Annual Review - Globalization of Agriculture

RE10CH07_Robinson ARI 20 August 2018 13:0
Annual Review of Resource Economics
Globalization of Agriculture
Guy M. Robinson
Department of Geography, Environment and Population, School of Social Sciences, University
of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia; email: guy.robinson@adelaide.edu.au
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018.10:133-160. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University of British Columbia on 05/20/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018. 10:133–60 Keywords

First published as a Review in Advance on globalization, agriculture, agrifood systems, food security, productivism,
May 31, 2018
sustainability
The Annual Review of Resource Economics is online
at resource.annualreviews.org Abstract
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource- The world’s agrifood systems have been transformed by a process of global-
100517-023303
ization in which ever-closer functional integration of the world’s economies
Copyright c 2018 by Annual Reviews. has occurred, supported by the Internet, the rise of transnational corpo-
All rights reserved
rations, and the removal of many barriers to trade and investment. This
JEL codes: F60, N50, O13, Q00, Q10, R14 review outlines the key characteristics of globalization and then details the
changes occurring to agriculture and the broader agrifood system. It ad-
dresses the worldwide spread of productivist, specialized, industrial-style
farming methods and their consequences, both positive and negative. The
review focuses on three key issues: the world’s capability to produce enough
food to feed humankind; the important roles played in shaping globaliza-
tion by transnational corporations, global finance, and government policies;
and the emerging challenges to globalization. The first of these addresses
the current debate regarding whether it is possible to maintain ecological
diversity while producing sufficient food to feed the world. The other issue
acknowledges that outcomes of global processes are spatially uneven and
strongly contested by forms of agriculture antithetical to the homogenized,
capitalist, neoliberal model associated with globalization.
133
1. INTRODUCTION
Globalization is a term applied to interaction and integration among people, businesses, and gov-
ernments across the world. It is a process driven by international trade and investment but closely
associated with transformations in economies, societies, and politics linked with new information
technologies that have enabled greater worldwide interconnectedness. However, it is also a highly
contested and debated term subject to different interpretations and discourses, partly arising from
different overarching interpretations and debates.
This review outlines key characterizations of globalization before focusing on how its various
processes have had an impact on the agrifood sector, both positively and negatively. It highlights
how globalization is shaping not only the nature of agricultural production but also farm supply and
food processing. Thus, the review discusses issues relating to the broad agrifood sector, including
supply, production, processing, retailing, and consumption. It focuses on three key issues that
have generated substantial academic research:

Global capability to produce enough food to feed humankind;

The pivotal roles of transnational corporations (TNCs), global finance, and the policy
regimes sustaining globalized agriculture;
Future challenges and responses to globalized agriculture.
2. GLOBALIZATION DISCOURSES
Globalization is a contested concept, with both major supporters and trenchant critics, the latter
often from the perspective of developing countries (Canterbury 2007, Scholte 2005). There are
at least three different strands of thought or discourses on the topic:
1. The hyperglobalist thesis. This recognizes globalization as a new epoch in human history,
based on the growth of global markets and the subordination of the nation state to supra-
national organizations and the power wielded by TNCs. Old hierarchies are destroyed, and
there is a new global division of labor (Münch 2016). Regional inequities grow through the
operation of comparative advantage, but global competition also creates more wealth.
2. The skeptical thesis. Contemporary global capitalism is essentially a mirror of many
nineteenth-century features of internationalization. Some empirical evidence regarding
flows of trade, investment, and labor can be brought to bear on this argument (Hirst et al.
2015), but it underemphasizes the impacts of modern information flows and the diminishing
role of individual states compared with the growing importance of supranational bodies. It
also emphasizes the distinction between creation of greater wealth for the world’s core (es-
pecially North America, Western Europe, and China/Japan/Southeast Asia) and retardation
of growth in the periphery, especially Africa, but it points to a myriad of causes, not just
globalization (Held & McGrew 2007).
3. The transformationalist thesis. This recognizes the huge changes associated with globaliza-
tion, but views it as a partial, incomplete, and unpredictable process in which there is no
longer a clear distinction between international and domestic or external and internal affairs.
It sees globalization as recasting the differences between developed and developing, forging
new hierarchies that cut across all societies and regions (McGrew 2007).
3. THE NATURE OF GLOBALIZATION

Globalization reflects the worldwide spread of modern technologies of production, including
farming, the agricultural supply sector, and food processing. A vital component is the so-called
134 Robinson
borderless world (Ohmae 1999) of the Internet and networking of virtually all of the world’s
economies so that new forms of trade and cultural exchange can thrive. Time and space are
compressed as part of rapidly changing technological developments, including the expansion of
urban-industrial complexes and farming practices that continue to substitute capital for labor
(Warf 2008). This has fostered not only ever-closer functional economic integration between
different countries but also linkages and interrelationships between cultural forms and practices.
In turn, this has contributed to a homogenization of capitalist economic forms, markets, and
relations across markets as part of a process of flexible accumulation (Harvey 1987). Globalization
has also been associated with new forms of intellectual property (Halbert 2014) and post-World
War Two international structures such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) (founded in
1995), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the agrifood sector, supply
chain management and certification of suppliers are now commonplace among input suppliers and
supermarket chains (Busch 2010).
Analysts of globalization generally refer to it as a multifaceted set of processes that frequently

involve TNCs who benefit from freer movement of capital, goods, and services (Sklair 2001).
The TNCs often operate via establishing subsidiaries in many countries, enabled by improved
transport and communications systems, greater freedom of trade, and greater availability of cheap
labor (located especially in the developing world) and skills. These corporations contribute to
increasing external investment in many countries as well as the creation of global brands, such as
McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, Levi’s jeans, Starbucks, and Huawei, which are associated with a
global cultural convergence ( Jeon et al. 2016).
Globalization has produced significant changes worldwide with respect to knowledge, trade,
finance, and movement of labor. Knowledge networks have been expanded, but with decreased
transaction costs, and the emergence of new forms of the economy, e.g., the growth of so-called
dot-com industries in the late 1990s (Zook 2008). The agrifood sector was perhaps the least-
digitized global industry at this time. Subsequently, this has changed dramatically, with global
food and agriculture rapidly adopting digitalization, including artificial intelligence, data mining
techniques, precision agriculture, and machine learning (Katiyar et al. 2017, Mulla 2013). Global
trade has been promoted via abolition of various forms of customs and duties, allied to the role of the
WTO, and the move to a more open world economy, encouraged by integration of financial mar-
kets and liberalization of capital markets (Knox et al. 2014). Large-scale migrations of workers, both
legal and illegal, have brought about an increasing asymmetry between labor and capital, but with
a relatively low mobilization capacity of the labor force (Waite et al. 2015). However, agriculture
has often provided low-paid casual employment for recent migrants (Frattini 2017, Pena 2014).
Most commentators have recognized that globalization occurs within three principal sectors:
(a) the economic, where countries that trade with many others and have few trade barriers are
more economically globalized; (b) the social, where globalization is a measure of how easily in-
formation and ideas pass between people around the world (emphasizing access to the Internet
and social media networks); and (c) the political, involving the amount of political cooperation
between countries (Kaplinsky 2013). Across the three sectors there are both positive and negative
outcomes. For example, a wider range of consumer goods has been generated in most parts of
the world, though often through the growing dominance of global brands as opposed to those
from small, private traders selling locally produced goods. This reflects a trend toward cultural
homogenization but with significant generation of wealth for certain regions and sectors of society
through wholesale transfers of capital and jobs to favored locations (Pieterse 2015).
Despite rising incomes in some quarters, there are growing discrepancies between rich and poor
and in the developed world versus developing world, as well as increased competition for small
businesses who are unable to take advantage of economies of scale and negative impacts on cultural
www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 135

diversity and the environment. Within the spatial fragmentation associated with globalization,
there has been greater differentiation within the developing world as parts of Central America,
sub-Saharan Africa, and the Caribbean become progressively more marginal to the world economy
(Gwynne & Kay 2014). These areas often act as providers of cheap labor and sites for capital
investment in alternative ventures, including tax write-offs and low-yield farming. However, the
balance sheet for globalization is complex (see Table 1). Positive aspects in developing countries,
such as promoting shifts toward more democratic governments and concerns for human rights,
can be contrasted with the destabilization associated with substantial flows of migrants to wealthy
countries seeking to participate in the benefits offered by globalization and with the growing
differentiation between rich and poor as part of asymmetries in the world economy. Hence,
globalization should be regarded as partial, not overarching and inexorable. It is complex, uneven,
and fragmented.
Table 1 A preliminary balance sheet for globalization

Positive attributes Negative attributes
Results in greater harmonization of cultures worldwide, Promotes cultural imperialism that can contribute to destroying
promoting more common experiences in terms of local languages, traditions, and religions
consumption, lifestyle, behavior, and aspirations
Reduced control by national institutions over sets of practices, Access to globalizing influences is uneven, so the effects are also
bodies of knowledge, conventions, and lifestyles lead to a uneven
greater scope for individuals to flourish Resistance to inequalities occurs and can take violent forms
Some forms of resistance to globalization may involve positive The increased power acquired by transnational corporations is
local cultural regeneration difficult to regulate and control
Global regulation reduces power of nation states
The generation of wealth and economic integration is Large-scale migration to seek benefits of life in the globalized
increased West has brought huge population dislocations and costs
There is growth in trade and a more open world economy Inequality is growing between rich and poor and between world
regions
Consumers are offered greater quality assurance: standardized Small producers struggle to compete as they lack scale economies,
products available worldwide but they may be able to develop niche markets
Industrialized agriculture has contributed to major growth of Monocultures associated with industrialized agriculture may
food production, reducing hunger and starvation threaten food security and cause environmental and other
problems
New biotechnologies applied to agriculture offer prospects for New biotechnologies applied to agriculture have proved
increased output controversial, and their adoption has been restricted by
environmental and health-related concerns
Globalization has encouraged increased investment in the Large-scale purchases of land in parts of the developing world have
agrifood sector, including large-scale purchase of land in been termed land grabs, which may displace small farmers and
Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia by transnational rural laborers, swelling the ranks of rural-urban migrants
corporations and financial institutions, which may increase
output.
The agrifood sector is increasingly being viewed as an engine Multifunctionality may require expensive government support
for rural development with multifunctional agriculture at its measures to deliver rural jobs
base, helping to secure farm incomes
One reaction to globalization has been greater interest in Attempts to promote more sustainable agriculture may reduce
reducing environmental impacts associated with farming to output and thereby contribute to reduced food security and
create more sustainable outcomes increased hunger/starvation
136 Robinson
4. KEY CONSEQUENCES OF A GLOBAL ECONOMY

The complex balance sheet for globalization can be illustrated by considering a number of associ-
ated consequences on local and global levels. Following Amin & Thrift (1994) and Daniels (2008),
the key consequences of a global economy include:
There has been a significant increase in the power of finance over production. Finance capital
can move seamlessly and rapidly around the world, producing huge impacts on national and
regional economies and the fortunes of individual companies.
The pivotal role of knowledge as a vital factor of production has been established. There
are significant benefits from producing an educated and skilled workforce.
The impacts of technology extend beyond national borders, especially in economic activities
that are knowledge intensive, e.g., financial services and telecommunications. This advan-
tages producers and institutions with the resources to manage technology.
Globalization of technological change, the mobility of finance capital, and transportation

and communications have been accompanied by the emergence of global oligopolies so that
production in certain sectors and industries is dominated by a small number of firms.
The ability of individual nations to regulate their own economic development has been
reduced by the emergence of transnational institutions coordinating and regulating aspects
of the world economy, e.g., the IMF and WTO.
The electronic flow of information has stimulated more extensive cultural flows, reconsti-
tuting the meaning of cultural symbols and identities.
The outcomes of globalization appear as new global economic geographies, characterized
in different ways, e.g., the borderless world or global division of labor.
The uneven nature of globalization means it is associated with considerable geographical vari-
ation, but generally reinforces a global triad of North America, Western Europe, and China/
Southeast Asia. It is in these areas that trade and capital investment are increasingly concentrated
(Piketty 2017), despite protests from developing countries regarding the agricultural subsidies
maintained by the European Union and the United States that have helped maintain their domes-
tic farm sectors. These protests are one component of various forms of resistance to globalization.
For example, a series of issues have been raised by middle-income countries, including concern
about globalized agriculture’s reliance on oil-based production systems; its association with en-
vironmental damage from pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; and the inhumane treatment of
animals under industrialized farming systems (Hirst et al. 2015). Moreover, it has been argued
that monocultures associated with the latter may threaten food security (Lawrence & McMichael
2014) while the growth of fast foods under globalization has produced a rapid growth in obesity
across the developed world (Lang & Heasman 2015), an emphasis on low-nutrition processed
foods, and weaker local food cultures and traditions (McIntosh 2013).
These concerns about industrial agriculture, emanating from various perspectives, have been
characterized as the naturalization food and agricultural (NFA) paradigm (Rausser et al. 2015),
which centers on diverse arguments relating to obesity, food safety, the role of agriculture in cli-
mate change, the demise of family farming, and the concentration of agribusiness. The paradigm,
especially elements championing organic and environmentally friendly farming, has become in-
creasingly popular in the West and exerts growing political influence, notably when dealing with
the externalities emanating from industrialized agriculture. However, champions of alternatives
to the industrial system often struggle to formulate economically rational policy proscriptions and
tend to neglect “the heterogeneity of socioeconomic and biophysical conditions and the diversity
of solutions that such conditions imply” (Rausser et al. 2015, p. 326). For example, wholesale
moves from an industrial model to farming systems favored by NFA could seriously compromise

food security (Leifield 2016). The reality is that both globalized and local systems of production
increasingly coexist, serving different markets. Thus, there is a need for more analysis of alterna-
tive environmental and resource policies in agriculture, as well as on the effects of agri-industrial
concentration, food safety, and food security, especially to present welfare and political-economic
arguments when offering reforms of existing agricultural policies (Anderson et al. 2014).
Globalization has been encouraged by the widespread adoption of policies in the developed
world, and to a large extent also in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), that
have been termed neoliberal, referring to a resurgence of nineteenth-century ideas associated with
laissez-faire economic liberalism (Harvey 2007). It is generally regarded as the dominant ideology
shaping the world in the early twenty-first century, dictating the policies of governments and
shaping the actions of major institutions such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and the principal
regional development banks (the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and Inter-American Development Bank) (Saad-Filho
& Johnston 2005). Given the key role of these organizations in fashioning world trade, it is not
surprising that neoliberalism has helped determine the broad character of globalization and hence
it has significantly affected all aspects of the agrifood sector (McMichael 1994). Indeed Busch
(2010, p. 331) argues that “the current agrifood sector may be best understood as the product of
continually evolving, and often conflict-ridden, negotiations between neoliberals, their supporters
(who love it selectively) and their detractors.”
5. GLOBALIZED AGRICULTURE
Globalization has been closely associated with the rise of so-called productivist agriculture. This
refers to an increasing predominance of larger, well-capitalized, proto-corporate farms, often
located in fertile, well-drained lowlands and increasingly differentiated from smaller family-run
farms. The latter are concentrated both in areas that present physical restrictions to agricultural
activity, primarily via poorer soils and difficult topography, and in peri-urban fringes where they
are run intensively to supply the local urban market or are hobby farms operated primarily for
amenity purposes (Zasada 2011). The duality between large, well-capitalized enterprises and small,
family-run farms is characterized by much local variation, which affects the direction and nature
of capital penetration (Ouma 2016, Ye 2015) (see Supplemental Table 1).
Productivism, as both a product and shaper of globalization, has been characterized by some
researchers as combining aspects of intensification, concentration, and specialization (Robinson
2004, pp. 62–64). The former refers to capital replacing labor, with greater reliance on mech-
anization, automation of production processes, and application of advances in biotechnology.
Concentration has meant fewer but larger farming units and more sales of farm produce to food
processing industries. This has been accompanied by growing dependence on contract farming
whereby agricultural production is carried out via an agreement between the buyer (wholesaler,
processor, retailer) and farmers (Otsuka et al. 2016). Specialization on individual farms has in-
tensified, essentially by rewarding the large-scale production of standardized outputs that can be
easily processed and shipped to market, both locally and worldwide (de Roest et al. 2017). It has
also promoted the transformation of farm produce into inputs for the wider food and manufac-
turing system. So farmers have become part of a system in which farm-based activities are often
far removed from the end-consumer. However, the characteristics of globalized agriculture vary
between agricultural products. For some, it is processing corporations that are global; for others,
it is the retailers while production remains local or regional or focused at national level. Some
exemplification of the variety and complexities of globalization is illustrated in Supplemental
Tables 2–4.
138 Robinson
In the late twentieth century, the larger well-capitalized producers increasingly became asso-
ciated with environmental problems through degradation of traditional agricultural landscapes
as a by-product of farm-based industrial processes and specialization (Foley et al. 2005). Prob-
lems such as eutrophication of watercourses, soil erosion, and farmers’ destruction of attractive
landscape features such as riparian woodland, hedgerows, and stone walls were accompanied by
rising concerns about animal welfare under industrialized production systems and the quality of
food associated with these systems (Baudron & Giller 2014, Thompson 2017). In some quarters,
a strong reaction to these negative aspects of productivism produced a counter-current, termed
postproductivism, in which environmental values have been strongly emphasized, including new
agri-environment policy initiatives, as well as the championing of small-scale, ecologically friendly,
sustainable farming that caters primarily to the demands of local and regional consumers (Tilzey
& Potter 2008). The initiatives generally took the form of payments to farmers for environmental
services. These were widely implemented in the European Union and North America, though
with different objectives on either side of the Atlantic (Raymond et al. 2016, Robinson 2006).
In the European Union there was often “the additional objective of using agriculture as a driver
for rural development . . . compensating farmers for the private delivery of positive public goods,
such as attractive landscapes, produced by agriculture” (Baylis et al. 2008, p. 753). Payments in
the United States have been more closely targeted, usually on reducing agriculture’s negative
externalities, such as soil erosion. The European schemes have partly been used as a mechanism
for transferring income to producers.
Postproductivism has been viewed in some quarters as the antithesis of productivism, and there-
fore embodies extensification, deconcentration of farm production, and diversification (Ilbery &
Bowler 1998). More nuanced views stress the growing role of policies explicitly encouraging farm-
ers to ameliorate negative environmental consequences from farming activities (e.g., Batáry et al.
2015, Uthes & Matzdorf 2013) or more complex changes across the agrifood sector. These are
associated with the reduced political power of farmers and landowners, the public’s negative per-
ceptions of industrial farming methods, new forms of governance of rural areas, the growth of
suprastate policies affecting trade in agricultural produce, new forms of production, and commod-
ification of former agricultural resources such as land, wildlife habitats, and farmsteads by urban
migrants to rural areas (Wilson 2001). Among these various changes affecting agrifood systems,
those prompting the greatest shifts away from productivism have been concerns to make agricul-
ture itself more ecologically sustainable (Gliessman 2015) and the impacts of changing patterns of
consumption, with some sectors in an increasingly highly differentiated food market emphasizing
food quality and concern for how and where food has been produced (Gabriel & Lang 2015).
It should be stressed that, around the world, different choices have been made about how to
balance economic output and environmental protection, that is, addressing trade-offs between
competing demands, such as maintaining biodiversity and food security, protecting prime farm-
land from urban sprawl, providing access to attractive countryside, and maintaining viable rural
communities. It is possible to make formal assessments of trade-offs using simple techniques such
as constructing a production possibility frontier (showing the opportunity cost of choosing either
more environmental protection or more economic output). A good example is its use in inves-
tigating how to minimize nitrogen application while achieving crop production targets (Mueller
et al. 2014). In practice, though, countries with relatively low per capita gross domestic product
(GDP) have placed higher emphasis on economic output, as this in turn helps to produce nu-
trition, shelter, health, education, and production of desirable consumer goods. Countries with
higher income levels have been more willing to give relatively greater emphasis to environmen-
tal goals, though it was not until the mid-1980s that the European Union started to ameliorate
policies delivering increased agricultural production in favor of introducing proenvironmental

measures. In China, policies to reduce agriculture’s negative ecological impacts on fragile land,
such as the Grain for Green program, have removed over 15 million ha of marginal agriculture
from production (Delang & Yuan 2014), but without reductions in production, partly through a
government-subsidized purchasing scheme and large-scale land consolidation programs to pro-
mote more efficient production.
Despite the recognition of some postproductivist tendencies in the developed world, most
farming activity is still dominated by the need to produce food for mass consumption (Walford
2003). This is true for virtually all agricultural commodities, the production of which is inherently
linked to globalizing processes, which themselves impact differentially in space and time. In some
cases, changes are promoting greater development of industrial practices and more mass con-
sumption, not less, and hence, recent references to neo-productivism (Wilson & Burton 2015). A
good example is the growth of the annualization of production, meaning year-round availability
of temperate fruit and vegetables in markets worldwide, with imports enabling strawberries from
California, Spain, and Israel to supply Europe throughout the winter period (Friedland 1997).
This ongoing objective of most farmers worldwide to produce food and fiber for the growing
market, as the world’s population continues to increase, has given rise to one of the ongoing
major concerns for humankind, namely the ability to produce sufficient food to feed this rising
population without destroying the world’s major biomes in the process.
5.1. Food to Feed Humankind

Globalization has been cited as enabling positive responses to be made to a major question facing
humanity: Can we maintain ecological diversity while producing sufficient food to feed the world?
The question is often reinterpreted as the need to choose between globalized, productivist, in-
dustrial agriculture and so-called environmentally friendly farming. In dissecting this dichotomy,
the starting point for analysis is usually consideration of the extent to which a smaller proportion
of the world’s population is regularly living under conditions of hunger, malnutrition, and star-
vation. Thus, while the population has risen from 3 billion in 1960 to 7.5 billion in 2017 (and is
expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050), the proportion living near starvation conditions fell from
between 25% and 30% in 1960 to just over 10% today and to an estimated 8% in 2030 (ADED
2015). This substantial decrease is often attributed to the positive impacts of globalization. It has
occurred despite growing amounts of agricultural land lost to urbanization and to energy produc-
tion (biofuels), rising food prices worldwide, and the increased prevalence of physical problems
facing arable production. The latter include 40% of global croplands experiencing soil erosion,
reduced fertility, or reliance on intensive use of oil-based agrichemicals to maintain crop yields.
For example, 1.5 million ha of arable land are lost each year to salinization (FAO 2017). This raises
the issue of whether we can rely on inherently unsustainable industrial agriculture to produce more
food to feed the world’s increasing population.
Even if it is accepted that there is sufficient food currently produced to adequately feed the
world’s population if the food were distributed more evenly, it can be argued that additional
food will be required to meet the needs of growing population numbers. This is certainly the
case if changing diets by the growing middle classes of many developing countries are considered.
However, it is debatable whether additional food production could be achieved simply by bringing
more land under production. More than three-quarters of new cropland added between 2008 and
2012 came from grasslands (Lark et al. 2015), but the potential for further such conversions
is limited without destruction of many grassland ecosystems. Moreover, converting forests to
croplands, as has occurred in the Brazilian Amazon, can drastically reduce biodiversity and harm
sustainability (Hoelle 2017, Laurance et al. 2014, Lovejoy 2016). Another possibility is to increase
140 Robinson
yields of major crops (Phalan et al. 2016), but such increases alone may be insufficient to double
calorific output by 2050 (Ray et al. 2013). Hence, there has been a championing of the need to
adopt measures referred to as sustainable intensification (Garnett et al. 2013, p. 33): “increased
intensity of input use without compromising sustainable food production.” Its proponents argue
that it is possible to develop farming systems that increase productivity of land without impairing
ecological integrity of farming (and that can include increases in yield derived from new crop
varieties) (see Section 5.2).
The notion of sustainable intensification challenges some of the thinking that has underpinned
so-called Green Revolution technology, which involved a package of high-yield crop varieties
(HYVs), fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and irrigation for certain developing countries, pro-
moted largely by funding from the United States and other wealthy countries. The Green Rev-
olution was disseminated from Mexico (maize) and the Philippines (rice) and comprised various
phases from the 1940s to the 1980s, during which time it contributed substantially to raising
food outputs in the developing world, so that more people have been fed worldwide (Evenson &
Gollin 2003). However, it often displaced rural labor and worked best in the most favored areas
and with the most efficient farmers: the so-called talents effect (Frankel 2015). Some parts of the
world, notably sub-Saharan Africa, were not greatly affected, as the revolution largely bypassed
certain staple crops, such as cassava and millet. Hence, there were trade-offs involved in the Green
Revolution, or essentially a balance sheet that compares increased output versus the negative ex-
ternalities that were associated with this greater productivity. The increased production was often
massive: World grain production rose threefold from 1950 to 2010; for India the increase was
fivefold, and for Mexico it was approximately three and a half. Green Revolution technology has
also underpinned a doubling in Chinese grain production from 1981 to 2011, accompanying a de-
cline in sown area of approximately 100 million ha and massive rural-urban migration (exceeding
15 million per annum throughout the 2000s), which has supplied a pool of cheap labor to help
fuel the country’s industrial boom.
Wheat, maize, and rice account for 43% of all food calories produced worldwide, and hence,
great emphasis is placed on their production and trade by governments. Anything affecting their
production can cause hunger, starvation, and food shortages (Rosin et al. 2013). In 2007–2008,
the latter produced major increases in food prices and global food riots in response to a rise in
the cost of basic foods, in some countries as much as threefold. However, in response to a quest
for another Green Revolution to prevent future shortages, one of the principal responses—the
development of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods—has brought controversy. This is
discussed below in Section 5.3.
5.2. Sustainable Intensification

As its name suggests, this concept represents a marriage between two ideas that at first glance
may seem incompatible. Sustainability in agriculture is usually taken as implying production sys-
tems that meet society’s current needs for food and fiber without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable agriculture seeks to integrate a healthy
environment, economic profitability, social and economic equity, and a capacity to adapt to cli-
mate change. Intensification is associated with increased yield or outputs per unit area/input (e.g.,
through breeding and forage economy), diversification (e.g., widening the choice of feeds and for-
age), integration of crops and livestock, and improved resilience to market shocks and risks from
climate change (and hence the term climate-smart agriculture) (Campbell et al. 2014). Increased
intensity can possibly involve using previously uncultivated land; more labor, machinery, and other
inputs; and new varieties and innovations. However, some of these aspects may be damaging to
ecosystems.

The marriage is intended to improve food security and livelihoods. It may be developed via
policy responses such as promoting investment, supporting technological changes that increase
productivity, and reducing ecological impacts of consumption. The greater emphasis on the need
to minimize negative environmental outcomes from intensification of agriculture has been referred
to as ecological intensification (Tittonell 2014).
5.3. Genetically Modified Foods

GM crops were developed in the 1990s and subsequently have been grown on a commercial
scale in North America as a component of the deployment of biotechnology, in part to increase
crop yields. Worldwide, the top ten GM foods by value are maize, soy, cottonseed, papaya,
rice, rapeseed (canola), potatoes, tomatoes, dairy products, and peas. The United States is the
largest producer by area (72.9 million ha in 2015) followed by Brazil (49.1 million ha), Argentina
(23.8 million ha), Canada (11.6 million ha), and India (10.8 million ha). The total area is close to
180 million ha, compared with 1.7 million ha 20 years ago (ISAAA 2016). Hence, these biotech
crops represent the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture, and some
argue they can be a major contributor to increasing food security (Dibden et al. 2013). Yet, as
with the Green Revolution, most biotech research and development have not addressed the needs
of African farmers, the need to develop crops adapted to local environmental conditions (McIn-
tyre et al. 2009), and the complexity and diversity of agrifood systems (Thompson & Scoones
2008). There are few economic incentives for the research and development industries to pursue
GM food production in Africa, where it may be nonprofit institutions, rather than commercially
motivated enterprises, that introduce new technology. An example is Africa Harvest, which has
collaborated with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop vitamin A–enriched sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor) (Thompson 2016).
Genetic modification involves the insertion of genes with known characteristics and/or prod-
ucts into a strain of plant previously lacking a desired trait. This can give more rapid and precise
outcomes compared with traditional methods of plant breeding, increasing the efficiency of plant
genetic improvement. Specific desired traits that have been developed include tolerance for her-
bicides, removal of characteristics deemed undesirable, and creation of more palatable, nutritious,
or disease-combative plants. Other traits include generation of longer shelf life (e.g., Flavr Savr
tomatoes) and saline-tolerant crops. Yet despite the apparent potential to increase crop yields,
there continues to be a range of challenges posed to further adoption of GM crops.
Little attention has been paid to developing GM subsistence crops in the tropics. Instead, the
focus has been on production of GM crops by farmers who can afford its inputs, notably purchases
of seeds each year. Companies producing their own brand of herbicide have been the main devel-
opers of the technology, creating GM crops capable of resistance to that particular brand. Indeed,
campaigns against GM crops have focused on the role of major US-based corporations such as
Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Hoechst, and Calgene. Monsanto has developed glyphosphate herbi-
cides like Roundup. Its herbicide-tolerant GM plant varieties can be sprayed with Roundup, as in
the case of so-called Roundup Ready soybeans. Similarly, most of the other biotech developers
are similarly promoting their own brands.
This particular marriage between farming and technological advances has been controversial.
The power conferred on the major industrial companies has been one concern, especially as
some appear to have appropriated genetic material from smallholder farmers and then forced the
farmers to purchase new GM seed each year. However, a wider concern has been issues of safety
to both the environment and the consumer (Dunwell 2014). Opponents to the new technology
argue that it is difficult to gauge the long-term effects of releasing new GM material into the
142 Robinson
world’s ecosystems. For example, “opposition to GM crops in the United Kingdom (UK) has
focused on the probability that the integrity of plant species may be compromised as the GM crop
acreage increases and pollen-mediated gene flow affects native plants which are con-genes for the
transgenic crops” (Robinson & Harris 2012, p. 152). There is also concern that biodiversity may
be reduced if farming becomes more reliant on heavy use of herbicides, and hence the argument
that more consideration be given to the long-term consequences of genetic modification (Herrero
et al. 2017, Leguizamón 2016).
Concerns about safety have been particularly strong in the United Kingdom (Corner et al.
2013), where only one GM product has been licensed since 1998 because of opposition to the tech-
nology. Meanwhile, China currently prohibits planting of GM staple crops: Although the Chinese
government has stated it believes GM crops are safe in principle, it has been cautious about approv-
ing new varieties for imports (Li et al. 2014). Only six transgenic crops have been commercialized
there (cotton, petunia, tomato, sweet pepper, poplar, and papaya), and none since 2006. Of the
six, only cotton is grown widely, though negotiations are in progress for GM rice to be approved.
It can be concluded that, while GM technology has been a useful tool to improve crop breeding,
it is only one of several possibilities for increasing food output. Benefits from the first wave of GM
crops did not accrue sufficiently to the consumer, though recently more emphasis has been placed
on developing products of high nutritional value, such as Golden Rice, and certain valuable food
products such as rennet (used in cheese-making) and omega-3 oils. The latter is referred to as an
example of pharming, whereby GM crops or livestock can produce enhanced quantities of certain
products, such as vaccines and important hormones (Liénard et al. 2007, Ritala et al. 2014), that
can then be extracted.
It should be stressed that this analysis of GM crops portrays a development process in which
there has been a marked difference between input and output traits. To date, this has generated
very little research and development resulting in market penetration of the output traits. How-
ever, globalizing processes are likely to encourage further diffusion of GM technologies, with the
prospect that they may realize their potential to contribute to increased food production. This
technological solution to world food problems must be placed in the broader context of alterna-
tives based on different approaches, including ones that place greater emphasis on ensuring that
agricultural development is sustainable and not so reliant on high levels of nonrenewable energy
consumption. This is discussed further below in Section 5.5.
5.4. Transnational Corporations, Global Finance, and Policy Regimes

Globalization has had to overcome agricultural protection and subsidies in high-income (and some
middle-income) countries. Protection tends to depress international prices and lower farmers’ in-
comes, which can have major impacts on increasing poverty in the developing world. Protectionism
was strong from the 1950s to the 1980s but then gradually weakened through trade and agricul-
tural reforms, for example, the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Some
of these measures have been identified as so-called pro-poor reforms, in which changes to trade
regimes, land tenure, and taxation are deliberately intended to be of benefit to poorer countries
or poorer sectors of society (Anaafo 2013, Nicita et al. 2014, Seekings 2017). Yet, there remain
huge inequities between developed and developing countries. For example, contrast the 15 million
relatively wealthy developed world farmers averaging 80 ha each (and often supported in various
ways by their governments) versus 1.3 billion farmers in the developing world averaging 2.5 ha
each (and often taxed by their governments) (Anderson & Masters 2009).
Although agricultural and trade policies account for approximately 70% of the global welfare
cost of all merchandise trade distortions, the agricultural sector contributes only 6% of global trade

and 3% of global GDP (Anderson et al. 2010, table 2.3). Agricultural protection and subsidies
in high-income (and some middle-income) countries have depressed international prices of farm
products (Rausser & de Gorter 2015), thereby lowering earnings of farmers and associated rural
businesses in developing countries. Concrete data illustrating the extent of these trade distortions
are supplied by Anderson et al. (2013). These reveal that major differences in public-policy distor-
tions in food and agricultural markets exist not only among countries and agricultural subsectors
within countries, but also among policy instrument choices, and over time within a particular
country.
Many developing countries are gradually phasing out antiagricultural policies, and some are
increasingly protecting their import-competing farmers. Meanwhile, many high-income coun-
tries are reducing assistance to farmers, while others have reduced protection for manufacturing
that indirectly harmed agricultural producers. The relative importance of various farm-policy
instruments has changed significantly in all high-income countries, and the contribution of price-
distorting measures has declined. It is notable that despite globalization tendencies elsewhere in
the economy, many governments (both agricultural-exporting and agricultural-importing) try to
insulate their domestic markets from international price fluctuations, and so a strong antitrade
bias for agricultural industries persists. However, economic growth in some developing coun-
tries has contributed to reduction of antiagricultural and food policies. Other factors are changes
in the overall political economy associated with such growth and new governance and media
structures.
Major reductions in government support for agricultural supply management have occurred
in several countries, including the United States (from 1996), New Zealand (from 1984), and
Mexico. Some of the reductions reflect the influence of the WTO and deregulation, which have
encouraged greater trade in agricultural produce and food. Deregulation has helped reduce the
impacts of trade barriers, with some dramatic changes in production associated with creation of
freer trade environments. One of the best examples is the International Coffee Agreement, which
failed in 1989. Vietnam then advanced from being a minor producer of Robusta coffee to the
world’s largest by 2000, in the process raising world production by 50% in a decade, with much
still in the hands of small producers (Levy et al. 2016). Another example is the Banana Wars over
preferred access to the EU market for former European colonies, which was successfully contested
through the WTO ( Josling & Taylor 2003).
Producer support as a proportion of gross farm receipts has fallen since the mid-1990s in
Japan and the European Union and since 2000 in the United States. In contrast, it has risen in
Brazil, China, and Russia. Japan retains the highest proportion (∼50%), compared with Russia,
China, and the European Union (all at 20%) and the United States (10%). The largest amount of
producer support as a proportion of GDP is paid by Indonesia (3.5%), followed by China (2.5%),
Turkey, and South Korea (both 2%). In absolute terms, China’s producer support is in excess
of US$150 billion, compared with US$100 billion for the European Union and US$50 billion
for Japan (OECD 2017). Hence, there remain major impediments to increased globalized trade
in primary agricultural commodities as many countries and trading groups continue to provide
protection to their domestic agricultural sector. However, this protectionism is not so pronounced
for processed foods, giving opportunities for some of the world’s largest companies to increase
their sales worldwide.
It can be argued that three types of external capital have been especially important in helping
to absorb farming into a wider agrifood system dominated by TNCs. These are:
Transnational agrifood companies. These are the producers of manufactured foods, which
may be canned, frozen, part-cooked, and/or preprepared. A high proportion of foodstuffs are
144 Robinson
part of some value-added processing before they are purchased by the consumer. Although
there have been some purchases of farms by these processing companies in the United States,
notably the operation of gigantic feedlots by ConAgra and Excel (Hendrickson 2015), in
general, their link to farms is maintained via forward production contracts, which favor
larger farms located close to the processor. Production of fruit, vegetables, pigs, and poultry
has been most affected by such contracts.
Food retailers. The emergence of large supermarket chains throughout the developed world
and the larger cities of developing countries has dramatically altered the relationship be-
tween farmers and retailers. Supermarkets can usually determine the market price for both
food processors and farmers. This often has global effects so that processors and farmers
worldwide are experiencing new levels of competition (Reardon & Timmer 2012).
Financial services. These have been especially important in areas where the value of farmland
has become very high, as here the operation of credit facilities has been closely associated
with farm indebtedness. An increasingly important role played by financial institutions,

namely the purchase of large areas of agricultural land, is discussed below.
The emotive term land grabbing has been used to denote contentious large-scale land acquisi-
tions worldwide, usually by nonlocal TNCs, financial institutions, governments, and individuals.
Most prominent among the purchasers of land is the finance industry, and especially sovereign
wealth funds (SWFs), which are accumulated profits from the sales of oil and other natural re-
sources held by sovereign states. These funds, estimated at over $US5 trillion, have been invested
not only to provide returns on capital but also to address food security issues, especially by oil-rich
countries, and for biofuels by other countries (Clark et al. 2013).
This process has been termed financialization, or the increasing importance of financial mar-
kets, financial motives, financial institutions, and financial elites in the operation of the economy
and its governing institutions, at both the national and international levels (Lawrence et al. 2016).
This acknowledges that the financial sector is growing disproportionately to other sectors of the
economy, based on new financial products, new technologies, reduced controls on capital flows,
and new opportunities for investment, e.g., in food and farming.
“Finance is playing a major role in remodeling farming by purchasing farmlands for speculation,
for food production and for biofuels” (Lawrence et al. 2016, p. 317), with the SWFs playing
a leading role, especially following the so-called global food crisis of 2007–2008 when world
food prices increased dramatically, creating a widespread crisis and contributing to political and
economic instability (Ghosh 2010, Swan et al. 2010). In the first three years after the crisis, over
US$100 billion was invested in farmland purchases by SWFs and private-sector enterprises (Daniel
2012). Although the rationales for such investment vary greatly from case to case, most of it will
bring returns to consumers in the countries investing in the land. Critically, it appears that the new
investors are seeking access to the most fertile agricultural land (Catley et al. 2013) and land that
can supply certain desirable foods to the investor country, as in the case of Chinese investment in
beef and cherries in Australia.
A substantial proportion of the land grabs are affecting Africa, but domestic financial
organizations are also participating, accounting for over half of recent land acquisitions in Benin,
Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Niger, Nigeria, and Sudan (Cotula 2012, p. 656). One interpretation
is that the investment will liberate land currently underutilized or needing additional finance to
realize its potential. Liberation will help to produce more food and thereby reduce the amount
of world hunger. At the same time, the investment can improve infrastructure while providing
employment and income from exports. In theory, this would enable the host country to improve
its opportunities to participate in trade: selling food and biofuels and importing machinery,

equipment, and information technology, as in the World Bank’s agriculture for development
model (McMichael 2009). Thus, the process can release labor from the land, enabling rural-urban
migrants to take up paid employment in cities, thereby reducing rural poverty, and economic
growth will be generated through the export economy.
This optimistic view is refuted by those who see the land grabs as exploitative. McMichael
(2012, 2014) uses the analogy of the United Kingdom’s enclosure movement to argue that it
is a neocolonialist enterprise that reduces the available cultivable land for local farmers, gen-
erating greater food insecurity in the host country and perhaps also producing environmental
problems. Local knowledge and needs are often overlooked, and local people can be dispossessed
and marginalized (e.g., Borras & Franco 2012). There are numerous examples of where this has
occurred (Hall et al. 2015), though the sheer variety of land deals means this is not always the
case (Visser & Spoor 2011), and local resistance has sometimes caused international deals to be
rescinded, as in both the Philippines and Madagascar (von Braun & Meinzen-Dick 2009).
It is difficult to present a simple balance sheet that can summarize the pluses and minuses
of land grabs because of the variety of land deals they comprise. However, there are perhaps
two categories of land to which the grabs have most been directed. One is at smallholdings
where economically and politically dominant classes and groups and other corporate interests
have expanded their food and biofuel production, e.g., sugar cane production in Brazil, which
are arguably very positive for the Brazilian economy. The second category is an area of between
445 million and 1.7 billion ha worldwide, according to World Bank estimates, of potentially
suitable lands assumed to be marginal, underutilized, empty, and available, most of which are
classified as public lands (Deininger 2011). This covers huge areas of Africa and parts of Southeast
Asia, many of which in reality are productive farmlands under different farming systems. It is on
these farmlands that the most varied outcomes are occurring: across a spectrum from dispossession
of the former tillers of the soil to improved security of tenure for these farmers. The most common
outcome is for land to be converted to monocropped plantations, e.g., soy and oil palm, and other
cash crops. Local governments often favor the land purchases because they are happy to swap
land for foreign direct investment. Land deals may also involve foreign investment in improved
infrastructure, which has occurred in several cases involving Chinese state-owned enterprises.
The negative outcomes can involve diminished local food security and the disruption caused by
insufficient consideration given to the livelihoods, rights, and needs of local people.
In response to concerns about financialization, there have been some attempts to curb spec-
ulative investment (Tickell 2006) and some public displays of opposition in several countries in
Africa, Latin America, and Asia. An international nonprofit organization, GRAIN, has been sup-
porting resistance while a coalition of peasant farmers, La Via Campesina (LVC), has become
one of the world’s largest social movements and has publicized the need for national sovereignty
over market-based food exporting (Rosset 2013). Food sovereignty is regarded as a challenge to
neoliberalism, as it focuses on local and regional environmentally friendly agriculture in direct
opposition to corporate food regimes (Alkon 2013). LVC promotes smallholdings and creation
of strong, viable, local markets. It has also pointed out the potential human rights violations as-
sociated with land grabs that displace locals (White et al. 2012) and stressed the need for greater
justice for women and indigenous groups working in agriculture (Deere & Leon 2001).
5.5. Future Challenges to Globalized Agriculture

Globalization will continue to shape the dimensions of world agriculture, but as indicated in the
previous section, there will be some serious challenges, especially ones mainly operating at local and
regional levels. The principal ones discussed in this section and Section 6 are (a) multifunctionality,
(b) alternative agrifood networks, and (c) attaining sustainability.
146 Robinson
5.5.1. Multifunctionality. Multifunctionality is the term used to recognize that agricultural

systems include noncommodity values as well as commodity and food values. Hence, agriculture
has multiple functions and outcomes, which should all be valued because they often benefit society,
e.g., by contributing to the ecology, landscape, and rural society. These varied roles are increasingly
being recognized by policy makers.
The concept is often linked to the notion of ecosystem services and specifically services derived
from the agro-ecosystem (Porter et al. 2009), of which four types are usually recognized:
Provisioning, such as the production of food and water;
Regulating, such as the control of climate and disease;
Supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination;
Cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits.
In effect, therefore, farming not only produces food and fiber, but it also contributes desirable
environmental and ecological outcomes and a range of other products that traditionally have not
carried a recognized monetary value, e.g., rural society and its values, rights of way, and landscape.
Policies recognizing and supporting multifunctionality have been pioneered in the European
Union’s CAP, which has developed payments to farmers, which acknowledge that there are non-
commodity outputs that are jointly produced by agriculture, such as countryside and landscape.
Also embodied in this is the notion that agriculture can be too intensive or industrialized, in
that these characteristics can generate undesirable outcomes, and farmers need to be compen-
sated for making it less so, for example, by being encouraged to switch to more environmentally
friendly forms of farming, which has been embodied in various policies in the European Union
and the United States (Baylis et al. 2008). Hence, one argument is that multifunctionality can be
interpreted in terms of the transition towards postproductive agriculture (Wilson 2007).
In the European Union, there has been over a decade of policies in which multifunctional agri-
culture has been integrated into rural development policies, with recognition of a “need for more
innovative forms of state innovation that provide opportunities for new, creative and more spatially
embedded forms of supply and demand management in agri-food” (Marsden & Sonnino 2008,
p. 422). Multifunctionality, as supported through the CAP, is deemed to possess certain benefits:
Environmental. It can be associated with increased biodiversity and enhancing conservation
measures, reduced degradation, and valuing environmental outcomes.
Social. It can be positive for food sovereignty and the advancement of more sustainable rural
regions, fostering close links to consumers and the growth of alternative food networks (see
below).
In the European Union, multifunctionalism is partly dependent on subsidies paid to farmers,
but it can also help secure farm incomes by generating new sources of income, and it is
becoming a major contributor to the survival of family farming and traditional rural culture.
It remains to be seen to what extent the development of multifunctionality will act as a challenge
to globalized agriculture or merely form a relatively minor aspect of policy that seeks to curb the
worst excesses of industrial-type agriculture. It must be acknowledged, though, that multifunc-
tionality has also been viewed in the context of the emergence of alternative agrifood networks.
5.5.2. Alternative agrifood networks. Agrifood networks have evolved under globalization,
developing the characteristics summarized in Section 6. While it can be argued that these as-
pects embody the principal dynamics within a globalized system, it is clear that there are chal-
lenges to the dominant world model. Indeed, there is evidence that in some areas there is a
discernible move away from an industrialized, conventional agrifood sector toward a relocalized

food and farming regime. This can be seen most readily in the developed world through the
growing sales from fair trade, organic, local, and specialty foods (for a detailed discussion, see
Rausser et al. 2015). Various aspects of these alternative networks can be recognized, including
farmers’ markets, box schemes, farm shops, community-supported agriculture, and community
gardens. Their characteristics include the following:
They use ecologically sound farming and distribution practices that emphasize social equity
and generate low food miles through reliance on short supply chains.
They reforge links between producers and consumers.
Slow food as opposed to fast food is emphasized (Petrini 2003).
Stress is placed on food quality not quantity, often with a distinctive regional association in
food supply and branding.
They rely on small-scale producers.
The reality is that there is often blurring between industrial and alternative agrifood networks,
though alternative producers may seek to distinguish themselves through association with a par-
ticular place, e.g., in the United Kingdom, Stilton cheese; in France, champagne and Prés-salés du
Mont-Saint-Michel (lamb); and in the Czech Republic, České pivo PGI (patented geographical
indication) (beer). The European Union now has two distinct categories of labeling for produce
related to place: protected designation of origin (PDO) and PGI.
These directly relate quality to a particular geographic environment or attribute a specific
quality to a product from a given region but not necessarily through its natural environment.
They have been dominated by cheese and beverage products and have been strongly motivated by
producer protectionism but also enhanced marketing opportunities. In the European Union and
elsewhere, geographical indications are increasingly being treated as tools for local and regional
development (van Caenegem & Cleary 2017, van Caenegem et al. 2014).
One of the challenges or constraints on globalization is being posed by growing concerns
over ethical aspects of production and trade as well as the treatment of workers and producers
within farming systems in developing countries. The fair trade kitemark is recognized worldwide
as denoting the ethical trading of products to ensure that producers receive a fair price for goods
supplied. This has applied especially to tropical cash crop products, such as tea, coffee, and ba-
nanas (Lekakis 2013). However, ethical trade has also included fair trade agreements, safe working
conditions for farm workers, and sustainable and environmentally safe natural resource manage-
ment. Some commentators refer to ethical consumerism (Burke et al. 2014, Harrison et al. 2005)
as the fourth wave of consumption, which seeks to reaffirm the moral dimension of consumer
choice (Gabriel & Lang 2015). This consumerist concern is linked to the growing debate about
the morals and ethics of global trade (Dunning 2004). For example, “the improvement in trading
relationships through ethical trading, enforced by organic concepts of production, contributes
to the accumulation of both natural and social capital, through greater sustainability of natural
resources and increased access by producer groups to networks of production and trade” (Browne
et al. 2000, p. 70).
6. THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF AGRIFOOD NETWORKS

Globalization has enabled agrifood networks to develop new links between production and con-
sumption on a global basis. Perhaps the best example in which global relationships were developed
rapidly is the trade in fresh fruit and cut flowers. In the early 1990s, this reached the equivalent of
5% of global commodity trade, which is roughly comparable with that of crude petroleum ( Jaffee
1993), facilitated mainly through global contract arrangements (see, e.g., McKenna et al. 1999).
148 Robinson
Argentina, Brazil, Kenya, and Mexico account for 40% of the trade in perishable horticultural
products from developing countries, but various African countries are now participating, assisted
by low costs of production, complementarity to European and North American seasons, relatively
short flight times (to Europe), and the increasing ability to supply produce of the quality and
quantity required by international markets (Labaste 2005). This expanding trade reflects changes
in consumer food demands and food retailing in the developed world, with a growing emphasis
on fresh, healthy produce. However, a key component is the role of European supermarkets,
with their supply policies offering year-round fresh produce lines, which require sourcing from
different areas around the world (Barrientos et al. 2016).
This example illustrates both the complexity and the dynamism of the processes affecting
agricultural production, processing, and consumption. The dynamics can be summarized as com-
prising six key changes (Marsden 1997, Thompson & Scoones 2008). Agribusiness firms and their
relationships to the farm-based sector are not the only significant component in agrifood networks.
Value is added in the downstream element in the network, and hence, the growing power of major
retailers and near consumer agencies, e.g., consumer watchdogs and food safety organizations.
The nonfarm sector increasingly has control over the nature of the food that people consume.
Globalization of food is accompanied by local and regional effects, such as local diets, food
scarcity, and abundance, which in turn, have an impact on globalization.
Technological developments and their social effects should be considered in the context of
impacts on regulation of the food supply chain, such as food quality.
While global processes operate through corporate manufacturing and retail capital, national
processes can still act independently as a regulator of the food supply chain.
The demands of subsections of the market, especially in the developed world, act as reregu-
lators of the food market. For example, supermarkets increasingly place regulations on the
quality of fruit and vegetables they sell, with farmers having to adhere to strict quality stan-
dards. Consumers’ concerns about safe food, together with national or regional differences
in food culture, taste, and traditions, exert limits on the globalization process and support
sales of organic produce.
The various processes referred to in this list provide new spatial patterns of production and
consumption in a dynamic that drives uneven development.
Traditional commercial networks for some tropical plantation products like rubber and palm
oil now exist alongside new networks associated with concerns for rural social justice. Such net-
works generally champion the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced
through sustainable methods and the right to define their own food and agriculture systems; they
emphasize the need for more returns to accrue to the growers of crops and the keepers of live-
stock, as per the fair trade social movement ( Jaffee 2014). The alternative network emphasizes
partnership, alliance, responsibility, and fairness, under which more revenue should accrue to the
producers in the developing world where growers receive a guaranteed minimum premium price
provided they meet quality standards and marketing deadlines (Lockie 2008). Nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) like Oxfam have been vital to the development of these networks, encour-
aging new trading companies, such as Cafédirect in the United Kingdom, to become the key
link between local producers and their consumers in the developed world. Increasing numbers
of consumers have been prepared to pay a higher price for a fair trade product like Cafédirect’s
ground and freeze-dried coffees as opposed to a conventionally marketed product.
Because alternative food networks focus on consumers and markets, replace some functions
formerly provided by the state, and follow some market logic, they have been labeled neolib-
eral (Alkon 2013) and therefore not considered a proper challenge to globalization despite their

challenge to the corporate food regime. Hence, it has been argued that for there to be a true
alternative to globalization it must be sought through on-farm production methods that operate
in stark contrast to industrial-type methods. Such methods are generally treated as attempts to
deliver sustainable agriculture.
6.1. Attaining Sustainability

How sustainable are globalized industrial farming systems? They are often built on unsustainable
practices that lead to increasing problems of soil loss, water pollution, environmental degradation,
loss of rural population, and regional inequalities. Hence, there is a concern in many quarters to
(re)establish more sustainable farming practices.
Sustainable agriculture is essentially the practice of farming using principles of ecology (the
study of relationships between organisms and their environment). Velten et al. (2015) conclude
that sustainable agriculture is such a contested term that it has no single satisfactory definition.
However, in broad terms it can be regarded as an integrated system of plant and animal produc-
tion practices, possessing a site-specific application that over the longer term can deliver certain
specified desirable outcomes. The principal ones are (Robinson 2009):
Satisfying human food and fiber needs;
Making the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources, integrating
where appropriate natural biological cycles and controls;
Sustaining the economic viability of farm operations;
Enhancing the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.
The complexity inherent in trying to define sustainable agriculture can be traced to the two
competing and distinctive approaches to the types of agricultural system proposed for the future.
One is for a globalized, industrial, agribusiness, technocentric productivism, and the other is an
ecocentric vision, as reflected by supporters of organic farming. The former equates sustainable
agriculture with economic efficiency and technical solutions, whereas the latter uses terms such as
environmentally friendly and environmentally sensitive (Rausser et al. 2015, Robinson 2002) (see
Table 2). The divisions between the two broad types of agriculture are often strong, with a clear
geographical divide.
Ecocentric approaches, referred to by Rausser et al. (2011, p. 310) as the NFA paradigm,
emphasize different outcomes to the technocentric one, stressing the need to address envi-
ronmental costs of development and linking no- or low-growth scenarios. Protagonists often
champion organic and biodynamic farming, with radical implications for changes in consumption
Table 2 Divergent paradigms in agriculture worldwide

Productivism/globalization paradigm Socioecological paradigm
Focus on core/metropolitan areas Focus on periphery/margins
Maximize profit Encourage ecological sustainability
Maximize production Maintain diversity and flexibility
Standardization Diversification
Strengthen private institutions/transnational corporations Strengthen alternative and public institutions
Emphasize modern technologies Enhance traditional methods
Individualism Community/cooperation
Centralization of power and enterprise Decentralization/participation
150 Robinson
patterns, resource allocation and utilization, and individual lifestyles. It is widely agreed that for
agriculture to be environmentally sustainable, it must be part of a transformation to both the
farm economy and wider society (Higgins et al. 2008). Possible new systems embrace a range
of philosophies, including organic, ecological, biodynamic, low-input, permaculture, biological,
resource-conserving, and regenerative systems. These largely imply less specialization and a
mixed system of crops and livestock to reduce dependence on purchased fertilizers. Some negative
consequences of farming are also reduced, e.g., contamination of groundwater by farm wastes
and removal of landscape features such as trees and hedgerows. Family farms are favored because
they ensure a more stable rural society. Definite conditions can be identified that need to be
satisfied if agriculture is to be sustainable, including maintenance of soil and water resources, as
well as preserving the biological and ecological integrity of the system while attaining conditions
of economic, cultural, and social sustainability in the context of meeting the population’s food
needs (Lamine 2015). At the heart of a sustainable agricultural system is an emphasis on diversity
(Kremen et al. 2012), and hence Rausser et al’s (2011) analysis of diversified farming systems.
Primarily, there are three aspects needed in a farming system to enhance diversity: mixed
farming systems that balance crop and livestock production; rotation of crops with a fallow or
pasture to manage nutrition or pests; and integrated pest and weed management to limit the
presence of undesirable species. Various intrinsic reasons can be advanced regarding the need to
maintain agri-diversity (see Section 4.2). It can also be noted that diversity was at the heart of
traditional systems of crop production and integrated systems of crop and livestock production, so
moves to greater specialization may lose some of the benefits these possessed. Key advantages for
diversity are natural control of pests and diseases and the generation of a range of outputs, vital to
subsistence production. However, specialization generally brings improvements to aggregate land
productivity as farmers realize comparative advantages to grow particular crops/livestock and use
income generated to purchase nonfamily labor. Indeed, reliance on family labor endowment is a
limitation under a diverse but subsistence system (de Janvry et al. 1991). For example, Kurosaki
(2003) estimated that aggregate farm output at 1960 prices was about 7.5 times larger in the
1990s than in the early twentieth century for West Punjab (Pakistan) as the farming system was
transformed from diverse but largely subsistence production to more specialized market-oriented
output. It is noteworthy that the acceleration in growth occurred before the introduction of Green
Revolution technology, though the latter raised the rate of increase. Crop diversification declined
as farmers sought comparative advantage from specializing in different crops across the region:
wheat, rice, sugar cane, and cotton, or in effect shifting from low value-added crops to high
value-added ones. The concentration of each commercial crop in a few districts reduced crop
diversification in each district. This pattern has been recreated in various parts of the world as the
economic returns from specialization exert a powerful influence. Attempts to recreate diversity
struggle to overcome the economic imperative for most farming businesses.
It is hard to identify policies that can clearly deliver sustainability in an environmental sense
(Blay-Palmer 2008), but globalized, industrial farming has been challenged by environmental
regulation in response to rising concerns over food quality, environmental pollution, and public
desire for more sustainable systems. Intent to achieve sustainable agricultural production is widely
recognized by governments as a long-term policy objective (Blay-Palmer 2010), and thus many
countries are developing sustainable agricultural strategies.
6.2. Reasons for Maintaining Agricultural Diversity

Before the adoption of widespread mechanization in farming and biotechnical advances in breed-
ing animals, most farming systems utilized management systems designed to maintain biological

diversity and enhance agricultural sustainability. Crop rotations were integral to this diversity
within farming systems, enabling soils to remain healthy and maintaining natural cycles that re-
plenished nutrients without the need for synthetic fertilizers. Systems with a narrow genetic base
may be more vulnerable to attack by insects, disease microorganisms, nematodes, and weeds. This
is one of several arguments for the maintenance of diverse cropping systems and the wider claim
that agricultural diversity generates a range of benefits. Following Bardsley (2016), reasons for
maintaining agricultural diversity include:
Conservation of genetic diversity for current and future use.
Maintaining diversity in the field at all levels. This includes the heterogeneity of the crop
variety or animal breed; mixtures of varieties and species within and between crops; difference
between crops on a farm and across agro-ecological niches; and diversity of crops and farming
practices across a region/country, leading to functional heterogeneity.
Different crops and animals can tolerate or thrive under differing pest, environmental, or
input conditions, including the retention of some crops less dependent on external inputs.
Different crops or animals will receive different market prices, or more effectively secure
subsistence production.
Agro-biodiversity provides opportunities for humanity to exploit genetic material, varieties,
and species for future use.
Diversity of ownership and marketing of seeds and food.
Marketing of unique products for niche markets.
Targeted state, community, or private support for agro-biodiversity conservation as an al-
ternative income stream, particularly in the margins.
In the European Union, support to farmers is based on ensuring that they meet a minimum
level of environmental standards. Although here and in other developed countries, self-regulation
is a factor, as farmers often regard themselves as stewards of the land (Ahnström et al. 2009, Bieling
& Plieninger 2017) and so wish to maintain good environmental health, but also because poor
environmental management will reduce long-term productivity. Guidance from government can
assist, especially kitemark schemes aimed at reassuring consumers about food standards, legislation,
and grants promoting desirable practices.
Organic farming is a term generally regarded as synonymous with sustainable agriculture,
though it can take various forms, including no-tillage agriculture, biodynamic agriculture, and
polyculture. It is also impossible to say which methods and systems in different locations will lead
to sustainability, given that organic farming covers a spectrum of production methods (Rigby &
Cáceres 2001). It is “a method of crop and livestock production that . . . is a holistic system de-
signed to optimize the productivity and fitness of diverse communities within the agro-ecosystem,
including soil organisms, plants, livestock and people. The principal goal of organic production is
to develop enterprises that are sustainable and harmonious with the environment” (Martin 2009).
Various national certification schemes operate to license organic food production and to ensure
appropriate safeguards for consumers.
The growth in retail sales of organic foods averaged nearly 8% per annum in the European
Union during the 1990s while there was a 20% per annum rise in the United States. These rates
have slowed in recent years, partly reflecting deterrents to purchasing organic foods, such as high
prices, poor product distribution, little obvious difference in quality, insufficient information about
organic products, and doubts about integrity of products (Harris et al. 2008, Reganold & Wachter
2016). Conversion from conventional to organic farming has also proved problematic. Issues
include insufficient premium prices for organic produce (especially milk), higher costs as more
labor input may be involved, and the need to engage with certification bodies who enforce key
152 Robinson
standards to be attained. Yet there are environmental gains through organic farming’s generation
of increased and diversified populations of insects, wild flowers, mammals and birds, as well as
enhanced soil structure and reduced soil erosion, though these benefits have been overstated in
some cases (Blackman & Naranjo 2012, Tuomisto et al. 2012).
One argument commonly deployed against organic farming is that it gives lower yields than
conventional agriculture. This may be true, but it depends greatly on the local context, farming
system, and site characteristics. With good management practices, suitable crop types, and growing
conditions, organic systems can nearly match conventional yields (Seufert et al. 2012). Higher
prices for organic produce may compensate for lower outputs per hectare, and its labor intensity
may support more farm workers, which can add to sustainability.
Despite the association of organic farming with positive environmental outcomes, many
organic producers are motivated by potential price premiums on organic produce, and perhaps
willing to retreat to conventional production if profits from organic production are not realized
(Fairweather 1999). This also highlights the increasing blurriness between organic farming and
the conventional agrifood sector, as the former is often not a radical alternative to globalized
large-scale commercial enterprises selling to the mass consumption market (Guthman 2008).
Indeed, there is an increased tendency for organics to be subsumed within the conventional
agrifood system (Lockie & Halpin 2005).
7. AFTERWORD
This review has selectively portrayed just some of the various aspects associated with the globaliza-
tion of agriculture and the agrifood system. It has highlighted the potential role of new technology
in increasing food output; the growing concern for food security, which is driving new forms of
investment in land; and various challenges to globalized systems of food production. There is insuf-
ficient space to develop these foci in the context of threats to food production and security posed by
global warming. But it should be noted that outputs from agriculture are contributors to human-
induced global warming via generation of greenhouse gases. Hence, ongoing worldwide concerns
about climate change will be linked inexorably to debates about the nature of globalized agricul-
ture. “Understanding the combination of threats and opportunities associated with climate change
worldwide, and how these will interact with globalization processes to impact on global food secu-
rity, poses an unprecedented challenge to future generations” (Robinson & Carson 2016, p. 24).
This will be one focus of future research, but there are several other significant avenues of
enquiry associated with key points in the preceding discussion. Some of these will undoubtedly
center on the evolving relationship between productivist agriculture and the environment. It ap-
pears that the rising outputs from modern farming are on a collision course with the steady decline
in soil quality and productivity around the world. Technological fixes can add improved inputs to
help overcome the problem, but this can add to farmers’ costs, and there are siren voices arguing
for alternative approaches that seek greater sustainability. Hence, while biotechnology research
will continue to develop new products for agriculture, there will be other research that investigates
eco-friendly responses. Yet the latter cannot be considered without recognizing that farmers are
competing in a market place, so that following an ecological imperative must also generate an
economic return. So we may expect more market-based incentives in future government support
programs for farmers. This will require more research about relationships between regulatory
structures, monitoring of on-farm performance, and the outputs generated from different combi-
nations of crops and livestock.
Given the growing popularity of various alternative systems to intensive, highly specialized
agriculture, there will also need to be more research that critically analyzes the input-output

relations of the alternative systems to provide the empirical evidence that potential solutions such
as sustainable intensification can actually meet rising demands for more food and fiber. As Clay
(2013) points out, use of traditional agriculture did not prevent land from being overfarmed to the
point of degradation in various parts of the world, even on the US Great Plains, and it has been
practiced in some areas where hunger and starvation became rife. So application of alternatives
also needs to address potential ecological negatives, market demand, and farmer behavior. Greater
use of the alternatives implies the need to bring new land into production and to increase the farm
labor force, both of which go against current trends. Yet, intensive monocultures produce large
negative externalities that many regard as unacceptable. To what extent can these be ameliorated?
Are there technological fixes, or is the answer a more effective blending of different systems? A
potential fix in the form of GM foods has been controversial, with health and biosecurity issues
restricting take-up in some jurisdictions. Further research is urgently needed to allay ongoing
concerns about these GM foods, but there are also issues about public acceptance regarding new
technology that will require further work by social scientists (Barrows et al. 2014, Blanke et al.
2015).
The other burgeoning area for academic research on globalization is likely to be related to
the issue of “land grabs.” Foreign investment in agricultural enterprises has become controversial
in many parts of the world, linked in part to the broader geopolitical context in which it is
occurring. Its ramifications for local employment, the changing nature of production, and ever-
increasing concerns related to food security will provide multifaceted opportunities to study the
socioeconomic, cultural, and political dynamics as the agrifood sector continues both to respond
to and drive globalization.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to staff and students at Jiaotong University Xi’an, Shaanxi Normal University, and
Aligarh Muslim University who provided input and asked probing questions following lectures
based on the contents of this review. These contents have also been shaped by dialog with authors
contributing to a book edited by myself and Doris A. Carson. I am particularly indebted to the
latter for her contribution to these discussions.
LITERATURE CITED
ADED (Agric. Dev. Econ. Div.). 2015. Achieving Zero Hunger: The Critical Role of Investments in Social Protection
and Agriculture. Rome: FAO
Ahnström J, Höckert J, Bergeå HL, Francis CA, Skelton P, Hallgren L. 2009. Farmers and nature conservation:
What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renew. Agric. Food Syst.
24(1):38–47
Alkon AH. 2013. Food justice, food sovereignty and the challenge of neoliberalism. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Conference on Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT, Sept. 14–15.
https://www.tni.org/files/download/38_alkon_2013.pdf
Amin A, Thrift NJ, eds. 1994. Globalization, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford, UK:
Oxford Univ. Press
Anaafo D. 2013. Systems approach to pro-poor land reforms: a concept paper. Land Use Policy 35:421–26
154 Robinson
Anderson K, Cockburn J, Martin W, eds. 2010. Agricultural Price Distortions, Inequality, and Poverty.
Washington, DC: World Bank
Anderson K, Masters WA, eds. 2009. Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Africa. Washington, DC: World
Bank
Anderson K, Rausser GC, Swinnen J. 2013. Political economy of public policies: insights from distortions to
agricultural and food markets. J. Econ. Lit. 51(2):423–77
Anderson K, Rausser G, Swinnen J. 2014. Agricultural policy: a global view. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and
Food Systems, ed. NK Van Alfen, pp. 179–94. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Bardsley DK. 2016. Recreating diversity for resilient and adaptive agricultural systems. In Handbook on the
Globalisation of Agriculture, ed. GM Robinson, DA Carson, pp. 404–24. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Barrientos S, Knorringa P, Evers B, Visser M, Opondo M. 2016. Shifting regional dynamics of global
value chains: implications for economic and social upgrading in African horticulture. Environ. Plan. A
48(7):1266–83
Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D. 2014. Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically
modified crops. J. Econ. Perspect. 28(1):99–119

Batáry P, Dicks LV, Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ. 2015. The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation
and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 29(4):1006–16
Baudron F, Giller KE. 2014. Agriculture and nature: Trouble and strife? Biol. Conserv. 170:232–45
Baylis K, Peplow S, Rausser G, Simon L. 2008. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a
comparison. Ecol. Econ. 65(4):753–64
Bieling C, Plieninger T, eds. 2017. The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Blackman A, Naranjo MA. 2012. Does eco-certification have environmental benefits? Organic coffee in Costa
Rica. Ecol. Econ. 83:58–66
Blancke S, Van Breusegem F, De Jaeger G, Braeckman J, Van Montagu M. 2015. Fatal attraction: the intuitive
appeal of GMO opposition. Trends Plant Sci. 20(7):414–18
Blay-Palmer A. 2008. Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems. Farnham, UK: Ashgate
Blay-Palmer A, ed. 2010. Imagining Sustainable Food Systems: Theory and Practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge
Borras SM Jr., Franco JC. 2012. Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change: a preliminary
analysis. J. Agrar. Change 12(1):34–59
Browne AW, Harris PJ, Hofny-Collins AH, Pasiecznik N, Wallace RR. 2000. Organic production and ethical
trade: definition, practice and links. Food Policy 25(1):69–89
Burke FP, Eckert C, Davis S. 2014. Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption. Eur.
J. Mark. 48(11/12):2237–61
Busch L. 2010. Can fairy tales come true? The surprising story of neoliberalism and world agriculture. Soc.
Rural. 50(4):331–51
Campbell BM, Thornton P, Zougmoré R, Van Asten P, Lipper L. 2014. Sustainable intensification: What is
its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 8:39–43
Canterbury D. 2007. Caribbean agriculture under three regimes: colonialism, nationalism and neoliberalism
in Guyana. J. Peasant Stud. 34(1):1–28
Catley A, Lind J, Scoones I, eds. 2013. Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins.
London: Earthscan
Clark GL, Dixon AD, Monk AH. 2013. Sovereign Wealth Funds: Legitimacy, Governance, and Global Power.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Clay J. 2013. World Agriculture and the Environment: A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices.
Washington, DC: Island
Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE. 2013. Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of
geoengineering in the UK. Glob. Environ. Change 23(5):938–47
Cotula L. 2012. The international political economy of the global land rush: a critical appraisal of trends,
scale, geography and drivers. J. Peasant Stud. 39(3–4):649–80
Daniel S. 2012. Situating private equity capital in the land grab debate. J. Peasant Stud. 39(3–4):703–29
Daniels PW. 2008. The geography of the economy. In Human Geography: Issues for the 21st Century, ed. PW
Daniels, M Bradshaw, D Shaw, JD Sidaway, pp. 293–314. Harlow, UK: Pearson. 3rd ed.

Deere CD, Leon M. 2001. Institutional reform of agriculture under neoliberalism: the impact of the women’s
and indigenous movements. Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 36(2):31–36
Deininger K. 2011. Forum on global land grabbing: challenges posed by the new wave of farmland investment.
J. Peasant Stud. 38(2):217–47
de Janvry A, Fafchamps M, Sadoulet E. 1991. Peasant household behaviour with missing markets: some
paradoxes explained. Econ. J. 101:1400–17
Delang CO, Yuan Z. 2014. China’s Grain for Green Program: A Review of the Largest Ecological Restoration and
Rural Development Program in the World. Berlin: Springer
de Roest K, Ferrari P, Knickel K. 2017. Specialisation and economies of scale or diversification and economies
of scope? Assessing different agricultural development pathways. J. Rural Stud. 59:222–31
Dibden J, Gibbs D, Cocklin C. 2013. Framing GM crops as a food security solution. J. Rural Stud. 29:59–70
Dunning JH, ed. 2004. Making Globalization Good: The Moral Challenges of Global Capitalism. Oxford, UK:
Oxford Univ. Press
Dunwell JM, 2014. Genetically modified (GM) crops: European and transatlantic divisions. Mol. Plant Pathol.
15(2):119–21
Evenson RE, Gollin D. 2003. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science
300(5620):758–62
Fairweather JR. 1999. Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production:
results from New Zealand and policy implications. Agric. Hum. Values 16(1):51–63
FAO (Food Agric. Organ.). 2017. Salt-affected soils. FAO soils portal: management. FAO, New York. http://
www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-management/management-of-some-problem-soils/salt-affected-
soils/more-information-on-salt-affected-soils/en/
Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science
309(5734):570–74
Frankel FR. 2015. India’s Green Revolution: Economic Gains and Political Costs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
Frattini T. 2017. Evaluating the labor market integration of new immigrants in the UK. Soc. Policy Soc. 16:645–
58
Friedland WH. 1997. Creating space for food and agro-industrial just-in-time. In Globalising Food: Agrarian
Questions and Global Restructuring, ed. D Goodman, MJ Watts, pp. 226–34. London/New York: Routledge
Gabriel Y, Lang T. 2015. The Unmanageable Consumer. London: Sage. 3rd ed.
Garnett T, Appleby MC, Balmford A, Bateman IJ, Benton TG, et al. 2013. Sustainable intensification in
agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341(6141):33–34
Ghosh J. 2010. The unnatural coupling: food and global finance. J. Agrar. Change 10(1):72–86
Gliessman S. 2015. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 3rd ed.
Guthman J. 2008. Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39(3):1171–83
Gwynne RN, Kay C. 2014. Latin America Transformed: Globalization and Modernity. London/New York:
Routledge. 2nd ed.
Halbert D. 2014. Globalization and intellectual property. In The Sage Handbook of Intellectual Property, ed. M
David, D Halbert, pp. 71–87. Los Angeles: Sage
Hall R, Scoones T, Tsikata D, eds. 2015. Africa’s Land Rush: Rural Livelihoods and Agrarian Change. Rochester,
NY: James Currey and Boydell & Brewer
Harris FA, Robinson GM, Griffiths I. 2008. A study of the motivations and influences on farmers’ decisions
to leave the organic farming sector in the United Kingdom. In Sustainable Rural Systems: Sustainable
Agriculture and Rural Communities, ed. GM Robinson, pp. 99–112. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw D, eds. 2005. The Ethical Consumer. Los Angeles: Sage
Harvey DW. 1987. Flexible accumulation through urbanization: reflections on “post-modernism” in the
American city. Antipode 19(3):260–86
Harvey DW. 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Held D, McGrew A. 2007. Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press
Hendrickson MK. 2015. Resilience in a concentrated and consolidated food system. J. Environ. Stud. Sci.
5(3):418–31
156 Robinson
Herrero A, Binimelis R, Wickson F. 2017. Just existing is resisting: the everyday struggle against the expansion
of GM crops in Spain. Sociol. Rural. 57(Suppl. 1):859–880
Higgins V, Dibden J, Cocklin C. 2008. Building alternative agri-food networks: certification, embeddedness
and agri-environmental governance. J. Rural Stud. 24(1):15–27
Hirst P, Thompson G, Bromley S. 2015. Globalization in Question. Chichester, UK/New York: John Wiley &
Sons
Hoelle J. 2017. Jungle beef: consumption, production and destruction and the development process in the
Brazilian Amazon. J. Political Ecol. 24:743–62
Ilbery BW, Bowler IR. 1998. From agricultural productivism to post-productivism. In The Geography of Rural
Change, ed. BW Ilbery, pp. 57–84. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis
ISAAA (Int. Serv. Acquis. Agri-Biotech Appl.). 2016. Pocket K no. 16: biotech crop highlights in 2016. Updated
May, 2017. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/
Jaffee D. 2014. Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability, and Survival. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Jaffee S. 1993. Exporting high-value food commodities: success stories from developing countries. World Bank. Disc.
Pap. 198, World Bank, Washington, DC

Jeon HJJ, Meiseberg B, Dant RP, Grünhagen M. 2016. Cultural convergence in emerging markets: the case
of McDonald’s in China and India. J. Small Bus. Manag. 54(2):732–49
Josling TE, Taylor TG, eds. 2003. Banana Wars: The Anatomy of a Trade Dispute. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Kaplinsky R. 2013. Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Between a Rock and a Hard Place. Chichester, UK/New
York: John Wiley & Sons
Katiyar D, Katiya V, Misra S. 2017. Data mining techniques used in agriculture. Int. J. Eng. Technol. Sci Res.
4(7):285–89
Knox P, Agnew JA, McCarthy L. 2014. The Geography of the World Economy. London/New York: Routledge
Kremen C, Iles A, Bacon C. 2012. Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative
to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17(4):44
Kurosaki T. 2003. Specialization and diversification in agricultural transformation: the case of West Punjab,
1903–92. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85(2):372–86
Labaste P, ed. 2005. The European horticulture market: opportunities for Sub-Saharan African exporters. Work.
Pap. 63, World Bank, Washington, DC
Lamine C. 2015. Sustainability and resilience in agri-food systems: reconnecting agriculture, food and the
environment. Sociol. Rural. 55(1):41–61
Lang T, Heasman M. 2015. Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. London: Earthscan
Lark TJ, Salmon JM, Gibbs HK. 2015. Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the
United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 10:044003
Laurance WF, Sayer J, Cassman KG. 2014. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 29(2):107–16
Lawrence G, McMichael P. 2014. Global change and food security, introduction. In Global Environmental
Change, ed. B Freedman, pp. 667–76. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
Lawrence G, Sippel SR, Burch D. 2016. The financialisation of food and farming. In Handbook on the Globali-
sation of Agriculture, ed. GM Robinson, DA Carson, pp. 309–27. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Leguizamón A. 2016. Environmental injustice in Argentina: struggles against genetically modified soy.
J. Agrar. Change 16(4):684–92
Leifield J. 2016. Current approaches neglect possible agricultural cutback under large-scale organic farming.
A comment to Ponisio et al. Proc. R. Soc. B 282(1824):20151623
Lekakis EJ. 2013. Coffee Activism and the Politics of Fair Trade and Ethical Consumption in the Global North:
Political Consumerism and Cultural Citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Levy D, Reinecke J, Manning S. 2016. The political dynamics of sustainable coffee: contested value regimes
and the transformation of sustainability. J. Manag. Stud. 53(3):364–401
Li Y, Peng Y, Hallerman EM, Wu K. 2014. Biosafety management and commercial use of genetically modified
crops in China. Plant Cell Rep. 33(4):565–73
Liénard D, Sourrouille C, Gomord V, Faye L. 2007. Pharming and transgenic plants. Biotechnol. Annu. Rev.
13:115–47

Lockie S. 2008. Conversion or co-option? The implications of ‘mainstreaming’ for producer and consumer
agency with fair trade networks. In Creating Food Futures: Trade, Ethics and the Environment (Corporate
Social Responsibility), ed. CR Farnworth, J Jiggins, EV Thomas, pp. 215–27. Aldershot, UK: Gower
Lockie S, Halpin D. 2005. The ‘conventionalisation’ thesis reconsidered: structural and ideological transfor-
mation of Australian organic agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 45(4):284–307
Lovejoy TE. 2016. Conservation biology: the importance of wilderness. Curr. Biol. 26(23):R1235–37
Marsden TK. 1997. Creating space for food: the distinctiveness of recent agrarian development. In Globalising
Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring, ed. D Goodman, MJ Watts, pp. 169–91. London/New
York: Routledge
Marsden TK, Sonnino R. 2008. Rural development and the regional state: denying multifunctional agriculture
in the UK. J. Rural Stud. 24(4):422–31
Martin H. 2009. Introduction to organic farming. Factsheet 100/10, Ont. Minist. Agric. Food Rural Aff., Toronto.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/09-077.htm
McGrew A. 2007. Globalization in hard times: contention in the academy and beyond. In The Blackwell
Companion to Globalization, ed. G. Ritzer, pp. 29–53. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

McIntosh WA. 2013. Sociologies of Food and Nutrition. Berlin: Springer Sci. Bus.
McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J, Watson RT. 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads: Global Report.
Washington, DC: Int. Assess. Agric. Knowl. Sci. Technol. Dev.
McKenna MKL, Roche MM, Le Heron RB. 1999. H.J. Heinz and global gardens: creating quality, leverage
and localities. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 8:35–51
McMichael P, ed. 1994. The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
McMichael P. 2009. Banking on agriculture: a review of the World Development Report 2008. J. Agrar.
Change 9(2):235–46
McMichael P. 2012. The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring. J. Peasant Stud. 39(3–4):681–701
McMichael P. 2014. Food Regimes and Agrarian Questions. Halifax, N.S.: Fernwood
Mueller ND, West PC, Gerber JS, MacDonald GK, Polasky S, Foley JA. 2014. A trade-off frontier for global
nitrogen use and cereal production. Environ. Res. Lett. 9:054002
Mulla DJ. 2013. Twenty-five years of remote sensing in precision agriculture: key advances and remaining
knowledge gaps. Biosyst. Eng. 114(4):358–371
Münch R. 2016. The Global Division of Labor: Development and Inequality in World Society. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan
Nicita A, Olarreaga M, Porto G. 2014. Pro-poor trade policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Int. Econ. 92(2):252–65
OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.). 2017. Producer and consumer support estimates database. OECD, Paris.
http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.
htm
Ohmae K. 1999. The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Inter-Linked Economy. New York: Harper Bus.
Otsuka K, Nakano Y, Takahashi K. 2016. Contract farming in developed and developing countries. Annu.
Rev. Resourc. Econ. 8:353–76
Ouma S. 2016. From financialization to operations of capital: historicizing and disentangling the finance–
farmland-nexus. Geoforum 72:82–93
Pena AA. 2014. Undocumented immigrants and the welfare state: the case of regional migration and US
agricultural labor. J. Reg. Sci. 54(1):96–113
Petrini C. 2003. Slow Food: The Case for Taste. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Phalan B, Green RE, Dicks LV, Dotta G, Feniuk C, et al. 2016. How can higher-yield farming help to spare
nature? Science 351(6272):450–51
Pieterse JN. 2015. Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Piketty T. 2017. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harv. Univ. Press
Porter J, Costanza R, Sandhu H, Sigsgaard L, Wratten S. 2009. The value of producing food, energy, and
ecosystem services within an agro-ecosystem. Ambio 38(4):186–93
Rausser GC, de Gorter H. 2015. US policy contributions to agricultural commodity price fluctuations, 2006–
2012. In Food Price Policy in an Era of Market Instability: A Political Economy Analysis, ed. P Pinstrup-Anders,
pp. 433–56. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
158 Robinson
Rausser GC, Swinnen J, Zusman P. 2011. Political Power and Economic Policy: Theory, Analysis, and Empirical
Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Rausser GC, Zilberman D, Kahn G. 2015. An alternative paradigm for food production, distribution and
consumption: a non-economist’s perspective. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 7:309–31
Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA. 2013. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production
by 2050. PLOS ONE 8(6):e66428
Raymond CM, Reed M, Bieling C, Robinson GM, Plieninger T. 2016. Integrating different understandings
of landscape stewardship into the design of agri-environmental schemes. Environ. Conserv. 43(4):350–58
Reardon T, Timmer CP. 2012. The economics of the food system revolution. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 4:225–64
Reganold JP, Wachter JM. 2016. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2(2):15221
Rigby D, Cáceres D. 2001. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 68(1):21–
40
Ritala A, Häkkinen ST, Schillberg S. 2014. Molecular pharming in plants and plant cell cultures: A great
future ahead? Pharm. Bioprocess. 2(3):223–26
Robinson GM. 2002. Nature, society and sustainability. In The Sustainability of Rural Systems: Geographical
Interpretations, ed. IR Bowler, CR Bryant, C Cocklin, pp. 35–57. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Acad.
Robinson GM. 2004. Geographies of Agriculture: Globalisation, Restructuring and Sustainability. Harlow, UK:
Pearson Educ.
Robinson GM. 2006. Canada’s environmental farm plans: trans-Atlantic perspectives on agri-environmental
schemes. Geogr. J. 172 (3):206–18
Robinson GM. 2009. Towards sustainable agriculture: current debates. Geogr. Compass 3(5):1757–74
Robinson GM, Carson DA. 2016. The globalisation of agriculture: introducing the Handbook. In Handbook
on the Globalisation of Agriculture, ed. GM Robinson, DA Carson, pp. 1–30. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar
Robinson GM, Harris F. 2012. Food production and supply. In Global Environmental Issues, ed. F Harris,
pp. 133–66. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 2nd ed.
Rosin C, Stock P, Campbell H, eds. 2013. Food Systems Failure: The Global Food Crisis and the Future of
Agriculture. London: Routledge
Rosset P. 2013. Re-thinking agrarian reform, land and territory in La Via Campesina. J. Peasant Stud.
40(4):721–75
Saad-Filho A, Johnston D, eds. 2005. Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Scholte JA. 2005. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 2nd ed.
Seekings J. 2017. State capacity and the construction of pro-poor welfare states in the “developing” world.
In States in the Developing World, ed. MA Centeno, A Kohli, DJ Yashar, pp. 363–79. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.
Nature 485(7397):229–32
Sklair L. 2001. Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Swan SH, Hadley S, Cichon B. 2010. Crisis behind closed doors: global food crisis and local hunger. J. Agrar.
Change 10(1):107–18
Thompson JA. 2016. Genetically modified crops in South Africa. In Innovative Farming and Forestry Across the
Emerging World: The Role of Genetically Modified Crops and Trees, ed. S De Buck, I Ingelbrecht, M Heijde,
M van Montagu, pp. 73–80. Ghent, Belg.: Int. Ind. Biotechnol. Netw.
Thompson JA, Scoones I. 2008. Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an emerging agenda for social
science research. Environ. Sci. Policy 12(4):386–97
Thompson PB. 2017. The Spirit of the Soil: Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. New York/London: Routledge.
2nd ed.
Tickell A. 2006. Global financial architecture transitions: mutations through ‘roll-back’ neoliberalism to
technocratic fixes. In Globalization’s Contradictions: Geographies of Discipline, Destruction and Transformation,
ed. D Conway, N. Heynen, pp. 39–48. London: Routledge
Tilzey M, Potter C. 2008. Productivism versus post-productivism? Modes of agri-environmental governance
in post-Fordist agricultural transitions. In Sustainable Rural Systems: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Communities, ed. GM Robinson, pp. 41–66. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

Tittonell P. 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture—sustainable by nature. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
8:53–61
Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, MacDonald DW. 2012. Does organic farming reduce environmental
impacts? A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Manag. 112:309–20
Uthes S, Matzdorf B. 2013. Studies on agri-environmental measures: a survey of the literature. Environ. Manag.
51(1):251–66
van Caenegem W, Cleary JA, eds. 2017. The Importance of Place: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Local and
Regional Development. Cham, Switz.: Springer
van Caenegem W, Cleary JA, Drahos P. 2014. Pride and profit: geographical indications as regional develop-
ment tools in Australia. J. Econ. Soc. Policy 16(1):5
Velten S, Leventon J, Jager N, Newig J. 2015. What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review.
Sustainability 7(6):7833–65
Visser O, Spoor M. 2011. Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: the world’s largest agricultural land reserves
at stake. J. Peasant Stud. 38(1):299–323
von Braun J, Meinzen-Dick R. 2009. “Land grabbing” by foreign investors in developing countries: risks and
opportunities. Policy Brief 13, IFPRI, Washington, DC
Waite L, Craig G, Lewis H, Skrivankova K, eds. 2015. Vulnerability, Exploitation and Migrants: Insecure Work
in a Globalised Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Walford NS. 2003. Productivism is allegedly dead, long live productivism. Evidence of continued productivist
attitudes and decision making in South-East England. J. Rural Stud. 19(4):491–502
Warf B. 2008. Time-Space Compression: Historical Geographies. London/New York: Routledge
White B, Saturnino M, Borras M, Hall R, Scoones I, Wolford W. 2012. The new enclosures: critical perspec-
tives on corporate land deals. J. Peasant Stud. 39(3–4):619–47
Wilson GA. 2001. From productivism to post-productivism . . . and back again? Exploring the (un)changed
natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 26:77–102
Wilson GA. 2007. Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Wilson GA, Burton RJ. 2015. ‘Neo-productivist’ agriculture: spatio-temporal versus structuralist perspectives.
J. Rural Stud. 38:52–64
Ye J. 2015. Land transfer and the pursuit of agricultural modernization in China. J. Agrar. Change 15(3):314–37
Zasada I. 2011. Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal demands and the provision of
goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28(4):639–48
Zook M. 2008. The Geography of the Internet Industry: Venture Capital, Dot-Coms, and Local Knowledge.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons
160 Robinson
RE10_FrontMatter ARI 21 August 2018 16:52
Annual Review of
Resource Economics
Volume 10, 2018 Contents
Autobiographical
The Personal Journey of a Resource Economist

Gardner M. Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Agricultural Economics
Opportunities and Challenges for Big Data in Agricultural and

Environmental Analysis
Alfons Weersink, Evan Fraser, David Pannell, Emily Duncan, and Sarah Rotz p p p p p p p p p19
Organic Agriculture, Food Security, and the Environment
Eva-Marie Meemken and Matin Qaim p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p39
Separating Myth from Reality: An Analysis of Socially Acceptable
Credence Attributes
Jayson L. Lusk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p65
Information, Incentives, and Government Intervention for Food Safety
Sebastien Pouliot and H. Holly Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p83
Global Alcohol Markets: Evolving Consumption Patterns, Regulations,
and Industrial Organizations
Kym Anderson, Giulia Meloni, and Johan Swinnen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 105
Globalization of Agriculture
Guy M. Robinson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 133
Twenty-First-Century Trade Agreements and the Owl of Minerva
Bernard Hoekman and Douglas Nelson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 161
Adoption of Labor-Saving Technologies in Agriculture
R. Karina Gallardo and Johannes Sauer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 185
Are Cattle Markets the Last Frontier? Vertical Coordination in
Animal-Based Procurement Markets
John M. Crespi and Tina L. Saitone p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 207
xii
Increasing Concentration in the Agricultural Supply Chain: Implications

for Market Power and Sector Performance
Richard J. Sexton and Tian Xia p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 229
Marketing as a Risk Management Mechanism with Applications in
Agriculture, Resources, and Food Management
Amir Heiman and Lutz Hildebrandt p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253
Development Economics
The Impact of Gender Inequality on Economic Performance in

Developing Countries
Stephan Klasen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 279

An Assessment of Experimental Evidence on Agricultural Technology
Adoption in Developing Countries
Jeremy R. Magruder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 299
The Historical Evolution of Alternative Metrics for Developing
Countries’ Food and Agriculture Policy Assessment
Tim Josling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317
Environmental Economics
International Climate Change Policy

Gabriel Chan, Robert Stavins, and Zou Ji p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 335
Identifying the Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture
Colin Carter, Xiaomeng Cui, Dalia Ghanem, and Pierre Mérel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 361
Efficacy of Command-and-Control and Market-Based Environmental
Regulation in Developing Countries
Allen Blackman, Zhengyan Li, and Antung A. Liu p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 381
Social Norms and the Environment
Karine Nyborg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 405
The Effect of Corporate Environmental Performance on Corporate
Financial Performance
Dietrich Earnhart p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 425
The Economics of Species Conservation
Amy W. Ando and Christian Langpap p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 445
Contents xiii
Resource Economics
Collective Rights–Based Fishery Management: A Path to

Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management
Daniel S. Holland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Economics of Water Recovery in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia
R. Quentin Grafton and Sarah Ann Wheeler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 487
Advances in Evaluating Energy Efficiency Policies and Programs
Kenneth Gillingham, Amelia Keyes, and Karen Palmer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 511
Regression Discontinuity in Time: Considerations for Empirical
Applications
Catherine Hausman and David S. Rapson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 533
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Resource Economics articles may be
found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/resource
xiv Contents

Annual Review - Globalization of Agriculture

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Annual Review - Globalization of Agriculture

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

RE10CH07_Robinson ARI 20 August 2018 13:0

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018. 10:133–60 Keywords

have generated substantial academic research:

Global capability to produce enough food to feed humankind;

3. THE NATURE OF GLOBALIZATION

Analysts of globalization generally refer to it as a multifaceted set of processes that frequently

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 135

Table 1 A preliminary balance sheet for globalization

4. KEY CONSEQUENCES OF A GLOBAL ECONOMY

Globalization of technological change, the mobility of finance capital, and transportation

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 137

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 139

5.1. Food to Feed Humankind

5.2. Sustainable Intensification

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 141

5.3. Genetically Modified Foods

5.4. Transnational Corporations, Global Finance, and Policy Regimes

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 143

with farm indebtedness. An increasingly important role played by financial institutions,

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 145

5.5. Future Challenges to Globalized Agriculture

5.5.1. Multifunctionality. Multifunctionality is the term used to recognize that agricultural

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 147

6. THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF AGRIFOOD NETWORKS

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 149

6.1. Attaining Sustainability

Table 2 Divergent paradigms in agriculture worldwide

6.2. Reasons for Maintaining Agricultural Diversity

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 151

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 153

modified crops. J. Econ. Perspect. 28(1):99–119

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 155

Pap. 198, World Bank, Washington, DC

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 157

Companion to Globalization, ed. G. Ritzer, pp. 29–53. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

www.annualreviews.org • Globalization of Agriculture 159

Volume 10, 2018 Contents

The Personal Journey of a Resource Economist

Opportunities and Challenges for Big Data in Agricultural and

Increasing Concentration in the Agricultural Supply Chain: Implications

The Impact of Gender Inequality on Economic Performance in

Stephan Klasen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 279

International Climate Change Policy

Collective Rights–Based Fishery Management: A Path to

Catherine Hausman and David S. Rapson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 533

Potrebbero piacerti anche