Reinvigorating a political ecology of the global agri-food system
URN:NBN:fi:tsv-oa99209
DOI: 10.11143/fennia.99209
Reinvigorating a political ecology of the global agri-food system
SÖREN KÖPKE
Köpke, S. (2021) Reinvigorating a political ecology of the global agri-food
system. Fennia 199(1) 89–103. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.99209
This contribution is a critical review of research on the global agri-
food system directly or indirectly identified as political ecology
(PE). It shows how food, famine and agricultural production were
important topics to early proponents of PE, especially with regards to a
critique of neo-Malthusian thought. It then traces further developments in
the field and highlights the productive tension between materialist and
poststructuralist streams, as well as the influence of actor-network theory.
Further on, the paper discusses three neighbouring theories and
frameworks with a potential to stimulate current political ecologies of food
and agriculture, namely critical agrarian studies, food regime theory and
world-ecology. Finally, seven clusters of potential research topics for a
political ecology of the global agri-food system are identified. In conclusion,
the relevance of PE as a theoretical lens is reiterated and the need for
fruitful application of political ecology and related approaches is expressed.
Keywords: political ecology, global agri-food system, world hunger, food
studies
Sören Köpke (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8647-2639), Section of
International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance, University
of Kassel, Steinstr. 19 (Kloster), 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany. E-mail:
soeren.koepke@web.de
Introduction
The global agri-food system appears to be fragile and dysfunctional. It allows one in nine people to go
hungry every day (FAO et al. 2019), it contributes greatly to biodiversity loss, soil depletion, water
stress, and greenhouse gas emissions (Gladek et al. 2017). While food production and food
consumption are tied to the household, underlying power structures and social-ecological relations
are not confined to the domain of individuals or families. Food insecurity is always local and household-
level first and foremost (Misselhorn 2005; Bartfeld & Wang 2006), yet connected to the agri-food
system on higher scales, through national economies, trade, food policies, global environmental
change, and a host of other factors. It is a challenge for scholars of development studies, geography,
and anthropology to theorize the different factors shaping the current global agri-food system.
Agri-food system is a term derived from insights on the systemic, interconnected and multi-scalar
character of food and agriculture; Rogers, Castree and Kitchin (2013, 11) define agri-food systems as
the “totality of actors involved in the production, distribution and consumption of food, the relations
© 2021 by the author. This open access article is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
90 Reviews and Essays FENNIA 199(1) (2021)
between them, and the regulatory apparatus governing these arrangements”. Talking about “agri-
food systems” suggests looking at the whole of the food value chain by investigating the effects of
globalization on local production system, taking into account food policies and political economies of
food, and suggests researching interdependencies, for example with ecological processes, political
structures, and developments in science and technology.
The question that this review is concerned with is how different approaches of political ecology (PE)
describe and analyse the complexity of the global agri-food system. Specifically, it will shed light on
the different building blocks of a political ecology of the agri-food system, and scrutinize their
respective explanatory powers as well as blind spots. To acknowledge the contribution of political
ecology to the understanding of the global agri-food system, the paper continues as follows: it first
presents a review of the intellectual origins and theoretical concepts of the approach, then discusses
central theoretical strains outside of “political ecology proper” that could provide a stimulus for
theoretical advancement within PE, and finally points to a number of key topics that the paper suggests
PE research should take on. Global food production is highly contested (Lang & Heasman 2015). This
contribution argues that the political ecology could improve the understanding of power structures
permeating the global-agrifood-system, and, vice versa, that increasing focus on the agri-food system
would heighten the approach’s continued relevance to questions of nature-society relations.
Defining and rooting political ecology as a theory of food systems
It is a broad approach to questions regarding the politics of natural resource use, and nature-society
relations in general. This being said, it branches out into different areas of concern, including gender
(feminist political ecology – see Rocheleau et al. 1996) and cities (urban political ecology), and
heterogeneous fields of research like biodiversity conservation, land use, mining, water management,
forestry, climate adaptation and so on.
Despite the eclecticism, there are a number of shared core features. One is the focus on remote,
historic, complex causes as opposed to proximate and reductionist causation; another one is the
interest in power (in other words, the political) and its impact on natural resource use and ownership,
including an interest in central actors like the state, capital, and subaltern people; a third one is critical
thinking about the political character of ideas and knowledge production on “the environment”. A
fourth general characteristic is an inter- or even trans-disciplinary research strategy, reflected in the
methodology used for research (Zimmerer & Bassett 2003). PE, which originally emerged from
geography and anthropology, has become an “interdiscipline” (Kull & Rangan 2016). These four core
qualities are almost all present in works under the political ecology header. Here and there is an
overlap with other, neighbouring (and sometimes rivalling) approaches such as environmental justice
studies, Science and Technology Studies (STS), social-ecological systems research, environmental
humanities, or human-animal studies.
My key argument here is that political ecology, over the last decade, has lost ground in efforts to
describe and scrutinize the global agri-food system; in other words, the approach has not made use
of its full potential to critically analyse essential issues like persisting malnutrition, trade in agricultural
commodities, climate change and farming, rural water politics, land acquisitions, and capitalist
modernization of agri-food systems. I am not saying that there is not enough research on these
topics, only that political ecologists are often missing a voice in the debate. Curiously, scholars of PE,
vocal on food and agriculture in the early years of the research agenda, appear to have now lost
interest in some of these topics – leaving us puzzled with the question why this may be so. It is not if
there is nothing left to say anymore?
The political ecology research tradition had its point of departure in the 1970s from an interest
in peasant agriculture and rural development. Its roots lay in anthropology and, most notably, geography,
in a tendency of academic Marxism in the 1970s1. Among the earliest exponents, many (but not all) were
positioned firmly in the theoretical tradition of dialectical historical materialism. Louis Althusser’s structural
Marxism, dependency theory brought forth by Gunder Frank and others, and Immanuel Wallerstein’s
world systems theory were highly influential intellectual currents (Bryant & Bailey 1997, 12–13; Paulson
et al. 2003, 207). The genesis of political ecology was therefore very much part of a general zeitgeist.
91FENNIA 199(1) (2021) Sören Köpke
Since the late 1960s, there was a decline in modernization-fuelled progress optimism; the
constraints to human development imposed by natural resource use and environmental degradation
now appeared to be urgent. With a rise in environmental consciousness in developed countries, there
began a feverish search for answers to questions posed by famine, desertification, deforestation and
dwindling energy reserves2. Among these questions, maybe the most crucial, existential is this: why is
there hunger and famine? There are many answers to this question. In the conventional view, the root
causes of the scourge of famine were made out: scarce food due to droughts, lack of technological
development, but mostly: overpopulation in the “Third World” (Ehrlich 1971).
Political ecology took shape as an explanatory framework opposed to these conceived wisdoms,
these “apolitical ecologies” (Robbins 2019, 8–21). It insisted that environmental change, as well
as hunger and poverty, had a political economy, were permeated by power relations and shaped
by historical processes.
Development of a political ecology of food and agriculture
Against Malthus
Political ecology first emerged as anti-Malthusianism, and therefore it is necessary to devote a few
paragraphs to Malthus and his ideas – ideas which continue their influence until today, if in “zombified”3
versions (de Waal 2016). Malthus ideas are persistent because they provide a consistent, logically
elegant, yet false explanation for hunger. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834) was a British cleric and
founding father of political economy; his work (2015[1798]) An Essay on the Principle of Population
established his call to fame as a pioneer of political economy. His pessimistic assumption was as
follows: the growth in available food would always be less than the growth in human population, thus
leading to an inescapable food scarcity crisis. Since “negative checks” – chastity and sexual restraint
– were unlikely, only so-called “positive checks” could hold population growth at bay: famine, disease,
war. In other words, hunger and misery were inevitable facts.
Malthus has been criticized sharply in development studies, economics and famine history. His
theory proved to be empirically problematic and was debunked by history. For instance, Malthus did
not account for increase in productivity through technological development.
Supply-side scarcity was long thought to be a cause for hunger crises; this was the so-called “food
availability decline” (FAD) hypothesis (Devereux 2009, 26). Sen’s (1981) Poverty and Famines elaborated
upon an altogether different explanation of famine, the so-called entitlement approach. Entitlements
are the base of economic food security and could appear in different forms: income, subsistence
production, from heritage or gifts, or from selling one’s own property. Accordingly, Sen found lack of
entitlements (not lack of food!) to be responsible when parts of the population went hungry. This was
a structural explanation to hunger that saw crass socio-economic differences and persistent poverty
as root causes of hunger, and therefore resonated well with the interest in power relations pursued
by political ecologists (Batterbury & Fernando 2011[2004], 362). Sen’s political economy of famine,
combined with a Marxist critique of Malthus, guided PE’s perspective on the genesis of hunger4.
Political ecology of food crises
Drought as an agricultural disaster, alongside devastating floods, has driven food crises for centuries,
if not millennia (Ó Gráda 2009, 14–18). However, in modern times, there were more factors that
together caused famine than just failing rains. Two ground-breaking studies have co-founded the
political ecology of drought-famine: Watts’ (2013[1983]) Silent Violence and Davis’ (2002) Late Victorian
Holocausts. The former explores the political economy of northern Nigeria, frequently stricken by
famine, and traces it back to colonial history. In a similar manner, but on a grander scale, Davis (2002)
investigates the misdemeanour of British colonial rulers in India in the face of the ravaging droughts
of the late 19th century. These droughts were most likely brought about by the climatic phenomenon
called El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), but the neglect of British rulers played a significant role in
escalating the food crises, as Davis meticulously explains. The British imperialists, influenced by
92 Reviews and Essays FENNIA 199(1) (2021)
Malthusian thought (Davis 2002, 32), believed food aid to be an ineffective and even counter-
productive way of handling food crises. Davis (2002, 279–310) argues that the result was not only a
short-term peak in excess mortality from famine among the colonial subjects, but also enduring
patterns of underdevelopment. Both Watts and Davis were inspired by materialist accounts of imperial
history and highlighted the structural causes, as well as the political economy, of drought-famines.
Apart from drought, there are other immediate factors to low productivity and resulting poverty
and food insecurity among peasant farmers. Blaikie (1985) researched structural and social causes of
soil erosion and tried to deconstruct the image of peasants as ignorant, poor land managers, pointing
towards nested scales of environmental change. Subsequently, Blaikie and Brookfield (1987)
addressed the more overarching question of social, political-economic and historic root causes of
land degradation. Kull (2004) wrote a critical study of fire use in local shifting cultivation practices in
Madagascar. All the authors discussed here are marked by their intention to contribute to a historically
informed, materialist social science of food and agriculture.
The constructivist turn
Most scholars agree that in the 1980s to 1990s, there was a paradigmatic shift that can be described
as a waning of Marxian influences, and an increase of poststructuralist thought, associated mainly
with the work of Michel Foucault. Foucault’s work had garnered considerable intellectual resonance in
Western academia by the time of his death in 1984, and continued its triumphal ascendance within
critical social science and humanities throughout the 1990s. The French poststructuralist developed
his extremely idiosyncratic method in his “archaeology” of ideas and practices, with a main interest in
the “power-knowledge” nexus and the notion of “governmentality” (Foucault 2007). Governmentality
describes a mode of rule permeating human bodily existence and thus internalizing power through
the subject with the means of “technologies of the self”.
Foucault was, without a doubt, a highly original and complex intellectual. The different concepts he
brought forth have proven to be as adaptable as initially provocative. One of the most prominent
applications (or permutations) of the Foucaultian concept of governmentality can be found in Agrawal’s
(2005, 216–217) Environmentality. In his case study of villagers/subsistence farmers in Kumaon, North
India, Agrawal traces how the practice of burning the forest transformed from anticolonial resistance
in the 1920s to an undesirable action in the 1990s, when villages actively pursued reforestation
instead. In Agrawal’s analysis, processes of decentralization had profoundly changed the relations
between the spheres of the local and the state, between local-level decision-makers and villagers.
Technologies of “intimate government” lead to an internalization of environmental consciousness and
direct actions regarded “environment-friendly” (Agrawal 2005, 164–200). Here, the analysis of agri-
environmental processes has shifted from matters of political economy to more subtle questions of
discourse, ideology and social control.
In a similar way, Escobar (1995, 1996) was among those who exemplified a move away from
research on the political economy of peasant production in developing countries, and towards a
critique of development as a concept, and the discursive construction of development.
The postmodernist/poststructuralist/constructivist reorientation (Biersack 2006, 22; Peet et al.
2010, 32–33) has diversified the research agenda of political ecology. The question here is whether
materialism (derived from Marx) or poststructuralism (inspired by Foucault and his intellectual peers)
are two forms of political ecology, as Tetreault (2017) suggests, or merely two phases, as Bryant and
Bailey (1997, 12–15) argued earlier. I would suggest that there is a spectrum, not an ontological divide,
within a unified yet heterogeneous epistemic community. Self-identified political ecologists are unified
by their emphasis on power and inequality within social-ecological interactions; whether the flows of
power and inequality are traced through knowledge, language and discourses or through political
economies, physical geographies, or environmental histories is a matter of emphasis and method, but
not so much of a difference in political outlook. The approach remains fundamentally critical, and
hence normative, in its evaluation of received wisdoms.
A third thread, however, might add a new quality in broadening the scope of themes that should be
exposed to critical inquiry. Bassett and Peimer (2017) propose a threefold typology of PE research,
93FENNIA 199(1) (2021) Sören Köpke
consisting of society/nature dialectics (what I here call “materialist” approaches), the environmentalist
constructivist approach (more or less identic with a poststructuralist-influenced approaches), and a
third strand, the “co-production of socionature”, which can be linked to actor-network theory.
Actor networks
Actor-network-theory (ANT) was first developed in Science and Technology Studies (STS) by authors
like Michel Callon, John Law, and Bruno Latour, who became its most noticed proponent. ANT
undermines the foundations of more traditional social sciences by declaring structures and
dichotomies non-existent. ANT intends to overcome the object-subject divide (Latour 2005). Human
and non-human beings, animate and non-animate objects, together called “actants”, form networks
of relations and act together as assemblages. This fundamentally non-anthropocentric perspective
attributes agency to other beings, or even non-beings, which work together with humans. The farmer
works in an assemblage with the hoe, the tractor, the soil and the seed, for instance.
ANT insists that non-human and human “actants” have symmetric relations, and in other words,
that we cannot understand anything without acknowledging the networks it is embedded in. From this
insight comes a need for a new language to accompany the new sets of concepts. However, the
unclear political implications of ANT, mostly associated with its staunch rejection of dualisms, have
presented grave irritations to scholars of critical or Marxian political economy (Castree 2002; Fine
2005). Since it refuses to recognize any notions of power structures or inequality, ANT has been
accused of catering to neo-liberalism; therefore, that it should be discarded as a theoretical influence
to PE (Lave 2015). Other scholars have incorporated its language and theoretical assumptions into
political ecology research. It appears that ANT’s perspective on symmetry between subjects/objects/
beings/actants has resonated most widely with feminist political ecology (Rocheleau 2015), in particular
with Haraway (1991). Among the most original, and perhaps widely read, inquiries into networks and
agencies is Tsing‘s (2015) The Mushroom at the End of the World, an anthropology of food, a fusion of
feminist political ecology and ANT, which explores the value chain of the Matsutake mushroom.
The question whether ANT is a diversion from, or a useful addition to more dialectical versions of
PE remains unanswered. Yet, more in general, ANT’s influence on thinking about social-ecological
dynamics remains strong.
Political ecology and its neighbours
The newer theoretical developments in political ecology admittedly broadened the perspective, but
also diverted attention from questions of agricultural production and rural development. As if political
ecology had exhausted its theoretical fervour on the topic, it was overtaken. Increasingly other,
neighbouring schools of thought produced critical stances on modern food and agriculture. Here, in
turn I discuss critical agrarian studies, food regime theory, and world-ecology, three theoretical
approaches related to PE, which transcend some aspects of received theory. The nuances of theoretical
debates within and between these schools, and their varying degree of engagement and overlap with
PE, sometimes appear to be puzzling. All three approaches are marked by attachment to Marxian
thought. Yet at a closer look the topical focus is either more narrow than in PE (food regime theory),
the ontological position more rigid (world-ecology), or the epistemic community defined mainly by
group affiliations and concepts differing from PE (critical agrarian studies).
Critical agrarian studies
Critical agrarian studies are not a discipline or an approach, but rather a field of interest and an
epistemic community. It is a moniker for a decade-long tradition rooted in peasant studies, freshly
coined in 2009 with the establishment of the Critical Agrarian Study group in The Hague (Akram-
Lodhi 2018). Critical agrarian studies are centred on a number of key publishing outlets, institutions
of higher education, and key authors. The Journal of Peasant Studies, and The Journal of Agrarian
Change are the academic journals mostly associated with critical agrarian studies, and the research
94 Reviews and Essays FENNIA 199(1) (2021)
agenda strives at the International Institute of Social Studies (IIS) of the Erasmus University
Rotterdam, situated in The Hague.
Among the key actors, one finds Saturnino M. Borras, Jr., who is professor at IIS, Henry Bernstein,
who held a chair at the University of London’s School of Asian and African Studies (SOAS), and A.
Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Wendy Wolfort, Marc Edelman. Notably, there is a dominant focus on the Global
South, corresponding with movements on the critical edge of the humanities, such as subaltern
studies or post-colonialism (Sajadian 2020, 20).
Methodologically, critical agrarian studies emphasize qualitative social science over large-n studies
based on statistical analysis. Topically, the research agenda is somewhat narrow, and focuses on
land acquisitions, financialization of food and agriculture, de-peasantization and de-agrarianisation,
and finally, environmental degradation and its consequences on peasant agriculture (Akram-Lodhi
2018). The last topic clearly overlaps with the core concern of political ecology: the question of
winners and losers in environmental change. However, there are differences in the way both research
agendas conceptualize power, social-ecological dialectics, and production of knowledge on
“nature”/“the environment”. Critical agrarian studies are more overtly linked to Marxian political
economy and the pursuit of the “agrarian question” inherited from peasant studies; in contrast to
political ecology, which has become considerably heterodox, as mentioned above. PE is less
interested in the exact functioning of the modern capitalist world economy, and more invested in
researching the workings of capitalism-state alliances on ecosystems and social formations. Hence,
political ecology’s conceptualization of capital/state actors often appears quite schematic, while
other critical social sciences (including critical agrarian studies) are utilized as sources of inspiration
and providers of critical tools.
One has to acknowledge that political ecology and critical agrarian studies have not only converging
research agendas and theoretical roots, but there are also some authors oscillating between one and
the other perspective, or seeking ways to integrate them seamlessly. In particular, critical agrarian
studies have popularized and advanced the political economy of the phenomenon called land-
grabbing, which had become virulent since 2009: “The emphasis on land, especially in the matters of
green grabbing, increasingly blurs an already thin line between critical agrarian studies and political
ecology“ (Dunlap & Jakobsen 2020, 52).
Critical agrarian studies and political ecology also share an interest in remote effects and global
connections, which are converging in food regime theory as a historical, macro-level mode of explanation
of structural change in food production, trade and consumption.
Food regime theory
Friedmann and McMichael (1989) were the first to introduce food regime theory. It is derived from
regulation theory, a Marxist political economy approach of French origin, and has a perspective on the
longue durée of change in patterns of food production and consumption, by connecting food regimes
to shifting modes of production within capitalist development. According to Friedmann and McMichael,
the first global food regime (1870s–1930s) coincided with the emerging hegemony of British
colonialism and was characterized by imports of tropical food commodities from the colonies in the
Global South to Europe, and provision of grain stables from settler colonies. The second food regime
(circa 1950–1970s) began roughly after the Second World War and was marked by large-scale food
exports from the US to developing countries in order to stabilize US hegemony in the Cold War context
(McMichael 2009, 141). National development programs and particularly adoption of “Green
Revolution” technologies were designed to improve food security and dampen social conflicts in many
of the post-colonial, newly independent countries.
There are debates on the manifestation of a third food regime (Burch & Lawrence 2009; McMichael
2013), the “corporate food regime”, in which neo-liberal globalization has led to a hegemonic role
of oligopolistic corporations on the world market. Accordingly, this food regime is associated
with the rise of corporations controlling bottlenecks in the agribusiness value chain (inputs like
fertilizers and pesticides; grain trade; food processing; also retail). Friedmann (2005) theorizes
the emergent food regime as a corporate-environmental food regime characterized by a “greening”
95FENNIA 199(1) (2021) Sören Köpke
of capitalism and a progressive capture of “alternative” niches, created by social movements,
through large enterprises.
As mentioned above, food regime theory is a macro-level theory. Its merits can be found in the
ability to connect overarching developments within the global agri-food systems to the changing
character of world capitalism. However, this grand perspective is not helpful to some of the more
micro- or meso-level research question that political ecology seeks to answer.
Tilzey (2018) has undertaken the attempt of integrating food regime theory with political ecology
through concepts of food sovereignty and agro-ecology. He focuses on expressions of resistance and
counter-hegemony emerging within the historical moments shaped, amongst other factors, by food
regimes. Through a dialectic perspective and a critical realist ontology he tries to solve the apparent
contradictions between discourse-oriented and materialist strands of PE. This, however, leads him to
a rejection of more overtly constructivist approaches he calls “ontologically flat” (Tilzey 2018, 26), like
the one we will discuss now, namely world-ecology.
World-ecology
World-ecology is a theoretically complex post-Marxist intellectual project mainly brought forth by
Jason W. Moore, an American historical geographer. World-ecology is influenced by classical Marxism,
as well as by World-system theory – an approach mainly associated with Immanuel Wallerstein – and
by Latourian actor-network-theory. Moore’s main argument, presented in his seminal Capitalism in
the Web of Life (Moore 2015), is the rejection of the Cartesian dualism between Nature and Humanity.
Over and over again, Moore explains human beings as part of, not in opposition to nature (the web
of life, which he calls “oikeos”) and hence describes Capitalism as a historical force that has sprung
from the web of life, depends on it, and is tightly interwoven with it:
(…) Capitalism becomes not only a producer of environmental changes, but a product of the
web of life and involved in a historically and geographically cascading and uneven mosaic of
changes (…). (Entitle 2016)
Consequentially, Moore criticizes classical environmentalism, which he sees as charged with Cartesian
thought: this environmentalism objectifies nature as it talks about human destruction of the
environment, a misconception, as exploitation of “nature” and “fellow humans” are basically the same,
intertwined process of accumulation. Moore has therefore engaged in a debate on the agency of non-
human entities, and taken the sides of those who want to appoint non-human actors a greater role in
shaping historical, evolutionary and geopolitical processes (see also Lave 2015; Robbins 2019, 223–
235). Moore himself believes that world-ecology has the potential to shift political ecology debates
into a more decisively “non-Cartesian” direction (Entitle 2016), that is, to dissolve the socially
constructed barriers between human/society and nature/resource. As can be imagined, Moore’s
approach is not always well received, for instance by contemporary Marxists, who accuse him of
theoretical vagueness and post-modern fallacies (e.g. Foster & Clark 2016).
A particular aspect of Moore’s theory is of importance to a political ecology of the global agri-food
system, namely the concept of “cheap food”, elaborated in the book A History of the World in Seven
Cheap Things, co-written with Patel (Patel & Moore 2018; for critique of the work see: Angus 2018;
Hornburg 2020). In their chapter on cheap food (Patel & Moore 2018, 138–160), they sketch the
history of the modern food system since Columbian times, stating: “Capitalist agriculture changed
the world” (ibid., 140). They claim that the efficiency of modern agriculture in increasing labour
productivity and creating agricultural surplus is the fundament of the capitalist mode of production.
Urbanized industrial workers need access to cheap food so that capitalists could keep wages low
and extract even more surplus value from labour (ibid., 143–144); Patel and Moore see this process
repeated in contemporary times with the production of cheap animal protein for consumption
(ibid., 155–157). This stance has the merit of embedding agri-food production under capitalist
conditions in a wider perspective on global power relations, as well as historicizing the current agri-
food system, yet one cannot help but ask how the concept of cheap food is different from the
central insights of food regime theory.
96 Reviews and Essays FENNIA 199(1) (2021)
With a nod to historical materialism, the authors propose that every historic mode of production
must end: “With climate change, that food system will break in the coming century” (Patel & Moore
2018, 160). However, one must ask, is this not an ecological reformulation of the Food Availability
Decline, a version of neo-Malthusianism and its obsession with scarcity-induced conflicts and
disasters? Here, Moore and Patel’s world-ecology project might have departed from PE’s anti-
Malthusian consensus.
Emerging issues in the global agri-food system
If PE is to regain its cutting edge with critical inquiry of the global agri-food system, then it will have to
engage with concrete and urgent empirical questions. Taking real-world problems, not theoretical
puzzles at a point of departure offers the potential to dissolve tensions between constructivist and
material perspectives. Depending on each topic, the PE toolkit (Robbins 2019, 47) can provide fitting
theoretical and methodological instruments for the analysis of complex empirical problems.
A host of research questions springs up from the real-life conditions in the different realms and
provinces of food and agriculture. Here, based on my own research, reading, and teaching, I introduce
a non-exhaustive list of seven research agendas for PE with continued or growing importance in
relation to the global agri-food system, as a starting ground for more detailed or crosscutting inquiries.
For each research agenda, I present contemporary contributions, acknowledging that not all of the
authors mentioned here would be comfortable to be labelled under “political ecology”.
Big food
One central feature of the global agri-food system is the hegemonic presence of few players (Reardon
2007; Howard 2016), in short: “Big Food”. For instance, international trade in agricultural commodities
is dependent on five large players: Archer Daniels Midlands, Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, and more
recently, Cofco of China (Heinrich Böll Foundation et al. 2017, 26). Also, the market in processed food
is a multi-billion dollar industry shaped and controlled by transnational corporations (TNC) like Nestlé,
Mondelez International, Mars, Coca-Cola, Danone, PepsiCo, Kellogg, Unilever and ABF, who possess
immediately recognizable house brands marketed all over the world. Looking at the downstream
parts of global value chains, we find massive concentration in food retail. In any given developed
country, a few supermarket or megastore chains control the food retail market: Auchan and Carrefour
in France, Walmart, Kroger and Costco in the US, Tesco in the UK, Aldi and Rewe in Germany, and so
on – oligopoly structures in retail gives the large chains a dramatic leverage on pricing, which is
responsible for a price squeeze on producers which extends through global value chains, and
ultimately, effects agri-ecological relations in producing regions.
Symbolic commodities such as coffee (Tucker 2008; Jimenez-Soto 2020) and vanilla (Osterhoudt
2017), or monoculture flexcrops like palm oil (Pichler 2015), are subject to price volatilities, boom-and-
bust cycles, and expansion drives in commodity frontiers that impact people and landscapes.
Vandermeer and Perfecto (2013 [1995]), for instance, have done research along these lines, connecting
rainforest destruction in Latin America to consumer’s love of bananas. Political ecologies of big food
corporations and commodity chains might converge with food regime theory and critical agrarian
studies by highlighting global interconnections across long distances. For Hall (2015), this focus on
high-value export commodities is what ought to be the central focus of a PE of international agri-food
systems. However, there is certainly more to the overall theme then this rather narrow, yet important,
focus. Again, there is a possibility here to “ground” food regime theory in more localized accounts.
Modernized agricultural production
The so-called “Green Revolution”, a technology-driven transformation in agricultural production, has
swept many countries of the Global South since the 1960s. However, it is still underway in regions
with the least productive agricultural production systems, hence the talk of “a new Green Revolution”
in Sub-Saharan Africa (for a critique, see Holt-Giménez & Altieri 2013; Ignatova 2017). Shiva, the
97FENNIA 199(1) (2021) Sören Köpke
Indian scholar-activist and a political ecologist in everything but in name, is the most prolific and
vocal critic of the “Green Revolution” and agri-business expansion in India and the Global South
(Shiva 2000, 2008). The socio-technological and environmental disruptions associated with
modernized, and constantly modernizing, agricultural production systems are fruitful (but often also
frightening) material for case studies. For instance, the study colleagues and I have conducted on Sri
Lanka’s dry zone (Köpke et al. 2019) was an attempt to examine the social-ecological problems
brought forth by those “modern” agricultural production systems under the vulnerable conditions of
peasant paddy farming. Bezner Kerr, with her collaborators, has published instructive case work on
agricultural inputs in Malawi and Ghana (Bezner Kerr 2013; Nyantak-Frimpong & Bezner Kerr 2015).
Given the profound and often very complex transformations associated with the changes in
agricultural production systems in many countries, this topic is certainly apt to produce numerous
empirical cases for years to come.
Hunger, nutrition, health and obesity
A pressing question remains what PE has to say about the continuing hunger crisis. As a normative
approach, the topic of hunger and malnutrition is surprisingly out of focus in modern PE.
Famine studies appear to come to the conclusion that ”modern” famines, that is those that have
been experienced within intensifying waves of globalisation since the 19th century, are primarily
political of origin and often connected to armed conflict and genocidal activities of state actors. In the
words of de Waal (2018, 6), people have not been starving from lack of food, they are actively starved
by powerful people. Although most calamitous famines have occurred before 1980 (de Waal 2018, 5),
the intimate connection between armed conflict and hunger persists. Around two third of people
experiencing acute hunger live under conditions of armed conflict; Yemen, the Democratic Republic
of Kongo, and Afghanistan are the three countries with the highest rates of conflict-related food
insecurity (FAO & WFP 2019; FSIN 2019). Another “hot topic” is the nexus between the climate crisis
and food insecurity. While climate change has undeniable negative impacts on food systems, there is
amble room to challenge received wisdom on interconnections between the climate crisis, food
insecurity, and social conflict (Dalby 2009; Taylor 2015). This space for critical inquiry also extends to
questions related to climate mobility and food security (McMichael 2014). A political ecology of hunger
must put up resistance against attempts to naturalize hunger and famine and continue to point to the
geopolitical and political-economic roots of contemporary hunger crises, and to counter the re-
emergence of neo-Malthusian narratives incorporating climate change as a new factor.
At the same time, it is important to broaden the perspective, addressing chronic malnutrition
throughout the world. Many developing countries are in the process of nutrition transition (Qaim
2017); a global crisis of malnutrition here unrolls in the form of obesity, a condition with severe health
implications driven by expanding retail chains, and the marketing of cheap (processed) food rich in
saturated fats, sugar and salt contents.
Meat and alternatives
Part of the transformation in food practice is the increase of meat intake in many parts of the world.
Most of the time the meat industry is taken as a given, as a hyper-efficient way of providing affordable
meat to consumers. However, during the Covid-19 pandemic, slaughterhouses and meat packaging
factories were suddenly in focus of public interest, working conditions obviously so bad that SARS-
CoV2 was spreading fast in this environment. A political ecology of meat looks at power dynamics and
environmental consequences throughout the value chain; Neo and Emel (2017)’s take on the
“geographies of meat” might be a point of departure for such an inquiry. There are also possibilities
to draw connections to a political ecology of the post-human (Margulies & Bersaglio 2018), as
influenced by ANT and related approaches. Animal rights activists like PETA and celebrities like Ex-
Beatle Paul McCartney advocate for vegetarian lifestyles and “compassionate” consumption. Ethical
questions and consumer choices have altered the market in peculiar ways. Finally, lab-grown (in vitro)
meat emerges as a field of inquiry for critical political ecology (Mouat et al. 2019).
98 Reviews and Essays FENNIA 199(1) (2021)
Green consumerism and claims to sustainability
Vegetarianism and veganism have become accepted lifestyle choices of ethical consumption in
developed countries, but they are just a part of a larger obsession with “green”, sustainable, and
healthy food. Lifestyle food commodities are subject to boom cycles like any other commodity – with
serious repercussions for subsistence in developing countries. Quinoa, an Andean crop that has been
promoted as “superfood” to consumers in the West, is a case in point (Kerssen 2015; Andrews 2017).
Almonds are another popular “superfood” (Reisman 2020), one that been debated for its water
footprint in the face of the Californian megadrought (Gonzalez 2015).
While organic food, superfood and health food all make a claim to more eco-friendly and body-
conscious consumer decisions, they also represent multi-billion dollar economies. Especially the
market in organic foods has grown considerably over the last decades, but has also undergone large
structural changes. The boom- and bust cycles of organic and superfood, contrasted with the “health
fads” of the global urban middle classes, are prone to highlight the remote effects of allegedly
“sustainable” food trends.
Fish, fisheries and seafood
The extraction of animal protein (fish, crustaceans, molluscs) from the world’s waters, be it oceans,
lakes, streams or aquaculture, is an important and under-researched topic. Fisheries and fisherfolk
are side-lined within PE research, despite the fact that seafood and fish protein is an essential foodstuff
for many, primarily marginalized communities the world over. There are some excellent contributions
tackling salmon in aquacultures (Barton & Fløysand 2010) and in the wild (Swanson 2015). Salmon
owes its prominence, again, to its role as a symbolic and valuable commodity.
The Journal of Political Ecology published a virtual special issue on the “Blue Economy in Africa” in
2019 (Childs & Hicks 2019) that dealt, among other sectors, with fishing, but it was focused on
extractivist activities like deep sea mining.
Fisheries have an explicitly geopolitical dimension: in the Indian Ocean piracy crisis on the Somalian
coast, driven by a decline in fishing as a livelihood strategy; and a number of other interstate disputes
over fishing rights, with the historic “Cod Wars” between the UK and Iceland (Steinsson 2017) as a
prime example. The practice of industrial fishing (Yagishita 2018) deserved to be understood from a
political ecology angle rather than more positivist game-theoretic analysis (for an example of the
latter, see Munro 2009; for a critique, Mansfield 2010).
Beyond the regional bias: Addressing geographical blind spot
Finally, if political ecology as a theoretical approach strives to expand its impact, it should also extend
its regional focus. While the Western hemisphere (and Latin America in particular), larger parts of Sub-
Saharan Africa, parts of South and South East Asia are amply covered in research on agri-food systems,
there remain many blank spaces on a PE world map, despite the claims to “global political ecology“
(Peet et al. 2010). China, for instance, is sparsely covered (Yeh 2015); not to mention Central Asia,
which does not seem to draw much interest. There certainly should be PE research on China’s Belt
and Road Initiative (BRI), the gigantic infrastructure and trade initiative, yet there is hardly anything
(Matthias Schmidt, personal communication, March 1, 2019). Certainly, the BRI will have consequences
on agri-food systems in the participating countries, given China’s outstanding role as both a food
consuming and food producing country (for a starting point, see McMichael 2020).
A climatic zone that has not figured prominently in PE research is comprised of the Nordic regions5
– Scandinavia, Greenland, the Siberian North, Alaska or the north of Canada. These vast regions have
potential for research agendas on indigenous livelihoods and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK),
studying, for example, indigenous food production and food knowledge (of the Samí or the Inuit, to
name just two), pastoralism and fishing, and conflicts between rural livelihood strategies and
resource extractivism. Although some inroads have been made into the new terrain of Nordic
political ecology (Heikkinen & Robbins 2006; Benjaminsen & Robbins 2015), there are highly relevant
99FENNIA 199(1) (2021) Sören Köpke
and emerging research questions to be found centred on the Nordic regions, also for food and
agriculture, especially in the context of climate change.
Conclusion
In today’s political ecology scholarship, there is a marked presence of four very large issues:
extractivism, energy production, water, and conservation. This becomes clear when looking at recent
conferences, journals and academic books. Political ecologists undertake excellent research in all
four fields, and they merit high relevance. Yet it is not comprehensible why the equally important
issue of food and agricultural production systems should take a backseat, or should be left to other
schools and approaches. Although, as argued elsewhere (Köpke 2018), there may be an intimate
connection between food, water, extractivism and energy production, I hope to have shown that
a political ecology of the agri-food system should carry enough weight in its own right to comprise
a relevant research agenda.
Notes
1 Although he is not a Marxist, James C. Scott has been a constant influence on PE from the early days
on (Robbins 2019, 59–60). Scott has consistently applied “academic” anarchism as a critical lens to
peasant studies (Scott 1998, 2009, 2012). Hence, the study of the political economies of peasants, small-
scale agricultural production, and rural unrest has a decidedly anti-authoritarian streak, and the domain
of peasant life appears as perpetually in conflict with representatives of the state and capital alike.
Concepts like “moral economy” and “everyday resistance” retain their importance to PE approaches.
2 The Biafran famine (1967–1970), the Sahel drought (1968–1972) and the early 1970s Ethiopian
famine, among others, alerted many people in developed countries of the need for humanitarian
food relief, and helped shaping ideas of “Third World” disasters. For instance, Oxfam was founded in
response to the Biafran famine (O’Sullivan 2014). The UN Conference on the Human Environment in
Stockholm, Sweden in 1972 was highly influential in establishing environmental problems on the
agenda of international institutions. The 1972 Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth (Meadows &
Club of Rome 1972) ushered in the age of scarcity, as resource abundance appeared to be a feature
of the past. The oil price crisis, albeit triggered by Middle East geopolitics in the context of the 1973
Yom Kippur War, lend some credibility to these notions (Dalby 2009, 14).
3 Kallis (2019) challenges the original Malthusian thought on its own terrain, questioning Malthus’
inner logic and motivations to the text. While Kallis’ book Limits is a major intellectual achievement, it
is rather connected to the political philosophy underpinning the degrowth movement than a text of
political ecology. What is more, it does not apply itself overtly to questions of food production and
consumption, as it aims for a much broader argument on the limits to growth and the emancipatory
potential of self-limiting.
4 Woo-Cummings (2002) in her essay “The political ecology of famine” is highly critical of Sen, but her
definition of political ecology is unrelated to what this article, and the overall science community,
understands as political ecology by now.
5 I owe gratitude to my students in “Critical Perspectives on the Global Food System”, summer term
2018, for pointing me towards this.
Acknowledgements
This article has a heavy debt to Andreas Thiel, who let me teach the module “Critical Perspectives on
the Global Food System” in summer term 2018, a master level course of students of Organic
Agricultural Sciences at the University of Kassel. Through teaching the course, I was able to sharpen
my understanding of some key issues, and I was likewise exposed to a number of new ideas and
theoretical approaches. The lively debates with my students made this process enjoyable and
pointed me towards my own blind spots. Ariane Götz has critically read a draft of the paper and
100 Reviews and Essays FENNIA 199(1) (2021)
provided extremely helpful comments. I am also very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and
the chief editor of Fennia for their great support in improving this paper.
References
Agrawal, A. (2005) Environmentality. Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Duke
University Press, Durham and London.
Akram-Lodhi, H. A. (2018) What is critical agrarian studies? Review of African Political Economy blog
28.3.2018 . 15.6.2020.
Andrews, D. (2017) Race, status, and biodiversity; the social climbing of quinoa. Culture, Agriculture,
Food and Environment 39(1) 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12084
Angus, I. (2018) Illusions of word-ecology. International Socialism 157. . 30.6.2020.
Bartfeld, J. & Wang, L. (2006) Local-level predictors of household food insecurity. Institute for Research
on Poverty Discussion Paper 1317–06. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.925245
Barton, J. R. & Fløysand, A. (2010) The political ecology of Chilean salmon aquaculture, 1982–2010: a
trajectory from economic development to global sustainability. Global Environmental Change 20
739–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.001
Bassett, T. J. & Peimer, A. W. (2015) Political ecological perspectives on socioecological relations.
Natures Sciences Sociétés 23(2) 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2015029
Batterbury, S. P.J & Fernando, J. L. (2011[2004]) Amartya Sen. In Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R. & Valentine. G.
(eds.) Key Thinkers on Space and Place, 359–366. Sage, London.
Benjaminsen, T. A. & Robbins, P. (2015) Nordic political ecologies. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian
Journal of Geography 69(4) 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2015.1059879
Bezner Kerr, R. (2013) Seed struggles and food sovereignty in northern Malawi. The Journal of Peasant
Studies 40(5) 867–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.848428
Biersack, A. (2006) Reimaging political ecology: culture/power/history/nature. In Biersack, A. &
Greenberg, J. B. (eds.) Reimagining Political Ecology, 3–40. Duke University Press, Durham and
London. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388142-001
Blaikie, P. (1985) The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Longman, Harlow.
Blaikie, P. & Brookfield, H. (1987) Land Degradation and Society. Methuen, London.
Bryant, R. L. & Bailey, S. (1997) Third World Political Ecology. Routledge, London and New York.
Burch, D. & Lawrence, G. (2009) Towards a third food regime: behind the transformation. Agriculture
& Human Values 26 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9219-4
Castree, N. (2002) False antitheses? Marxism, nature and actor-networks. Antipode 34(1) 111–146.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00228
Childs, J. & Hicks, C. C. (2019) Securing the blue: political ecologies of the blue economy in Africa.
Journal of Political Ecology 26(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/v26i1.23162
Dalby, S. (2009) Security and Environmental Change. Polity, Cambridge.
Davis, M. (2002) Late Victorian Holocausts. El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World.
Verso, London.
Devereux, S. (2009) Why does famine persist in Africa? Food Security 1 25–35.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-008-0005-8
Dunlap, A. & Jakobsen, J. (2020) The Violent Technologies of Extraction. Political Ecology,
Critical Agrarian Studies and the Capitalist Worldeater. Palgrave MacMillan, London.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26852-7
Ehrlich, P. (1971) The Population Bomb. The Pan/Ballantine, New York.
Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Escobar, A. (1996) Constructing nature: elements for a poststructural political ecology. In Peet, R. &
Watts, M. (eds.) Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements, 46–68.
Routledge, London.
Entitle (2016) Jason W. Moore: political ecology or world-ecology? Video interview. Entitle blog
Youtube channel 5.1.2016 . 23.1.2021.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO (2019) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2019.
Safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns. FAO, Rome.
FAO & WFP (2019) Monitoring food security in countries with conflict situations. . 5.7.2020.
Fine, B. (2005) From actor-network theory to political economy. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16(4)
91–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455750500376057
101FENNIA 199(1) (2021) Sören Köpke
Foster, J. B. & Clark, B. (2016) Marx’s ecology and the left. Monthly Review 68(2) 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-068-02-2016-06_1
Foucault, M. (2007) Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Translated
by G. Burchell. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Friedmann, H. (2005) From colonialism to green capitalism: social movements and emergence of food
regimes. In Buttel, F. H. & McMichael, P. (eds.) New Directions in the Sociology of Global Development
(Research in Rural Sociology and Development, Vol. 11), 227–264. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-1922(05)11009-9
Friedmann, H. & McMichael, P. (1989) Agriculture and the state system: the rise and fall
of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29(2) 93–117.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.1989.tb00360.x
FSIN (2019) Global report on food crises. Report. Food Security Information Network, WFP, FAO and IFPRI.
Gladek, E., Fraser, M., Roemers, G., Sabag Muñoz, O., Kennedy, E. & Hirsch, P. (2017) The global food
system: an analysis. Report. Metabolic and WWF Netherlands, Amsterdam.
Gonzalez, R. (2015) How almonds became a scapegoat for California’s megadrought. NPR 16.4.2015
. 3.7.2020.
Hall, D. (2015) The political ecology of international agri-food systems. In Perreault, T., Bridge, G. &
McCarty, J. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology, 406–417. Routledge, London and
New York.
Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, New York.
Heikkinen, H. & Robbins, P. (2006) New applications of political ecology for the Nordic context. Nordia
Geographical Publications 35(2) 3–8. .
Heinrich Böll Foundation, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation & FOEE (2017) Agrifood Atlas. English
translation. Heinrich Böll Foundation, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and Friends of the Earth
Europe, Berlin and Brussels.
Holt-Giménez, E. & Altieri, M. A. (2013) Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the new
green revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37(1) 90–102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.716388
Hornburg, A. (2020) Dialectical confusion: on Jason Moore’s posthumanist Marxism. Historical
materialism blog 25.6.2020 . 23.1.2021.
Howard, P. H. (2016) Concentration and Power in the Food System: Who Controls What We Eat? Bloomsbury,
London and New York. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474264365
Ignatova, J. A. (2017) The ‘philanthropic’ gene: biocapital and the new green revolution in Africa. Third
World Quarterly 38(10) 2258–2275. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1322463
Jimenez-Soto, E. (2020) The political ecology of shaded coffee plantations: conservation narratives and
the everyday-lived-experience of farmworkers. The Journal of Peasant Studies [online Mar 12 2020]
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1713109
Kallis, G. (2019) Limits. Why Malthus was Wrong and Why Environmentalists Should Care. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503611566
Kerssen, T. M. (2015) Food sovereignty and the quinoa boom: challenges to sustainable re-
peasantisation in the souther Altiplano of Bolivia. Third World Quarterly 36(3) 489–507.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1002992
Kull, C. (2004) Isle of Fire. The Political Ecology of Landscape Burning in Madagascar. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Kull, C. A. & Rangan, H. (2016) Political ecology and resilience: competing interdisciplinarities?
In Hubert, B. & Mathieu, N. (eds.) Interdisciplinarités Entre Natures et Sociétés, 71–87. PIE Peter
Lang, Brussels.
Köpke, S. (2018) New pieces to the puzzle: the food-water-energy-mining nexus in environmental
conflicts. Resources and Conflicts blog 20.3.2018 . 23.1.2021.
Köpke, S., Withanachchi, S. S., Pathiranage, R., Withanachchi, C. R. & Ploeger, A. (2019) Social–ecological
dynamics in irrigated agriculture in dry zone Sri Lanka: a political ecology. Sustainable Water
Resource Management 5 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-018-0220-1
Lang T. & Heasman, M. (2015) Food Wars. 2nd ed. Routledge, Oxon and New York.
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University
Press, Oxford and New York.
Lave, R. (2015) Reassembling the structural: political ecology and Actor-Network Theory. In Perreault,
T., Bridge, G. & McCarty, J. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology, 213–223. Routledge,
London and New York.
102 Reviews and Essays FENNIA 199(1) (2021)
Malthus, T. R. (2015 [1798]) An Essay on the Principle of Population and Other Writings. Penguin,
London.
Mansfield, B. (2010) “Modern” industrial fisheries and the crisis of overfishing. In Peet, R., Robbins, P.
& Watts, M. (eds.) Global Political Ecology, 84–99. Routledge, London and New York.
Margulies, J. D. & Bersaglio, B. (2018) Furthering post-human political ecologies, Geoforum 94 103–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.03.017
McMichael, C. (2014) Climate change and migration: food insecurity as a driver and outcome of climate
change-related migration. In Malik, A., Grohmann, E. & Akhtar, R. (eds.) Environmental Deterioration
and Human Health, 291–313. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7890-0_12
McMichael, P. (2009) A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36(1) 139–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820354
McMichael, P. (2013) Food Regimes and Agrarian Questions. Fernwood Publishing, Halfiax & Winnipeg.
https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.000
McMichael, P. (2020) Does China's ‘going out’ strategy prefigure a new food regime? The Journal of
Peasant Studies 47(1) 116–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1693368
Meadows, D. H. & Club of Rome (1972) The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on
the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, New York. https://doi.org/10.1349/ddlp.1
Misselhorn, A. A. (2005) What drives food insecurity in southern Africa? A meta-analysis
of household economy studies. Global Environmental Change 15(1) 33–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.11.003
Moore, J. W. (2015) Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. Verso, London.
Mouat, M. J., Prince, R. & Roche, M. M. (2019) Making value out of ethics: the emerging economic
geography of lab-grown meat and other animal-free food products. Economic Geography 95(2)
136–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2018.1508994
Munro, G. (2009) Game theory and the development of resource management policy: the
case of international fisheries. Environment and Development Economics 14(1) 7–27.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004671
Neo, H. & Emel, J. (2017) The Geographies of Meat. Routledge, London.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315584386
Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H. & Bezner Kerr, R. (2015) A political ecology of high-input agriculture in northern
Ghana. African Geographical Review 34(1) 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2014.929971
Ó Gráda, C. (2009) Famine. A Short History. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
O'Sullivan, K. (2014) Humanitarian encounters: Biafra, NGOs and imaginings of the Third
World in Britain and Ireland, 1967–70. Journal of Genocide Research 16(2–3) 299–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2014.936706
Osterhoudt, S. (2017) Vanilla Landscapes: Meaning, Memory, and the Cultivation of Place in Madagascar.
NYBG Press, Bronx, NY.
Patel, R. & Moore, J. W. (2018) A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things. Verso, London and
New York. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520966376
Paulson, S., Gezon, L. L. & Watts, M. (2003) Locating the political in political ecology: an introduction.
Human Organization 62(3) 205–217. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.3.e5xcjnd6y8v09n6b
Peet, R., Robbins, P. & Watts, M. (2010) Global nature. In Peet, R., Robbins, P. & Watts, M. (eds.) Global
Political Ecology, 1–47. Routledge, London and New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203842249
Pichler, M. (2015) Legal dispossession: state strategies and selectivities in the expansion
of Indonesian palm oil and agrofuel production. Development and Change 46(3) 508–533.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12162
Qaim, M. (2017) Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition. Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society 76(2017) 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
Reardon, T. (2007) Global food industry consolidation and rural agroindustrialization in developing
economies. In Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. B. R. & Reardon, T. (eds.) Transforming the Rural Nonfarm
Economy: Opportunities and Threats in the Developing World, 199–215. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
Reisman, E. (2020) Superfood as spatial fix: the ascent of the almond. Agriculture and Human Values 37
337–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09993-4
Robbins, P. (2019) Political Ecology. A Critical Introduction. 3rd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA and
Oxford.
Rocheleau, D. (2015) Roots, rhizomes, networks and territories: reimagining pattern and power in
political ecologies. In Bryant, R. (ed.) The International Handbook of Political Ecology, 70–89. Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936172.00013
Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B. & Wangari, E. (eds.) (1996) Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and
Local Experience. Routledge, London.
103FENNIA 199(1) (2021) Sören Köpke
Rogers, A., Castree, N. & Kitchin, R. (eds.) (2013) The Oxford Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford
University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199599868.001.0001
Sajadian, C. (2020) Critical agrarian studies. In Kobayashi, A. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Human Geography,
Second edition, Vol. 3, 17–24. Elsevier, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10456-1
Scapegoat (2015) The political economy of soil. Interview with Piers Blaikie. Scapegoat Journal 8
144–149.
Scott, J. C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.
Yale University Press, New Haven.
Scott, J. C. (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia.
Yale University Press, New Haven.
Scott, J. C. (2012) Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work
and Play. Princeton University Press, Princeton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400844623
Sen, A. (1981) Poverty and Famines. An Essay on Entitlement. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Shiva, V. (2000) Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply. South End Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shiva, V. (2008) Soil not Oil. Climate Change, Peak Oil and Food Insecurity. Zed Books, London.
Steinsson, S. (2017) Do liberal ties pacify? A study of the Cod Wars. Cooperation and Conflict 53(3)
339–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836717712293
Swanson, H. A. (2015) Shadow ecologies of conservation: co-production of salmon landscapes in Hokkaido,
Japan, and southern Chile. Geoforum 61 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.02.018
Taylor, M. (2015) The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation: Livelihoods, Agrarian Change and the
Conflicts of Development. Routledge and Earthscan, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203762486
Tetreault, D. (2017) Three forms of political ecology. Ethics and the Environment 22(2) 1.
https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.2.01
Tilzey, M. (2018) Political Ecology, Food Regimes, and Food Sovereignty: Crisis, Resistance, Resilience.
Palgrave MacMillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64556-8
Tsing, A. L. (2015) The Mushroom at the End of the World. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Tucker, C. M. (2008) Changing Forests: Collective Action, Common Property, and Coffee in Honduras.
Springer, Cham.
Vandermeer, J. & Perfecto, I. (2013[1995]) Breakfast of Biodiversity. The Political Ecology of Rain Forest
Destruction. Food First, Oakland, CA.
de Waal, A. (2016) Malthus’s zombie: why are we still scared by stories about scarcity causing atrocities?
World Peace Foundation blog 3.2.2016 . 17.6.2020.
de Waal, A. (2018) Mass Starvation. The History and Future of Famine. Polity, Cambridge.
Watts, M. (2013[1983]) Silent Violence. Food, Famine, and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria. University of
Georgia Press, Athens and London.
Woo-Cummings, M. (2002) The political ecology of famine: the North Korean catastrophe and its
lessons. ADB Institute Research Paper Series 31.
Yagishita, Y. (2018) No more tuna for Japan’s sushi. Le Monde diplomatique February 2018 . 1.7.2020.
Yeh, E. T. (2015) Political ecology in and of China. In Bryant, R. (ed.) The International Handbook
of Political Ecology, 619–632. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936172.00055
Zimmerer, K. S. & Bassett, T. J. (eds.) (2003) Political Ecology. An Integrative Approach to Geography and
Environment-Development Studies. The Guilford Press, New York and London.