A note before we begin, I am not arguing that land acquisitions cannot in any way be positive or yield any good, and nor am I arguing that there is no form of land acquisition that is pro-development. What is being discussed are land acquisitions up to this point, which have been dominated by state actors and major corporations.
To begin this two-part post I'll first discuss development. As has already been brought up in the blog, the question of development is itself a complex one. There is no single model for development, with the path of the United Kingdom being distinct from the Four Asian Tigers (Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong) and those paths being distinct from the superpowers-in-waiting: China and India. Further, the actual end point of development can also be contested. If the lifestyles of countries such as the US and the UK are unsustainable, and racked with increasing inequality and poorer wage outlooks, can we hold them up as goals to work towards?
These are important questions with serious ramifications for African countries and their paths for the years to come. It would, however, be impractical to attempt a definitive answer to these questions, even if the entire blog was devoted to it! For the purposes of this post, I'll broadly define development as a move towards reducing inequalities (of income, education, health etc.), growing sustainable industries and increasing standards of living. Even these definitions generate serious questions (is any industry within a capitalist system sustainable?), but there must be a starting point, and I believe these definitions are sufficient to interrogate land acquisitions and reasonably uncontroversial (see Figure 1 for the relationship between human development and inequalities).
Transnational Corporations (or TNCs) have previously been mentioned. These corporations have a significant stake in land acquisitions across Africa, with a focus on agri-industrial developments. These acquisitions use the water of the African country to produce crops, principally food, and largely for export. So why would TNCs serve to entrench inequalities, as opposed to break them down in pro-poor development? Each individual case will undoubtedly vary, and there are certainly many case studies to explore if one is interested in a particular incident. But I'd argue that, on a fundamental level, TNCs entrench inequalities because they function in an unequal system with the ever-present requirement to grow. Companies have a duty to their shareholders, on whom they are reliant. That duty involves maximising the returns to their shareholders, if they (or, crucially, their competitors) can reduce their costs, they must do so. Owing to the power relations between a TNC and farmers in Africa, the relationship will always be to the detriment of the farmer.
TNCs however are not the only foreign direct investors on African land. State actors are also heavily involved, with particular interest from the Gulf States, Asian states and Western investors (Woertz, 2013). The Gulf countries have been securing international land for the strategic purpose of food security, with Africa identified as a continent with considerable opportunity for agricultural growth. In effect, these investments secure access to water that is in short supply in the Gulf, which is then used to cultivate the land and export that food back to the investor. These countries are attempting to reduce the risk of food shortages in any future crises, after several scares in the previous decades where money was not enough to secure sufficient food. Again, the aim of the investment is not geared towards development.
To begin this two-part post I'll first discuss development. As has already been brought up in the blog, the question of development is itself a complex one. There is no single model for development, with the path of the United Kingdom being distinct from the Four Asian Tigers (Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong) and those paths being distinct from the superpowers-in-waiting: China and India. Further, the actual end point of development can also be contested. If the lifestyles of countries such as the US and the UK are unsustainable, and racked with increasing inequality and poorer wage outlooks, can we hold them up as goals to work towards?
These are important questions with serious ramifications for African countries and their paths for the years to come. It would, however, be impractical to attempt a definitive answer to these questions, even if the entire blog was devoted to it! For the purposes of this post, I'll broadly define development as a move towards reducing inequalities (of income, education, health etc.), growing sustainable industries and increasing standards of living. Even these definitions generate serious questions (is any industry within a capitalist system sustainable?), but there must be a starting point, and I believe these definitions are sufficient to interrogate land acquisitions and reasonably uncontroversial (see Figure 1 for the relationship between human development and inequalities).
 |
| Fig. 1 More human development is associated with less inequality |
Transnational Corporations (or TNCs) have previously been mentioned. These corporations have a significant stake in land acquisitions across Africa, with a focus on agri-industrial developments. These acquisitions use the water of the African country to produce crops, principally food, and largely for export. So why would TNCs serve to entrench inequalities, as opposed to break them down in pro-poor development? Each individual case will undoubtedly vary, and there are certainly many case studies to explore if one is interested in a particular incident. But I'd argue that, on a fundamental level, TNCs entrench inequalities because they function in an unequal system with the ever-present requirement to grow. Companies have a duty to their shareholders, on whom they are reliant. That duty involves maximising the returns to their shareholders, if they (or, crucially, their competitors) can reduce their costs, they must do so. Owing to the power relations between a TNC and farmers in Africa, the relationship will always be to the detriment of the farmer.
TNCs however are not the only foreign direct investors on African land. State actors are also heavily involved, with particular interest from the Gulf States, Asian states and Western investors (Woertz, 2013). The Gulf countries have been securing international land for the strategic purpose of food security, with Africa identified as a continent with considerable opportunity for agricultural growth. In effect, these investments secure access to water that is in short supply in the Gulf, which is then used to cultivate the land and export that food back to the investor. These countries are attempting to reduce the risk of food shortages in any future crises, after several scares in the previous decades where money was not enough to secure sufficient food. Again, the aim of the investment is not geared towards development.
Next week I will continue to explore these inherently unequal land acquisitions, looking at what macroeconomic trends suggest about the relationships.
No comments:
Post a Comment