Cited by 1,181Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentLand Rights and ReformsPolitical Economy and Marxism

New frontiers of land control: Introduction

Open access
Peluso, Nancy Lee, Lund, Christian·2011·Journal of Peasant Studies

Abstract

Land questions have invigorated agrarian studies and economic history, with particular emphases on its control, since Marx. Words such as ‘exclusion’, ‘alienation’, ‘expropriation’, ‘dispossession’, and ‘violence’ describe processes that animate land histories and those of resources, property rights, and territories created, extracted, produced, or protected on land. Primitive and on-going forms of accumulation, frontiers, enclosures, territories, grabs, and racializations have all been associated with mechanisms for land control. Agrarian environments have been transformed by processes of de-agrarianization, protected area establishment, urbanization, migration, land reform, resettlement, and re-peasantization. Even the classic agrarian question of how agriculture is influenced by capitalism has been reformulated multiple times at transformative conjunctures in the historical trajectories of these processes, reviving and producing new debates around the importance of land control. The authors in this collection focus primarily on new frontiers of land control and their active creation. These frontiers are sites where authorities, sovereignties, rights, and hegemonies of the recent past have been challenged by new enclosures, property regimes, and territorializations, producing new ‘urban-agrarian-natured’ environments, comprised of new labor and production processes; new actors, subjects, and networks connecting them; and new legal and violent means of challenging previous land controls. Some cases augment analytic tools that had seemed to have timeless applicability with new frameworks, concepts, and theoretical tools. What difference does land control make? These contributions to the debates demonstrate that the answers have been shaped by conflicts, contexts, histories, and agency, as land has been struggled over for livelihoods, revenue production, and power.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03066150.2011.607692

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There has been a renewed emphasis on land grabbing and land control emerging alongside or intertwined with EDCs.

    “Emerging alongside, or even intertwined, with EDCs has been a renewed emphasis on land grabbing and land control (Peluso & Lund 2011; White et al. 2012).”

    From The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction (2024) · cites this paper as Peluso & Lund 2011

    The Introduction (page not provided) describes new frontiers in scholarship on land control and discusses contemporary land grabbing, supporting the claim of renewed emphasis on those topics. It does not establish that this emphasis emerged alongside or was intertwined with EDCs. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The paper provides evidence of exploitive production relations in the region, which may portend a new wave of contention brought on by what has been referred to in the literature as a land grab through informal contract farming.

    “We provide evidence of exploitive production relations in the region, which may portend a new wave of contention brought on by what has been referred to in the literature as a land grab through informal contract farming [31][32][33].”

    From Smallholders, Agrarian Reform, and Globalization in the Brazilian Amazon: Cattle versus the Environment (2016) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Introduction discusses what has been dubbed the “global land grab” and describes changing forms of land control. It does not identify informal contract farming as a form of land grabbing. The citing authors’ statement that they provide evidence from their region is their own claim, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 90

  1. Agnew, J. and S. Corbridge. 1995. Mastering space: hegemony, territory and international political economy. London: Routledge.
  2. Agrawal, A. 2005. Environmentality: technologies of government and the making of subjects. Durham: Duke University Press.
  3. Agrawal, A. and K. Sivaramakrishnan, eds. 2000. Agrarian environments: resources, representations, and rule in India. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
  4. Aschmann, H. 1988. Proprietary rights to fruit on trees growing on residential land. In: L.P. Fortmann and J.W. Bruce, eds. Whose trees? Proprietary dimensions of forestry. Boulder: Westview Press.
  5. Bachriadi, D. 2011. Between discourse and action: agrarian reform and rural social movements in Indonesia, post 1965. Dissertation (PhD.) Flinders, Australia: Flinders University.
  6. Benjamin, W. 2004 [1921]. Walter Benjamin: selected writings, Vol. 1, 1913-1926.
  7. Blomley, N. 2003. Law, property, and the geography of violence: the frontier, the survey, and the grid. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 121-41.
  8. Borras, S.M. 2007. Pro-poor land reform: a critique. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
  9. Borras, S.M, R. Hall, I. Scoones, B. White and W. Wolford. 2011. Towards a better understanding of land-grabbing. An editorial introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), 209-16.
  10. Borras, S.M, C. Kay and M. Edelman. 2008. Transnational agrarian movements confronting globalization. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
  11. Brenner, N., H. Lefebvre and S. Elden, eds. 2009. State, space, world: selected essays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  12. Brockington, D., ed. 2002. Fortress conservation: the preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve. African Issues series. J. Currey, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Bu¨scher, B. 2011. Nature on the move: the emergence and circulation of fictitious conservation and liquid nature. Paper presented at Nature, Inc. conference, June 30-July 2, Institute for Social Studies, The Hague, Netherlands.
  14. Byers, B. 1991. Ecoregions, state sovereignty and conflict. Bulletin of Peace Proposals: Sage Publications, 22(1), 65-76.
  15. Chayanov, A.V. 1986. The theory of peasant economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  16. Corson, C. 2011. Territorialization, enclosure and neoliberalism: non-state influence in struggles over Madagascar's forests. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 703-26.
  17. Cramer, C. and P. Richards. 2011. Violence and war in agrarian perspective. Journal of Agrarian Change, 11(3), 277-97.
  18. de Jong, W., D. Donovan, and K. Abe. 2007. Extreme conflict and tropical forests. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  19. Edelman, M. 2008. Transnational organizing in agrarian Central America: histories, challenges, prospects. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2&3), 229-57.
  20. Elson, R. E. 1984. Javanese peasants and the colonial sugar industry: impact and change in an East Java residency, 1830-1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Evans, P.B., D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol, eds. 1985. Bringing the state back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Feldman, A. 1991. Formations of violence: the narrative of the body and political terror in Northern Ireland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Glassman, J. 2006. Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession and accumulation by extra-economic means. Progress in Human Geography, 30(5), 608-25.
  24. Grajales, J. 2011. The rifle and the title: paramilitary violence and land control in Colombia. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 771-92.
  25. Gramsci, A. 1971. Prison Notebooks. J. Buttigieg and A. Callari, eds. New York: Columbia University Press.
  26. Hall, D. 2011. Land control, land grabs, and Southeast Asian crop booms. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 837-57.
  27. Hall, D., P. Hirsch and T. Li. 2011. Powers of exclusion. Singapore: National University of Singerpore Press.
  28. Hart, G. 2004. Geography and development: critical ethnographies. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 91-100.
  29. Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Heynen, N., J. McCarthy, S. Prudham, and P. Robbins. 2007. Neoliberal environments: false promises and unnatural consequences. Routledge.
  31. Igoe, J. and D. Brockington. 2007. Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction. Conservation and Society, 5(4), 432-49.
  32. Jong, W.D., L.T. Po and A.K. Ichi, eds. 2006. The social ecology of forests: migration, populations and frontiers. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press, Trans Pacific Press.
  33. Kay, C., S.M. Borras and E. Lahiff. 2011. Market-led agrarian reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
  34. Kelly, A.B. 2011. Conservation practice as primitive accumulation. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 683-701.
  35. Kosek, J. 2006. Understories: the political life of forests in northern New Mexico. Raleigh, NC: Duke University Press.
  36. Le Billon, P. 2001. The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts. Political Geography, 20(5), 561-84.
  37. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The production of space. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  38. Li, T. 1999. Compromising power: development, culture, and rule in Indonesia. Cultural Anthropology, 14(3), 295-323.
  39. Li, T. 2007. The will to improve: governmentality, development and the practice of politics. Raleigh, NC: Duke University Press.
  40. Li, T. 2008. Contested commodifications: struggles over nature in a National Park. In: J. Nevins and N. Peluso, eds. Taking Southeast Asia to market: commodities, nature, and people in the neoliberal age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  41. Lund, C. 2006. Twilight institutions. Public authority and local politics in Africa. Development and Change, 37(4), 685-705.
  42. Lund, C. 2008. Local politics and the dynamics of property in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Lund, C. 2011. Fragmented sovereignty: land reform and dispossession in Laos. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 885-905.
  44. Malhi, A. 2011. Making spaces, making subjects: land, enclosure and Islam in colonial Malaya. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 727-46.
  45. McAfee, K. 1999. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and the rise of green development planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17(2), 133-54.
  46. McMichael, P. 2008. Peasants make their own history, but not as they please . . . Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2&3), 205-28.
  47. Mintz, S. 1983. Sweetness and power: the place of sugar in modern history. New York: Penguin Books.
  48. Moore, D. 2005. Suffering for territory: race, place and power in Zimbabwe. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
  49. Moore, S. F. 1978. Law as process. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  50. Neumann, R. 2004. Nature, state, territory: toward a critical theorization of conservation enclosures. In: R. Peet and M. Watts, eds. Liberation ecologies, second edition. Oxford, New York: Blackwell.
  51. Nevins, J. and N.L. Peluso, eds. 2008. Taking Southeast Asia to market: commodities, people and nature in a neoliberal age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  52. Ong, A. 2000. Graduated sovereignty in Southeast Asia. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(4), 55-75.
  53. Osborne, T. 2011. Carbon forestry and agrarian change: access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 859-83.
  54. Peet, R., P. Robbins and M. Watts, eds. 2010. Global political ecology. London: Routledge.
  55. Peluso, N.L. 1992. Rich forests, poor people: Resource control and resistance in Java. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  56. Peluso, N.L. 2011. Emergent forest and private land regimes in Java. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 811-36.
  57. Peluso, N.L., S. Afiff and N.F. Rachman. 2008. Changing grounds for reform: agrarian and environmental movements in Indonesia. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2&3), 377- 407.
  58. Peluso, N.L. and P. Vandergeest. 2001. Genealogies of political forest and customary rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Journal of Asian Studies, 60(3), 761-812.
  59. Peluso, N.L. and P. Vandergeest. 2011. Political ecologies of war and forests: counter- insurgencies and the making of national natures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, May 2011.
  60. Peluso, N.L. and M. Watts. 2001. Violent environments. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  61. Perelman, M. 2000. The invention of capitalism: classical political economy and the secret history of accumulation. Durham, North Carolina: Duke Universtiy Press.
  62. Perelman, M. 2005. Manufacturing discontent: the trap of individualism in a corporate society. London: Pluto Press.
  63. Polanyi, K. 1944. The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press.
  64. Rachman, N.F. 2011. The resurgence of land reform policy and agrarian reform movements in Indonesia. Dissertation (PhD.) Berkeley, California: University of California.
  65. Reid, A. 1988. Southeast Asia in the age of commerce, 1450-1680 Vol. I The lands below the winds. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  66. Reid, A. 1993. Southeast Asia in the age of commerce 1450-1680 Vol. II Expansion and crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  67. Ribot, J. and N.L. Peluso. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153-81.
  68. Rigg, J. 1998. Rural-urban interactions, agriculture and wealth: a southeast Asian perspective. Progress in Human Geography, 22(4), 497-522.
  69. Rigg, J. 2003. Southeast Asia: the human landscape of modernization and development. London and New York: Routledge.
  70. Roberts, S. 2005. After government? On representing law without the state. The Modern Law Review, 68(1), 1-24.
  71. Robertson, M. 2010. Performing environmental governance. Geoforum, 41(1), 7-10.
  72. Rose, C. 1994. Property and persuasion -essays on the history, theory and rhetoric of ownership. Boulder: Westview Press.
  73. Sassen, S. 2000. Territory and territoriality in the global economy. International Sociology, 15(2), 372-93.
  74. Sikor, T. and C. Lund. 2009. Access and property: a question of power and authority. Development and Change, 40(1), 1-22.
  75. Sivaramakrishnan, K. 1999. Modern forests: statemaking and environmental change in colonial Eastern India. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  76. Sturgeon, J.C. 2005. Border landscapes: the politics of Akha land use in China and Thailand. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  77. Sturgeon, J. and T. Sikor. 2004. Postsocialist property in Asia and Europe -variations on 'fuzziness.' Conservation and Society, 2(1), 1-17.
  78. Sundar, N. 2009. Framing the political imagination: custom, democracy, and citizenship. In: N. Sundar, ed. Legal grounds: natural resources, identity, and the law in Jharkhand. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
  79. Vandergeest, P. 2008. New concepts, new natures? Revisiting commodity production in Southern Thailand. In: J. Nevins and N.L. Peluso, eds. Taking Southeast Asia to market: commodities, people and nature in a neoliberal age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  80. Vandergeest, P. and N.L. Peluso. 1995. Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theory and society: renewal and critique in social theory, 24(3), 385-426.
  81. Vandergeest, P. and N.L. Peluso. 2006a. Empires of forestry in Southeast Asia. Part I. Environment and History, 12(1), 31-64.
  82. Vandergeest, P. and N.L. Peluso. 2006b. Empires of forestry in Southeast Asia. Part II. Environment and History, 12(4), 359-93.
  83. Verdery, K. and C. Humphrey. 2004. The obligations of ownership: restoring rights to land in postsocialist Transylvania. In: K. Verdery and C. Humphrey, eds. Property in question: value transformation in the global economy. Oxford, New York: Berg.
  84. Watts, M. 2004. Resource curse? Governmentality, oil and power in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Geopolitics, 9(1), 50-80.
  85. Watts, M. and D. Goodman. 1997. Agrarian questions: global appetite, local metabolism: nature, culture, and industry in fin-de-siecle agro food systems. In: M. Watts and D. Goodman, eds. Globalising food: agrarian questions and global restructuring. London: Routledge.
  86. Winichakul, T. 1994. Siam mapped. A history of the geo-body of a nation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  87. Wolf, E. 1982. Europe and the people without history. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  88. Woods, K. 2011. Ceasefire capitalism: military-private partnerships, resource concessions and military-state building in the Burma-China borderlands. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 747-70.
  89. Ybarra, M. 2011. Privatizing the Tzuultaq'a? Private property and spiritual reproduction in post-war Guatemala. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4) 793-810.
  90. Nancy Lee Peluso is Henry J. Vaux Distinguished Professor of Forest Policy and Professor of Society and Environment in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University of California, Berkeley. She teaches Political Ecology and other courses in critical environmental social sciences. She is co-director of the Berkeley Workshop in Environmental Politics and former director of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies. She is author or editor of over 50 articles and books, including Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, People and Nature in a Neoliberal Age (2008, co-edited with Joseph Nevins); Violent Environments (2001, co-edited with Michael Watts), Borneo in Transition: People, Forests, Conservation, and Development (second edition 2008, coedited with Christine Padoch), and Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java (1992; Indonesian translation 2006). Email: npeluso@berkeley.edu; website: http://ecnr.berkeley. edu/facPage/dispFP.php?I¼628 Christian Lund is Professor at Roskilde University and the Director of the Graduate School of International Development Studies. His works include Local Politics and the Dynamics of Property in Africa (Cambridge University Press, 2008); Politics of Possession (co-editor, Blackwell, 2009);

Authors
Peluso, N. L., & Lund, C.
Venue
Journal of Peasant Studies
Published
2011-10
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
667-681
ISSN
  • 0306-6150 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9361
OpenAlex
W2097881842
Cited by
1,181
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 96 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 22
FWCI
119.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Peasant Studies (publishedVersion)
  • RUCforsk (Roskilde University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Economy and Marxism
Keywords
land control, enclosure, dispossession, property rights, territorialization, agrarian question, urbanization, land reform, protected areas, land grabbing, racialization, land struggle

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review