex than is usually assumed. This essay introduces a collection of groundbreaking studies that discuss responses that range from various types of organized and everyday resistance to demands for incorporation or for better terms of incorporation into land deals. Initiatives 'from below' in response to land deals have involved local and transnational alliances and the use of legal and extra-legal methods, and have brought victories and defeats. The relevance of political reactions to land grabbing is discussed in light of theories of social movements and critical agrarian studies. Future research on reactions 'from below' to land grabbing must include greater attention to gender and generational differences in both impacts and political agency.

We adapt … but is it good or bad? Locating the political ecology and social-ecological systems debate in reindeer herding in the Swedish Sub-Arctic

“…In revealing the complexity and uneven power relations in this way, a PE approach seeks to disclose and challenge the taken-for-granted apolitical character of existing (often technocratic) state/market institutions that direct and reproduce resource access, use and control (Heynen et al 2007). This is particularly pertinent if such institutions work to lock people into situations of environmental, cultural, political and/or economic marginalization through such acts as enclosures of the commons, adverse incorporation and means of dispossession (Hall et al 2015). Revealing the way that hegemonic discourses of economic growth are institutionalized can expose obscured or marginalized heterogeneous problem framings, asymmetrical power relationships and incompatibility of interests.…”

Smallholder bargaining power in large-scale land deals: a relational perspective

“…Hall et al 2015;Tarrow 1998). Furthermore, smallholders faced with hostile local state officials may use supra-local advocacy networks to circumvent these authorities and instead pressure national state officials and the wider (international) public to take local grievances into account.…”

“…Hall et al 2015). For example, indigenous smallholders interested in profiting from the market and modernity may find themselves relegated to a 'tribal slot' by indigenous rights organizations (Li 2000, 170-71).…”

“…Recent work on the 'political reactions from below' to the current wave of large-scale land acquisitions 1 offers a systematic discussion of the 'why' and 'how' of the reactions of smallholders, ranging from resistance and confrontation to negotiation and engagement (Borras and Franco 2013;Hall et al 2015). We add a third dimension to this discussion: with what bargaining power do smallholders actually confront and engage investors and their state allies?…”

Virtual water trade and the contestation of hydrosocial territories

“…The politics and plans to transform hydrosocial territories and the problems brought by water use concentration and contamination of water sources have led to resistance, protests and conflicts at different scales. Resistance and protests have been related to water grabbing and contamination by agribusiness (Hall et al, 2015;Mehta et al, 2012;Smaller & Mann, 2009;, construction of hydropower dams (e.g., Scudder, 2005), and water issues of minerals and oil extraction (Helwege, 2015). Protest has multiple motives and often involves diverse groups representing different local interests, attaching importance to different issues at stake.…”