Large-scale land deals from the inside out: findings from Kenya's Tana Delta
Abstract
Although there is alarm over the global land rush, many plans for the large-scale transformation of land acquired by investors remain on the drawing board. Based on a study of two land deals in Kenya's Tana Delta, this paper considers the processes by which blueprint designs are amended or delayed through the involvement of local actors. It demonstrates that even top-down acquisition of land by powerful state-linked actors with the support of policy discourse can be stalled by the rural poor, particularly if the latter have strong customary claims and links to wider opposition. At the same time, large-scale land acquisition is not automatically opposed by local people, who may see land deals as an opportunity to safeguard access to resources and to support their development expectations. The paper also suggests that although consultation and the existence of recognised property rights appear to result in fairer project designs, land deals are likely to reflect the decision-making power of an elite that is not fully informed. The conclusion affirms the need for more nuanced, place-based analyses of large-scale land deals, taking into account tenure arrangements, resource access mechanisms, land management discourses and the role of cross-scale agency and alliances in building support for, or opposition to, such deals.
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 [33]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Creutzig, F., Corbera, E., Bolwig, S., & Hunsberger, C. (2013) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035047 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Self-citationPereira, R., Simmons, C., & Walker, R. (2016) · Land · doi:10.3390/land5030024 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Smalley, R., & Corbera, E.
- Corresponding author
- Smalley, Rebecca
- ORCID
- Corbera, Esteve
- Venue
- The Journal of Peasant Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-05-28
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 1039-1075
- ISSN
- 0306-6150 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-9361
- OpenAlex
- W2010407450
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 19.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Peasant Studies (publishedVersion)
- 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 › African studies and sociopolitical issues
- Keywords
- large-scale land deals, land rush, land acquisition, rural poor, customary land rights, land tenure, consultation, property rights, elite decision-making, access to resources, land management, development expectations
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