Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Yuezhou Yang
(London School of Economics)
Carolin Dieterle (University of Manchester)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Papers
- Stream:
- Global methodologies
- Sessions:
- Friday 2 July, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
How and why does research on land matter in times of major social, economic and political changes? This panel aims to 'unsettle' academic debates and extensive research on land-related issues by reflecting on, rethinking, and reimagining new agendas for land-related research, policy, and practice.
Long Abstract:
How and why does research on land governance and tenure matter in these times of major social change? For decades, researchers have demonstrated how land is central to issues of development, including agrarian change, constitutional and economic reform, politics, social justice, post-conflict reconstruction, adaptation to climate change, and, more recently, landscape restoration, land-based investments and the question of decolonizing development. This panel aims to 'unsettle' this extensive body of research by reflecting on, rethinking, and reimagining new agendas for land-related research, policy, and practice. We intentionally frame this objective broadly, to explicitly acknowledge the fundamentally cross-cutting nature of land vis-à-vis development.
We welcome papers across all disciplines and geographical areas which speak to this theme of 'unsettling' land debates. Papers may focus on key historical or political dimensions of land questions, grounded within pertinent literatures and debates. Particular emphasis will be given to papers engaging with the changing and evolving nature of political, institutional and legal contexts of land governance, and the emergence of new actors. We also welcome papers engaging with the land policy and practice space, particularly given the role of official development assistance spending in current research funding. We further encourage papers considering topics, novel data sources and methodological approaches so far largely unexplored in research on land. For instance, how does climate action impact on tenure rights and land policies in different countries? How might accelerating environmental change, biodiversity loss, and a global pandemic redefine tenure security in the longer-term, in both urban and rural contexts?
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 2 July, 2021, -Paper short abstract:
Why do global governance mechanisms for ‘responsible’ investments feature strongly in some but not other large-scale foreign investment cases in Sierra Leone? Post-war variations within the customary tenure system in Sierra Leone can help to explain the uneven use of international guidelines.
Paper long abstract:
Throughout the last decade, the international donor community has developed a plethora of regulatory initiatives for ‘responsible’ agricultural investments. It remains unclear how and where such guidelines are invoked in practice, by whom, and whether their use can prevent conflict and lead to ‘win-win’ situations, as promoted. This paper explores why international guidelines seem to feature strongly in some but not in other cases of large-scale investments in post-war Sierra Leone. Based on 6 months of fieldwork, I argue that the uneven use of global governance mechanisms by investors, civil society actors, and government representatives is related to variations within the customary land tenure regime in Sierra Leone. Most large-scale investments are located in the country’s provinces on land under customary tenure, where paramount chiefs still play an important role in controlling the access to land and other natural resources. I argue that in the post-conflict period (since 2002), the customary land tenure system in Sierra Leone has tended to evolve in two different directions: One form of customary tenure is characterised by the continuous powerful role of paramount chiefs controlling the access to land, while the other form is characterised by an emerging strong role of family-based authority over land. This de-facto distinction between two types of customary tenure systems can help to explain why some investment projects tend to conform more to international guidelines than others.
Paper short abstract:
This paper explores the unsettling land debates and development in Pakistan pertinent to Land Acquisition Act (1894) thereby reflecting on land governance and resettlement in policy and practice in context of Metro Line project in Lahore City which has led to the human displacement.
Paper long abstract:
In these times of major social, economic and political change, it is highly imperative to reflect on the unsettling development caused by the land issues. In Pakistan, unsettling development and land debates have considerably surged over the years, particularly in regard to the legislation of land acquisition , that is, Land Acquisition Act (1894), which is a relic of colonial times, when landowners were marginalized and their land was forcibly acquired for “public purposes” against their will. Although, decision making pertinent to land governance is still based on this statute, however, with the evolving and changing nature of political and institutional factors, there is a need for an alternate paradigm. Recently, the construction of 27 km Orange Line Metro Train track in the metropolitan city of Lahore has brought the issue of questionable land acquisition to the surface again. Against this backdrop, this paper employs a qualitative approach to explore the political and institutional dimensions of Land Acquisition Act (1894) via thematic analysis and strives to rethink agendas related to land policy and practice. For this purpose, a sample of 20 stakeholders comprising affectees, policy makers, regulators and ordinary citizens from different professions were selected and based on their in-depth interviews, major themes regarding land acquisition, compensation provision, forced evictions, resettlement and rehabilitation issues among others were emerged. These emerging themes have immense implication for all the stakeholders
Paper short abstract:
The paper takes Chinese land-based agricultural investments in Zambia as case study and explores patterns of Chinese investment in agriculture vary across time, subnational space, and forms in Zambia. It argues land governance and politics in Zambia has strongly influenced the investment decisions.
Paper long abstract:
This paper takes Chinese land-based agricultural investments in Zambia as case study and explores the answers to why patterns of Chinese investment in agriculture vary across time, subnational space, and forms in Zambia. Focusing on the timing and locations of Chinese land investment, the analysis shows that the motives of Chinese investors in themselves do not account for the full story of when or where they will invest. It is the structural conditions and institutional setup of land governance in Zambia that has strongly influenced the investment decisions. By analyzing the forms of investment, the chapter shows how the investment outcome varies along the line of political salient factors. When the regimes of land rights have unified state control, the investment outcome depends on the freedom of land market regulated by the state. The investment decision follows the market regulatory rules. Whereas in the situations that competing authorities are consolidating each side’s power grip, it opens a unique space for developmental projects on the one hand, and zombie project due to controversial power struggles between central and peripheral on the other hand. The analysis demonstrates, with variance in institutional and political character, different regimes have strong influence on foreign investors and their potential investment decisions. It shows the fallacies of studies that downplay the African land laws and formal state institutions, and their roles in regulating investors and shaping potential investment decisions.
Paper short abstract:
Chiefs illegally mediate access to mineralized lands in response to post-colonial mineral institutions that supplanted customary institutions over resource governance. However, the social capital that chiefs broadly enjoy shields them and their clients (illegal miners) against law enforcement.
Paper long abstract:
This paper aims to unravel the puzzle of why chiefs in Ghana illegally mediate access to mineralized lands and how they get away with it. It does so by drawing upon historical data, published works and triangulated interview data. The paper argues that the engrained interests of chiefs in illegally mediating access to mineralized lands is emblematic of chiefly endeavour to reassert customary authority over the governance of mineral resources. Customary institutions regarding resource governance, which were partially respected by colonial structures, got obliterated by the succeeding post-colonial resource governance structures, providing a fundamental motivation for chiefs to illegally facilitate access to mineralized lands. Nonetheless, the embeddedness of chiefs in the Ghanaian society and the social capital associated with the institution of chieftaincy constitute major bargaining chips through which chiefs and their clients (illegal miners) evade mining-related law enforcement. This argument underscores how the constraining effect of institutions on human interaction can be counterproductive, particularly when ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ institutions compete over the organization of society. The paper, therefore, contributes to a gamut of formal and informal literature on institutions and the broader debate on chieftaincy and development in Africa.