This article was downloaded by: [122.180.196.189]On: 25 June 2015, At: 11:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Peace Review: A Journal of SocialJusticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cper20

Gender Change in the Globalization ofAgriculture?Deepa JoshiAccepted author version posted online: 29 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Deepa Joshi (2015) Gender Change in the Globalization of Agriculture?, PeaceReview: A Journal of Social Justice, 27:2, 165-174, DOI: 10.1080/10402659.2015.1037620

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2015.1037620

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 27:165–174Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10402659.2015.1037620

Gender Change in the Globalizationof Agriculture?DEEPA JOSHI

Almost two decades ago, feminist researcher Maria Mies asked, “What wouldan economy look like in which nature mattered, in which women mat-tered, in which children mattered, in which people mattered, [an economy]which would not be based on colonizing and exploiting others?” These areprecisely the issues of concern today. Contemporary globalizationrelocates high value agricultural production to the Southern hemisphere forNorthern markets and high-income consumers in general. A post-colonialglobalization of agri-food and trade through corporatization of land is critiquedby many for undermining food security, for irreversibly altering ecologicallandscapes, and for marginalizing the poorest, including women, through trapsof coercive wage labor opportunities that are grossly inequitable as well aslimiting voice, dignity, and food sovereignty. Given the tenacious links drawnbetween the political, social, and economic dimensions of food insecurityand conflict, it appears that there is indeed a contemporary nexus betweengender, environment, and conflict, it is manifested in and aggravated by theglobalization of the agri-food system.

There are, however, others who credit globalization; for enabling eco-nomic integration, technological diffusion, and universal access to

information—in sum, holding potential for narrowing traditional, contextualagrarian inequalities, including by gender. The question then is, how shouldone view these structural agrarian transformations and the restructuring ofcomplex interrelations between ecologies, economies, and societies in dif-ferent social, political, and economic contexts? This essay discusses why afeminist political ecology framework is particularly useful in allowing a nu-anced analysis of the complex intersections of knowledge, power, and practicein nature–society struggles. First, the framework allows an unpacking of as-sumptions on what makes for the “local,” the “community,” “households,”and the “poor.” Further, by allowing a mapping of change processes acrossscale, across the agricultural value chain—it prevents, according to Lahiri-Dutt, “compartmentalizing women and their agricultural needs, aspirations

165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

166 DEEPA JOSHI

[and challenges] as small in size and subsistence in nature.” Second, by show-ing how inequalities by gender intersect with other disparities, such as race,ethnicity, class, religion, caste, age, and so on, the framework enables un-derstanding how contemporary transformations around agriculture result indiverse challenges and opportunities for different groups of women and menacross scale and space. In other words, it allows seeing that what happens onthe ground is far from simple binaries of “women” losing or winning.

Globalization is credited by some for its potential in narrowing contex-tual agrarian inequalities, particularly by gender. The World Bank’s WorldDevelopment Report (2012) notes that “forces such as trade openness . . .spread of cheaper communication and technologies have the potential of . . .connecting women to markets and economic opportunities . . . reshaping atti-tudes and norms about gender relations, and encouraging countries to promotegender equality.” The fact that these processes of change happen at a time ofa “feminization of agriculture” is seen to have multiplier gains for women.Prior to the contemporary globalization of agriculture, across the developingSouth—various factors had been inducing the male agrarian work force tomove away from agriculture towards alternative, economically more promis-ing opportunities. As Olivier de Schutter notes, these include reduced returnsfrom self-owned, subsistence agriculture and/or uncompetitive opportunities,and returns resulting from increasing trends of mechanization, urbanization,and industrialization. The recent appropriation and corporatization of agri-cultural practices further male withdrawal from agriculture by reiterating andcritically cementing a structural inequality in small-holder agriculture that haspersisted for centuries.

One might question what women will gain from being left behind tomanage and/or engage in a sector that is no longer attractive to men.

What opportunities are on offer for women in the global food supply andvalue chain and are they universally accessible and empowering to women? Anelemental flaw in these claims is that they ignore the fact that “women are notall the same.” Others go further to argue, however, that even though different,women and men are likely to be differently impacted by a globalization of theagricultural sector, “the terms of inclusion (as paid workers), the barriers toinclusion (of the self-employed) in global production systems; and the formsof exclusion from domestic production systems associated with increasedimports and other dimensions of trade liberalization” reiterate rather thanreverse traditional gender inequalities. Ruth Pearson explains why this is so:the relations drawn between new, “paid work and women’s empowerment”are mostly “unexamined.” In reality, women remain “cheap workers” and theburden of poorly paid [productive] work and unpaid [domestic] work combineto ensure that, “[b]eing exploited by capital is the fate of virtually the fate ofall women in today’s global economy.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

GENDER CHANGE IN THE GLOBALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE? 167

A feminist political ecology framework is particularly useful in ana-lyzing how the current globalization and corporatization of agriculture pro-duction and trade intersects with complex, historically contextual, complexinterrelations between “people” and “nature.” Kojo Sebastian Amanor elo-quently sums up this framework of analysis by pointing out that the populardiscourse against recent attempts by new actors to take control of the worldfood system, “assumes that prior to the emergence of global landgrabs, therewere no notable problems of social differentiation, land loss, insecurity inlivelihoods, and expropriation within the agrarian sector.” Feminist theoristshave long questioned the terms and conditions of production, whether it besubsistence production or capitalist productive labor. In 1999, Maria Miespowerfully argued “[i]t is my thesis that this general production of life, orsubsistence production—mainly performed through the nonwage labor ofwomen and other nonwage labourers as slaves, contract workers and peas-ants in the colonies—constitutes the perennial basis upon which ‘capitalistproductive labour’ can be built up and exploited.”

It is relatively easy, however, to miss seeing the gendered impacts ofthe agrarian transition primarily because relations of production and social-ization tend to aggregate communities, households, people, the poor as wellas notions of food security, and sovereignty. This happens because what hap-pens within the private domains of the household between individuals andinside communities is often overlooked. Further, complex knowledge-power-practice intersections that reiterate relationships of inequality across scale areparticularly difficult to trace and connect. On that note, far too little is knownabout the gendered dimensions of inequalities and injustices in institutionalspaces beyond the community and households—in the arenas of the politicsand policies of globalizing agrarian practices.

But first, it is important to understand why there is such widespread cri-tique of the transnational agribusinesses—even as some promote the

recent expansion of investment in large-scale agriculture as opening up newopportunities for smallholders. Taking the case of West Africa, Amanor pointsout the manner in which “the African states are . . . creating suitable infras-tructures, institutional reforms and quality control standards as a preconditionfor investment by transnational agribusiness.” These processes are seen toresult in radical changes in the use and ownership of land and are seen to be ofa seriously threatening nature and scale of an “imperialism of diverse sorts.”

According to a 2012 report by La Via Campesina, between 2008 and2009, more than 60 countries were targeted by investment groups and adozen or so governments; and on a conservative estimate around 56 millionhectares of land were leased or sold. According to Harold Liversage, the“15 to 20 million hectares” of land acquired by foreign investors “in Africa,Latin America and parts of Asia—belonged de facto, to rural communities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

168 DEEPA JOSHI

under a range of diverse tenure systems.” And, while a shortfall of sufficientfinances (estimated between 14 billion USD to 30 billion USD per annum)had long plagued effective, efficient production, in a short period of timebetween 2007–8, around “US$15-50 billion was invested in agriculture [andthe] amount is estimated to triple in the near term,” according to La ViaCampesina. What were the reasons for this dramatic turnover in corporateinterests in agriculture?

A dramatic spike, especially in the price of cereals in 2007 and 2008,was to a large extent impacted by the then economic crisis. This combinationof events was compounded by other short-, as well as long-term, factors suchas climate-induced fluctuations in precipitation and rise in temperature and adeclining agrarian productivity due to decades of reduced investments in, andinattention to, the agriculture sector. According to the 2011 report by the UN’sFood and Agriculture Organization, the conjoined food and economic crisis“deeply affected small import-dependent countries, especially in Africa,” call-ing international attention to and need for “safety nets . . . alleviating foodinsecurity in the short term, as well as for providing a foundation for long-termdevelopment.” Ironically, however, the food and the economic crisis servedto reposition farming as the new economic frontier, providing new opportuni-ties for an otherwise obsolete finance industry. The international developmentplea for private investment in agriculture happened; however, these invest-ments were not really planned for “domestic production, increasing farmerprofits and for making food more affordable for the poor.” Farmland becamethe new source of returns for a failing finance industry, and ironically, thesedevelopments were particularly pronounced in Africa, the formerly failingagricultural economy. It was noted that water resources in Africa were notscarce; they were simply under-developed. The argument was that there wasenough water to be mined to support an effective expansion and develop-ment of the agricultural sector in Africa. This was presented as a win–winscenario—on the one hand, addressing the global food crisis, and on the other,presenting a passport out of poverty for Africa.

To the contrary, Joan Mencher argues that in the corporatization of agricul-ture “farmers [we]re reduced to little more than tenants serving corporate

and banking interests.” Likewise, Michel Pimbert uses Ivan Illich’s phrase,“radical monopoly” to describe the consequences of “the global restructuringof agri-food systems . . . as a few transnational corporations gain monopolycontrol over different links in the food chain,” and how this results in “theloss of capacity for autonomy and self-determination” in an activity so centralto the lives and livelihoods of the poor across the world. The contempo-rary “large-scale land acquisitions by foreign investors has indeed put landrights issues and responsible agricultural investment visibly back on the globaldevelopment agenda,” as expressed by Liversage. Researchers like Annelies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

GENDER CHANGE IN THE GLOBALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE? 169

Zoomers, however, caution against ahistorical, apolitical perspectives on thesedevelopments. As discussed earlier, Amanor argues, these processes only fur-thered a historical, long prevalent “complex and gradual process of ruin ofsmallholders farms and dispossession” in the West African region as well aselsewhere in the global South, where “notable problems of social differentia-tion, land loss, insecurity in livelihoods, and expropriation within the agrariansector” have long existed.

In any case, whichever way one looks at these agrarian transformations,at issues relating to the control of sovereignty of agriculture assets, resources,and activities—it is particularly relevant to apply a feminist lens of analysis.Differences by gender almost universally are manifest in women and menhaving unequal access to both tangible (such as money, livestock, land, etc.)as well as intangible (education, social networks, etc.) assets. Yet, regardlessof these differences, women and men are also inter-connected in relationsof production and reproduction. This results not only in shared concerns,threats, and risks, but different impacts and outcomes on different individualsas structural transformations in agriculture restructure gender roles, relations,and rights in diverse social, political, and economic settings. Structural trans-formations in the agrarian sector are thus creating, “new classes of labourersand farmers . . . and it is not always clear where women stand in respect tothese,” according to Amanor. In other words, there is little evidence of hownew employment opportunities intersect with primary domestic responsibili-ties that women continue to hold and if the enhancement of employment forwomen is indeed empowering for women—in other words, how contempo-rary transformations in the agrarian sector restructure gendered relations ofproduction and reproduction.

The above questions are particularly relevant to ask, given the increas-ing trend in finding ways to integrate women into the globalization of foodand agri-business rather than questioning the structural politics of these pro-cesses. In KIT, Agri-ProFocus, and IIRR’s (2012) synthesis document, thereis reference to the sort of questions being asked—in this case, by Northerninternational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as regards: “How tomake value chains analysis gender sensitive? How to approach [and integrate]women as producers, farmers and traders?” The report points out that “valuechains and gender are not strange bedfellows,” and just because the presentagri-value chains are excluding does not mean they cannot be made “inclu-sive[ly] upgrading,” such as enabling the inclusion and “empowerment ofmarginalized chain actors—the poor, women and certain ethnic groups.” Sim-ilarly, the World Development Report (2012) notes that, “in some countriesand sectors [where an enabling, inclusive structure prevails] a greater tradeopenness is . . . translated into more jobs and stronger connections to mar-kets for many women, increasing their access to economic opportunities . . .[resulting] in a shift toward more egalitarian gender roles and norms.” And

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

170 DEEPA JOSHI

for those women left behind because of prevalent, local constraints, “publicaction [can be] aimed at closing existing gender gaps in endowments, agency,and access to economic opportunities . . . [so as to enable women to] fullycapitalize on the potential of globalization as a force for development andgreater gender equality.”

An easy equation of wage employment with entrepreneurship, individualagency in relation to globalized agrarian change is an old and popular

way of promoting constructs of modernity, change, and empowerment. Such“atypical” imaging of the working women is precisely the reason why CarolynSachs argues for more nuanced, politically critical, feminist analysis of thecurrent prospects and promises of a paid employment and empowerment forwomen across classes and regions. According to Sachs, quantitative measuresof wage employment not only blur “overlapping and conflicting dynamics ofrace, gender, class, sexuality, nation, and other inequalities”; they also un-wittingly trap women from questioning “injustices along all axis and scales.”Injustices in this case relate to personal, local experiences of food sovereigntyand security in processes of capitalization and corporatization of agriculture.

It is useful here to look back at the history behind equating women’sroles in agricultural production with economic development and empower-ment. In 1970, Ester Boserup, an economist, published what is noted as aseminal text in gender literature, Woman’s Role in Economic Development.Boserup’s research validated that women contributed to productive agricul-ture, and that these contributions were crucial to production and economicdevelopment. Her insights were quickly acknowledged in the developmentsector—leading to popular women-centric approaches such as Women in De-velopment (WID) and Women, Environment and Development (WED). It wasargued that women’s integration into development, into systems and structuresof production, as well as into economic development, would provide womenan equal position with men.

Feminist theorists disagree. Far from enabling equity, thisvalidation—that women should, can, and do “production” is critiqued as anoutcome of seeing women as an attractive, available, willing, and voluntarylabor force for development interventions that were increasingly emphasisingstructural adjustment prescriptions. Also, while women, by taking on repro-ductive or domestic responsibilities, had so far freed men to become rationaleconomic actors, it was not quite clear how women could also become rationalproducers, given that gender roles and responsibilities at the household levelwere [and still largely continue to be] unequal. Further, this assumption didnot require any change or transformation in deeply patriarchal and unequalrelationships. As B. Rogers argued, issues of control were ignored—womenwere invited to join the labor force, while men continued to hold control andownership of key assets, in particular land and credit. The very same argument

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

GENDER CHANGE IN THE GLOBALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE? 171

can be applied politically in the context of the transnational food business.While control is vested in a few, it is assumed that integrating into the systemwill result in inclusion in the spread of benefits.

I n the sections below, briefly outlined are some examples of how the foodchain governance by transnational food corporations is gendered, as well as

how they impact different groups of women and men differently in differentsociopolitical contexts, and therefore how it makes little sense to equatethese processes of poorly paid employment opportunities for women to theirempowerment.

Rachel Kerr et al.’s analysis of the impact of structural adjustment poli-cies in Malawi in the late 1990s presents a powerful insight into how issues offood insecurity are deeply gendered, but are prone to being latent. The removalof subsidies on fertilizers, the decline of credit availability, and the withdrawalof extension support resulted in dropping food yields and widespread hungeramong Malawian smallholder farmers. These issues were prominently vis-ible. Less visible was what was happening inside the households in thesesituations: on the one hand, there was an increased alcoholism amongst de-spairing men leading to a spiral of physical violence against women; onthe other, the aftermath of a food crisis resulted in school drop-outs, child-malnutrition, disease, and ill-health of the young and old—all increasing theirtoll on women. There is much discussion of the links between globalization,food insecurity, violence, and conflict. In that context, it is worth noting thatfar too often, the gendered dimensions of conflict are latent and unobserved.The reason: it is often extremely difficult to have an “honest dialogue” onthe gender dimensions of conflicts in highly contextual, “culture-laden . . .power asymmetrical gender constructions and relationships.”

In a multicountry study, Young Clara Mi Park et al. discuss how therecent liberalization and corporatization of agriculture has resulted in strug-gles, challenges, risks, and opportunities for the poor and marginalized amongwomen. In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Tanzania, the corpora-tization of agriculture resulted mostly in “greater benefits of cash income thanimprovements in the household food situation.” And in most cases, problemsarising from a lack of household food security tend to affect women more thanmen, because of unequally structured care responsibilities at home. Further,across different locations, although more women than men were engaged innew opportunities available through corporate farming, women did not gainsignificantly from the income benefits of corporate farming, because the termsand conditions of employment differed according to gender. “With the excep-tion of one case in Tanzania, overall women who are engaged in wage worktend to be in non-permanent, worst-paid jobs that are segregated by sex, taskand crop.” Further, women involved in corporate agri-businesses still carriedthe burden of domestic work and often there was an enormous increase in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

172 DEEPA JOSHI

their overall workload. Similarly, Naila Kabeer notes that in the case of the1980s neo-liberal agrarian reform in Viet Nam—to “move people away fromthe rice fields but not the countrysides” by introducing a market-based ruraleconomy, “women were able to achieve positive economic and well-beingachievements only through extremely long hours of work and very little restor leisure compared to men.”

Unraveling some of the contradictions inherent in the political agenda “tomove African agriculture more towards productivity growth via commer-

cialization and privatization, and promote the growth of agricultural markets,employment and food security via agro-based industrialization” shows whyit is important to look at how such structural transformations interrelate withgender rights and inclusive growth. In the case of Africa, the ComprehensiveAfrican Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP, 2003) did not ade-quately explain what the impact of such changes might be on the marginalized,including the landless as well as women, who in many parts of rural Africaform the backbone of smallholder, subsistence farming, and trading systems.Similarly, in Indonesia, Park et al. writes of how “in one single bureaucraticstroke” the corporatization of land resulted in the loss of both traditional,customary rights to land as well as to production for ethnic minority womenin one location.

Finally, we come to the question of which women gain or lose, why,and how. Applying a feminist commodity chain analysis to study the pro-duction of grapes for a global market in India, Larrington-Spencer’s researchshows complex contradictions and perplexities: processes of accumulation bydispossession for some; increased labor burdens and lower wages for somewomen in general alongside occasional improvements in living conditions;and agency for some poor women and men along the value chains. Similarly,Park et al. note how the impacts of a transition from a food-based to a cash-based economy are experienced differently by women in an Indonesian site,where farm land was converted to oil-palm plantations; many women who losttheir paddy fields and their rubber trees were compensated [in cash] almostthree years later at rates and terms decided unilaterally by the corporation.These women say: “We produced our own [food] in the past . . . now wemust purchase . . . as lands have all been condemned. None can be plantedanymore. Like it or not, it’s only money that talks now.” On the other hand,some, like the wife of a man recruited in the plantation as a public relationsofficer claimed the positive changes of the cash-economy, “[i]n the past, if wewanted to buy fish or other types of meat or, we had travel far. . . . Now thesethings come by themselves [to the village], . . . really, people deliver them.”

Since gender inequalities are complex, consisting of structural inequal-ities between women and men in general and contextual inequalities thatfragment women as well as men—by class, race, ethnicity and other divides,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

GENDER CHANGE IN THE GLOBALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE? 173

the impact of agrarian transformations will depend on the varied starting po-sitions of different women and men—based on their different personal andcontextual situations. Nonetheless, there is adequate reason to be wary ofthe gender claims of global agrarian markets. Increases in wages and newopportunities for women in the agrarian sector might result in gains for somewomen; however, “just these changes will not on their own, make womeneither less poor or more equal or [em]powered.” In sum, the string of eventsunleashed by a growing globalization of food will require frameworks andperspectives that allow the capturing of various complexities: first, how agrar-ian transformations overlay with context-specific governance, economic, andenvironmental challenges; second, changes in production reshape traditional,old inequalities of unequal access to agricultural assets, services and infras-tructure, markets and credit as well as new relationships of tenure, labor, andconsumption; and third, how divides by class, caste, ethnicity, religion, andgender that permeate any region’s economy, culture, and context resurface asdifferential agency and opportunities in transitioning agrarian systems.

RECOMMENDED READINGS

Suggested conference papers from Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue International Con-ference, September 14–15, 2013, Yale University.

Akanji, Bola O. 2013. “Structural Transformation and Gender Rights in African Agriculture:What Pathways to Food Sovereignty and Sustainable Food Security?”

Kerr, Rachel Bezner, Esther Lupafya, and Lizzie Shumba. 2013. “Food Sovereignty, Genderand Nutrition: Perspectives from Malawi.”

Mencher, Joan P. 2013. “Food Sovereignty: How It Turns The Growing Corporate GlobalFood System Upside Down.”

Park, Young Clara Mi and Ben and Julia White. 2013. “We Are Not All the Same: TakingGender Seriously in Food Sovereignty Discourse.”

Sachs, Carolyn. 2013. “Feminist Food Sovereignty: Crafting a New Vision.”Schutter, de Olivier. 2013. “The Agrarian Transition and The ‘Feminization’ Of Agriculture.”

OTHER SOURCES

Amanor, Kojo Sebastian. 2011. “Global Landgrabs, Agribusiness and the Commercial Small-holder: A West African Perspective.” Paper presented at the International Conference onGlobal Land Grabbing. April 6–8, 2011.

Boserup, Ester. 1970. Woman’s Role in Economic Development. London: George Allen &Unwin.

Cornwall, Andrea, E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead (eds.), Feminisms in Development. London:Zed Books, 201–213.

FAO. 2011. The State of Food Insecurity in the World: How Does International Price VolatilityAffect Domestic Economies and Food Security? Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations. Rome.

Joshi, Deepa. 2005. “Misunderstanding Gender in Water—Addressing or Reproducing Exclu-sion?” in Tina Wallace and Anne Coles (eds.), Gender, Water and Development. Oxford:Berg Publishers. 240.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5

174 DEEPA JOSHI

Kabeer, Naila and Tran Thi Van Anh. 2000. Leaving the Rice Fields, But Not the Countryside:Gender, Livelihood Diversification and Pro-Poor Growth in Rural Viet Nam. OccasionalPaper 13. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. 52.

KIT, Agri-ProFocus, and IIRR. 2012. “Challenging Chains to Change: Gender Equity in Agri-cultural Value Chain Development.” KIT Publishers, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.

La Via Campesina. 2012. International Conference of Peasants and Farmers: Stop Land Grab-bing! Report and Conclusions of the Conference, Mali, 17–19, 2011.

Lahiri-Dutt, Kuntala. 2014. Experiencing and Coping with Change: Women-Headed House-holds in the Eastern Gangetic Plains. ACIAR Technical Reports No. 83. Canberra: AustralianCentre for International Agricultural Research. 67.

Liversage, Harold. 2010. Responding to “Land Grabbing” and Promoting Responsible Invest-ment in Agriculture. IFAD Occasional Paper 2:14.

Mies, Maria. 1999. Patriarchy and Accumulation On a World Scale: Women in the InternationalDivision of Labour. London: Zed Books.

Pearson, Ruth. 2007. “Reassessing Paid Work And Women’s Empowerment: Lessons From theGlobal Economy,” in Andrea Cornwall, E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead A (eds.), Feminismsin Development. London: Zed Books. 201–213.

Pimbert, Michel. 2009. Towards Food Sovereignty. Gatekeeper Series 141. London: IIED.Razavi, Shahra. 2009. “Engendering The Political Economy of Agrarian Change.” Journal of

Peasant Studies 36(1): 197–226.Rocheleau, Dianne E. 2008. “Political Ecology in the Key of Policy: From Chains Of Expla-

nation to Webs of Relation.” Geoforum 39: 716–727.Rogers, B., 1980. The Domestication of Women. London: Tavistock.World Development Report. 2012. Gender Equality and Development. Globalization’s Impact

on Gender Equality: What’s Happened and What’s Needed. World Bank.Zoomers, Annelies. 2010. “Globalization and the Foreignization of Space: Seven Processes

Driving the Current Global Land Grab.” Journal of Peasant Studies 37(2): 429–447.

Deepa Joshi’s experience and interests include water governance and water policy, especially in relationto the spatial and temporal dynamics of justice, gender, and equity. Joshi is passionately interested in theways in which public and private domains/spaces are gendered and the manner in which gender theoriesare [re]interpreted in the translation to gender during agenda and mandate development in differentinstitutional, disciplinary, and cultural contexts. Joshi teaches feminist perspectives on development andparticipates in ongoing capacity-building projects in engendering higher technical education institutionsin Bangladesh, Vietnam, and South Africa. E-mail: deepa.joshi@wur.nl

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

122.

180.

196.

189]

at 1

1:18

25

June

201

5