Скачать книгу

investors” (ibid.) – that is, beneficiary institutions that manage “other people’s money” (Kay 2015) in line with specific performance, risk and maturity goals1 – but in some cases institutional investors may be the ultimate asset owners (for example, institutions representing wealthy families).2 These definitional niceties aside, institutional investors now move a staggering amount of money across the globe and are key makers of space in the early twenty-first century.

      In other words, institutional landscapes are an expression of the expansion of a “global return society”, in which the reproduction of the better-off people of the Global North (and, increasingly, the Global South) has become tied to the reproduction of finance capital, both “at home” and abroad. Today a wide range of “things” can become part of institutional landscapes (and thus financial resources or “assets”), but, in this book, it is something most closely associated with the term “landscape”: agriculture. Bereft of a better word, however, this book mobilizes farming as a generic term in order to indicate that finance has become interested in all things related to “the farm” as a production unit (arable crops, livestock, trees, etc.), but also in the pre- and post-farm-gate stages of the agri-food chain. So, although the book heavily focuses on farmland investments, it also repeatedly moves beyond them, and several of its case studies blur the line between production and other domains, with one of them moving beyond it altogether.

      In detail, institutional landscapes can be described as follows.

      •They sensitize us for the fact that the workings of supposedly higher forces – so-called “financial markets” – are engrained in many things surrounding us.

      •They are characterized by their financial asset character, whose realization requires concrete and future-oriented interventions in the world of farming. It is through such interventions that the latter becomes synchronized with the conventions and capital needs of investors, even though this often remains a frictional endeavour.

      •They are not a product of nature but of landscaping practices: space-making social activities we can investigate. Institutional landscaping creates distinct socio-natures reflecting the asset character of the targeted agricultural venture.

      •They do not simply overwrite the past, but often incorporate and thrive on older agrarian landscapes in order to generate financial value from the human and non-human world. Like other landscapes, institutional landscapes are a palimpsest, a layered product of multiple histories and determinations, including both the visible and the invisible hand of the state.

      •They are, eventually, the product of “global value relations” (Araghi 2003) established between multiple places and the operations that link them. In this way, institutional landscapes can never be thought of without the “imperial” needs of those whose capital has been instrumental in bringing them into being in the very first place. Often the roots of this capital lead right back into the “middle of society”.

      The book renders institutional landscapes intelligible, unpacks their political contestation and eventually aims at repoliticizing the spatially extensive operations that lurk beneath them. It does so by offering a number of specific entry points into the global economic connections through which such landscapes are produced. These are often taken for granted, reified in popular and professional discourse or mistaken for what they are not. Thus, the journey that follows covers a range of topics that are pivotal for understanding how institutional landscapes emerge, what knowledge we can produce about them, how we situate these historically and geographically and how these are produced and reproduced as “large-scale phenomena” (Schatzki 2016) on the ground. This clearly sets apart what follows from other, more macro-oriented accounts that take a more orthodox, and less geographically attuned, political economy approach (e.g. Russi 2013; Schmidt 2016; Clapp & Isakson 2018).

      Grounding agri-investment chains

      Obviously, the socio-spatial complexity of agri-investment chains poses a challenge for regulators, as well as for political engagement and research. Yet, once investment chains and their underlying actor constellations have been identified and geographically grounded, different “pressure points” (Cotula & Blackmore 2014: 3) can be identified for regulation or activist engagement (see Figure 1.1). Such an endeavour must always keep in mind that it is “ultimately all of us” (Muniesa et al. 2017: 133) who are linked to global investment chains, and the production of institutional landscapes, via a giant “network of delegation” (ibid.).

      

Скачать книгу