Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements
Abstract
Agroecology is in fashion, and now constitutes a territory in dispute between social movements and institutionality. This new conjuncture offers a constellation of opportunities that social movements can avail themselves of to promote changes in the food system. Yet there is an enormous risk that agroecology will be co-opted, institutionalized, colonized and stripped of its political content. In this paper, we analyze this quandary in terms of political ecology: will agroecology end up as merely offering a few more tools for the toolbox of industrial agriculture, to fine tune an agribusiness system that is being restructured in the midst of a civilizational crisis or, alternatively, will it be strengthened as a politically mobilizing option for building alternatives to development? We interpret the contemporary dispute over agroecology through the lenses of contested material and immaterial territories, political ecology, and the first and second contradictions of 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?
Some powerful actors may adopt the discourse of agroecology while staying within the paradigm of industrial agriculture, monoculture and input dependence.
“Some powerful actors may adopt the discourse of agroecology while staying within the paradigm of industrial agriculture, monoculture and input dependence (Giraldo and Rosset 2018).”
From The agroecological transition in Senegal: transnational links and uneven empowerment (2022) · cites this paper as Giraldo and Rosset 2018
The institutionalization of agroecology bears the risk of co-optation, with actors from the political and economic elites taking transformative agendas as their own and treating them superficially.
“The institutionalization of agroecology bears the risk of co-optation (Giraldo and Rosset 2018), with actors from the political and economic elites taking transformative agendas as their own and treating them superficially (Campbell 2001).”
From The agroecological transition in Senegal: transnational links and uneven empowerment (2022) · cites this paper as Giraldo and Rosset 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 341
- Authors
- Giraldo, O. F., & Rosset, P. M.
- Affiliations
- El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (MX)
- Corresponding author
- Rosset, Peter M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Peasant Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-08-30
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 545-564
- ISSN
- 0306-6150 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-9361
- OpenAlex
- W2751339291
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 64.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Peasant Studies (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- CAPES Foreign Visiting Professor (23038.010102/2013-34)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Sciences and Humanities
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rural Development and Agriculture
- Keywords
- agroecology, social movements, institutionalization, co-optation, political ecology, food system transformation, alternatives to development, territoriality, civilizational crisis, industrial agriculture
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
