The relationship between food politics and land politics can

Therelationship between food politics and land politics can be said to be closelyrelated.

The ownership and control of land is an important factor to considerwhen discussing the food -land nexus. The question of food politics can becentered on what is to be produced, where, how much and how, by whom, and withwhat patterns of distribution and consumption? The global community is beingfaced with the difficulty of tackling these questions, as it is that the mostpeople with vast land and primarily the plantation workers, indigenous people,or pastoralists are the hungriest because they cannot afford to buy food orhave full access to food. Answers to these questions would benefit the state ormarket, but would unavoidably raise issue of politics, power and socialjustice.There is a needto critically look at the link between land and food and its implication forsocial justice. Even though much attention is being given to the peasant orfarmers, but this doesn’t stop the food insecurity problem (hike in foodprices), ownership and control of the land, and the will to operateindependently.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

The landless laborers don’t have the autonomy to trade orconsume what they like. This land-food relationship gave rise to a debate ofland reform globally, Lipton (2009) explained that these land reform givessecurity and opportunity to direct producers and prevent their exploitation bymore powerful actors and institutions. The land reform practically practiced insome part of the world reduced rural poverty and inequality and also improvedlives and livelihoods of the rural poor. For example, in countries like China,South Korea, Vietnam, and Kerala (Griffin, Khan, and Ickowitz 2003; Herring1983).However,with the introduction of land reform in relation to pro-poor land policy, thepro-poor land policy outcome sometimes could have a positive or negative effecton the rural poor.

There was a shift from contemporary land reform to thequestion confronted by the societies of, what food is to be produced? Where?How? How food is to be distributed in a context of insecurity of price regimesand supply. It is evidently clear that these questions are not answered becausethe land-based wealth and power, access and control over the land resources areactually still being controlled by the corporate entities, state or other elitecommunity groups. Though every development policy is targeted to improve therural poor, but themes in pro-poor policy are controlled by the elitecommunity.

The authors didn’t consider the elite by re-distributing the landbased wealth to the poor. This for example, could lead to violence and othersocial vices in the community. The distribution and control of land should bedone in a sustainable way by considering the transfer of land based wealth tothe poor, transfer of land based political power, and also considering genderand ethnic groups and how it could contribute to increasing land and laborproductivity.