Chinese state capitalism and neomercantilism in the contemporary food regime: contradictions, continuity and change

ABSTRACT

A significant proportion of critical agri-food literature has, to date, focused on the uneven relations of power between the Global North and the Global South, and the neoliberal characteristics of the corporate food regime. This literature has often overlooked the nuances in varieties of capitalism, particularly in East Asia. China is re-emerging as a powerful state actor in an increasingly multipolar global food system. It is also an important hub of capital, facilitating agribusiness mergers and acquisitions, as well as new East–South and South–South flows of agri-food trade, technology and capital. This paper aims to contribute to understanding state-led capitalism in China and neomercantilist strategies in the agri-food sector. The paper provides a critical analysis of a case study of China's state owned agri-food and chemical companies ‘going global’. It contends that the current food regime is in a period of transition or interregnum – a period of fluidity separating the continuity of successive regimes. Arguably, the analytical contours of a contemporary food regime in transition cannot be adequately comprehended without recognising the incipient importance of state-led capitalism and neomercantilism, and how contemporary socio-political and economic dynamics are reshaping relations of power in the global political economy of food.

KEYWORDS:

• global political economy
• China
• food regime
• multipolarity
• state capitalism
• neomercantilism

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Ola Westengen, Katharina Glaab, Nadarajah Shanmugaratnam, Tor A. Benjaminsen, Randi Kaarhus, John Mikler and Shaun Breslin for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose perceptive evaluations pushed us further with various aspects of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Paul Belesky is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. He teaches global political economy at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. He holds a PhD in international relations and international political economy from The University of Queensland. His current research explores the intersections of food, politics and power in the global political economy.

Geoffrey Lawrence is Emeritus Professor of sociology in the School of Social Science at The University of Queensland, Australia. He was former President of the International Rural Sociology Association (2012–2016). He is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. His current research explores the financialisation of food and farming industries and the governing of food security, both nationally and globally.

Notes

1 Refer to the comprehensive work on food regimes by Friedmann (1982, 1993, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2016); Friedmann and McMichael (1989); Araghi (2003); Rosset (2006); Campbell and Dixon (2009); Burch and Lawrence (2009); Pritchard (2009); McMichael (2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013a, 2016), Baines (2015); and Pritchard et al. (2016).

2 There are some notable exceptions. Refer to the substantive work on agri-food transformations in East Asia by Burch (1994); Pritchard and Curtis (2004); McMichael (2000); Bello (2009); Wang (2017).

3 We are drawing on Bauman’s (2012) conception of interregnum that is derived from his interpretation and reading of the work of Antonio Gramsci.

4 The concept of the ‘global food system’ referred to in this paper is akin to the notion employed by Fuchs, Kalfagianni, and Arentsen (2009); Cotula 2013; and Clapp (2012, 2014).

5 The French term laissez-faire literally means ‘let do’, or, broadly translated, means ‘let [them] act’. The doctrine of laissez-faire is intrinsically intertwined with the classical notions of economic liberalism (Polanyi 1944, 1947).

6 Presenting a contrasting view, Pritchard (2009, 297) contends that ‘the WTO is more appropriately theorized as a carryover from the politics of the crisis of the second food regime, rather than representing any putative successor’.

7 It is important to note that it is not yet entirely clear how Polanyi's notion of the ‘double movement’ may translate in relation to the re-emergence of China in the global political economy – further research is required in this area.

Additional information

Funding

Emeritus Professor Lawrence's work as a co-author was supported by the Australian Research Council [Project No. DP 160101318], the National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2013S1A3A2055243], and the Norwegian Research Council [FORFOOD Project No. 220691].