Comparing food security and food sovereignty discourses
Abstract
This essay conceptualizes food security and food sovereignty as fluid and changing discourses that define the problem of hunger. I trace the discursive geohistories of food security and food sovereignty in order to identify oppositions and relationalities between them. I argue that the interpretations of, and relations between, food security and food sovereignty vary by geography and scale, as well as by the conceptual and theoretical differences within the discourses themselves. When and where these discourses develop and emerge is central to understanding their oppositions and convergences. How scale is constructed within particular discourses is also important to understanding how they co-exist relationally or in opposition. Food security and food sovereignty discourses are tied to distinctive political and economic histories, ecologies, and identities at the national and local levels. They are differentially deployed depending upon geographic context and the political economy of development and underdevelopment. Both discourses are dynamic and changing in relation to the wider political and cultural economies of food system dynamics across scale. Uniform definitions of each term should be resisted. The point is to understand the geographies of their relational overlap and their continual difference.
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 food sovereignty movement challenged the globalized, neoliberal, industrial, capital-intensive, corporate-led model of agriculture that created destructive economic policies that marginalized small-scale farmers, removed them from their land, and forced them into the global market economy as wage laborers.
“The food sovereignty movement challenged the hegemony of the globalized, neoliberal, industrial, capital-intensive, corporate-led model of agriculture that created destructive economic policies that marginalized small-scale farmers, removed them from their land, and forced them into the global market economy as wage laborers.”
From “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States (2016) · cites this paper as [7]
La Via Campesina emphasized that the current regime continued to promote agricultural practices that benefited transnational corporations while undermining small-scale farmers.
“They also emphasized that the current regime continued to promote agricultural practices that benefitted transnational corporations while undermining small-scale farmers [2][3][4][5][6][7].”
From “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States (2016) · cites this paper as [7]
This neo-colonial process impoverished millions of peasants and Indigenous peoples by displacing them from the land, resulting in many being forced into wage labor to serve the global food economy.
“This neo-colonial process impoverished millions of peasants and Indigenous peoples by displacing them from the land, resulting in many of them being forced into wage labor to serve the global food economy [2][3][4][5][6][7].”
From “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States (2016) · cites this paper as [7]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Coté, C. (2016) · Humanities · doi:10.3390/h5030057 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jarosz, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jarosz, Lucy
- Venue
- Dialogues in Human Geography
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-06-25
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 168-181
- ISSN
- 2043-8206 (ISSN-L)
- 2043-8214
- OpenAlex
- W2315710002
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12
- FWCI
- 73.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Dialogues in Human Geography (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rural Development and Agriculture
- Keywords
- food security, food sovereignty, discourse, hunger, geohistory, scale, political economy of development, underdevelopment, food system dynamics
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
