Skip to main content
Read page text

Page Text

approach to measuring and understanding complex investment environment issues is very problematic, especially when based on the interests and priorities of particular institutions and powers.

We must then move into a new realm of creative thinking, collective democratic policy-making, respect for local and indigenous people’s knowledge and experiences, and involving them in long-term planning to develop ecologically friendly and sustainable agriculture. This is the only way to deal with the challenges that agriculture, economy, ecology and society currently face in developing countries.

The neoclassical economists’ solution to the contemporary environmental crisis is more market not less market. For this solution, there is a need to change the market-led economic policy to address the contemporary agricultural crisis. They see in monetary terms, and the loss of nature is very difficult to monetise. They favour using market prices for all these irreplaceable commodities. The contemporary corporate-led food regime, from the concentration of power in food chains to genetically modified seeds is consolidating global markets in the name of market freedoms and efficiency. The critique such as, Naomi Klein (2015), a Canadian author, notes: “The market has not and cannot fix the climate crisis but will instead make things worse, with ever more extreme and ecologically damaging extraction methods accompanied by the rampant disaster capitalism.”

In the world generally, there seems to be increased trade and capital liberalisation, (Siddiqui, 2020b; 2020c) especially in agricultural commodities, which means a greater amount of trade, and thus could result in a loss of biodiversity and environmental crisis. Reducing tariffs and removing domestic regulations against multinational companies could have a much wider impact on local economies, without foreign agro-companies sharing any responsibilities. It is viewed that due to access to more information, low wages, and relaxed environmental regulations, these global food companies would find it attractive to invest in agriculture in developing countries, as it increases their markets and profits.

The current globalisation and increased trade in agricultural commodities will have a longer lasting impact on developing countries.

III.

THE ISSUE OF FOOD SOVEREIGNTY There is a strong case that a new phase of global capitalism with new modalities of accumulation started to emerge for the last three decades which, among other things, changed inherited conceptions of the agrarian question centred on the ‘national’ paths of the development of capitalism in the countryside. The current globalisation and increased trade in agricultural commodities will have a longer lasting impact on developing countries. Under the WTO (World Trade Organization), trade liberalisation will create a shift in the global trade patterns of agricultural commodities, (Siddiqui, 2018d) and would affect the world market prices of agricultural commodities. (Siddiqui, 2019c; 2018a) This will lead to the increased involvement of global food companies in the developing countries which would focus on global consumers rather than local markets. Speculation in foodgrains will lead to increased ‘financialisation’ (Siddiqui, 2017d).

Under WTO pressure, the neoliberal reforms in developing countries, required to remove government subsidies and other forms of government support to small farmers in developing countries. This will reduce government investment and aid budgets for farming and will promote ‘export platforms’, especially of animal feeds and high-value commodities. This will worldfinancialreview.com 51

Skip to main content