2016
DOI: 10.12924/johs2016.12010037
| View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Land inequality in Brazil is alarming and several poor individuals living in rural areas do not have enough income to survive decently. The struggle to access land should lead to a paradigm shift with social movements leading this process since democratization. Their strategies vary, but usually focus on complementary activities of mass mobilization that culminate in the occupation of unproductive land that is not fulfilling its social function in order to force expropriation and the creation of new settlement… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(19 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Yet, our national-scale and regional-scale studies eventually report on the local manifestations of reported land-use conflicts (e.g. Pritchard, 2013;Zimerman 2016), thus increasing the comparability of cases as the scale of the phenomena studied are relatively similar. Moreover, restricting our review to local cases only would come at a cost of the number of cases which was deemed undesirable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, our national-scale and regional-scale studies eventually report on the local manifestations of reported land-use conflicts (e.g. Pritchard, 2013;Zimerman 2016), thus increasing the comparability of cases as the scale of the phenomena studied are relatively similar. Moreover, restricting our review to local cases only would come at a cost of the number of cases which was deemed undesirable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Public policies, in this sense, show a significant increase in new rural settlements during the Cardoso and Lula Governments, following the pattern of land occupations. The only difference between these two presidential terms was that the area designated to the new settlements was greater in Lula's administrations than in the Cardoso's, although the number of families was very similar (Zimerman , 44). Land distribution as public policy was effectively performed during these years of PSDB and PT (with the exception of Rousseff, as already explained) (Figure ).…”
Section: Agrarian Policies In the Redemocratization Period (Post‐1985)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While these were positive political changes for peasant and agroecology movements, at the same time a powerful elite constituted by large plantation holders, transnational agri-business corporations and local rural eliterepresented by the 'rural bench' in Federal Parliamentdid not completely lose power. In different areas of Brazil, it even expanded its control over land and other resources, often at the expense of more vulnerable populations of rural workers, smallholder farms, indigenous peoples, quilombolas, mineworkers and rubber-tappers (Zimerman 2010(Zimerman , 2016.…”
Section: Social Movements and The Brazilian Statementioning
confidence: 99%