Theory of “food regimes” as a model to explain the strategies of agrarian development (the ‘cases’ of Russia and Brazil)

Cover Page

Abstract


The ‘food regime’ approach was introduced as a historical method of “incorporated comparison” (P. McMichael). This comparison of the role of agriculture in the world-system made some scholars overemphasize an excessively unitary and coherent global food regime. The authors recognize this approach as a historical-comparative analytical tool to understand global trends, but argue that the Russian and Brazilian agrarian development question some ideas of the food regime approach. The contemporary positions of two countries in the global markets also prove the divergences in their positioning in the food regime genealogy. The paper focuses on the production and export of soy and wheat which do not represent the entire agrarian economy of Brazil and Russia but allow to compare two countries’ strategies of the international trade and in domestic markets. First, the authors briefly discuss the historical routes Russia and Brazil have taken in the agricultural development and global food markets; then they analyze the radical changes that followed the Russian perestroika and the Brazilian re-democratization in the late 1980s and led to the consolidation of neoliberal policies in the 1990s. After that the paper describes the turn of both countries to the ‘neo-developmental state’ that supported the export-oriented policies for the agribusiness but combined them with domestic food security and sovereignty policies. Finally, the authors conclude that despite differing trajectories both Russia and Brazil cannot be considered parts of the neoliberal food regime due to the fact that the contemporary period should be rather defined as a paradigmatic crisis and a co-existence of two or more food regimes.


About the authors

P Niederle

Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul

Author for correspondence.
Email: pauloniederle@gmail.com.ru
Av. Paulo Gama, 110, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 90040-060

-

A A Kurakin

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Email: chto-delat@yandex.ru
Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, Russia, 119571

-

A M Nikulin

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; National Research University Higher School of Economics

Email: nikulin@ranepa.ru
Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, Russia, 119571; Myasnitskaya St., 9/11, Moscow, Russia, 101000

-

S Schneider

Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul

Email: schneide@ufrgs.br
Av. Paulo Gama, 110, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 90040-060

-

References

  1. Никонов А.А. Спираль многовековой драмы: аграрная наука и политика России (XVIII-XX вв.). М., 1995 / Nikonov A.A. Spiral mnogovekovoy dramy: agrarnaya nauka i politika Rossii (XVIII-XX vv.) [The Spiral of Centuries-Old Drama: Agrarian Science and Policy of Russia (18-20 centuries)]. Moscow; 1995 (In Russ.).
  2. Никулин А.М. Конгломераты и симбиозы в России: село и город, семьи и предприятия // Неформальная экономика: Россия и мир. М., 1999 / Nikulin A.M. Konglomeraty i simbiozy v Rossii: selo i gorod, sem’i i predpriyatiya [Conglomerates and symbioses in Russia: Village and the city, families and enterprises]. Neformalnaya ekonomika: Rossiya i mir. Moscow; 1999 (In Russ.).
  3. Островский А. Зерновое производство в Европейской России в конце 19 - начале 20 вв. СПб., 2013 / Ostrovsky A. Zernovoye proizvodstvo v Evropeyskoy Rossii v kontse 19 - nachale 20 vv. [Grain Production in European Russia in the late 19th - early 20th centuries]. Saint Petersburg; 2013 (In Russ.).
  4. Троцук И.В. Сравнительный анализ как способ реконструкции мировой экономической истории, или почему Китай не стал капиталистическим одновременно с Европой // Крестьяноведение. 2018. Т. 3. № 3 / Trotsuk I.V. Sravnitelny analiz kak sposob rekonstruktsii mirovoy ekonomicheskoy istorii, ili pochemu Kitay ne stal kapitalisticheskim odnovremenno s Evropoy [Comparative analysis as a way to reconstruct the world economic history, or why China did not become capitalist at the same time as Europe]. Russian Peasant Studies. 2018; 3 (3) (In Russ.).
  5. Узун В.Я., Шагайда Н.И. Аграрная реформа в постсоветской России. Механизмы и результаты. М., 2015 / Uzun V.Ya., Shagaida N.I. Agrarnaya reforma v postsovetskoy Rossii. Mekhanizmy i rezultaty [Agrarian Reform in Post-Soviet Russia. Mechanisms and Results]. Moscow; 2015 (In Russ.).
  6. Шанин Т. Революция как момент истины. Россия 1905-1907 гг. ® 1917-1922 гг. М., 1997 / Shanin T. Revolyutsiya kak moment istiny. Rossiya 1905-1907 gg. ® 1917-1922 gg. [Revolution as a Moment of Truth. Russia in 1905-1907 ® 1917-1922]. Moscow; 1997 (In Russ.).
  7. Borras S.M., Franco J.C., Isakson S.R., Levidow L., Vervest L. The rise of flex crops and commodities: implications for research. Journal of Peasant Studies. 2016; 43 (1).
  8. Bresser-Pereira L.C. Reflexões sobre o novo desenvolvimentismo e o desenvolvimentismo clássico. Revista de Economia Política. 2016; 36 (2).
  9. Friedmann H. Commentary: Food regime analysis and agrarian questions: widening the conversation. Journal of Peasant Studies. 2016; 43 (3).
  10. Friedmann H., McMichael P. Agriculture and the state system: The rise and decline of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis. 1989; 29 (2).
  11. Grisa C., Schneider S. (Eds.). Políticas de Desenvolvimento Rural no Brasil. Porto Alegre; 2015.
  12. Gudynas E. Estado compensador y nuevos extractivismos: las ambivalencias del progresismo sudamericano. Nueva Sociedad. 2012; 237.
  13. Ioris A. Agribusiness and the Neoliberal Food System in Brazil. London; 2017.
  14. Kurakin A. When the state is shirking: Informal solutions for social services provision in Altai villages. Przeglad Wschodnioeuropejski. 2015; 6 (2).
  15. Martinelli L.A., Batistella M., Silva R.F.B., Moran E. Soy expansion and socioeconomic development in municipalities of Brazil. Land. 2017; 6.
  16. McMichael P. Commentary: Food regime for thought. Journal of Peasant Studies. 2016; 43 (3).
  17. Niederle P., Grisa C., Picolotto E., Soldera D. Narrative disputes on family farming public policies in Brazil: Conservative attacks and civic countermovements. Procedings of the BRICS Initiative for Critical Agrarian Studies Conference. Moscow; 2017.
  18. Niederle P., Wesz V. As novas ordens alimentares. Porto Alegre; 2018.
  19. Oliveira G., Hecht S. (Eds.) Soy, Globalization, and Environmental Politics in South America. Routledge; 2017.
  20. Otero G. The neoliberal food regime in Latin America: state, agribusiness transnational corporations and biotechnology. Canadian Journal of Development Studies. 2012; 33 (3).
  21. Pallot J., Nefedova T. Russia’s Unknown Agriculture: Household Production in Post-Socialist Rural Russia. Oxford; 2007.
  22. Pereira L., Pauli L. O processo de estrangeirização da terra e expansão do agronegócio na região do MATOPIBA. Campo-Território. 2016; 11.
  23. Sallum B. Metamorfoses do estado brasileiro no final do século XX. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Sociais. 2003; 18.
  24. Sallum B., Goulart J. O estado Brasileiro contemporâneo: Liberalização econômica, política e sociedade nos governos FHC e Lula. Revista de Sociologia Política. 2018; 24.
  25. Sauer S., Leite S. Expansão agrícola, preços e apropriação de terra por estrangeiros no Brasil. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural. 2012; 50 (3).
  26. Thellen K. Varieties of capitalism: Trajectories of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Annual Review of Political Science. 2012; 15.
  27. Wegren S. Land Reform in Russia: Institutional Design and Behavioral Responses. New Haven; 2009.
  28. Wegren S. Private farming in Russia: An emerging success? Post-Soviet Affairs. 2011; 27 (3).
  29. Wegren S., Nikulin A., Trotsuk I. Russian agriculture during Putin’s fourth term: a SWOT analysis. Post-Communist Economies. doi: 10.1080/14631377.2019.157989.
  30. Wegren S.K., Nikulin A.M., Trotsuk I. Russia’s tilt to Asia and implications for agriculture in the Far East. Eurasian Geography and Economics. 2015; 56 (2).
  31. Wesz W. Strategies and hybrid dynamics of soy transnational companies in the Southern Cone. Journal of Peasant Studies. 2016; 43 (2).
  32. Wilkinson J., Goodmann D. Les analyses en terme de ‘food regime’: une relecture. G. Allaire, B. Daviron (Eds.). Transformations agricoles et agrolaimentaires: entre écologie et capitalisme. Versailles; 2017.

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 687

PDF (Russian) - 420

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2019 Niederle P., Kurakin A.A., Nikulin A.M., Schneider S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies