We seek papers that engage scholarly debates around agrarian studies and geographies of food and agriculture in the context of climate disintegration; urban-rural inequality, integrated territorial development, and urban bias in geography; public/private arrangements; and depeasantization/rural dispossession. We are interested in potentially generative practices, solidarities, movements, or alliances that seek more socially and ecologically just agrarian and urban systems, and focus on the flows and links between rural and urban. We are interested in learning more about questions including, but not limited to, the following:
1. To what extent do today’s inter-firm networks and public/private arrangements—in and beyond food and agriculture—represent a continuation of late liberalism and its associated territorial restructuring? (See, Brenner, 2013). Alternatively, do contemporary dynamics transcend the specific, contingent post-1980s contexts of market liberalization?
2. Are there typical commodities or products that lend themselves more often than others to potential counter-insurgencies, disarticulations, or alternatives to agro-industrial consolidation? Why? Do factors like production differentiation and branding matter (Porter and Bond, 1999)? Products’ physical properties (i.e. dairy, cheese)? Histories of artisanal or “craft” production and localized knowledges (Humphrey and Schmitz, 2016)? Similarly, are there distinctive geographies and specific landscapes associated with different transformations?
3. Grounding perspectives “from below” (i.e. from workers), how does the subjective experience of working in plantation-style consolidated agro-industry differ from work in a techno-field, from a non-networked firm, or in subsistence agriculture? (Answering this question may well require ethnography, or research giving voice to farmworkers, agrarian movement leaders, or agro-industrial workers).
4. What are instances of agrarian-industrial spatial forms that have emerged “organically” (i.e. without intensive nation-state sponsored political strategy)? What are instances of those forms that received intense support, or those that were pre-planned or designed outright?
5. Zooming out to debates about planetary urbanization and regional clusters, path dependencies, and countries’ institutional legacies, what ideologies and knowledge(s) do different agro-industrial spatial and geographical models purportedly advance? Why?
6. Are contemporary agrarian spatial and geographic forms “under threat” from “above?” (i.e., from increasing demands toward product standardization, vertical integration, and homogenous global standards?) If this is empirically observable, what are the spatial, social, and economic consequences?
7. How do geographically bounded designations and models of ownership configure or transform agrarian space and processes? These might include “Denominations of Origin,” production certifications, and natural or cultural reserves established under preservation or conservation acts.
8. What constitutes “failure” and/or “success” in this landscape of agro-industrial transformation, and why? What type of political coalitions do different solutions seem to typically foster? Do potentially generative solutions offer dynamic regional synergies (“clusters”) that might push back against the “core / periphery” dynamic (Scott and Storper, 2016; Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999)? To what extent is “success” or “failure” contingent on scalability or replicability? What examples of agrarian or agro-industrial regimes are “nonscalable” and how are they a form of resistance (Tsing, 2012)?
To participate in this session, please submit an abstract (250 words or less) as well as your conference PIN by Tuesday, October 20, 2020 (11:59pm) to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org. Participants will be notified by the 25th and must submit their abstract by the AAG paper abstract deadline of October 29th. For more information, please see: www2.aag.org/aagannualmeeting.
Araghi, Farshad A. “Global Depeasantization, 1945-1990.” The Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 36,
no. 2. Spring, 1995. 337-368
Araghi, Farshad A. “The Great Global Enclosure of our Times: Peasants and the Agrarian
Question at the End of the Twentieth Century.” In Hungry for Profit: the Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment, edited by F. Magdoff, F. H. Buttel, and J. Bellamy Foster. New York: Monthly Review Press. 1999.
Bair, Jennifer and Marion Werner. “The place of disarticulations: global commodity production
in La Laguna, Mexico.” Environment and Planning. 2011. Vol. 43. 998-1015.
Balakrishnan, Sai. “Recombinant Urbanization: Agrarian-Urban Landed Property And Uneven
Development In India.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 43, no. 4. July 2019. 617-632.
Bernstein, Henry. “Agrarian Classes in Capitalist Development,” in Leslie Sklair, ed.,
Capitalism and Development. London: Routledge, 1994.
Brenner, Neil. “Theses on Urbanization.” Public Culture. 25:1 DOI 10.1215/08992363-
Brenner, Neil (ed). Implosions/Explosions. Berlin: Jovis, 2014.
Brenner, Neil, and Christian Schmid. “The Urban Age in Question.” International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 38, no. 3. 2014. 731–755.
Cronon, William. Nature's metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: W.W. Norton,
Goodman, David and Michael Redclift. “Constructing a Political Economy of Food.”
Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 1, no. 3. 1994. 547-552.
Humphrey, John and Hubert Schmitz. “How Does Insertion in Global Value Chains Affect
Upgrading in Industrial Clusters?” Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex. 2016.
Moore, Jason W. “The End of the Road? Agricultural Revolutions in the Capitalist World-
Ecology, 1450–2010.” Journal of Agrarian Change. Vol. 10, no. 3. July 2010. 389–413.
Patel, Raj and Jason W. Moore. “Cheap Food.” A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things:
A Guide to Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet. Oakland: University of California Press, 2017.
Piore, Michael J. and Charles F. Sabel. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for
Prosperity. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
Porter, Michael C. and Gregory Bond. “The California Wine Cluster.” Harvard Business
School. Case. HBS Case Collection. June 1999 (Revised February 2013).
Sanyal, Kalyan. Rethinking Capitalist Development: Primitive Accumulation, Governmentality,
and Post-Colonial Capitalism. New Delhi: Routledge, 2007.
Schmitz, Hubert and Khalid Navi. “Clustering and Industrialization: Introduction.” World
Development. Vol. 27, No. 9., pp. 1503-1514. 1999.
Scott, Allen and Michael Storper. “Current Debates in Urban Theory: A Critical Assessment.”
Urban Studies. 2016, Vol. 53, no. 6. 1114–1136.
Tsing, Anna. “On Nonscalability: The Living World is Not Amenable to Precision-Nested
Scales.” Common Knowledge. Vol. 18, no. 3, 2012. 505-524.
Contemporary agrarian-industrial transformations animate key debates in geography and urban studies. These debates include, but are not limited to, questions of depeasantization, differentiation and dispossession (Araghi, 1999; Sanyal, 2007; Berstein, 2001); the dialectics between concentrated and extended urbanization, and questions of ‘planetary’ urbanization (Lefebvre, 1970; Brenner, 2014; Brenner and Schmid, 2014); typologically distinct forms of recombinant urbanization, specific to layered, cumulative institutional apparatuses and arrangements (Balakrishnan, 2019); and questions of whether potential “disarticulations” might exist from the increasingly hegemonic international divisions of capital and labor (Piore and Sabel, 1984; Bair and Werner, 2011).
The development and growing complexity of global metropolitan areas—where urban-planning and urban-geography efforts tend to be focused—are directly related to agrarian transformations. The last three decades have seen a massive expansion of infrastructure, shifts in labor dynamics, and environmental impacts intensified by rampant agro-industrial extraction (Goodman and Redclift, 1994). Dominant trends and trajectories in agro-industry include firm consolidation and vertical integration, “cheap food,” and compounded futures speculation over commodity-driven growth (Cronon, 1991; Moore, 2010; Patel and Moore, 2017). These phenomena produce specific spatial forms common the world over: plantation-style megafarms, off-site technical and logistics infrastructure, contract farming, and economic corridor regions, among many others. Global supply chains, speculative commodification, and “cheap food” increasingly require new or revamped spatial forms that resist and supplant these trends.
|Presenter||Stefan Norgaard*, Columbia University, Mariel Collard Arias*, Harvard University, Trading on Terroir: Fostering Artisanal Cheese and Alcohol Production through Specialized Agrarian Industrial Districts||15||9:35 AM|
|Presenter||Adrienne Johnson*, University of San Francisco, The Institutionalization of RSPO Standards and the Effects on State and Business-Driven Governance in Ecuador||15||9:50 AM|
|Presenter||Doug Hertzler*, ActionAid USA, Land Grabs for Zero Hunger? Views from the ground versus the discourse of farmland acquisition by university and public pension funds.||15||10:05 AM|
|Presenter||Diana Cordoba*, Queen's University, Performing Legality Under Contract: State and Non-State Interactions in Palm Oil Governance in the Brazilian Amazon||15||10:20 AM|
|Discussant||Mariel Collard Arias Harvard University||15||10:35 AM|
To access contact information login