The long hangover from the second food regime: a world-historical interpretation of the collapse of the WTO Doha Round

Abstract

A benchmark question in contemporary food regimes scholarship is how to theorize agriculture's incorporation into the WTO. For the most part, it has been theorized as an institutional mechanism that facilitates the ushering in of a new, so-called 'third food regime', in which food-society relations are governed by the overarching politics of the market. The collapse of the Doha Round negotiations in July 2008 makes it possible, for the first time, to offer a conclusive assessment as to whether this is the case. Using a broadly conceived world-historical framework, this article contends that the WTO is more appropriately theorized as a carryover from the politics of the crisis of the second food regime, rather than representing any putative successor. The Doha Round's collapse in Geneva in July 2008 should put an end to speculation of a WTO-led transformation of global food politics towards unfettered market rule; the supposed basis for a neo-liberalized 'third food regime'. Consequently, it is through analysis of the factors that framed the Doha Round's collapse, rather than in the WTO itself, that provide insights into the defining elements of a new global politics of food.

Theorizing Environmental Governance of the World System: Global Political Economy Theory and Some Applications to Stratospheric Ozone Politics

“…In the methyl bromide controversy, the California agro-industry has a powerful asset in the US's interest in maintaining this production platform. There are clear signs that countries in the semiperiphery, such as India, Brazil, China, and Western Europe are becoming (in different ways) major threats to the U.S. agro-industrial platform, which is clearly affecting global environmental agreements such as the failed Doha Round of the World Trade Organization (Diaz-Bonilla et al 2006;McMichael 2009;Prichard 2009), and the Montreal Protocol. The turmoil in these multilateral negotiations both signals and contributes to the decline of US hegemony in the global economy.…”

Large-Scale Land Acquisitions

“…There is an ongoing debate regarding whether we can speak of a third food regime today in which nation states have been superseded as main actors by transnational companies and the World Trade Organization (WTO), due to these increasingly influential actors' dominant roles in value chains and trade liberalisation (McMichael, 2009b;McMichael, 2009a;Friedmann, 2009;Pritchard, 2009;Burch and Lawrence, 2009). Many emerging markets are now also undergoing the same processes undergone by the developed world in earlier decades, such as the 'meatification' of diets and the 'supermarketisation' of distribution systems.…”

Trading Out of the Global Food Crisis? The World Trade Organization and the Geopolitics of Food Security

“…62 Another reading is that a failed DDA means forestalling the institutionalizing of a neoliberal global food order; however, this would serve to reinforce existing power asymmetries in the global agro-food system rather than undermine them. 63 THE WTO AND THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS The causes and consequences of the Global Food Crisis are the subject of a considerable body of research across the social science disciplines and within policymaking circles. Knowledge production about the Global Food Crisis is intimately linked with discourses of justifying or challenging the geopolitical food order.…”