Search results

Effective in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has substantially lowered tariffs and other trade and investment restrictions. Consequently, three-way trade expanded exponentially as did inward and outward investment in Mexico, Canada, and the United States through 2000. However, both trade and investment decreased in 2001 and 2002 because of a global recession. Critics of NAFTA argue that jobs have been destroyed and wages suppressed in both Mexico and the U.S. But these claims do not hold up to careful scrutiny. Though many points of friction remain among the three NAFTA partners, the agreement must be considered a qualified success.

The effect of trade on poverty is an open question. Although trade may create opportunities in the form of new markets, producers must be able to switch their production and access these markets to reap the benefits from trade. Those producers that cannot change may be stuck trying to sell products in a market with increased competition from imports. In this chapter, we consider which Mexican farmers have been able to adapt to market changes afforded by North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). We find that although some farmers, particularly those with access to outside information through education or technical assistance, have moved out of corn production, a number of both subsistence and market producers have increased the fraction of their land in corn after NAFTA. We also find that market producers respond quite differently from subsistence farmers to agricultural and other infrastructural factors.

To summarize the shocks and stresses that peasants in Mexico have been subjected to since the 1940s and to examine the responses of sons of peasants working as semi-informal beach vendors in Cabo San Lucas as to what they define as the worst problems of the peasantry in their hometowns.

This chapter offers an analysis of the responses of 32 sons of peasants interviewed on Medano Beach in Cabo San Lucas in October of 2012 partially as concerns whether they would like to be peasants themselves and as to what they define as the worst problems of the peasantry in their hometowns.

Twenty-five of the thirty-two vendors interviewed would be happy to be peasants. According to all of the vendors, the overwhelming problems facing the peasantry were primarily droughts or floods (related to climate change) and lack of government aid (related to neoliberalization).

The peasantry in Mexico is being and has been marginalized both by a number of stresses and shocks, currently identified by some of those at risk as factors related to climate change and neoliberalization.

The organizational structure of the modern poultry industry that developed in the US South has been advanced as the future model of agriculture and agro-industrial globalization. This “Southern Model” characterized by asymmetrical power relationships between the integrating firms and production growers and reliance on informal labor patterns in processing is being diffused to other countries. Research on the diffusion of this model deserves special attention from those concerned with the socio-economic implications of the globalization of the agri-food system. This chapter first provides an overview of the industrialization of the poultry industry in the United States, then documents the diffusion of this model globally and in Mexico through the activities of Tyson Foods, Inc. and Pilgrim's Pride, Inc. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the relationship between neoliberal restructuring in Mexico and the globalization of the poultry industry.

This paper compares the agrarian development of two indigenous communities in the highlands of Ecuador who specialize in nontraditional agricultural exports (NTAE). It brings together the peasant theory with literature on the environmental impact of globalization.

Through a comparative ethnography, based on six months of participant observation and interviewers, I illustrate the differences in production processes and explain the divergent trajectories of agrarian modernization.

I found that NTAE impacted the two communities differently: one became more ecologically sustainable and the other became more environmentally exploitative. However, neither case fits squarely within the framework of modern/traditional or peasant/capitalist. Instead of traditional environmentalism and individualistic exploitation, we see the reverse: individualistic environmentalism and traditional exploitation. That is, ecological methods are paired with individualistic competition, and environmental exploitation takes place within a system of communal solidarity.

With buyer-driven organic certification standards, global integration does not always lead to ecological degradation. For quinoa growers, traditional production practices persist not as resistance to global capitalism but as a strategy to access high-value export markets. Broccoli farmers, although exploitative of local natural resources and their own health, do so within communal institutions that buffer against individualistic risk-taking.

This comparative case presents an alternative depiction of modernization as complex and nonlinear.

By respecting nature's limits and investing in nature's wealth, we can protect and enhance the environment's ability to sustain human well-being. But how humans interact with nature is intimately tied to how we interact with each other. Those who are relatively powerful and wealthy typically gain disproportionate benefits from the economic activities that degrade the environment, while those who are relatively powerless and poor typically bear disproportionate costs. All else equal, wider political and economic inequalities tend to result in higher levels of environmental harm. For this reason, efforts to safeguard the natural environment must go hand-in-hand with efforts to achieve more equitable distributions of power and wealth in human societies. Globalization – the growing integration of markets and governance worldwide – today poses new challenges and new opportunities for both of these goals.

The corporate food regime is presented here as a vector of the project of global development. As such, it expresses not only the social and ecological contradictions of capitalism, but also the world-historical conjuncture in which the deployment of price and credit relations are key mechanisms of ‘accumulation through dispossession.’ The global displacement of peasant cultures of provision by dumping, the supermarket revolution, and conversion of land for agro-exports, incubate ‘food sovereignty’ movements expressing alternative relationships to the land, farming and food.

Using the case of a failed airport project in metropolitan Mexico City, this chapter explores the political and economic reasons for urban megaproject failure. It examines the nature of the oppositional alliances; the larger political, economic, institutional, and spatial conditions under which these alliances were forged; and how they forced project proponents to abandon a planned megaproject. In searching for the factors responsible for project failure, the study employs theories of political party competition, bureaucratic–institutional conflict, and social movements. It uses qualitative and historical analysis to focus attention on divisions within and between the political class and citizens driven by democratization, decentralization, and globalization. The case suggests that the historical and institutional legacies of urban and national development in Latin America have created bureaucratic ambiguities and tensions over who is most responsible for major infrastructure development in countries experiencing democratic transition. The failure to successfully build the Mexico City airport megaproject reflects a precarious transitional moment in the country's political and economic development as much as the validity of claims against the project itself. If planners can better situate megaproject development in the context of changing institutional relations between citizens and the state, they may be better able to find common ground.