Primitive Accumulation, Accumulation by Dispossession and the Global Land Grab

Abstract

Critical scholars have made extensive use of the concepts of primitive accumulation and accumulation by dispossession to analyse the global land grab. These concepts have been crucial to efforts to understand the land grab in terms of the creation, expansion and reproduction of capitalist social relations, of accumulation by extra-economic means, and of dispossessory responses to capitalist crises. This paper provides an overview of these approaches. It also argues that there are substantial challenges involved in the use of primitive accumulation and accumulation by dispossession, including tensions and ambiguities over what the concepts mean, the assumptions embedded within them and problems of fit with other conceptualisations of the land grab. The paper also highlights resources for engaging with these challenges in the land grab literature.

I received very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper from Mez Baker, Hekia Bodwitch, Jennie Durant, Mike Dwyer, Marc Edelman, Elizabeth Havice, Alice Kelly, Lisa Kelley, Sarah Milne, Jason Morris-Jung, Carlos Oya, Nancy Peluso and two anonymous reviewers for twq. Any errors are my own.

Notes

1 K Marx, Capital, Vol 1, London: Penguin, 1976; and D Harvey, The New Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

2 S Moyo, P Yeros & P Jha, ‘Imperialism and primitive accumulation: notes on the new scramble for Africa’, Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 1(2), 2012, p 182. See also U Patnaik, ‘The agrarian question in the neoliberal era’, in U Patnaik & S Moyo (eds), The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry, Oxford: Pambazuka Press, 2011, p 11.

3 W Wolford, SM Borras Jr, R Hall, I Scoones & B White, ‘Governing global land deals: the role of the state in the rush for land’, Development and Change, 44(2), 2013, p 197; and SM Borras Jr & J Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change: a preliminary analysis’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(1), 2012, p 49.

4 L Mehta, GJ Veldwisch & J Franco, ‘Water grabbing? Focus on the (re)appropriation of finite water resources’, Water Alternatives, 5(2), 2012, p 195. See also Borras & Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change’, pp 35–36. It should be noted that some land grab research does not use a critical political economy framework.

5 B White, SM Borras Jr, R Hall, I Scoones & W Wolford, ‘The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 621, 623.

6 Ibid; and L Alden Wily, ‘Looking back to see forward: the legal niceties of land theft in land rushes’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 751–775.

7 Mehta et al, ‘Water grabbing?’; and J Fairhead, M Leach & I Scoones, ‘Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 2012, pp 237–261.

8 M Levien, ‘The land question: special economic zones and the political economy of dispossession in India’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 937–940.

9 Borras & Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change’, p 38.

10 For key references, see D Hall, ‘Rethinking primitive accumulation: theoretical tensions and rural Southeast Asian complexities’, Antipode, 44(4), 2012, p 1190.

11 F Araghi, ‘Accumulation by displacement: global enclosures, food crisis, and the ecological contradictions of capitalism’, Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center, XXXII(1), 2009, pp 113–146.

12 P Patnaik, ‘The accumulation process in the period of globalisation’, Economic and Political Weekly, 43(26–27), 2008, pp 108–113.

13 S Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh: interactions between neoliberal globalization, state interventions, power relations and peasant resistance’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(1), 2013, pp 87–128.

14 S Moyo, ‘Primitive accumulation and the destruction of African peasantries’, in Patnaik & Moyo, The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era, p 64.

15 H Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing: contemporary land deals, the global subsistence crisis and the world food system’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 33(2), 2012, p 126; and T Perrault, ‘Dispossession by accumulation? Mining, water and the nature of enclosure on the Bolivian Altiplano’, Antipode, forthcoming.

16 Key examples are P McMichael, ‘The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 681–701; SM Borras Jr, C Kay, S Gómez & J Wilkinson, ‘Land grabbing and capitalist accumulation: key features in Latin America’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 33(4), 2012, pp 402–416; and Alden Wily, ‘Looking back to see forward’.

17 For reviews, see J Glassman, ‘Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession, accumulation by “extra-economic” means’, Progress in Human Geography, 30(5), 2006, pp 608–625; Hall, ‘Rethinking primitive accumulation’; and Levien, ‘The land question’.

18 The definitions (of ‘land grabbing’ or ‘land grabs’) can be found at Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, p 125; S Arduino, G Colombo, OM Ocampo & L Panzeri, ‘Contamination of community potable water from land grabbing: a case study from rural Tanzania’, Water Alternatives, 5(2), 2012, p 345; SM Borras Jr, JC Franco, S Gómez, C Kay & Max Spoor, ‘Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean’, Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3–4), 2012, p 851; M Margulis, N McKeon & SM Borras Jr, ‘Land grabbing and global governance: critical perspectives’, Globalizations, 10(1), 2013, p 2; and White et al, ‘The new enclosures’, p 619. I take up Levien’s use of ‘land grab’ below.

19 See A Zoomers, ‘Globalisation and the foreignisation of space: seven processes driving the current global land grab’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 2010, pp 429–447.

20 Borras et al, ‘Land grabbing and capitalist accumulation’, p 404.

21 See Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, p 126; and Margulis et al, ‘Land grabbing and global governance’, p 2.

22 M Islar, ‘Privatised hydropower development in Turkey: a case of water grabbing?’, Water Alternatives, 5(2), 2012, p 386; Bakker cited in Fairhead et al, ‘Green grabbing’, p 243; and Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, pp 130–131.

23 For the former approach, see Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh’, pp 95, 123; C Corson & KI MacDonald, ‘Enclosing the global commons: the Convention on Biological Diversity and green grabbing’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 2012, pp 268–283; and TA Benjaminsen & I Bryceson, ‘Conservation, green/blue grabbing and accumulation by dispossession in Tanzania’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 2012, p 336. For the latter, see Levien, ‘The land question’; and Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, pp 130–131.

24 My analysis here is informed by M Levien, ‘Special economic zones and accumulation by dispossession in India’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 11(4), 2011, pp 454–483; and Levien, ‘The land question’.

25 Levien, ‘The land question’, p 938.

26 Hall, ‘Rethinking primitive accumulation’, pp 1191–1196.

27 Harvey, The New Imperialism, pp 144, 149.

28 Ibid, p 151.

29 Some understandings are broader. See Glassman, ‘Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession, accumulation by “extra-economic” means’, p 617.

30 Levien, ‘The land question’, p 940. See also S Sassen, ‘A savage sorting of winners and losers: contemporary versions of primitive accumulation’, Globalizations, 7(1–2), 2010, p 23.

31 Hall, ‘Rethinking primitive accumulation’, pp 1198–1199; Levien, ‘The land question’, pp 937–938; and Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh’, pp 92–94.

32 M Kenney-Lazar, ‘Plantation rubber, land grabbing and social-property transformation in southern Laos’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, p 1021. See also EM Wood, ‘Logics of power: a conversation with David Harvey’, Historical Materialism, 14(4), 2006, p 23.

33 See M Sosa & M Zwarteveen, ‘Exploring the politics of water grabbing: the case of large mining operations in the Peruvian Andes’, Water Alternatives, 5(2), 2012, p 372; and M Keulertz, ‘Land and water grabs and the green economy’, in T Allan, M Keulertz, S Sojamo & J Warner (eds), Handbook of Land and Water Grabs in Africa: Foreign Direct Investment and Food and Water Security, London: Routledge, 2013, p 249.

34 McMichael, ‘The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring’, p 681.

35 Borras et al, ‘Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean’, p 851, emphasis in the original.

36 Ibid, p 846. For another argument about crisis, see Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, p 135.

37 Fairhead et al, ‘Green grabbing’, p 243; and White et al, ‘The new enclosures’, p 627.

38 Corson & MacDonald, ‘Enclosing the global commons’, p 268.

39 Borras et al, ‘Land grabbing and capitalist accumulation’, pp 405–407; and Borras et al, ‘Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean’, pp 859, 863.

40 M Edelman, ‘Messy hectares: questions about the epistemology of land grabbing data’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(3), 2013, p 488.

41 Borras & Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agriaran change’, pp 47, 49–50.

42 Indian figure cited in M Levien, ‘Regimes of dispossession: from steel towns to special economic zones’, Development and Change, 44(2), 2013, p 403. Chinese figure in YT Hsing, The Great Urban Transformation: Politics of Land and Property in China, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, p 17.

43 M Fairbairn, ‘Indirect dispossession: domestic power imbalances and foreign access to land in Mozambique’, Development and Change, 44(3), 2013, p 335.

44 Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, p 135. On intentional analyses of primitive accumulation, see Hall, ‘Rethinking primitive accumulation’, p 1195; and Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh’, pp 88, 93.

45 Patnaik, ‘The agrarian question in the neoliberal era’, p 11; and Corson & MacDonald, ‘Enclosing the global commons’, p 268.

46 P Woodhouse, ‘New investment, old challenges: land deals and the water constraint in African agriculture’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, p 779; R Smalley & E Corbera, ‘Large-scale land deals from the inside out: findings from Kenya’s Tana Delta’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 1041-2; and T Sikor, ‘Tree plantations, politics of possession and the absence of land grabs in Vietnam’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(4), 2012, p 1099.

47 NL Peluso & C Lund, ‘New frontiers of land control: introduction’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 2011, p 669. See, similarly, JF McCarthy, JAC Vel & S Afiff, ‘Trajectories of land acquisition and enclosure: development schemes, virtual land grabs, and green acquisitions in Indonesia’s outer islands’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 2012, p 522.

48 T Lavers, ‘Patterns of agrarian transformation in Ethiopia: state-mediated commercialisation and the “land grab”’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 795–822. For ‘modify’ and ‘mediate’, see Fairbairn, ‘Indirect dispossession’, pp 335–336.

49 Fairbairn, ‘Indirect dispossession’, p 351.

50 Borras et al, ‘Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean’, p 847.

51 Levien, ‘The land question’, p 936; and Levien, ‘Regimes of dispossession’.

52 S Feldman & C Geisler, ‘Land expropriation and displacement in Bangladesh’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, p 971.

53 D Hall, Land, Cambridge: Polity, 2013, pp 52–59.

54 Fairbairn, ‘Indirect dispossession’, p 342; and Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, p 127.

55 See, for instance, Lavers, ‘Patterns of agrarian transformation in Ethiopia’, pp 800–803.

56 McCarthy et al, ‘Trajectories of land acquisition and enclosure’.

57 K Woods, ‘Ceasefire capitalism: military–private partnerships, resource concessions and military-state building in the Burma–China borderlands’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 2011, pp 749, 752. See also MB Dwyer, ‘Building the politics machine: tools for “resolving” the global land grab’, Development and Change, 44(2), 2013, p 313; and G de LT Oliveira, ‘Land regularization in Brazil and the global land grab’, Development and Change, 44(2), 2013, pp 261–283.

58 O Visser, N Mamonova & M Spoor, ‘Oligarchs, megafarms and land reserves: understanding land grabbing in Russia’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 911–912.

59 See Wasana La-orngplew, ‘Living under the rubber boom: market integration and agrarian transformations in the Lao uplands’, PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, Durham University, 2012; RA Cramb & PS Sujang, ‘The mouse deer and the crocodile: oil palm smallholders and livelihood strategies in Sarawak, Malaysia’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(1), 2013, pp 129–154; and McCarthy et al, ‘Trajectories of land acquisition and enclosure’.

60 Borras & Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change’, pp 38–49.

61 McMichael, ‘The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring’, p 682; and KS Amanor, ‘Global resource grabs, agribusiness concentration and the smallholder: two West African case studies’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 731–749.

62 D Hall, ‘Where the streets are paved with prawns: crop booms and migration in Southeast Asia’, Critical Asian Studies, 43(4), 2011, pp 507–530.

63 On smallholder oil palm, see Cramb & Sujang, ‘The mouse deer and the crocodile’. On fast-growing trees, see Sikor, ‘Tree plantations, politics of possession and the absence of land grabs in Vietnam’.

64 D Hall, ‘Land grabs, land control, and Southeast Asian crop booms’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 2011, pp 811–831.

65 LC Becker, ‘Land sales and the transformation of social relations and landscape in peri-urban Mali’, Geoforum, 46, 2013, p 113.

66 On ‘crop booms’ see Hall, ‘Land grabs, land control and Southeast Asian crop booms’. On frontiers, see Hall, Land, ch 3, and the references at pp 176–178.

67 Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, pp 130–131. See, relatedly, Borras & Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change’, p 46; and Fairhead et al, ‘Green grabbing’, p 238.

68 P Heather, Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

69 Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh’, p 94.

70 Levien, ‘The land question’, pp 941, 936.

71 See, in general, L Cotula, ‘The international political economy of the global land rush: a critical appraisal of trends, scale, geography and drivers’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 654–655; and, for an example, LA Galeano, ‘Paraguay and the expansion of Brazilian and Argentinian agribusiness frontiers’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 33(4), 2012, p 465.

72 K Geary, ‘Our Land, our Lives!’ Time Out on the Global Land Grab, Oxfam International, October 2012, at http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/‘our-land-our-lives’, p 5. For a partial exception, see Borras et al, ‘Land grabbing and capitalist accumulation’, p 406.

73 Borras et al, ‘Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean’, p 850. See also Benjaminsen & Bryceson, ‘Conservation, green/blue grabbing and accumulation by dispossession in Tanzania’; Fairhead et al, ‘Green grabbing’, p 239; and Wolford et al, ‘Governing global land deals’, p 195. On land control more broadly, see Peluso & Lund, ‘New frontiers of land control’.

74 Levien, ‘Special economic zones and accumulation by dispossession in India’; Levien, ‘The land question’; and Levien ‘Regimes of dispossession’.

75 Levien, ‘The land question’, p 940.

76 On such difficulties, see also Borras & Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change’, p 46.

77 D Hall, P Hirsch & TM Li, Powers of Exclusion: Land Dilemmas in Southeast Asia, Singapore/Honolulu: nus Press/University of Hawai’i Press, 2011, pp 120–131. On similar dynamics in Bangladesh, see Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh’, p 116; and Feldman & Geisler, ‘Land expropriation and displacement in Bangladesh’, p 986.

78 TM Li, ‘To make live or let die? Rural dispossession and the protection of surplus populations’, Antipode, 41(S1), 2009, pp 74–75. See also Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, pp 130–131.

79 Hall, ‘Land grabs, land control, and Southeast Asian crop booms’, p 845.

80 On the complex interplay between opportunity and coercion in such situations, see La-orngplew, ‘Living under the rubber boom’, pp 164–168.

81 See, for example, McCarthy et al, ‘Trajectories of land acquisition and enclosure’, p 533; and Smalley & Corbera, ‘Large-scale land deals from the inside out’, p 1053.

82 Harvey, The New Imperialism, pp 144, 147.

83 See Julia & B White, ‘Gendered experiences of dispossession: oil palm expansion in a Dayak Hibun community in West Kalimantan’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 1004, 1010–1011; and McCarthy et al, ‘Trajectories of land acquisition’, pp 533–534.

84 Smalley & Corbera, ‘Large-scale land deals from the inside out’, pp 1056, 1058, 1066.

85 Wolford et al, ‘Governing global land deals’, p 197.

86 Mehta et al, ‘Water grabbing?’, p 198. Water grabbing is compared to other instances of primitive accumulation in Sosa & Zwarteveen, ‘Exploring the politics of water grabbing’, p 372. On water and primitive accumulation, see also Perrault, ‘Dispossession by accumulation?’.

87 S Sassen, ‘Land grabs today: feeding the disassembling of national territory’, Globalizations, 10(1), 2013, p 27.

88 Borras & Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change’, p 39; and Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, p 134.

89 AB Kelly, ‘Conservation practice as primitive accumulation’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 2011, p 688.

90 See, for instance, M de Angelis, ‘Separating the doing and the deed: capital and the continuous character of enclosures’, Historical Materialism, 12(2), 2004, p 57.

91 Alden Wily, ‘Looking back to see forward’, p 752; and Amanor, ‘Global resource grabs, agribusiness concentration and the smallholder’, p 732. See also Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, pp 126, 130.

92 See Alden Wily, ‘Looking back to see forward’, p 752; Cotula, ‘The international political economy of the global land rush’, pp 670–671; and Smalley & Corbera, ‘Large-scale land deals from the inside out’, p 1067.

93 Kelly, ‘Conservation practice as primitive accumulation’. See also Benjaminsen & Bryceson, ‘Conservation, green/blue grabbing and accumulation by dispossession in Tanzania’, p 336; Corson & MacDonald, ‘Enclosing the global commons’; and Fairhead et al, ‘Green grabbing’, p 238.

94 M Fairbairn, ‘“Like gold with yield”: evolving intersections between farmland and finance,’ paper prepared for the conference ‘Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue’, Program in Agrarian Studies, Yale University, September 2013. See also S Daniel, ‘Situating private equity capital in the land grab debate’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 2012, pp 703–729; McMichael, ‘The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring’, pp 688–691; and F Pearce, The Land Grabbers: The New Fight over Who Owns the Earth, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2012.

95 Corson & MacDonald, ‘Enclosing the global commons’, pp 268, 273; and M Leach, J Fairhead & J Fraser, ‘Green grabs and biochar: revaluing African soils and farming in the new carbon economy’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 2012, pp 287–288, 295.

96 McCarthy et al, ‘Trajectories of land acquisition’, pp 521–524, 531–532.

97 Levien, ‘Special economic zones and accumulation by dispossession in India’; and Levien, ‘The land question’.

98 I Baird, ‘Turning land into capital, turning people into labour: primitive accumulation and the arrival of large-scale economic land concessions in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic’, New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, 5(1), 2011, pp 10–26; and Kenney-Lazar, ‘Plantation rubber, land grabbing and social-property transformation in southern Laos’.

99 TM Li, ‘Centering labor in the land grab debate’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), 2011, pp 281–298.

100 Araghi, ‘Accumulation by displacement’, pp 124, 127. See also Akram-Lodhi, ‘Contextualising land grabbing’, p 131.

101 Li, ‘Centering labor in the land grab debate’, p 286; and Kenney-Lazar, ‘Plantation rubber, land grabbing and social-property transformation in southern Laos’, p 1033. See also Benjaminsen & Bryceson, ‘Conservation, blue/green grabbing and accumulation by dispossession in Tanzania’, p 351; Li, ‘To make live or let die?’; and White et al, ‘The new enclosures’, pp 624–625.

102 Baird, ‘Turning land into capital’, pp 19–20.

103 C Sneddon, ‘Nature’s materiality and the circuitous paths of accumulation: dispossession of freshwater fisheries in Cambodia’, Antipode, 39(1), 2007, p 172.

104 Islar, ‘Privatised hydropower development in Turkey’, p 386.

105 Sosa & Zwarteveen, ‘Exploring the politics of water grabbing’, p 362.

106 Araghi, ‘Accumulation by displacement’, p 127.

107 Woodhouse, ‘New investment’, pp 785, 781–782. See also Fairbairn, ‘Indirect dispossession’, p 338.

108 Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh’.

109 Borras & Franco, ‘Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change’.

110 See Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh’; Amanor, ‘Global resource grabs, agribusiness concentration and the smallholder’, pp 739–742; Baird, ‘Turning land into capital, turning people into labour’, p 18; Galeano, ‘Paraguay and the expansion of Brazilian and Argentinian agribusiness frontiers’, pp 458, 463; Julia & White, ‘Gendered experiences of dispossession’, pp 998, 1004; and Smalley & Corbera, ‘Large-scale land deals from the inside out’, p 1052.

111 Baird, ‘Turning land into capital, turning people into labour’, p 11. See also Adnan, ‘Land grabs and primitive accumulation in deltaic Bangladesh’.

112 White et al, ‘The new enclosures’, p 627.

113 Kenney-Lazar, ‘Plantation rubber, land grabbing and social-property transformation in southern Laos’.

114 Feldman & Geisler, ‘Land expropriation and displacement in Bangladesh’, p 982; S Wagle, S Warghade & M Sathe, ‘Exploiting policy obscurity for legalising water grabbing in the era of economic reform: the case of Maharashtra’, Water Alternatives, 5(2), 2012; and IV Torres, ‘Water grabbing in the Cauca Basin: the capitalist exploitation of water and dispossession of Afro-descendant communities’, Water Alternatives, 5(2), 2012, p 434.

115 C Oya, ‘Methodological reflections on “land grab” databases and the “land grab” literature “rush”’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(3), 2012, pp 503–520.

116 Ibid, p 504; and Smalley & Corbera, ‘Large-scale land deals from the inside out’, p 1040. Smalley and Corbera also point out that the term ‘large-scale land acquisition’, unlike ‘land grabbing’, ‘allows for the possibility of a just transfer of land’.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Derek Hall

Derek Hall is in the Department of Political Science and Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3C5.