Continuing on from the previous week's post...
What is apparent across the literature on corporate and state investment in land acquisitions is a dehumanising of the African continent into another notch in a portfolio, or a matter of strategy. Such behaviour is enabled by distance (Held et al. 1999). The physical distance between the investor and "investment" against the relative ease with which money and technology can flow across space, results in a relationship that, on a human level, is rather callous. This dehumanising is not conducive to development, as development requires an appreciation for the individual. The displaced nature of TNCs, and the distant policymakers of foreign countries, create privileged relationships in which the land and water users in Africa are seen only as a vehicle for profit/loss (Hawthorne, 2004).
There is little appreciation for the externalities (an externality being the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit) of their business, beyond the need to keep things going without farmer revolt or government retaliation. Degradation of soil and water quality, as is typically evidenced in intensive farming (Tilman et al., 2002), disproportionately harms the host nation on timescales that TNCs are unlikely to worry about. Further, the use of water for agri-industrial processes typically threatens the water supply of surrounding communities. It would require significant government oversight to keep this all from resulting in unsustainable and exploitative practises, but such oversight has yet to be seen (Cotula et al., 2009), and is unlikely when host nations are so reliant on foreign direct investment, and such investment is needed across a nation's economy (Allan, 2013). Indeed, land acquisitions make full use of government subsidies and offtake agreements (Woertz, 2013).
With the process of intense globalisation experienced over the past century, there has been an intensification of the divide between rich and poor countries (Dicken, 2007). As suppliers have been brought into the global supply chain, they have typically (with a few exceptions) been exposed to increased risks but only received a fraction of the profits, with the wealth gap exponentially increasing between the richest and poorest nations (see Figure 1). Even if land acquisitions yield absolute gains for the host country, the intense inequality in that trade does not allow for it to be genuine development. It's a very small slice of a rather large pie.
The terms of land acquisitions so far have been too heavily in favour of the investor. Development would not require an equal split between investor and host nation (that would be extremely unlikely), but an ever-increasing gap between rich and poor is simply unjust. Thus, the income inequality is indisputable and the intensive agricultural practices are of questionable sustainability. Land acquisitions have thus far not fit even the broad definition of development being used. They would require that host nations to gain far more from the agreements in order for them to be truly mutually beneficial.
What is apparent across the literature on corporate and state investment in land acquisitions is a dehumanising of the African continent into another notch in a portfolio, or a matter of strategy. Such behaviour is enabled by distance (Held et al. 1999). The physical distance between the investor and "investment" against the relative ease with which money and technology can flow across space, results in a relationship that, on a human level, is rather callous. This dehumanising is not conducive to development, as development requires an appreciation for the individual. The displaced nature of TNCs, and the distant policymakers of foreign countries, create privileged relationships in which the land and water users in Africa are seen only as a vehicle for profit/loss (Hawthorne, 2004).
There is little appreciation for the externalities (an externality being the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit) of their business, beyond the need to keep things going without farmer revolt or government retaliation. Degradation of soil and water quality, as is typically evidenced in intensive farming (Tilman et al., 2002), disproportionately harms the host nation on timescales that TNCs are unlikely to worry about. Further, the use of water for agri-industrial processes typically threatens the water supply of surrounding communities. It would require significant government oversight to keep this all from resulting in unsustainable and exploitative practises, but such oversight has yet to be seen (Cotula et al., 2009), and is unlikely when host nations are so reliant on foreign direct investment, and such investment is needed across a nation's economy (Allan, 2013). Indeed, land acquisitions make full use of government subsidies and offtake agreements (Woertz, 2013).
With the process of intense globalisation experienced over the past century, there has been an intensification of the divide between rich and poor countries (Dicken, 2007). As suppliers have been brought into the global supply chain, they have typically (with a few exceptions) been exposed to increased risks but only received a fraction of the profits, with the wealth gap exponentially increasing between the richest and poorest nations (see Figure 1). Even if land acquisitions yield absolute gains for the host country, the intense inequality in that trade does not allow for it to be genuine development. It's a very small slice of a rather large pie.
 |
| Fig. 1 Widening income gap between countries |
The terms of land acquisitions so far have been too heavily in favour of the investor. Development would not require an equal split between investor and host nation (that would be extremely unlikely), but an ever-increasing gap between rich and poor is simply unjust. Thus, the income inequality is indisputable and the intensive agricultural practices are of questionable sustainability. Land acquisitions have thus far not fit even the broad definition of development being used. They would require that host nations to gain far more from the agreements in order for them to be truly mutually beneficial.
No comments:
Post a Comment