Gender Change in the Globalization of Agriculture

This article was downloaded by: [122.180.196.189]
On: 25 June 2015, At: 11:18
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Peace Review: A Journal of Social
Justice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cper20
Gender Change in the Globalization of
Agriculture?
Deepa Joshi
Accepted author version posted online: 29 Apr 2015.
To cite this article: Deepa Joshi (2015) Gender Change in the Globalization of Agriculture?, Peace
Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 27:2, 165-174, DOI: 10.1080/10402659.2015.1037620
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2015.1037620
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloadedby[122.180.196.189]at11:1825June2015

Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 27:165–174
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online
DOI: 10.1080/10402659.2015.1037620
Gender Change in the Globalization
of Agriculture?
DEEPA JOSHI
Almost two decades ago, feminist researcher Maria Mies asked, “What would
an economy look like in which nature mattered, in which women mat-
tered, in which children mattered, in which people mattered, [an economy]
which would not be based on colonizing and exploiting others?” These are
precisely the issues of concern today. Contemporary globalization
relocates high value agricultural production to the Southern hemisphere for
Northern markets and high-income consumers in general. A post-colonial
globalization of agri-food and trade through corporatization of land is critiqued
by many for undermining food security, for irreversibly altering ecological
landscapes, and for marginalizing the poorest, including women, through traps
of coercive wage labor opportunities that are grossly inequitable as well as
limiting voice, dignity, and food sovereignty. Given the tenacious links drawn
between the political, social, and economic dimensions of food insecurity
and conﬂict, it appears that there is indeed a contemporary nexus between
gender, environment, and conﬂict, it is manifested in and aggravated by the
globalization of the agri-food system.
There are, however, others who credit globalization; for enabling eco-
nomic integration, technological diffusion, and universal access to
information—in sum, holding potential for narrowing traditional, contextual
agrarian inequalities, including by gender. The question then is, how should
one view these structural agrarian transformations and the restructuring of
complex interrelations between ecologies, economies, and societies in dif-
ferent social, political, and economic contexts? This essay discusses why a
feminist political ecology framework is particularly useful in allowing a nu-
anced analysis of the complex intersections of knowledge, power, and practice
in nature–society struggles. First, the framework allows an unpacking of as-
sumptions on what makes for the “local,” the “community,” “households,”
and the “poor.” Further, by allowing a mapping of change processes across
scale, across the agricultural value chain—it prevents, according to Lahiri-
Dutt, “compartmentalizing women and their agricultural needs, aspirations
165

166 DEEPA JOSHI
[and challenges] as small in size and subsistence in nature.” Second, by show-
ing how inequalities by gender intersect with other disparities, such as race,
ethnicity, class, religion, caste, age, and so on, the framework enables un-
derstanding how contemporary transformations around agriculture result in
diverse challenges and opportunities for different groups of women and men
across scale and space. In other words, it allows seeing that what happens on
the ground is far from simple binaries of “women” losing or winning.
Globalization is credited by some for its potential in narrowing contex-
tual agrarian inequalities, particularly by gender. The World Bank’s World
Development Report (2012) notes that “forces such as trade openness . . .
spread of cheaper communication and technologies have the potential of . . .
connecting women to markets and economic opportunities . . . reshaping atti-
tudes and norms about gender relations, and encouraging countries to promote
gender equality.” The fact that these processes of change happen at a time of
a “feminization of agriculture” is seen to have multiplier gains for women.
Prior to the contemporary globalization of agriculture, across the developing
South—various factors had been inducing the male agrarian work force to
move away from agriculture towards alternative, economically more promis-
ing opportunities. As Olivier de Schutter notes, these include reduced returns
from self-owned, subsistence agriculture and/or uncompetitive opportunities,
and returns resulting from increasing trends of mechanization, urbanization,
and industrialization. The recent appropriation and corporatization of agri-
cultural practices further male withdrawal from agriculture by reiterating and
critically cementing a structural inequality in small-holder agriculture that has
persisted for centuries.
One might question what women will gain from being left behind to
manage and/or engage in a sector that is no longer attractive to men.
What opportunities are on offer for women in the global food supply and
value chain and are they universally accessible and empowering to women? An
elemental ﬂaw in these claims is that they ignore the fact that “women are not
all the same.” Others go further to argue, however, that even though different,
women and men are likely to be differently impacted by a globalization of the
agricultural sector, “the terms of inclusion (as paid workers), the barriers to
inclusion (of the self-employed) in global production systems; and the forms
of exclusion from domestic production systems associated with increased
imports and other dimensions of trade liberalization” reiterate rather than
reverse traditional gender inequalities. Ruth Pearson explains why this is so:
the relations drawn between new, “paid work and women’s empowerment”
are mostly “unexamined.” In reality, women remain “cheap workers” and the
burden of poorly paid [productive] work and unpaid [domestic] work combine
to ensure that, “[b]eing exploited by capital is the fate of virtually the fate of
all women in today’s global economy.”

GENDER CHANGE IN THE GLOBALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE? 167
A feminist political ecology framework is particularly useful in ana-
lyzing how the current globalization and corporatization of agriculture pro-
duction and trade intersects with complex, historically contextual, complex
interrelations between “people” and “nature.” Kojo Sebastian Amanor elo-
quently sums up this framework of analysis by pointing out that the popular
discourse against recent attempts by new actors to take control of the world
food system, “assumes that prior to the emergence of global landgrabs, there
were no notable problems of social differentiation, land loss, insecurity in
livelihoods, and expropriation within the agrarian sector.” Feminist theorists
have long questioned the terms and conditions of production, whether it be
subsistence production or capitalist productive labor. In 1999, Maria Mies
powerfully argued “[i]t is my thesis that this general production of life, or
subsistence production—mainly performed through the nonwage labor of
women and other nonwage labourers as slaves, contract workers and peas-
ants in the colonies—constitutes the perennial basis upon which ‘capitalist
productive labour’ can be built up and exploited.”
It is relatively easy, however, to miss seeing the gendered impacts of
the agrarian transition primarily because relations of production and social-
ization tend to aggregate communities, households, people, the poor as well
as notions of food security, and sovereignty. This happens because what hap-
pens within the private domains of the household between individuals and
inside communities is often overlooked. Further, complex knowledge-power-
practice intersections that reiterate relationships of inequality across scale are
particularly difﬁcult to trace and connect. On that note, far too little is known
about the gendered dimensions of inequalities and injustices in institutional
spaces beyond the community and households—in the arenas of the politics
and policies of globalizing agrarian practices.
But ﬁrst, it is important to understand why there is such widespread cri-
tique of the transnational agribusinesses—even as some promote the
recent expansion of investment in large-scale agriculture as opening up new
opportunities for smallholders. Taking the case of West Africa, Amanor points
out the manner in which “the African states are . . . creating suitable infras-
tructures, institutional reforms and quality control standards as a precondition
for investment by transnational agribusiness.” These processes are seen to
result in radical changes in the use and ownership of land and are seen to be of
a seriously threatening nature and scale of an “imperialism of diverse sorts.”
According to a 2012 report by La Via Campesina, between 2008 and
2009, more than 60 countries were targeted by investment groups and a
dozen or so governments; and on a conservative estimate around 56 million
hectares of land were leased or sold. According to Harold Liversage, the
“15 to 20 million hectares” of land acquired by foreign investors “in Africa,
Latin America and parts of Asia—belonged de facto, to rural communities

168 DEEPA JOSHI
under a range of diverse tenure systems.” And, while a shortfall of sufficient
finances (estimated between 14 billion USD to 30 billion USD per annum)
had long plagued effective, efficient production, in a short period of time
between 2007–8, around “US$15-50 billion was invested in agriculture [and
the] amount is estimated to triple in the near term,” according to La Via
Campesina. What were the reasons for this dramatic turnover in corporate
interests in agriculture?
A dramatic spike, especially in the price of cereals in 2007 and 2008,
was to a large extent impacted by the then economic crisis. This combination
of events was compounded by other short-, as well as long-term, factors such
as climate-induced fluctuations in precipitation and rise in temperature and a
declining agrarian productivity due to decades of reduced investments in, and
inattention to, the agriculture sector. According to the 2011 report by the UN’s
Food and Agriculture Organization, the conjoined food and economic crisis
“deeply affected small import-dependent countries, especially in Africa,” call-
ing international attention to and need for “safety nets . . . alleviating food
insecurity in the short term, as well as for providing a foundation for long-term
development.” Ironically, however, the food and the economic crisis served
to reposition farming as the new economic frontier, providing new opportuni-
ties for an otherwise obsolete finance industry. The international development
plea for private investment in agriculture happened; however, these invest-
ments were not really planned for “domestic production, increasing farmer
profits and for making food more affordable for the poor.” Farmland became
the new source of returns for a failing finance industry, and ironically, these
developments were particularly pronounced in Africa, the formerly failing
agricultural economy. It was noted that water resources in Africa were not
scarce; they were simply under-developed. The argument was that there was
enough water to be mined to support an effective expansion and develop-
ment of the agricultural sector in Africa. This was presented as a win–win
scenario—on the one hand, addressing the global food crisis, and on the other,
presenting a passport out of poverty for Africa.
To the contrary, Joan Mencher argues that in the corporatization of agricul-
ture “farmers [we]re reduced to little more than tenants serving corporate
and banking interests.” Likewise, Michel Pimbert uses Ivan Illich’s phrase,
“radical monopoly” to describe the consequences of “the global restructuring
of agri-food systems . . . as a few transnational corporations gain monopoly
control over different links in the food chain,” and how this results in “the
loss of capacity for autonomy and self-determination” in an activity so central
to the lives and livelihoods of the poor across the world. The contempo-
rary “large-scale land acquisitions by foreign investors has indeed put land
rights issues and responsible agricultural investment visibly back on the global
development agenda,” as expressed by Liversage. Researchers like Annelies

Zoomers, however, caution against ahistorical, apolitical perspectives on these
developments. As discussed earlier, Amanor argues, these processes only fur-
thered a historical, long prevalent “complex and gradual process of ruin of
smallholders farms and dispossession” in the West African region as well as
elsewhere in the global South, where “notable problems of social differentia-
tion, land loss, insecurity in livelihoods, and expropriation within the agrarian
sector” have long existed.
In any case, whichever way one looks at these agrarian transformations,
at issues relating to the control of sovereignty of agriculture assets, resources,
and activities—it is particularly relevant to apply a feminist lens of analysis.
Differences by gender almost universally are manifest in women and men
having unequal access to both tangible (such as money, livestock, land, etc.)
as well as intangible (education, social networks, etc.) assets. Yet, regardless
of these differences, women and men are also inter-connected in relations
of production and reproduction. This results not only in shared concerns,
threats, and risks, but different impacts and outcomes on different individuals
as structural transformations in agriculture restructure gender roles, relations,
and rights in diverse social, political, and economic settings. Structural trans-
formations in the agrarian sector are thus creating, “new classes of labourers
and farmers . . . and it is not always clear where women stand in respect to
these,” according to Amanor. In other words, there is little evidence of how
new employment opportunities intersect with primary domestic responsibili-
ties that women continue to hold and if the enhancement of employment for
women is indeed empowering for women—in other words, how contempo-
rary transformations in the agrarian sector restructure gendered relations of
production and reproduction.
The above questions are particularly relevant to ask, given the increas-
ing trend in ﬁnding ways to integrate women into the globalization of food
and agri-business rather than questioning the structural politics of these pro-
cesses. In KIT, Agri-ProFocus, and IIRR’s (2012) synthesis document, there
is reference to the sort of questions being asked—in this case, by Northern
international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as regards: “How to
make value chains analysis gender sensitive? How to approach [and integrate]
women as producers, farmers and traders?” The report points out that “value
chains and gender are not strange bedfellows,” and just because the present
agri-value chains are excluding does not mean they cannot be made “inclu-
sive[ly] upgrading,” such as enabling the inclusion and “empowerment of
marginalized chain actors—the poor, women and certain ethnic groups.” Sim-
ilarly, the World Development Report (2012) notes that, “in some countries
and sectors [where an enabling, inclusive structure prevails] a greater trade
openness is . . . translated into more jobs and stronger connections to mar-
kets for many women, increasing their access to economic opportunities . . .
[resulting] in a shift toward more egalitarian gender roles and norms.” And

170 DEEPA JOSHI
for those women left behind because of prevalent, local constraints, “public
action [can be] aimed at closing existing gender gaps in endowments, agency,
and access to economic opportunities . . . [so as to enable women to] fully
capitalize on the potential of globalization as a force for development and
greater gender equality.”
An easy equation of wage employment with entrepreneurship, individual
agency in relation to globalized agrarian change is an old and popular
way of promoting constructs of modernity, change, and empowerment. Such
“atypical” imaging of the working women is precisely the reason why Carolyn
Sachs argues for more nuanced, politically critical, feminist analysis of the
current prospects and promises of a paid employment and empowerment for
women across classes and regions. According to Sachs, quantitative measures
of wage employment not only blur “overlapping and conﬂicting dynamics of
race, gender, class, sexuality, nation, and other inequalities”; they also un-
wittingly trap women from questioning “injustices along all axis and scales.”
Injustices in this case relate to personal, local experiences of food sovereignty
and security in processes of capitalization and corporatization of agriculture.
It is useful here to look back at the history behind equating women’s
roles in agricultural production with economic development and empower-
ment. In 1970, Ester Boserup, an economist, published what is noted as a
seminal text in gender literature, Woman’s Role in Economic Development.
Boserup’s research validated that women contributed to productive agricul-
ture, and that these contributions were crucial to production and economic
development. Her insights were quickly acknowledged in the development
sector—leading to popular women-centric approaches such as Women in De-
velopment (WID) and Women, Environment and Development (WED). It was
argued that women’s integration into development, into systems and structures
of production, as well as into economic development, would provide women
an equal position with men.
Feminist theorists disagree. Far from enabling equity, this
validation—that women should, can, and do “production” is critiqued as an
outcome of seeing women as an attractive, available, willing, and voluntary
labor force for development interventions that were increasingly emphasising
structural adjustment prescriptions. Also, while women, by taking on repro-
ductive or domestic responsibilities, had so far freed men to become rational
economic actors, it was not quite clear how women could also become rational
producers, given that gender roles and responsibilities at the household level
were [and still largely continue to be] unequal. Further, this assumption did
not require any change or transformation in deeply patriarchal and unequal
relationships. As B. Rogers argued, issues of control were ignored—women
were invited to join the labor force, while men continued to hold control and
ownership of key assets, in particular land and credit. The very same argument

can be applied politically in the context of the transnational food business.
While control is vested in a few, it is assumed that integrating into the system
will result in inclusion in the spread of benefits.
In the sections below, briefly outlined are some examples of how the food
chain governance by transnational food corporations is gendered, as well as
how they impact different groups of women and men differently in different
sociopolitical contexts, and therefore how it makes little sense to equate
these processes of poorly paid employment opportunities for women to their
empowerment.
Rachel Kerr et al.’s analysis of the impact of structural adjustment poli-
cies in Malawi in the late 1990s presents a powerful insight into how issues of
food insecurity are deeply gendered, but are prone to being latent. The removal
of subsidies on fertilizers, the decline of credit availability, and the withdrawal
of extension support resulted in dropping food yields and widespread hunger
among Malawian smallholder farmers. These issues were prominently vis-
ible. Less visible was what was happening inside the households in these
situations: on the one hand, there was an increased alcoholism amongst de-
spairing men leading to a spiral of physical violence against women; on
the other, the aftermath of a food crisis resulted in school drop-outs, child-
malnutrition, disease, and ill-health of the young and old—all increasing their
toll on women. There is much discussion of the links between globalization,
food insecurity, violence, and conflict. In that context, it is worth noting that
far too often, the gendered dimensions of conflict are latent and unobserved.
The reason: it is often extremely difficult to have an “honest dialogue” on
the gender dimensions of conflicts in highly contextual, “culture-laden . . .
power asymmetrical gender constructions and relationships.”
In a multicountry study, Young Clara Mi Park et al. discuss how the
recent liberalization and corporatization of agriculture has resulted in strug-
gles, challenges, risks, and opportunities for the poor and marginalized among
women. In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Tanzania, the corpora-
tization of agriculture resulted mostly in “greater benefits of cash income than
improvements in the household food situation.” And in most cases, problems
arising from a lack of household food security tend to affect women more than
men, because of unequally structured care responsibilities at home. Further,
across different locations, although more women than men were engaged in
new opportunities available through corporate farming, women did not gain
significantly from the income benefits of corporate farming, because the terms
and conditions of employment differed according to gender. “With the excep-
tion of one case in Tanzania, overall women who are engaged in wage work
tend to be in non-permanent, worst-paid jobs that are segregated by sex, task
and crop.” Further, women involved in corporate agri-businesses still carried
the burden of domestic work and often there was an enormous increase in

172 DEEPA JOSHI
their overall workload. Similarly, Naila Kabeer notes that in the case of the
1980s neo-liberal agrarian reform in Viet Nam—to “move people away from
the rice fields but not the countrysides” by introducing a market-based rural
economy, “women were able to achieve positive economic and well-being
achievements only through extremely long hours of work and very little rest
or leisure compared to men.”
Unraveling some of the contradictions inherent in the political agenda “to
move African agriculture more towards productivity growth via commer-
cialization and privatization, and promote the growth of agricultural markets,
employment and food security via agro-based industrialization” shows why
it is important to look at how such structural transformations interrelate with
gender rights and inclusive growth. In the case of Africa, the Comprehensive
African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP, 2003) did not ade-
quately explain what the impact of such changes might be on the marginalized,
including the landless as well as women, who in many parts of rural Africa
form the backbone of smallholder, subsistence farming, and trading systems.
Similarly, in Indonesia, Park et al. writes of how “in one single bureaucratic
stroke” the corporatization of land resulted in the loss of both traditional,
customary rights to land as well as to production for ethnic minority women
in one location.
Finally, we come to the question of which women gain or lose, why,
and how. Applying a feminist commodity chain analysis to study the pro-
duction of grapes for a global market in India, Larrington-Spencer’s research
shows complex contradictions and perplexities: processes of accumulation by
dispossession for some; increased labor burdens and lower wages for some
women in general alongside occasional improvements in living conditions;
and agency for some poor women and men along the value chains. Similarly,
Park et al. note how the impacts of a transition from a food-based to a cash-
based economy are experienced differently by women in an Indonesian site,
where farm land was converted to oil-palm plantations; many women who lost
their paddy fields and their rubber trees were compensated [in cash] almost
three years later at rates and terms decided unilaterally by the corporation.
These women say: “We produced our own [food] in the past . . . now we
must purchase . . . as lands have all been condemned. None can be planted
anymore. Like it or not, it’s only money that talks now.” On the other hand,
some, like the wife of a man recruited in the plantation as a public relations
officer claimed the positive changes of the cash-economy, “[i]n the past, if we
wanted to buy fish or other types of meat or, we had travel far. . . . Now these
things come by themselves [to the village], . . . really, people deliver them.”
Since gender inequalities are complex, consisting of structural inequal-
ities between women and men in general and contextual inequalities that
fragment women as well as men—by class, race, ethnicity and other divides,

the impact of agrarian transformations will depend on the varied starting po-
sitions of different women and men—based on their different personal and
contextual situations. Nonetheless, there is adequate reason to be wary of
the gender claims of global agrarian markets. Increases in wages and new
opportunities for women in the agrarian sector might result in gains for some
women; however, “just these changes will not on their own, make women
either less poor or more equal or [em]powered.” In sum, the string of events
unleashed by a growing globalization of food will require frameworks and
perspectives that allow the capturing of various complexities: ﬁrst, how agrar-
ian transformations overlay with context-speciﬁc governance, economic, and
environmental challenges; second, changes in production reshape traditional,
old inequalities of unequal access to agricultural assets, services and infras-
tructure, markets and credit as well as new relationships of tenure, labor, and
consumption; and third, how divides by class, caste, ethnicity, religion, and
gender that permeate any region’s economy, culture, and context resurface as
differential agency and opportunities in transitioning agrarian systems.
RECOMMENDED READINGS
Suggested conference papers from Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue International Con-
ference, September 14–15, 2013, Yale University.
Akanji, Bola O. 2013. “Structural Transformation and Gender Rights in African Agriculture:
What Pathways to Food Sovereignty and Sustainable Food Security?”
Kerr, Rachel Bezner, Esther Lupafya, and Lizzie Shumba. 2013. “Food Sovereignty, Gender
and Nutrition: Perspectives from Malawi.”
Mencher, Joan P. 2013. “Food Sovereignty: How It Turns The Growing Corporate Global
Food System Upside Down.”
Park, Young Clara Mi and Ben and Julia White. 2013. “We Are Not All the Same: Taking
Gender Seriously in Food Sovereignty Discourse.”
Sachs, Carolyn. 2013. “Feminist Food Sovereignty: Crafting a New Vision.”
Schutter, de Olivier. 2013. “The Agrarian Transition and The ‘Feminization’ Of Agriculture.”
OTHER SOURCES
Amanor, Kojo Sebastian. 2011. “Global Landgrabs, Agribusiness and the Commercial Small-
holder: A West African Perspective.” Paper presented at the International Conference on
Global Land Grabbing. April 6–8, 2011.
Boserup, Ester. 1970. Woman’s Role in Economic Development. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Cornwall, Andrea, E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead (eds.), Feminisms in Development. London:
Zed Books, 201–213.
FAO. 2011. The State of Food Insecurity in the World: How Does International Price Volatility
Affect Domestic Economies and Food Security? Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. Rome.
Joshi, Deepa. 2005. “Misunderstanding Gender in Water—Addressing or Reproducing Exclu-
sion?” in Tina Wallace and Anne Coles (eds.), Gender, Water and Development. Oxford:
Berg Publishers. 240.

174 DEEPA JOSHI
Kabeer, Naila and Tran Thi Van Anh. 2000. Leaving the Rice Fields, But Not the Countryside:
Gender, Livelihood Diversiﬁcation and Pro-Poor Growth in Rural Viet Nam. Occasional
Paper 13. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. 52.
KIT, Agri-ProFocus, and IIRR. 2012. “Challenging Chains to Change: Gender Equity in Agri-
cultural Value Chain Development.” KIT Publishers, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.
La Via Campesina. 2012. International Conference of Peasants and Farmers: Stop Land Grab-
bing! Report and Conclusions of the Conference, Mali, 17–19, 2011.
Lahiri-Dutt, Kuntala. 2014. Experiencing and Coping with Change: Women-Headed House-
holds in the Eastern Gangetic Plains. ACIAR Technical Reports No. 83. Canberra: Australian
Centre for International Agricultural Research. 67.
Liversage, Harold. 2010. Responding to “Land Grabbing” and Promoting Responsible Invest-
ment in Agriculture. IFAD Occasional Paper 2:14.
Mies, Maria. 1999. Patriarchy and Accumulation On a World Scale: Women in the International
Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.
Pearson, Ruth. 2007. “Reassessing Paid Work And Women’s Empowerment: Lessons From the
Global Economy,” in Andrea Cornwall, E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead A (eds.), Feminisms
in Development. London: Zed Books. 201–213.
Pimbert, Michel. 2009. Towards Food Sovereignty. Gatekeeper Series 141. London: IIED.
Razavi, Shahra. 2009. “Engendering The Political Economy of Agrarian Change.” Journal of
Peasant Studies 36(1): 197–226.
Rocheleau, Dianne E. 2008. “Political Ecology in the Key of Policy: From Chains Of Expla-
nation to Webs of Relation.” Geoforum 39: 716–727.
Rogers, B., 1980. The Domestication of Women. London: Tavistock.
World Development Report. 2012. Gender Equality and Development. Globalization’s Impact
on Gender Equality: What’s Happened and What’s Needed. World Bank.
Zoomers, Annelies. 2010. “Globalization and the Foreignization of Space: Seven Processes
Driving the Current Global Land Grab.” Journal of Peasant Studies 37(2): 429–447.
Deepa Joshi’s experience and interests include water governance and water policy, especially in relation
to the spatial and temporal dynamics of justice, gender, and equity. Joshi is passionately interested in the
ways in which public and private domains/spaces are gendered and the manner in which gender theories
are [re]interpreted in the translation to gender during agenda and mandate development in different
institutional, disciplinary, and cultural contexts. Joshi teaches feminist perspectives on development and
participates in ongoing capacity-building projects in engendering higher technical education institutions
in Bangladesh, Vietnam, and South Africa. E-mail: deepa.joshi@wur.nl

Gender Change in the Globalization of Agriculture

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à Gender Change in the Globalization of Agriculture

Similaire à Gender Change in the Globalization of Agriculture (20)

Gender Change in the Globalization of Agriculture