No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper explores the implications of contract farming for patterns of agrarian change in India. The paper draws on a detailed analysis of primary qualitative data from a case study of potato contract farming in the state of Maharashtra. It argues that debates on contract farming are often ideological in nature, leading to overly simplified narratives of "win-win" or "win-lose." Instead, by combining the strengths of agrarian political economy and rural livelihood analysis, the paper offers a concrete exploration of the intersections between contract farming, livelihoods, and agrarian change. It finds that contract farming activities in the case study villages are focused on a group of petty commodity producers. However, rather than sparking dynamic new processes of accumulation among contract farmers or leading to new forms of exploitation, the paper argues that contract farming is contributing to processes of agrarian change "already under way." These processes are intimately connected to livelihood diversification and the struggles of new classes of fragmented labour.

No abstract

Recent advances in global production network theory, known as GPN 2.0, provide a theoretically sophisticated framework for understanding the articulation of global production systems with regional development trajectories. However, this framework was largely derived from lessons out of empirical analyses of the strategic coupling and value capture trajectories of firms in certain manufacturing and service sector ‘hot spots’, primarily in East and Southeast Asia, and its wider applicability for other contexts remains uncertain. This paper aims to address this lacuna by examining the potential for GPN 2.0 to understand regional development trajectories in agricultural production landscapes in the Global South dominated by smallholder-based farms that generate outputs for national and international markets. The distinctive characteristics of smallholders throw up significant challenges for the explanatory applicability of GPN 2.0 for rural development, at least as it has been developed so far. A key challenge is that smallholders cannot be considered equivalent to ‘firms’ as conceived in GPN 2.0. To overcome this problem, this paper argues for bringing a livelihoods perspective to bear on GPN 2.0. We illustrate the usefulness of this approach through reference to a case study of potato contract farming in Maharastra, India.

In rural parts of the global South, livelihoods are diversifying away from agriculture. Nevertheless, agriculture typically still remains the backbone of rural life and is usually considered the prime source of economic security, social prestige and self‐identity. The task of narrating these somewhat contradictory processes in a conceptually coherent fashion has proven a major challenge for research. This paper responds to this problem by deploying an adapted version of Andrew Dorward's schema of households ‘hanging in, stepping up or stepping out’ of their landed interests. Dorward's middle‐ground theory provides an appropriate analytical vehicle for capturing the vagaries and situated complexities of the land‐livelihoods nexus. However the theory fails to fully appreciate the extent to which household livelihood decision making rests on complex entanglements that leverage land‐based and nonfarm activities against one another. We demonstrate the critical importance of these processes through the results of in‐depth interviews with 32 households in two north Indian villages. These interviews lead us to propose that land factors in livelihood aspirations in three fundamental ways: an arena for interpenetrated agrarian and nonagrarian livelihood streams; a base for social reproduction; and a bulwark of food (and by extension, livelihood) security through own‐production capabilities.

“Autonomy,” as a desirable state, is a notion often used by food sovereignty‐oriented farmer movements and scholars studying repeasantization. The term is predominantly used rather casually, relying on presumed meanings, but van der Ploeg's book The New Peasantries seeks to elaborate a particular meaning of autonomy as a characteristic feature of the peasantry. The desire of farmers/peasants for autonomy is formulated in tandem with agroecological agriculture, farmers' agency, locally “nested” markets, co‐production with nature, non‐commoditized production, and multiple kinds of peasant resistance. This article identifies the distinctive nature of this take on autonomy and analyses its analytical, normative, and political aspects. It develops several critiques regarding the analytical shortcomings of the notion of peasant autonomy: the methodological problem of a peasant bias; the analytical limitations and incompatibility of intrinsic and “relative” autonomy; and the neglect of accumulation from below and subtle class contradictions. Rather than centring autonomy or relative autonomy, the authors argue for shifting the focus to the nature of different types of dependency relationships, ranging from very exploitative to those vital for human flourishing.