Rethinking Investment Dynamics: An Alternative Framework of the Global Land Rush

Despite growing interest in "land grabbing," the comparative literature remains biased in several key ways, failing to capture the full diversity of land investments and to incorporate the important findings made by case-study researchers. This paper analyzes in particular three analytical...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Elizabeth Starr
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Thomas A. Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems 2016-09-01
Series:Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/220
id doaj-e50964eaee4948669a5ff1e7b69aad5b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e50964eaee4948669a5ff1e7b69aad5b2020-11-25T03:48:15ZengThomas A. Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food SystemsJournal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development2152-08012016-09-014110.5304/jafscd.2014.041.012220Rethinking Investment Dynamics: An Alternative Framework of the Global Land RushElizabeth Starr0Yale UniversityDespite growing interest in "land grabbing," the comparative literature remains biased in several key ways, failing to capture the full diversity of land investments and to incorporate the important findings made by case-study researchers. This paper analyzes in particular three analytical blind spots in current typologies of the global land grab phenomenon: (a) the failure to incorporate nonproductive investments, including speculation; (b) the misguided focus on investor nationality, as opposed to capital flows; and (c) the tendency to ignore how domestic actors shape the terms of a land deal. In drawing attention to these limitations, this paper constructs two typologies of land investment — one describing physical changes in land use, and another mapping interactions between investors and developing country actors. Working in conjunction, they help to explain why land deals occur where they do and how they change not only the land itself, but also people's relation to the land. This paper therefore calls for a more nuanced analysis of the bargaining processes that underlie every land deal and also of the potential policy alternatives that may attract investment without sacrificing the livelihoods or lands of vulnerable local populations.https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/220Capital FlowsCivil SocietyForeign CapitalInvestorsLandLand Deal
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Elizabeth Starr
spellingShingle Elizabeth Starr
Rethinking Investment Dynamics: An Alternative Framework of the Global Land Rush
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
Capital Flows
Civil Society
Foreign Capital
Investors
Land
Land Deal
author_facet Elizabeth Starr
author_sort Elizabeth Starr
title Rethinking Investment Dynamics: An Alternative Framework of the Global Land Rush
title_short Rethinking Investment Dynamics: An Alternative Framework of the Global Land Rush
title_full Rethinking Investment Dynamics: An Alternative Framework of the Global Land Rush
title_fullStr Rethinking Investment Dynamics: An Alternative Framework of the Global Land Rush
title_full_unstemmed Rethinking Investment Dynamics: An Alternative Framework of the Global Land Rush
title_sort rethinking investment dynamics: an alternative framework of the global land rush
publisher Thomas A. Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems
series Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
issn 2152-0801
publishDate 2016-09-01
description Despite growing interest in "land grabbing," the comparative literature remains biased in several key ways, failing to capture the full diversity of land investments and to incorporate the important findings made by case-study researchers. This paper analyzes in particular three analytical blind spots in current typologies of the global land grab phenomenon: (a) the failure to incorporate nonproductive investments, including speculation; (b) the misguided focus on investor nationality, as opposed to capital flows; and (c) the tendency to ignore how domestic actors shape the terms of a land deal. In drawing attention to these limitations, this paper constructs two typologies of land investment — one describing physical changes in land use, and another mapping interactions between investors and developing country actors. Working in conjunction, they help to explain why land deals occur where they do and how they change not only the land itself, but also people's relation to the land. This paper therefore calls for a more nuanced analysis of the bargaining processes that underlie every land deal and also of the potential policy alternatives that may attract investment without sacrificing the livelihoods or lands of vulnerable local populations.
topic Capital Flows
Civil Society
Foreign Capital
Investors
Land
Land Deal
url https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/220
work_keys_str_mv AT elizabethstarr rethinkinginvestmentdynamicsanalternativeframeworkofthegloballandrush
_version_ 1724499389036101632