The agrarian question in the 21st century - Fellows' seminar by Haroon Akram-Lodhi

“The ‘agrarian question’ which arose in the 1890s, is concerned with understanding the processes by which capitalism does or does not enter small-scale peasant agriculture and transforms it into more commercially oriented entrepreneurial modes of farming, and the impact of such processes on the livelihoods of small-scale peasant farmers and the ecologies that shape the landscapes in which they work,” explained Haroon Akram-Lodhi of the Department of Global Justice and Development, Trent University, Canada. “I believe this remains a critical concern for those interested in global human inequality because more people than ever before make their homes in rural areas and the countryside forms the epicentre of global poverty.” Akram-Lodhi, who presented the first seminar of 2025, is writing a short, non-academic book on the agrarian question in the 21^st century designed for activists from rural social movements. “The world produces enough food for 10 billion people, but the poor can’t afford to buy it,” he said. “We have a broken food system, and I believe that small-scale peasant farming can help to repair it.” The World Bank estimates that globally 700 million people live on less than $2.15 per day, the extreme poverty line. “The poor are mostly found in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa and three quarters of them were in rural areas in 2022, a half in rural sub-Saharan Africa. One in ten women are in extreme poverty. Two thirds work in the agriculture sector.” “The rural population is smaller but more rely on farming than at any other time in history,” continued Akram-Lodhi. “There are 680 million farms in the world and 84% of these are two hectares or less. It’s the single most important occupation on the planet. But small-scale farmers are also most likely to be food insecure – those who produce the food are the most insecure.” He pointed out that they are dependent on a small amount of land, have few tools and equipment, and use their own and family labour. Most produce food for their own consumption but may have some cash crops to pay rent and other expenses, and to deal with surpluses. “They are not responsible for climate breakdown but face the effects more than anyone else,” he continued. “Farms are vulnerable to weather, temperature and environmental degradation – as one example, an increase in the global temperature of 2% leads to a reduction in the maize yield of 40%.” Akram-Lodhi gave detailed insights into why orthodox development policies have worsened the situation particularly in the last 40 years. He noted that the 1980’s debt crisis led to the Washington Consensus − a set of economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute a reform package for developing countries by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Treasury, which emphasised economic austerity. He explained how IMF and World Bank policies led to increased taxes and interest rates, removed many restrictions but also led to the industrialisation of agriculture, the removal of protections, cheaper food and the growth of non-traditional export crops. The IMF agreements were very intrusive. “In the 1970s there was agricultural surplus in the Global South, 30 years later there was a deficit of $11 million. The evidence says it didn’t work.” “Value-add per worker increased globally but stagnated in Africa or only increased a small amount resulting in continuing global poverty,” he continued. And all this particularly affected small-scale peasant farmers. “The capitalisation of agriculture means they face competition and must be competitive. To be competitive they must reduce their production costs by increased specialisation, increased scale or innovation. Once a small-scale peasant farm produces to sell, it must sell.” “Farms that are not producing enough to meet consumption needs, require households to sell food and seed stocks, work for others, borrow and sell assets. Those that produce a surplus are interested in increasing it, those that produce a deficit are drawn into destitution.” He also highlighted that buyers and sellers face constraints that are out of their control. “Agricultural austerity assumes that in well-functioning markets people meet as equals to mutually and voluntarily agree a price upon which to buy and sell that is equally beneficial to both if it is based upon comparative advantage and specialisation,” he explained. “But for many peoples around the world especially indigenous peoples, an understanding of production, selling and buying is located within a determinate set of not only social, political and economic relations but also ecological and cultural relations woven into the construction of identity.” “For example, it’s very common to see women not getting the same price for the same products. Buying and selling is dependent on identity. It’s not always anonymous and not always voluntary. Sellers and buyers may also have different information and make decisions based on the boundaries of their knowledge. Markets are embedded in wider social politics and are politically constructed.” “Labour use in small-scale farming is also bound up with unpaid care and domestic work – this needs to be understood.” Pointing to further complexities, he said: “In some settings people hold on to the pastoralist identity – they don’t want to become farmers – the men especially. The number of cows gives status not wealth.” He noted that this is why some of South Africa’s land-restitution policies have not worked. “People want to belong to the land that shaped their identity but don’t necessarily want to be farmers.” “Technology changes are also not socially neutral, and not all are able to adapt to changing circumstances,” he added.

Not one-size-fits-all

Akram-Lodhi believes that support for agriculture should be redirected to small-scale peasant farmers not industrial farming. “We don’t need industrial agriculture to feed the world, but we do need more farmers. Farming is not one-size-fits-all like industrial agriculture. It’s about going back to indigenous knowledge about soils, water and landscape. Yields can increase with a shift to more traditional ways.” “Industrial agriculture is responsible for a third of greenhouse-gas emissions and only feeds half the world – it’s destroying the basis of its own success,” he continued. “Small-scale peasant farming restores soils and increases carbon absorption to make more nutritious soils. Expanding small-scale agriculture would improve our carbon footprint.” He highlighted the important work of social movements in this regard − like La Via Campesina, which was founded in 1993, covers 81 countries, and includes 200 million peasants, landless workers, indigenous people, pastoralists, fishers, migrant farmworkers, small- and medium-scale farmers, rural women and peasant youth. It seeks comprehensive land and agrarian reform, the enforcement of the rights of peasants and rural workers, restorative biodiversity and climate justice, facilitation of local markets and just prices, defence of small-scale agroecological farming and food sovereignty. Its biggest success was the 2018 United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. “It’s effectively about fostering a transnational peasant farmer identity.” In all of this he sees the agrarian question as an important guidance and tool to look at issues like the structure and politics of production process including land differentiation; who controls productive assets; and, changes in the control of productive assets. “The agrarian question is an analytical tool – a rigid but flexible guide to the processes of rural change. But, of course, it doesn’t give all the answers. There’s still an element of doubt.”   Michelle Galloway: Part-time media officer at STIAS Photograph: SCPS Photography