Relations of sovereignty: The uneven production of transnational plantation territories in Laos

Abstract

The contemporary emergence of land grabbing across the Global South has been framed by critics as a threat to the national territorial sovereignty of postcolonial societies. Such concerns hinge on conventional notions of sovereignty as an abstract form of power possessed by the state and lost to global forces. However, the transfer of domestic lands into the hands of foreign investors is complicated by the contested and relational nature of authority in resource frontier spaces. Critical scholarship has shown that sovereignty in practice-the production of control and authority within spatial fields-is dynamic, contested, and variegated. It has further staked out an ontology of sovereignty as relational, although not explicitly stated in such terms. This paper employs the insights of relational geography to advance theorization of sovereignty's relationality: the contested and consensual relations among heterogeneous actors that produce and transform authority in complex and variegated spaces. I demonstrate the value of this approach by examining Vietnamese and Chinese industrial tree plantation companies' differential access to land in Southern Laos, based on 20 months of ethnographic fieldwork. Each company differed in their access to land granted to them by the central Lao government due to the types of socio-political relations that they established at various administrative scales of the Lao state. Such relations shaped their coproduction of sovereignty driven by logics of centralized state territorialization and capital accumulation. When such state-capital relations broke down, opportunities emerged for

Seeing the state in waste? Exploring the everyday state and imagined state performance in Lusaka's lower income settlements

“…This research has for example argued that sovereignty is socially constructed (i.e. Kenney-Lazar, 2020;Sidaway, 2003;Richardson, 2019), performed across a multitude of registers and norms (i.e Perazzone, 2019;Mountz, 2010) and continually formed (i.e Hagmann & Péclard, 2010;Dittmer, 2020). Herein I focus specifically on two sets of conversations in the literature that explore the ways that the state is produced in the everyday-namely the research on 'New Statecraft' stemming from Political Geography (drawing primarily on empirical data from the Global North) (see for example Dittmer, 2020;Painter, 2011Painter, , 2006Colona, 2020) and research on the 'Everyday state/Everyday Governance' emerging from Southern Urban Studies and the anthropological study of the State in the Global South (see for example the edited volume of Fuller & Benei, 2000;Le Meur & Lund, 2001;Oliver de Sardan, 2014;Perazzone, 2019).…”

Chinese infrastructure as spatial fix? A political ecology of development finance and irrigation in Cambodia

“…In her assessment of this project, Wanjing Chen (2020: 10) concluded that the Chinese central state ‘tends to set up high‐profile developmental schemes without resolving the quotidian processes needed to bring these visions into reality from the onset.’ Moreover, agreements that are signed between national authorities and Chinese state or private actors may not be feasible on the ground. In his study of Chinese rubber plantations in Laos, Miles Kenney‐Lazar (2020) found that the private Chinese company Sun Paper struggled to gain access to the full spatial extent of its land concession agreement because sub‐national Lao authorities supported local villagers who contested their dispossession. In this case, the strong connection between sub‐national state authorities and villagers, informed by their shared political histories, was more influential in determining the outcome of Chinese investment than an agreement from national levels of government.…”

Sovereign anxiety in Myanmar: An emotional geopolitics of China's Belt and Road Initiative

“…The nation‐state is often perceived as an extractive entity, rather than protective force (Hagmann & Korf, 2012; Rodgers, 2006; Tilly, 1985). Sovereign anxiety in Myanmar is shaped by these trends and other local power relations that we examine in subsequent sections – just as in practice, there is no ‘pure’ de facto sovereignty, but rather evolving power dynamics that produce sovereignty as an effect (Kenney‐Lazar, 2020).…”

“…Recent literature emphasises that spaces of sovereignty are ‘produced and transformed by a range of contested and consensual relations among heterogeneous actors and entities’ (Kenney‐Lazar, 2020, p. 333). In Myanmar, CMEC projects are spaces of sovereignty constituted not only by consensual relations between the Chinese and Myanmar leaders, but also by the contestations of local inhabitants, civil society actors, and government officials themselves.…”