Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Analysing land conflicts in times of global crises T

1 ⁎,1
Kristina Dietz , Bettina Engels
Latin America Institute and Otto Suhr Institute for Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this article, a framework is developed to empirically analyse conflicts over land in the context of global crises.
Land This framework aims to overcome the trap of a dichotomous and hierarchical construction of ‘local’ conflicts
Conflicts over land resulting from ‘global’ crises. Building on an action-oriented concept of conflict and a dialectical
Global crises understanding of structure–agency relations informed by historical materialism, an analytical framework is
Structure–agency
suggested comprising four dimensions: structures, institutions, agency, and the narratives and meaning making
Historical materialism
of actors.

1. Introduction With regard to conflicts over large-scale land appropriation, scho-

In the last two decades, large-scale capital investment in land—-
often referred to as ‘land grabbing’ (Borras et al., 2012)—related to the
expansion of industrial, export-oriented agriculture and mining has
provoked conflicts in most parts of the world (cf. Hall et al., 2015;
Bebbington and Bury, 2013; Rodríguez-Labajos and Özkaynak, 2017).
In earlier studies—referring to political economy, ecological economics
and political ecology, to peasant studies and critical agrarian stu-
dies—these land-related conflicts were sometimes conceptualised as the
local consequences of global political-economic changes, manifested in
the expansion of commodity frontiers (Moore, 2000; Zoomers, 2011;
Martinez-Alier and Walter, 2016). But presenting conflicts over the
expansion of palm oil and sugar cane plantations, or mining, as pri-
marily the result of external crises or the specific features of the con-
temporary political economy of global capitalism risks losing sight of
the diverse social, political, institutional and discursive factors that
influence the emergence and processes of such conflicts (Bush and
Martiniello, 2017: 200). Without a doubt, the processes of taking con-
trol over land and its use for agro-industrial purposes and the expansion
of large-scale mining activities are connected to various crises of ca-
pitalism and to structural changes in the sectors of raw materials,
agriculture and the environment (Akram-Lodhi, 2012; Calvário et al.,
2017; Harvey, 2003). However, a variety of factors influence whether
land conflicts arise and become manifest, and not all influences are
necessarily connected to overarching crises processes.
lars at the interface of political ecology, peasant studies and critical
agrarian studies have more recently begun to emphasise the con-
tingency of political conflicts, and to point to a multitude of influencing
and mitigating factors that contribute to conflicts over land and raw
materials (Baglioni and Gibbon, 2013; Edelman et al., 2013; Hall et al.,
2015).
This article seeks to contribute to these debates on land conflicts in
the context of global crises. We address land conflicts2 that are con-
nected to structural change and crises of capitalism, but which cannot
be reduced to them. The focus is on conflicts related to the expansion of
agro-industrial production and large-scale mining, which pre-
dominantly hit rural areas and frequently lead to the expulsion and
dispossession of certain groups of rural land users. We therefore do not
look at land acquisition and related conflicts in urban and peri-urban
contexts (see e.g. Feola et al., 2019; Lombard and Rakodi, 2016; Steel
et al., 2017), nor do we deal with conflicts within and among com-
munities, e.g. related to inheritance (Kirst and Engels, 2015; Peters,
2002; Whyte and Acio, 2017), land reform and the formalisation of land
tenure (Berry, 2018; Boone, 2013; Peters and Kambewa, 2007), or
farmer–herder conflicts (e.g. Benjaminsen et al., 2009; Brottem, 2016).
Rather, we investigate how structural changes that are linked to global
crises become significant for conflict action, and how this linkage can
be theoretically conceived. We study the factors that influence the
emergence and development of land conflicts and the means of conflict
that actors make use of.

⁎
Corresponding author at: Otto Suhr Institute for Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Boltzmannstr. 1, 14195 Berlin, Germany.
E-mail addresses: kristina.dietz@fu-berlin.de (K. Dietz), bettina.engels@fu-berlin.de (B. Engels).
URLs: http://www.land-conflicts.net (K. Dietz), http://www.land-conflicts.net (B. Engels).
1
Address: Research Group “Global Change – Local Conflicts?” (GLOCON), Freie Universität Berlin, Botzmannstr. 1, 14195 Berlin, Germany.
2
‘Land’ does not only refer to agricultural areas, but includes land of various types, as well as all of the resources associated with the land, such as minerals, ores,
fossil fuels, water, forests, etc.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.019
Received 18 April 2019; Received in revised form 13 December 2019; Accepted 18 February 2020
Available online 25 February 2020
0016-7185/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Dietz and B. Engels
The aim of this article is to develop a theory-oriented framework for
the analysis of conflicts over land that are related to large-scale in-
vestments. The framework builds on a dialectical understanding of
structure–agency relations and an action-oriented concept of conflict. A
dialectical perspective allows us to theoretically relate structural shifts
due to global crises and social conflict action, without reducing one to
the other.
In order to enable a systematic understanding of the varieties of
manifestations of conflicts over land, the framework consists of four
analytical dimensions: structures, institutions, agency and narratives.
With this framework, we aim to avoid a dichotomous and hierarchical
understanding of ‘global’ crises that lead to ‘local’ conflicts.
Social conflict emanates from a relationship between at least two
actors who perceive themselves as having contradicting interests, goals
or needs (cf. Galtung, 1978; Lederach, 1995), which are themselves
embedded in contradictory social structures: social relations of capital
and class, gender, caste, ethnicity, race and others. Sociological conflict
theories understand conflict as inherent to any social system, since
antagonistic interests exist in all societies (particularly due to the un-
equal distribution of resources) (cf. Turner, 1975). But it is only when
these antagonisms are perceived, interpreted and assessed by actors (for
example, as being unjust or as a threat to their existence) that they
become significant and might lead to action, and thus to conflict be-
coming manifest. Our analytical interest is in social conflict action. We
are therefore not focused on social contradictions and antagonist in-
terests as such; and other than classical sociological conflict theory
(ibid.; Coser, 1956), we are not so concerned with the systemic function
of conflict. Hence, we focus on manifest conflicts in terms of social
action that involves the interaction between at least two actors (e.g.
protest actors, state actors, companies). We particularly focus on col-
lective actors, due to the type of conflict that we consider in this article,
namely conflicts over land in the context of land appropriation for agro-
industrial and extractivist purposes. These are, first and foremost,
conflicts in which groups of people act for the purpose of common in-
terests and goals. This is not to say, however, that in the context of
global crises in general, and ‘land grabbing’ in particular, conflicts over
land between individuals do not occur.
Building on an action-oriented concept of conflict and a dialectical
understanding of structure–agency relations, we have developed an
analytical framework that encompasses four dimensions: structures,
institutions, agency and narratives. We therefore draw on a range of
academic literature, not only from peasant studies and critical agrarian
studies, but also from political economy more widely, contentious
politics and social movement studies, and deliberative policy analysis.
This article thus aims to relate several fields of scholarship to one an-
other, which we think are relevant to the study of land conflicts pro-
voked by agro-industrial production and large-scale mining. Although
we restrict ourselves to a certain segment of scholarship on land con-
flicts, we do take other segments into consideration.
Anthropological research, particularly referring to legal pluralism
(Ubink, 2018; von Benda-Beckmann, 2002), has extensively in-
vestigated historical and contemporary conflicts over land in a multi-
plicity of contexts (e.g. Anying and Gausset, 2017; Eck, 2014; Unruh,
2008). Scholars within this line of research point in particular to the
complexity and specificity of local figurations and to the changing
norms, institutions and everyday dynamics in the context of global
crises. Although this scholarship has placed less stress on the general
social structures that underlie relations of land, labour, class, gender
and caste, it provides highly relevant insights into how local social
relations, norms and institutions are newly negotiated in times of global
crises.3
This article is structured as follows. In the following section, the
recent literature on capital investment in land and mining, in the
3
We are grateful to one anonymous reviewer who made us aware of this.
209
Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217
context of crises and related conflicts, is summarised. Subsequently, our
analytical framework is developed and we discuss how it can facilitate
empirical analysis. In the conclusion, the framework is synthesised,
presenting its analytical dimensions and sub-dimensions and the re-
search questions derived from it. We sum up what makes our frame-
work distinct from other approaches to the study of land conflicts, and
discuss the ensuing implications for empirical analysis and theory
building.
2. Global crises and conflicts over land
Since the early 2000s, there has been an observed increase in the
price of raw materials and in investments in land and its associated
resources (metals, minerals, ore, carbon). Until now, the peaks of this
trend occurred in the years 2008–2009 and 2011–2012 (Akram-Lodhi,
2012; Nolte et al., 2016; SNL Metals and Mining, 2015), though in-
vestments in land and resources have remained generally high (Reichl
and Schatz, 2019). A large proportion of investment occurs in the
Global South. In addition to financial speculation, capital investment in
agricultural land primarily serves the expansion of industrial agri-
culture, export-orientated food production and so-called flex crops
(Borras et al., 2016; Nolte et al., 2016). Investment in mining ex-
ploration serves the development and production of new mineral de-
posits and their export to old and new centres of industrial production
(Europe, parts of Asia, North America).
Studies have analysed this increased interest in land and raw ma-
terials in the context of multiple crises of capitalism in recent years.
Drawing mainly on historical materialism (e.g. Harvey’s concept of
‘accumulation by dispossession’, Harvey, 2003; or Marx’s concept of
‘primitive accumulation’, Marx, 1976 [1867]), these studies show that
increased land and mining investments are directly connected to the
mutually interrelated processes of various global crises, such as the
climate crisis, energy crisis, food (price) crisis, financial crisis, eco-
nomic crisis and debt crisis. Related to these crises, structural changes
in the global agro-food system can be observed, for instance the ex-
pansion of export-oriented farms controlled by (non-agricultural) pri-
vate capital or equity funds. The same holds true for the raw materials
sector, where in relation to crises—particularly in the energy, economic
and debt sectors—and in correspondence with technological innova-
tions, industrial mining and gas and oil extraction have expanded at
great speed. Both processes take place mostly on the basis of the en-
closure of land previously operated by smallholders or petty commodity
producers (Akram-Lodhi and Kay, 2010b; Svampa, 2015). With the goal
of making land, labour and raw materials in the rural peripheries ac-
cessible for profitable capital acquisition and control, these investments
present a strategy for dealing with crises (Akram-Lodhi, 2012; Araghi
and Karides, 2012; Calvário et al., 2017; Hadjimichalis, 2014).
At the same time, scholars emphasise that the opening up of new
fields for national and international capital investment is not the result
of the ‘invisible hand of the market’, but is in fact politically generated.
The deciding factors that render land and mining investments profitable
are political and institutional reforms at different scales (regional, na-
tional, local), which aim to devalue, privatise and liberalise the land
and raw materials, as well as the state acquisition of resource rents
(Bridge, 2004; Dietz and Engels, 2017; Le Billon and Sommerville,
2017; Li, 2017). It thus becomes clear that the search for new possi-
bilities for capital investment, as well as the preference for cheap yet
unsustainable solutions to the energy, climate and food (price) crises,
have—together with political reforms and technological in-
novations—contributed to capital being made accessible for agri-
cultural land and raw materials which had previously been considered
‘unproductive’ or too difficult to explore for profitable exploitation.
These analyses have contributed to an understanding of the recent
investment booms not as isolated processes, or as simple reactions to
market dynamics, but as interwoven in the multiple crises of capitalism,
as well as the endeavours by state actors, (international) financial
K. Dietz and B. Engels
organisations and companies to deal with them. Furthermore, this lit-
erature from the social sciences, particularly from the fields of political
ecology, critical agrarian studies and critical development studies, fo-
cuses on the social, economic, political, institutional and ecological
consequences of capital investment in land and mining. In many stu-
dies, these consequences are described as a restructuring of the coun-
tryside. This includes changes in the distribution of ownership, control
and access with regard to land and related resources (e.g. water), the
destruction of livelihoods, the (sometimes violent) displacement and
dispossession of previous land users, changes in working conditions and
labour relations, the transformation or perpetuation of unequal gender
relations, ecological destruction and the transformation of landscapes,
the restriction of cultural, social and political rights, and the emergence
of new institutional and spatial orders (cf. Hinojosa et al., 2015; Levien,
2017; Pye, 2017; Rasmussen and Lund, 2018; Tsikata, 2016). Related to
this, conflicts over land have become a major subject of analysis (cf.
Bebbington et al., 2008; Hufe and Heuermann, 2017; Jenkins, 2015;
Martinez-Alier et al., 2016; Conde, 2017).
Whereas it is widely acknowledged that the recent land and mining
investment boom has provoked conflicts in a variety of contexts, it re-
mains an open question how this relationship is shaped. In some stu-
dies, the relationship between increasing capital investment and con-
flict is conceived as causal. Even if it is not necessarily explicit, one line
of argument goes as follows: the current crisis-prone development of
capitalism and the accompanying spatial expansion of the capitalist
appropriation of nature (the commodity frontier) will lead to the ex-
ploitation of land areas and raw materials for the purpose of capital
accumulation, crisis resolution and/or the acquisition of resource rents
by the state. This means that those who were previously using the land
will be driven out and robbed of their livelihoods. In opposition to this,
local communities will organise themselves and put up resistance, and
as a result, conflicts will arise (for a critique, see Borras and Franco,
2013).
An example of this way of reasoning can be found in Martinez-Alier
and Walter (2016: 68): ‘The expansion of the agricultural frontier has
led to the clearing of lands and forest, as well as the displacement of
many indigenous and rural populations (…). This has resulted in var-
ious conflicts over access to land’ (cf. Martinez-Alier et al., 2016: 731f;
Conde and Walter, 2014: 71; Rodríguez-Labajos and Özkaynak,
2017:245). It remains to be specified, however, how capital invest-
ments in land and resources become tangibly important for conflict
action in particular contexts, and how the effects of these investments
relate to other influencing factors such as institutional and legal (re)
forms of land and resource regulation, political opportunities such as
elections or the overthrow of a ruler, the historic experiences of social
struggle, the power resources of social actors, and the narratives used to
give meaning to the investments and their effects.
As numerous studies have illustrated, protest against mining or the
expansion of capital-intensive, export-orientated agro-food systems is
influenced by a multitude of factors. These include the socially struc-
tured power positions of subjects, differentiation of the actors involved
according to class, gender, age, ethnic, racial and political affiliation,
political-institutional contextual conditions, the role of the state, as well
as the dominant narratives that serve the legitimisation of a valorisation
of land and raw materials (cf. Borras and Franco, 2013; Borras et al.,
2013). Furthermore, the forms and practices of the acquisition of land
and raw materials and the associated processes of exclusion or inclusion
of the social groups concerned are significant for whether and how
conflict action occurs (Hall et al., 2015: 475; cf. McCarthy, 2010; Scott,
1976).
Capital investment in land and mining does not always mean the
displacement or expulsion of the previous land users and it does not
always lead to social mobilisation, resistance and conflict (Conde and
Le Billon, 2017). Hall et al. (2015) argue that a better understanding of
land conflicts requires a two-dimensional analytical approach: the first
dimension comprises the overarching (agri-)structural transformations,
210
Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217
the second is the ‘axis of political conflict’ (ibid.: 470). The latter in-
cludes the actions of protestors in the context of class and identity
politics, disputes with state actors and companies, alliance building and
transnational networks. However, a theoretical explanation of how
both dimensions relate to one another is still missing. To fill this gap,
we suggest an analytical framework based on a dialectical under-
standing of structure–agency relations.
3. Structure and agency from a dialectical perspective
With the goal of analysing conflicts related to capital investment in
land and mining, we link the action-oriented concept of conflict to a
dialectical understanding of structure–agency relations informed by
historical materialism. A dialectical understanding of the relationship
between structure and agency begins with Marx’s famous passage from
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: ‘Men make their own
history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it
under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances
directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past’ (Marx, 1978
[1852]: 9). Actors are not free in what they do and how they act, but are
subject to the constraining or enabling conditions set by structures; and
vice-versa, structures are not fixed, stable or self-reproducing in abso-
lute terms, but are transformed or (re)produced by social action
(Moulaert et al., 2016). From a dialectical perspective, the relationship
between structure and agency is conceptualised as one of correlation.
Thereby both categories remain essentially different, i.e. ontologically
distinct; they neither fall into each other, nor can the relationship be-
tween them be reduced to one or the other side. Structures therefore
need to be examined in relation to action, and action examined in re-
lation to structure, since structures do not exist outside of spa-
tial–temporal contexts and actions, and actors always act in specific
contexts that are influenced by structures and the interaction with other
actors (Jessop, 2005, 2008).
For the current analysis, this implies first studying structures in
‘relational’ terms; that is, in relation to the effects they unfold on dif-
ferent actors and their actions, and how they may privilege some actors,
strategies and actions over others (Jessop, 2005: 48). Whereas in Marx’s
quote above it seems that structures operate primarily through setting
limits to individual and collective action, what is argued here is that we
should think of structures as both constraining and enabling, and of
agency as always linked to structures. There is no agency outside of
structures. Structural elements can, for example, enable social action as
such, but at the same time constrain how social action takes place.
Thus, the same structural elements can operate for some actors as
structural constraints, while for others they might constitute an op-
portunity to act in their own interests, potentially leading to the
transformation of existing structural conditions. It also implies that
present structural constraints could, for some actors, turn into an op-
portunity in the future, depending on the actors’ performance (e.g. the
application of different types of alliance strategies in order to shift the
relations of forces; Jessop, 2005, 2008).
Second, a dialectical approach to structure–agency relations means
exploring how actors, in the course of their action, take into account the
differential privileging, constraining or enabling effects of structures;
that is, how in their action they reflect upon, perceive and interpret
structural selectivities and changes, and recursively choose strategies
and tactics oriented towards the environment/context within which
their actions are realised (ibid.).
This understanding of structure–agency relations corresponds to
what in the study of contentious politics and social movements has been
labelled ‘political opportunity structures’. This approach emphasises
that collective action can only be understood in relation to the context
in which protest actors develop and act, as actors do not choose their
objectives and methods of protest in a social and political vacuum, but
are influenced by a range of contextual conditions (Kitschelt, 1986;
Meyer, 2004; Tarrow, 1996; Tilly, 1978). This does not mean that
K. Dietz and B. Engels Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217

protest actors have no command over their agency, but that their social arrangements. Institutions involve generally unquestioned rou-
agency can best be understood as linked to their specific context. A tines and practices, formal and informal norms, political rules, laws,
central argument within this approach is that people engage in social regulations and sanctioning mechanisms (e.g. the legal protection of
mobilisation and political protest if patterns of favouring and hindering private property rights). Institutions constrain or enable social action;
factors shift. Tarrow (1998) emphasises that political opportunity and there is always variable scope for actors to engage in institutional
structures are created, disputed and shifted by actors; through collec- innovation, reinforcement and transformation. With the category of
tive action in contentious politics, actors create and change political agency, we refer to collective actors that through different forms of
opportunity structures and improve the conditions for potential future action (direct and confrontational or indirect and institutionally
protest (or in the worst case, for their opponents). mediated) steer or interfere with the course of land and mining in-
In addition, Colin Hay (2001) argues that the context within which vestment. Finally, narratives are a discursive strategy by which actors
people act is also mediated by discourses and narratives, both of which ascribe meaning to, challenge, legitimate, or enforce or reinforce ca-
are essential moments of action, as structural conditions or changes pitalist investment in mining and land. The following table synthesises
only have meaning for action to the extent that they are appropriated our analytical framework, including its dimensions and sub-dimensions,
by actors. Discourses and narratives are also important for structures and the research questions derived from it4:
and institutions (rules, norms, etc.), since the latter need to be con-
stantly reproduced and reconfirmed through images, ideas, arguments,
4.1. Structures
stories, statistics, etc., particularly in times of crisis and transformation
(ibid.). This means that actors can, through particular discursive stra-
In this first dimension, the focus is on how the increasing investment
tegies and tactics, influence structural constraints and opportunities.
in land and mining, which is typically accompanied by the expansion of
But this possibility varies with actors’ identities, values, interests,
agro-industry and large-scale mining, affects structures, i.e. the existing
knowledge and experiences, and according to the extent to which the
social relations in a specific location at a certain moment in time. For
narratives of specific actors resonate with the dominant discursive
this purpose, we refer in particular to the field of critical agrarian
paradigms of a given context, which in general privilege some dis-
studies (Akram-Lodhi and Kay, 2010a, 2010b; Edelman and Wolford,
cursive strategies, tactics and statements over others (ibid.). Hay con-
2017). Dealing with the relevance of the transformation of the coun-
cludes that ‘in the same way that a given context is strategically-se-
tryside in general and the agricultural sector in particular for the ex-
lective—selecting for, but never determining, certain strategies over
pansion of capitalism, critical agrarian studies proves fruitful for ana-
others—it is also discursively-selective—selecting for, but never de-
lysing the structural implications of increasing capital investment in
termining, the discourses through which it might be appropriated’
land and mining for rural social relations. Core categories developed in
(ibid.: 10).
critical agrarian studies are land, labour and class. More recently,
This is equally reflected in social movement studies by the concept
scholars have emphasised a variety of other categories that pervade
of framing. Framing refers to how actors in contentious politics present
social relations in the countryside in intersection with class, namely
a problem and derive certain causes, solutions and means of action from
gender, generation, kinship, ethnicity and indigeneity (Akram-Lodhi
it, which are then used for mobilisation (Snow and Benford, 1992;
et al., 2020). Structural changes are made visible through changes in
Benford and Snow, 2000). Frames provide an explanation for why
the distribution of property and the possession of land, and access to
mobilisation occurs in some cases but not in others, even when condi-
land among social classes, genders, ethnic groups, etc. They also be-
tions are similar (Snow and Benford, 1992: 143-144). Somewhat more
come visible through transformations in labour exploitation (i.e. how
recently, related to the ‘cultural turn’ in social movement studies,
labour in rural areas is distributed and organised, who has access to and
scholars have introduced the concept of narratives, claiming that it goes
benefits from which kind of labour, how the profits of labour are dis-
beyond that of framing and ‘illuminates core features of identity-
tributed and how they are used) (Bernstein, 2010).
building and meaning-making in social activism’ (Davis, 2002: 4; cf.
Depending on structural differences and identities, land means dif-
Polletta and Chen, 2017). It is argued that narratives construct a link
ferent things to different people. For farmers, it represents a means of
between structure and agency; namely between political opportunity
production and reproduction, a central source of livelihoods and a place
structures and how movement actors perceive them. De Moor and
to work; for indigenous people, in addition to the means for material
Wahlström (2019) use narrative analysis to demonstrate how the
reproduction, land often signifies a place of cultural identity; for capital
adaption of strategies by protest actors are embedded in the construc-
(investors) and large land holders, particularly in times of crisis, land is
tion of stories about the movement, past activities and future prospects.
not treated as a means of production but as a commodity, a site of
investment, control and speculated land rent; for state actors, land re-
4. Four dimensions for analysing conflicts over land from a
presents an object of taxation and political control; and so on (Li, 2014).
dialectical perspective
These different and contradicting meanings can lead to conflict. Con-
flicts arise when people lose access to land, when they are dispossessed
The framework that we propose for analysing conflicts over land is
from the land that guarantees their livelihood, when specific cultural
constituted, on the ontological level, of the combination of an action-
and social rights regarding access to and control over land are ignored,
oriented concept of conflict and a dialectical perspective on struc-
when people lose control over how the land they own is used, and when
ture–agency relations, building on theoretical work from historical
the degree of inequality regarding landed property increases (Borras
materialism, contentious politics and social movement studies.
and Franco, 2013; Hufe and Heuermann, 2017). Studies show that the
Furthermore, the framework comprises four analytical dimensions for
recent investment boom in land and mining has, in many places in the
scrutinising conflicts over land: structures, institutions, agency and
world, triggered a process leading to a greater concentration of land in
narratives. These four dimensions have been synthesised from a broad
the hands of a few landed and corporate elites (ibid.; Murmis and
range of conceptual and empirical studies on conflicts over land related
Murmis, 2012; Richani, 2012). However, capital investment in land and
to the expansion of agro-industrial production and mining.
land concentration are not always the same thing; the question is how
By structures we mean those structuring principles of society which
both processes shape each other (Edelman et al., 2013). Furthermore,
can hardly be transformed by individual or collective action in the short
land acquisition through capital investment does not always result in
or medium term (cf. Moulaert et al., 2016), such as structures of capital
and labour, of gendered property and labour relations, and of exclusive
property and access relations based on caste, ethnicity or race. From 4
We highly appreciate the suggestion made by one anonymous reviewer to
this we differentiate institutions, understood as relatively enduring include this table.

211
K. Dietz and B. Engels Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217

Table 1
Analytical framework: Dimensions, sub-dimensions and research questions.
Dimensions and sub-dimensions Research questions

Structures
Property, possession, access, control
Labour
Class, intersectional relations
How do investments in land and mining affect rural structures, i.e. social relations in a specific location at a certain moment in time?
- How does the distribution of land change through investments in land?
- How do these changes affect the meanings that land has for different groups of people?
- How do capital–labour relations change related to large-scale investments in land?
- How does the distribution of labour in society change due to investment in land?
- How do structural changes impact on intersectional relations of gender, race, class, ethnicity and other social relations in rural settings?
- What does this mean for social organisation and the means of collective action?

Institutions How do institutions relate to large-scale investment in land?

- What political-institutional decisions precede increased investment in land?
- What institutions are created due to investment in land and related conflicts?
- What constraining and enabling effects do institutions unfold on different actors?
- How do social practices change in the context of increasing investment in land?

Agency How does agency in conflicts over land relate to social structures?
- How do collective actors emerge?
- What are the resources available for collective actors?
- How are structures and institutions reproduced or transformed through agency?
- What are the means of action that actors have at their disposal; and how can differences among them be explained?

Narratives What meanings do actors ascribe to increasing capital investments in land and mining?
- How do narratives reflect social structures?
- How do narratives contribute to the creation and legitimisation of institutions?
- How do actors use narratives to legitimise what they do?
- What role do narratives play in mobilisation for collective action?

the dispossession or loss of ownership of the former users and/or
owners. According to Borras et al. (2012), large-scale capital invest-
ment in land essentially results in the acquisition of control, i.e. the
power to control land and derive the benefits from this control.
The question, therefore, is how does the distribution of land in terms
of ownership, property, access and control change through the re-
valuation of land in the context of multiple global crises? How are these
changes mediated by social categories such as class, gender and caste?
And how do these changes affect the meanings that land has for dif-
ferent people and groups and thus their actions?
Besides property, possession, access and control, labour is central to
disputes over investment in large-scale farming and mining, and can
itself become the subject of conflict (Larmer, 2017; Pye, 2015;
Verbrugge, 2016). It is therefore important to understand labour be-
yond formal waged employment, which represents only one among
several variants of labour in capitalist societies. Indeed, labour is
characterised by heterogeneous capitalist and non-capitalist relations of
production and reproduction (O'Laughlin, 2002): co-existing worldwide
are both formal and informal waged labour, forms of forced labour,
temporary and partial labour migration, subsistence labour and market
production; and all forms are redefined in the course of modernisation,
globalisation and commodification (Komlosy, 2016: 56-57). Peasant
farmers often also work as (seasonal) agricultural and livestock farmers,
as well as in the informal sector, retail, manual processing and mineral
extraction, either sequentially or concurrently (cf. Lahiri-Dutt, 2018;
Pattenden, 2018). Furthermore, formal and informal labour relations/
markets are not only structured by class positions but also along lines of
gender, origin/nationality, caste and ethnicity (Lerche, 2010).
This structural heterogeneity does not simply vanish due to the
spatial expansion and qualitative deepening of capitalist relations of
production; on the contrary, it changes with these processes. The
questions to be asked therefore are: How do labour relations and the
distribution of labour in society change through investments in land
and the transformation of land-related forms of production, for example
mechanisation processes in agriculture or the expansion of industrial
mining and the displacement of artisanal mining sites? What sig-
nificance do these changes have for various actors in possible conflicts
over land?
Class refers to large social groups into which societies are dis-
tinguished; they are, at least in the original and narrow sense, formed
alongside economic structures, defined with reference to relations of
production, and reflected in the dispositions of, and options for, social
action. Class analysis focuses on how capital–labour relations are
shaped, and which classes and class interests exist within societies
(Wright, 2005). The question of whether particular rural social groups,
e.g. the peasantry, constitute a class is therefore far from being of mere
theoretical relevance, but provides the basis for investigating social
action in conflict: being a ‘class-in-itself’ (an economic category) is a
precondition for evolving into a ‘class-for-itself’, namely a politically
conscious group that under certain conditions (such as the existence of
political leaders or organisations) will act collectively to enforce its
interests (cf. Alavi, 1973: 29; Bernstein et al., 2018: 698). This being
said, the category of class enables the analysis of collective action in
relation to structures. However, class always intersects with other social
categories, such as gender, ethnicity and race (Deere, 1995; Harcourt,
2017; Razavi, 2009). This requires asking how structural changes not
only impact class relations, class formation and class struggle, but how
these changes impact intersectional relations of gender, race, class,
ethnicity and other social relations of difference in rural settings. Fur-
thermore, what does this mean for collective organisation (who orga-
nises and how?), and for the means of collective action (what strategies
are being used, and by whom?).
4.2. Institutions
Empirical findings on the expansion of the agro- and extractive in-
dustries suggest that not all structural changes can be identified with
the traditional instruments of the political economy. Jun Borras et al.
(2012) emphasise that capital investment does not necessarily have to
be associated with a change in the possession and ownership of land per
se, or with a direct expulsion and dispossession of the previous land
users. In fact, it is articulated through the acquisition of control over
land and a change in the forms of possession and ownership. The ca-
tegory of institutions sheds light on how—in relation to increasing in-
vestment in land and mining—new institutions to regulate the appro-
priation of, access to, and control and use of land emerge, old ones are
reinforced, and how these institutional orders selectively shape actors’
capacities to make a difference within a given context of structural
change, or even to transform the institutional logics (cf. Peters 2009).
Structural change in rural areas results not only from economic

212
K. Dietz and B. Engels
requirements to overcome global crises, but from previous political
decisions that mainly articulate in institutional reforms (Akram-Lodhi
and Kay, 2010a: 187f; Watts, 2009). The state—namely state policy,
state agencies, political institutions at various levels of govern-
ment—therefore plays a central role (Wolford et al., 2013). In the
course of the neoliberal reforms and structural adjustment programmes
of the late 1990s, new mining laws and institutional mining sector re-
forms were introduced and enforced in many countries in the Global
South, stimulating foreign direct investment in mining. Likewise,
agrarian and land policies and laws were reformed, with the aim of
liberalising land markets, privatising land tenure and capitalising the
agrarian sector. The constraining and enabling effects of these reforms
for social action vary among actors, mainly privileging private owners
of capital over others (Dietz and Engels, 2017). For empirical research
into land conflicts, this means asking questions about the political-in-
stitutional decisions and administrative practices that precede the in-
creased investment in land and raw materials, and examining the
constraining and enabling effects they unfold on different actors and
conflict action in conflicts over land.
Depending on the conflict under scrutiny, it may be necessary to
widen the scope and focus beyond sector-specific institutional reforms
to encompass the political-institutional ensembles more generally, e.g.
political liberalisation and democratisation, decentralisation, the in-
troduction of specific social, cultural and political rights, security laws,
and the legal establishment of new modes of political representation
and participation. Regime change, too, may be momentous for in-
stitutional settings. Empirical studies demonstrate that whereas in-
stitutional reforms may constrain protest movements and local state
agents’ actions, previous reforms of the institutional ensemble of the
state (e.g. concerning representation, decentralisation, direct democ-
racy) can also open up new opportunities for conflict action (cf. Dietz,
2019a).
Apart from formal regulations, institutions also comprise practices
and routines. Thus it is examined how these practices and routines
change in the context of increasing investment and what this means for
conflict action. Practices that are relevant with respect to the current
investment boom are, for instance, leasing, temporary use agreements,
concessions, as well as—in the context of agriculture—contract
farming. The practices of ‘dispossession through incorporation’ of
former land users create ‘winners and losers’; they often result in the
fragmentation of the affected population, and the formation of multiple
contrasting interests and demands. Thus in order to examine such ef-
fects, these practices need to be examined relative to the actors’ subject
positions, their demands regarding resources (e.g. property or land),
and their interaction with other actors (e.g. companies and investors).
Understood as the materialisation of structural constraints and op-
portunities, and as having emerged from previous actions, it is in-
stitutions that mediate the relationship between structure and agency.
4.3. Agency
Whether conflict arises and the course it may take are influenced by
structural changes and institutions, and the meanings that social actors
assign to both. Not every perceived contradiction necessarily results
(directly) in action, and conflict action does not always occur if actors
are aware of their interests in general (which does not necessarily have
to be the case); for instance, actors may perceive their means to be
inadequate, or not implementable, to achieve their goals, or that the
political-contextual conditions are unfavourable for collective action.
Local communities are not homogenous, just as the affected rural
poor are not subjectless, and neither become passive victims of struc-
tural changes that negatively impact their livelihoods. Rather, they
exert agency in land conflicts (cf. Hall et al., 2015; Borras and Franco,
2013). So too are the various rural and urban, governmental and non-
governmental actors who may join hands in protest against the agro-
industry and large-scale mining, the transformation and exploitation of
213
Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217
rural labour, and the expansion of mining. This includes peasant
farmers and ethnic organisations, urban youth and student organisa-
tions, women’s organisations, trade unions, environmental and human
rights associations, local government and local council members, as
well as business owners and large-scale landowners. An example of the
latter is the participation of large-scale landowners from agro-industry
in anti-mining protests (Dietz, 2019a). Alliances in conflicts over land
thus can (but do not necessarily have to) be formed across social classes.
Various actors might join forces in alliances, which does not necessarily
mean that they share common interests, perceive the structural changes
in the same way, or have the same instruments of power at their dis-
posal. Actors may interpret structural changes in various ways: in terms
of unequal distribution, as a loss or non-recognition of their cultural
and social rights, as cutting into their rights as citizens and their poli-
tical rights to democratic participation, as threatening the status quo of
the existing distribution of power and economic livelihoods, or as a
chance to improve their own circumstances (Rasch, 2012).
With regard to mining conflicts, scholars particularly emphasise
that in the context of the expansion of large-scale mining in the past
years, both the subjects of conflict and the constellations of actors have
changed. Historically, mining conflicts were characterised by struggles
over labour and exploitation (e.g. Larmer, 2017; Rubbers, 2017). The
actors involved were workers’ organisations, companies and state
agencies (national governments and authorities). In comparison, cur-
rent conflicts are considered to be increasingly characterised by the
destruction of livelihoods, by identity-related attributions and affilia-
tions, by the threat to rights, and the participation of diverse actors with
various interests (Bebbington et al., 2008: 901). However, under-
standing conflicts over resource exploitation and distribution as a class
struggle on the one hand, versus understanding conflicts due to re-
pression as the (postmodern) struggle for identity and livelihood on the
other, is misleading. The everyday life of the local communities in-
volved in land conflicts is frequently characterised by the overlapping
of repression and exploitation, political exclusion, the lack of recogni-
tion of cultural differences, and the collective resistance that may be
required to challenge this (O'Laughlin, 2002: 513). In land conflicts,
issues of distribution and identity, exploitation and repression, are
deeply intertwined.
From a dialectical perspective, how do structures and agency in
conflicts over land interrelate? We identify three linkages. First, struc-
tures are crucial to the emergence and establishment of collective ac-
tors. Economic structures—namely the relations of production, and
hence class structures—indeed play an important role, but are by no
means the only ones. Other categories of social differentiation such as
ethnicity, indigeneity, gender and nationality are likewise pivotal, for
example regarding the construction of collective identity, the exertion
of power and dominance, the mobilisation of protest, and the for-
mulation and assertion of claims.
Second, structures heavily influence the availability of resources to
actors in conflicts over land. As has been demonstrated by scholars from
social movement studies, various types of economic, socio-organisa-
tional, human, and cultural resources, which can be generated in var-
ious ways, are fundamental for organising and mobilising collective
action in response to conflicts (Jenkins, 1983; Edwards and McCarthy,
2007). Bettina Engels’ (2017) analysis of the conflict over the Bissa
goldmine in Burkina Faso shows that village residents with few material
resources to organise protests against the mine successfully relied on
other resources such as contacts, networks, support from lawyers and
movement organisations, as well as language and legal skills, in order to
articulate their interests to the mining companies and government ac-
tors.
Third, agency plays an important role in reproducing as well as
transforming structures and institutions. With regard to conflicts re-
lated to capital investment in land and mining, and protest against it,
we suggest differentiating between protests that fundamentally ques-
tion existing power and dominance relations on the one hand, and those
K. Dietz and B. Engels
in which actors protest in favour of improved integration and partici-
pation on the other (O'Laughlin, 2002: 515). In land conflicts, both
forms of protest occur. Social actors mobilise to prevent capital in-
vestment, while others mobilise for improved participation, for ex-
ample regarding compensation payments and access to employment. In
many conflicts, the demands to halt projects are implicitly—though in
some cases explicitly—linked to demands for fundamental social and
political change, for a change in the forms of the social appropriation of
nature, as well as the processes of political decision making (Arsel et al.,
2015; Avcı, 2017; Calvário et al., 2017; Dietz, 2019a).
With respect to the reproduction and transformation of institutions,
state actors are particularly noteworthy, as they play a core role in
translating structural changes into institutional regulations. The price
boom for raw materials and foodstuffs, as well as the related increase in
investment in land and mining, are not direct consequences of market
change. Under the influence of the neoliberal structural adjustment
measures of the 1990s and the debt and austerity policies of the 2000s
driven by the international financial institutions, national governments
made new laws to encourage investment, including liberalising mea-
sures and privatisation, the introduction of land registers, changes in
tax laws, and the designation of special development zones for the
extractive and agricultural industries (Bridge, 2004; Calvário et al.,
2017). State policy itself can also become a subject of conflict. This is
the case when, as a consequence of new or reformulated laws, institu-
tional reforms or repressive government strategies, land users are dis-
placed and the customary use and/or territorial autonomy rights of sub-
national units (municipalities, provinces) or ethnic communities are
ignored, or the scale of the distribution of power in the government
changes (Arellano-Yanguas, 2012; Boone, 2015; Lund and Rachman,
2016; Vélez-Torres, 2014).
State actors act neither consistently nor coherently, but rather
contradictorily and with differing interests. Whilst national govern-
ments use political reforms to promote the exploitation of natural re-
sources as a central strategy for national development, local govern-
ments adopt mining moratoriums, initiate citizens’ referenda against
mining, and demand their rights to municipal autonomy and co-de-
termination in issues of communal development (Dietz, 2019a; Walter
and Urkidi, 2017).
4.4. Narratives
The fourth dimension examines what meanings actors ascribe to
increasing capital investments in land and mining, and how these
meanings relate to structural constraints or opportunities for action.
The concept of narratives was introduced to political studies particu-
larly by scholars in deliberative policy analysis (cf. Hajer and
Wagenaar, 2003). It reveals the meanings through which actors make
sense of their experiences or the changes they face (Verloo, 2018). We
define narratives as stories about past events, future prospects and the
actors themselves (Polletta and Chen, 2017; de Moor and Wahlström,
2019). Narratives differ from frames. Whereas frames are strategic
presentations of a problem, a cause or a solution by protest actors, with
the aim of mobilising for collective action (Benford and Snow, 2000),
the notion of narrative refers to meaning making and identity building
in social activism. Narratives create a link between structural changes
and social action. Conflict action is embedded in the construction of
stories about what is happening, what has happened or what should
happen in the future. Narratives ‘allow actors to draw upon various
discursive categories to give meaning to specific physical or social
phenomena’ (Hajer, 1995: 56). The key function of narratives is to
suggest unity in the otherwise complex, confusing and often contra-
dictory discursive portrayals of a social conflict. For their cognition,
people draw on narratives that make sense to them, i.e. with regard to
their values, identities, cultural norms etc., rather than referring to
‘comprehensive discursive systems’ (ibid.). As such, narratives impact
heavily on what is thought and conceived and what is considered to be
214
Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217
true, legitimate, normal and equitable within social disputes; they are
embedded in social power relationships and are thus context-depen-
dent. Narratives are shaped by cultural and institutional norms and
values, overarching systems of meaning and institutionalised thoughts
(Polletta and Chen, 2017).
In conflicts over land, state actors, international organisations and
companies frequently portray capital investments in land and mining in
terms of (sustainable) development and technological progress, mod-
ernisation, poverty reduction, public welfare, the creation of jobs, and
an increase in affluence and income (Buchanan, 2013; Bebbington and
Bury, 2013; Dietz, 2019b). Using alternative or new stories, protest
actors can challenge these narratives to generate public interest and
support, and to set up new alliances in order to shift relations of forces
and change structural constraints. Whether they succeed in doing so
depends on the persuasive capacity of the alternative narratives; on
how the counter-narratives resonate with the cultural and institutional
context in which they are told; and how successful they are in chal-
lenging the ideological commonsense that underpins the laws, policies
and institutions (Polletta and Chen, 2017). In this regard, narratives
mediate the relationship between structure and agency.
Protest actors counter governments’ or corporations’ portrayals of
investments in land and mining, often with narratives of identity, jus-
tice and risk, and the right to democratic participation. In these nar-
ratives, protest actors frame their objections to an agro-industrial or
large-scale mining project in terms of the protection of an ecosystem or
land-related resource (e.g. water), of bringing forth ‘environmental
justice’, and of securing livelihoods (Haalboom, 2011; Urkidi, 2010).
But using these narratives might not work in all contexts and at all
scales in the same way. Haarstad and Fløysand (2007), studying op-
position and industry narratives in a conflict over mining in Peru, reveal
how pivotal it is for activists to rescale and contextualise narratives in
order to raise support and enable communication with potential allies
and networks. The authors emphasise how narratives are strategically
transformed and adapted to different scales in order to gain legitimacy
from scale-specific hegemonic discourses; in the Peruvian case, this
involves identity at the national scale or human and democratic rights
at the global scale.
5. Conclusion
Many studies share our concerns over the inadequacy of under-
standing land conflicts merely as the local expression of a global poli-
tical economy, as well as our emphasis on the need to analytically
connect structures, actors, institutions and narratives to reach a more
comprehensive understanding of how structural changes and action in
conflicts over land are interrelated (Edelman and Borras, 2016; Borras
and Franco, 2013). We therefore suggest a framework for the empirical
analysis of conflicts over capital investment in land and mining, con-
flicts which are connected to structural changes and crises. Ontologi-
cally, this framework builds on an actor-oriented concept of conflict
and a dialectical understanding of structure–agency relations that refers
to historical materialism. It comprises, furthermore, four analytical
dimensions for the study of land conflicts—structures, institutions,
agency and narratives—as identified in the literature.
Referring to work mainly from critical agrarian studies, we have
argued that structural change becomes visible in three categories: land,
labour relations and social relations (particularly class relations).
Through the lens of these categories, not only can the effects of struc-
tural change be recognised, but they can also be systematically linked to
agency (e.g. the formation of collective actors, mobilisation and claim
making), institutions (e.g. land and labour regimes), and narratives
(e.g. on investment-driven ‘development’ and the meaning of labour,
and therefore on ‘effective’ land use).
With the four-dimensional framework, we aim to contribute to en-
hancing theoretically-informed and non-dichotomous empirical re-
search on conflicts over land that are related to global crises. This does
K. Dietz and B. Engels
not mean that the dimensions and questions outlined in the framework
(see Table 1) have not been asked before. We rather suggest linking
different sets of questions to one another in order to allow for a more
thorough understanding of how structural changes and social conflict
action with respect to land are linked to each other. Self-evidently, not
all dimensions and questions need to be equally relevant to the analysis
of any case, but rather depend on the epistemological interest, on the
research questions and on the empirical context of the case.
The four dimensions are not placed in a hierarchical relationship to
one another, but are rather interwoven by manifold reciprocal rela-
tions. Though structures, by definition, are not easy to change in the
short-term, they are also not set in stone. They can change, in-
tentionally or unintentionally, as a result of alternative narratives, in-
stitutional reforms and conflict actions. In conflicts over capital in-
vestment, protest actors influence, through their interactions with state
actors and/or the companies involved, the political institutions of
participation, the distribution of assets, and the scales of power dis-
tribution within the state. In so doing, they actively contribute to
shifting structures that hinder or enable (further) contentious collective
action.
Finally, what does the proposed analytical framework enable us to
understand and capture analytically, which would otherwise remain
obscured? The dialectical perspective provides a theoretical under-
standing of how structural shifts related to global crises impact conflict
action, albeit without reducing social action to a consequence of
overpowering structures. It has been depicted in the literature that the
global tendency towards increasing investment in land has, in many
contexts, triggered conflict—though not everywhere and at every mo-
ment in time. Moreover, conflicts vary significantly with regard to actor
constellations, the means of action, the course and the outcomes. The
framework’s four analytical dimensions respond to the purpose of en-
tangling, systematising and thus understanding these varieties.
Without doubt, power asymmetries among conflict actors exist, and
actors protesting against agro-industrial and large-scale mining projects
often act under unfavourable material conditions, and their (conflict)
actions are a reaction to these conditions. How and to what extent this
reproduces, perpetuates or changes the structures is an empirical
question.
Hence, conflicts related to capital investment in land and mining
should be analysed within their respective contexts. This means
studying land conflicts as resulting from specific sets of relationships
between structures, institutions, agency and narratives. However, this is
not meant to lose track of the similarities and overarching features that
characterise these conflicts. A profound analysis of ‘global–local’ con-
flicts over land should thus deliberately take both into account: ‘place-
specific’ impacts, and typical configurations ‘across places’. Eventually,
this means recognising that conflicts over land cannot be determined as
either global or local, outside or inside, external or internal.
Author note
The authors are directors of the Junior Research Group ‘Global
Change and Local Conflicts? Conflicts over Land in Latin America and
sub-Saharan Africa in the Context of Interdependent Transformation
Processes’ at Freie Universität Berlin. Their research and teaching focus
on political ecology, critical agrarian studies, conflicts over land and
mining, on Latin America, Africa, and transnational entanglements.
They have recently published articles in the Canadian Journal of
Development Studies, The Extractive Industries and Society, Review of
African Political Economy, and others.
Author contributions
All ideas presented in the article have been developed jointly by the
authors. We have written and revised the manuscript jointly. No in-
dividual contributions can be identified.
215
Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und
Forschung, BMBF) under its funding line “Global Change” [Grant
Number FKZ 01LN1302A].
References
Akram-Lodhi, A.H., 2012. Contextualising land grabbing: contemporary land deals, the
global subsistence crisis and the world food system. Canadian Journal of
Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement 33 (2),
119–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2012.690726.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H., Dietz, K., Engels, B., McKay, B., 2020. The Edward Elgar handbook of
critical agrarian studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham forthcoming.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H., Kay, C., 2010a. Surveying the agrarian question (part 1): unearthing
foundations, exploring diversity. J. Peasant Stud. 37 (1), 177–202. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03066150903498838.
Akram-Lodhi, A.H., Kay, C., 2010b. Surveying the agrarian question (part 2): current
debates and beyond. J. Peasant Stud. 37 (2), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03066151003594906.
Alavi, H., 1973. Peasant classes and primordial loyalties. J. Peasant Stud. 1 (1), 23–62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066157308437871.
Anying, I.W., Gausset, Q., 2017. Gender and forum shopping in land conflict resolution in
Northern Uganda. J. Legal Pluralism Unofficial Law 49 (3), 353–372. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07329113.2017.1383023.
Araghi, F., Karides, M., 2012. Land Dispossession and Global Crisis: introduction to the
special section on land rights in the world-system. Am. Sociol. Assoc. XVIII(1)
(1), 1–5.
Arellano-Yanguas, J., 2012. Mining and conflict in Peru: sowing the minerals, reaping a
hail of stones. In: Bebbington, A. (Ed.), Social conflict, economic development and
extractive industry: evidence from South America. Routledge, London, pp. 89–111.
Arsel, M., Akbulut, B., Adaman, F., 2015. Environmentalism of the malcontent: anatomy
of an anti-coal power plant struggle in Turkey. J. Peasant Stud. 42 (2), 371–395.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.971766.
Avcı, D., 2017. Mining conflicts and transformative politics: a comparison of Intag
(Ecuador) and Mount Ida (Turkey) environmental struggles. Geoforum 84
(Supplement C), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.013.
Baglioni, E., Gibbon, P., 2013. Land Grabbing, Large- and Small-scale Farming: what can
evidence and policy from 20th century Africa contribute to the debate? Third World
Quart. 34 (9), 1558–1581. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.843838.
Bebbington, A., Bury, J., 2013. Subterranean Struggles. New Dynamics of Mining, Oil,
and Gas in Latin America. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Bebbington, A., Hinojosa, L., Bebbington, D.H., Burneo, M.L., Warnaars, X., 2008a.
Contention and ambiguity: mining and the possibilities of development. Develop.
Change 39 (6), 887–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00517.x.
Bebbington, A., Humphreys Bebbington, D., Bury, J., Lingan, J., Muñoz, J.P., Scurrah, M.,
2008b. Mining and social movements: struggles over livelihood and rural territorial
development in the andes. World Dev. 36 (12), 2888–2905. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2007.11.
Benford, R.D., Snow, D.E., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview
and assessment. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
soc.26.1.611.
Benjaminsen, T.A., Maganga, F.P., Abdallah, J.M., 2009. The kilosa killings: political
ecology of a farmer-herder conflict in Tanzania. Develop. Change 40 (3), 423–445.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01558.x.
Bernstein, H., 2010. Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax.
Bernstein, H., Friedmann, H., van der Ploeg, J.D., Shanin, T., White, B., 2018. Forum: fifty
years of debate on peasantries, 1966–2016. J. Peasant Stud. 45 (4), 689–714. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1439932.
Berry, S., 2018. Who owns the land? Social relations and conflict over resources in Africa,
GLOCON Working Paper, No. 7. Berlin. https://www.land-conflicts.fu-berlin.de/
publikationen/working-papers/Working-Paper-No-7/index.html.
Boone, C., 2013. Land regimes and the structure of politics: patterns of land-related
conflict. Africa: J. Int. Afric. Inst. 83 (1), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0001972012000770.
Boone, C., 2015. Land tenure regimes and state structure in rural Africa: Implications for
forms of resistance to large-scale land acquisitions by outsiders. J. Contemp. African
Stud. 33 (2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2015.1065576.
Borras, S.M., Kay, C., Gómez, S., Wilkinson, J., 2012. Land grabbing and global capitalist
accumulation: key features in Latin America. Canadian Journal of Development
Studies / Revue canadienne d'études du développement 33 (4), 402–416. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02255189.2012.745394.
Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., 2013. Global land grabbing and political reactions ‘from
below’. Third World Quart. 34 (9), 1723–1747. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.
2013.843845.
Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., Wang, C., 2013. The challenge of global governance of land
grabbing: changing international agricultural context and competing political views
and strategies. Globalizations 10 (1), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.
2013.764152.
Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., Isakson, S.R., Levidow, L., Vervest, P., 2016. The rise of flex
crops and commodities: Implications for research. J. Peasant Stud. 43 (1), 93–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2015.1036417.
K. Dietz and B. Engels
Bridge, G., 2004. Contested terrains: mining and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 29, 205–259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.011503.163434.
Brottem, L.V., 2016. Environmental change and farmer-herder conflict in agro-pastoral
West Africa. Human Ecol. 44 (5), 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-
9846-5.
Buchanan, K.S., 2013. Contested discourses, knowledge, and socio-environmental conflict
in Ecuador. Environ. Sci. Policy 30, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.
12.012.
Bush, R., Martiniello, G., 2017. Food riots and protest: agrarian modernizations and
structural crises. World Dev. 91, 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.
10.017.
Calvário, R., Velegrakis, G., Kaika, M., 2017. The political ecology of austerity: an ana-
lysis of socio-environmental conflict under crisis in Greece. Capitalism Nature
Socialism 28 (3), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1260147.
Conde, M., Walter, M., 2014. Degrowth. A vocabulary for a new era. In: Giacomp D’Alisa,
F.D., Demaria, F., Kallis, G. (Eds.), Commodity Frontiers. Routledge, Abingdon, pp.
71–74.
Conde, M., 2017. Resistance to mining. A review. Ecol. Econ. 132, 80–90. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.025.
Conde, M., Le Billon, P., 2017. Why do some communities resist mining projects while
others do not? Extract. Ind. Soc. 4 (3), 681–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.
2017.04.009.
Coser, L., 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. Routledge, London.
Davis, J.E., 2002. Stories of Change: Narrative and Social Movements. SUNY, Albany.
Deere, C.D., 1995. What difference does gender make? Rethinking peasant studies.
Feminist Econ. 1 (1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/714042214.
de Moor, J., Wahlström, M., 2019. Narrating political opportunities: explaining strategic
adaptation in the climate movement. Theory Soc. 48 (3), 419–451. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11186-019-09347-3.
Dietz, K., 2019. Direct democracy in mining conflicts in Latin America: Mobilising against
Colombia’s La Colosa project. Canadian Journal of Development Studies /Revue ca-
nadienne d’études du développement 40 (2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02255189.2018.1467830.
Dietz, K., 2019. Contesting claims for democracy: the role of narratives in conflicts over
resource extraction. Extract. Ind. Soc. 6 (2), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.
2019.03.004.
Dietz, K., Engels, B., 2017. Contested extractivism, society and the state: an introduction.
In: Engels, B., Dietz, K. (Eds.), Contested Extractivism, Society and the State:
Struggles over Mining and Land. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 1–19.
Eck, K., 2014. The law of the land: communal conflict and legal authority. J. Peace Res.
51 (4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343314522257.
Edelman, M., Oya, C., Borras, S.M., 2013. Global Land Grabs: historical processes, the-
oretical and methodological implications and current trajectories. Third World Quart.
34 (9), 1517–1531. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.850190.
Edelman, M., Borras, J., 2016. Political Dynamics of Transnational Agrarian Movements.
Fernwood Publishing, Winnipeg.
Edelman, M., Wolford, W., 2017. Introduction: critical agrarian studies in theory and
practice. Antipode 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12326.
Edwards, B., McCarthy, J., 2007. Resources and social movement mobilization. In: Snow,
D.A., Soule, S.A., Kriesi, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements.
Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 116–152.
Engels, B., 2017. Mobilisierung und Ressourcen im Konflikt um die Mine Bissa Gold in
Sabcé, Burkina Faso. Forschungsjournal soziale Bewegungen 30 (1), 44–53.
Feola, G., Suzunaga, J., Soler, J., Goodman, M.K., 2019. Ordinary land grabbing in peri-
urban spaces: land conflicts and governance in a small Colombian city. Geoforum
105, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.018.
Galtung, J., 1978. Theories of Conflict. University of Oslo, Oslo.
Haalboom, B., 2011. Framed encounters with conservation and mining development:
indigenous peoples' use of strategic framing in Suriname. Soc. Movement Stud. 10
(4), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2011.614108.
Haarstad, H., Fløysand, A., 2007. Globalization and the power of rescaled narratives: a
case of opposition to mining in Tambogrande, Peru. Polit. Geogr. 26 (3), 289–308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.10.014.
Hadjimichalis, C., 2014. Crisis and land dispossession in Greece as part of the global ‘land
fever’. City 18 (4–5), 502–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2014.939470.
Hall, R., Edelman, M., Borras, S.M., Scoones, I., White, B., Wolford, W., 2015. Resistance,
acquiescence or incorporation? An introduction to land grabbing and political reac-
tions ‘from below’. J. Peasant Stud. 42 (3–4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03066150.2015.1036746.
Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of environmental discourse - ecological modernization and
the policy process. Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/
019829333X.001.0001.
Hajer, M.A., Wagenaar, H., 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding
Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Harcourt, W., 2017. Gender and sustainable livelihoods: linking gendered experiences of
environment, community and self. J Agric., Food, Human Values Soc. 34 (4),
1007–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9757-5.
Harvey, D., 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hay, C., 2001. What Place for Ideas in the Structure-Agency Debate? Globalisation as a
'Process Without a Subject'. http://www.criticalrealism.com/archive/cshay_wpisad.
html.
Hinojosa, L., Bebbington, A., Cortez, G., Chumacero, J.P., Humphreys Bebbington, D.,
Hennermann, K., 2015. Gas and development: rural territorial dynamics in Tarija,
Bolivia. World Dev. 73, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.12.016.
Hufe, P., Heuermann, D.F., 2017. The local impacts of large-scale land acquisitions: a
review of case study evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Contemp. Afric. Stud. 35
216
Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217
(2), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2017.1307505.
Jenkins, J.C., 1983. Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements.
Ann. Rev. Sociol. 9, 527–553. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.
002523.
Jenkins, K., 2015. Unearthing Women's Anti-Mining Activism in the Andes: Pachamama
and the “Mad Old Women”. Antipode 47 (2), 442–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.
12126.
Jessop, B., 2005. Critical realism and the strategic-relational approach. New Format.: J.
Cult., Theory Polit. 56, 40–53.
Jessop, B., 2008. State Power. A Strategic Relational Approach. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Kitschelt, H.P., 1986. Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear
movements in four democracies. Brit. J. Polit. Sci. 16 (1), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S000712340000380X.
Kirst, S., Engels, B., 2015. Beyond scarcity: conflicts over land and social relations in
south- western Burkina Faso. Modern Africa: Polit., History Soc. 2 (1), 75–93.
Komlosy, A., 2016. Work and labor relations. In: Kocka, J., van der Linden, M. (Eds.),
Capitalism: The Reemergence of a Historical Concept. Bloomsbury, London, pp.
33–69.
Lahiri-Dutt, K., 2018. Extractive peasants: reframing informal artisanal and small-scale
mining debates. Third World Quart. 39 (8), 1561–1582.
Larmer, M., 2017. Permanent precarity: capital and labour in the Central African cop-
perbelt. Labor History 58 (2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656x.2017.
1298712.
Le Billon, P., Sommerville, M., 2017. Landing capital and assembling ‘investable land’ in
the extractive and agricultural sectors. Geoforum 82, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.geoforum.2016.08.011.
Lederach, J.P., 1995. Preparing for Peace. Conflict Transformation Across Cultures.
Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Lerche, J., 2010. From ‘rural labour’ to ‘classes of labour’: Class fragmentation, caste and
class struggle at the bottom of the Indian labour hierarchy. In: Harriss-White, B.,
Heyer, J. (Eds.), The Comparative Political Economy of Development. Africa and
South Asia. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 90–111.
Levien, M., 2017. Gender and land dispossession: a comparative analysis. J. Peasant Stud.
44 (6), 1111–1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1367291.
Li, T.M., 2014. What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Trans. Inst.
Brit. Geogr. 39 (4), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12065.
Li, T.M., 2017. Rendering land investible: five notes on time. Geoforum 82, 276–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.004.
Lombard, M., Rakodi, C., 2016. Urban land conflict in the Global South: Towards an
analytical framework. Urban Stud. 53 (13), 2683–2699 doi:
10.1177%2F0042098016659616.
Lund, C., Rachman, N.F., 2016. Occupied! Property, citizenship and peasant movements
in rural java. Develop. Change 47 (6), 1316–1337. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.
12263.
Martinez-Alier, J., Walter, M., 2016. Social metabolism and conflicts over extractivism.
In: Castro, F., Hogenboom, B., Baud, M. (Eds.), Environmental Governance in Latin
America. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 58–85.
Martinez-Alier, J., Temper, L., Del Bene, D., Scheidel, A., 2016. Is there a global en-
vironmental justice movement? J. Peasant Stud. 43 (3), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03066150.2016.1141198.
Marx, K., 1976 [1867]. Capital. A critique of political economy, Vol. 1. Penguin,
Harmondsworth.
Marx, K., 1978 [1852]. Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Peking. Foreign
Languages Press, Peking.
McCarthy, J.F., 2010. Processes of inclusion and adverse incorporation: oil palm and
agrarian change in Sumatra, Indonesia. J. Peasant Stud. 37 (4), 821–850.
Meyer, D.S., 2004. Protest and political opportunities. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 30, 125–145.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110545.
Moore, J.W., 2000. Sugar and the expansion of the early modern world-economy.
Commodity frontiers, ecological transformation, and industrialization. Review XXIII
(3), 409–433.
Moulaert, F., Jessop, B., Mehmood, A., 2016. Agency, structure, institutions, discourse
(ASID) in urban and regional development. Int. J. Urban Sci. 20 (2), 167–187.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2016.1182054.
Murmis, M., Murmis, M.R., 2012. Land concentration and foreign land ownership in
Argentina in the context of global land grabbing. Canadian Journal of Development
Studies / Revue canadienne d'études du développement 33 (4), 490–508. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02255189.2012.745395.
Nolte, K., Wytske, C., Giger, M., 2016. International Land Deals for Agriculture. Fresh
Insights from the Land Matrix: Analytical Report II. Bern Open Publ., Bern.
O'Laughlin, B., 2002. Proletarianisation, agency and changing rural livelihoods: forced
labour and resistance in colonial Mozambique. J. Southern Afric. Stud. 28 (3),
511–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305707022000006495.
Pattenden, J., 2018. The politics of classes of labour: fragmentation, reproduction zones
and collective action in Karnataka, India. J. Peasant Stud. 45 (5–6), 1039–1059.
Peters, P.E., 2002. Bewitching land: the role of land disputes in converting kin to stran-
gers and in class formation in Malawi. J. Southern Afric. Stud. 28 (1), 155–178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070120117024.
Peters, P.E., Kambewa, D., 2007. Whose security? Deepening social conflict over 'cus-
tomary' land in the shadow of land tenure reform in Malawi. J. Modern Afric. Stud.
45 (3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X07002704.
Peters, P.E., 2009. Challenges in land tenure and land reform in Africa: anthropological
contributions. World Dev. 37 (8), 1317–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.
2008.08.021.
Polletta, F., Chen, P.C.B., 2017. Narrative and social movements. In: Alexander, J.C.,
Jacbos, R.N., Smith, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology. Oxford
K. Dietz and B. Engels
University Press, Oxford, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780195377767.013.18.
Pye, O., 2017. A Plantation precariat: fragmentation and organizing potential in the palm
oil global production network. Develop. Change 48 (5), 942–964. https://doi.org/10.
1111/dech.12334.
Pye, O., 2015. Transnational space and workers’ struggles. Reshaping the palm oil in-
dustry in Malaysia. In: Dietz, K., Engels, B., Brunnengräber, A., Pye, O. (Eds.), The
Political Ecology of Agrofuels. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 186–201.
Rasmussen, M.B., Lund, C., 2018. Reconfiguring Frontier Spaces: the territorialization of
resource control. World Dev. 101, 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.
2017.01.018.
Rasch, E., 2012. Transformations in citizenship: local resistance against mining projects in
Huehuetenango (Guatemala). J. Develop. Soc. 28 (2), 159–184.
Razavi, S., 2009. Engendering the political economy of agrarian change. J. Peasant Stud.
36 (1), 197–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820412.
Reichl, C., Schatz, M., 2019. World Mining Data 2019. Federal Ministry for Sustainability
and Tourism, International Organizing Committee for the World Mining Congresses,
Vienna.
Richani, N., 2012. The agrarian Rentier political economy: land concentration and food
insecurity in Colombia. Latin Am. Res. Rev. 47 (2), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1353/
lar.2012.0025.
Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Özkaynak, B., 2017. Environmental justice through the lens of
mining conflicts. Geoforum 84, 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.
06.02.1.
Rubbers, B., 2017. Towards a life of poverty and uncertainty? The livelihood strategies of
Gécamines workers after retrenchment in the DRC. Rev. Afric. Polit. Econ. 44 (152),
189–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2016.1273827.
Scott, J., 1976. The moral economy of the peasant. Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast
Asia. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
SNL Metals & Mining, 2015. World Exploration Trends 2015. [http://go.snl.com/rs/
spglobal/images/World-Exploration-Trends-WET-Report-2015-English-USletter.pdf,
[last accessed: 15 August 2019].
Snow, D.A., Benford, R.D., 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In: Morris, A.D.,
Mueller, C.M. (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT, pp. 133–155.
Steel, G., van Noorloos, F., Klaufus, C., 2017. The urban land debate in the global South:
new avenues for research. Geoforum 83, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2017.03.006.
Svampa, M., 2015. Commodities consensus: neoextractivism and enclosure of the com-
mons in Latin America. South Atlantic Quart. 114 (1), 65–82.
Tarrow, S.G., 1998. Power in Movements: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tarrow, S.G., 1996. States and Opportunities: The Political Structuring of Social
Movements. In: McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D., Mayer, N.Z. (Eds.), Comparative
217
Geoforum 111 (2020) 208–217
Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures,
and Cultural Framings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 41–61.
Tilly, C., 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Tsikata, D., 2016. Gender, land tenure and Agrarian production systems in sub-Saharan
Africa. Agrarian South: J. Polit. Econ. 5 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2277976016658738.
Turner, J.H., 1975. Marx and Simmel revisited: reassessing the foundations of conflict
theory. Soc. Forces 53, 618–627.
Ubink, J., 2018. Introduction: legal pluralism in a globalized world. UC Irvine Law Rev. 8,
141–148.
Unruh, J.D., 2008. Catalyzing the socio-legal space for armed conflict: land and legal
pluralism in pre-war Liberia. J. Legal Pluralism Unofficial Law 40 (58), 1–31. https://
doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2008.10756622.
Urkidi, L., 2010. A global environmental movement against gold mining Pascua-Lama in
Chile. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2), 219–227.
Vélez-Torres, I., 2014. Governmental extractivism in Colombia: legislation, securitization
and the local settings of mining control. Polit. Geogr. 38, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.polgeo.2013.11.008.
Verbrugge, B., 2016. Voices from below: artisanal- and small-scale mining as a product
and catalyst of rural transformation. J. Rural Stud. 47, Part A, 108–116. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.07.025.
Verloo, N., 2018. Social-spatial narrative: a framework to analyze the democratic op-
portunity of conflict. Polit. Geogr. 62, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.
2017.11.001.
von Benda-Beckmann, F., 2002. Who’s afraid of legal pluralism? J. Legal Pluralism
Unofficial Law 34 (47), 37–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2002.10756563.
Walter, M., Urkidi, L., 2017. Community mining consultations in Latin America
(2002–2012): the contested emergence of a hybrid institution for participation.
Geoforum 84, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.007.
Watts, M., 2009. The Southern question: Agrarian questions of labour and capital. In:
Akram-Lodhi, A.H., Kay, C. (Eds.), Peasants and globalization: Political economy,
rural transformation and the agrarian question. Routledge, London, pp. 262–287.
Whyte, S.R., Acio, E., 2017. Generations and access to land in postconflict northern
Uganda: “youth have no voice in land matters”. African Stud. Rev. 60 (3), 17–36.
https://doi.org/10.1017/asr.2017.120.
Wolford, W., Borras, S.M., Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B., 2013. Governing global land
deals: the role of the state in the rush for land. Develop. Change 44 (2), 189–210.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12017.
Wright, E.O., 2005. Foundations of a neo-Marxist class analysis. In: Wright, E.O. (Ed.),
Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 4–30.
Zoomers, A., 2011. Introduction: rushing for land: equitable and sustainable development
in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Development 54 (1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.
1057/dev.2010.97.