Cited by 307Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentPolitical Economy and MarxismAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues

‘Changing Before Our Very Eyes’: Agrarian Questions and the Politics of Land in Capitalism Today

Bernstein, Henry·2004·Journal of Agrarian Change

Abstract

This paper endorses the criticisms of neo‐classical populism and its advocacy of redistributive land reform provided by other contributions to this special issue of the Journal, to which it adds several further points. If GKI propose a version of an agrarian question of ‘small’ or ‘family’ farming, and its resolution through a familiar (Chayanovian) path of development, much of the critique rests, in one way or another, on the ‘classic’ agrarian question in capitalist transition, in effect the agrarian question of capital in which the agrarian question of labour was once subsumed. Here the question is posed whether, in the conditions of contemporary ‘globalization’ and its tendency to the ‘fragmentation’ of labour, there might be a new agrarian question of labour, now detached from that of capital, and which generates a new politics of struggles over land (and its distribution). Even to conceive of this question is beyond the analytical and political field of vision of neo‐classical populism. Some of the dimensions of an agrarian question of labour are illustrated in a brief consideration of recent, and highly contradictory, events in Zimbabwe: a unique case of comprehensive, regime‐sanctioned, confiscatory land redistribution in the world today.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2004.00078.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Those 'hanging in' or 'dropping out' include a wider group of 'footloose labour', linked to a 'semi-peasantry' unable to socially reproduce.

    “Those 'hanging in' or 'dropping out', by contrast, include a wider group of 'footloose labour', linked to a 'semi-peasantry' unable to socially reproduce (Cousins et al., 1992;Bernstein, 2004).”

    From Livelihood Change in Rural Zimbabwe over 20 Years (2012) · cites this paper as Bernstein, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bernstein, H.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Bernstein, Henry
Venue
Journal of Agrarian Change
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-12-19
Volume
4
Issue
1-2
Pages
190-225
ISSN
  • 1471-0358 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0366
OpenAlex
W1965828070
Cited by
307
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 15
FWCI
20.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Agrarian Change (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Economy and Marxism
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › African studies and sociopolitical issues
Keywords
agrarian question, land politics, Chayanov, globalization, land redistribution, family farming

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