Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean
Abstract
Land grabbing has gained momentum in Latin America and the Caribbean during the past decade. The phenomenon has taken different forms and character as compared to processes that occur in other regions of the world, especially Africa. It puts into question some of the assumptions in the emerging literature on land grabbing, suggesting these are too food-centered/too food crisis-centered, too land-centred, too centred on new global food regime players – China, South Korea, Gulf States and India – and too centred on Africa. There are four key mechanisms through which land grabbing in Latin American and the Caribbean has been carried out: food security initiatives, energy/fuel security ventures, other climate change mitigation strategies, and recent demands for resources from newer hubs of global capital. The hallmark of land grabbing in the region is its intra-regional character: the key investors are (Trans-)Latin American companies, often in alliance with international capital and the central state. Initial evidence suggests that recent land investments have consolidated the earlier trend away from (re)distributive land policies in most countries in the region, and are likely to result in widespread reconcentration of land and capital.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
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 [31]
Cites
Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change
Bernstein, H. (2010) · doi:10.1515/9781565494077 · Cited by 1,130 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cáceres, D. M. (2015) · Journal of Agrarian Change · doi:10.1111/joac.12057 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Pereira, R., Simmons, C., & Walker, R. (2016) · Land · doi:10.3390/land5030024 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Borras, S. M., Franco, J. C., Gómez, S., Kay, C., & Spoor, M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Peasant Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-05-28
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 845-872
- ISSN
- 0306-6150 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-9361
- OpenAlex
- W1985821611
- Cited by
- 643
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 137.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Peasant Studies (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (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
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Latin American rural development
- Keywords
- land grabbing, Latin America, Caribbean, food security, energy security, climate change mitigation, foreign direct investment, land consolidation, land policy, transnational capital
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