**5.2 The case of food as human right and private food governance**

As discussed in previous sections, the concept of food as human right is the milestone of any food policies alternative to the neoliberal project. In article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human right to adequate food is explicitly recognized as part of the broader human right to an adequate standard of living, with this latter included among economic, social and cultural rights in addition to political and civil rights. Despite the frequent references to the principle of food as human right in the official literature of international organizations, it has never become a normative guide to food security policy (Rae, 2008; Sodano, 2009). For instance, in the US during the last 30 years various groups of scientists and exponents of civil society have proposed making the human right to food the moral and legal cornerstone of US domestic and international initiative in the area of food security, without any success. The U.S. government has consistently opposed formal rightto-food legislation as overly burdensome and inconsistent with constitutional law (Messer, Cohen, 2007). More in general, The U.S. government has repeatedly asserted that economic, social and cultural rights are not part of American legal and political culture, whose liberal ideals would conflict with the agenda requested for the upholding of positive rights.

This is a narrow interpretation of liberal ideals, which hinges upon the unwillingness to question in any way the utilitarian ethics as a normative base for economic policy. It clearly demonstrates the ideological force of neoliberalism, which indeed is a form of ultraliberalism very close to anarcho-capitalism. In fact, it is worth noticing that even in the western liberal tradition, some scholars have argued that the state mandate may be extended to the upholding of positive, besides negative, obligations. This is the case, for instance, of the Human Development Capability Approach (HDCA). HDCA complements the international human right framework by providing normative support for positive obligation and duties (Vizard, 2006), thanks to a definition of liberty that entails a concept of freedom as the range of valuable things that a person can do and be (Nussbaum, 2000). This definition, relying upon ethical principles consistent with Kant's categorical imperatives, goes a far much beyond the definition of liberty given by the classical utilitarianism of classical liberal theories. HDCA stresses that if personal freedom and security are part of the policy aims and if economic (income) and political (freedom) aspects of a person's wellbeing are seen as necessary for assuring basic human capabilities, then state direct intervention for upholding human rights must be accepted. From the consequentialist perspective of utilitarianism what counts is the outcome of the action taken, not the intent of the action. On the contrary, HDCA endorses a deontological ethics, from a Kant's idealistic

Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 397

smallholders; and so on. At least the two tasks of denouncing the mystification of economic theory underlying neoliberal policies and their ineffectiveness in reaching the common well being have been accomplished. Nevertheless, further efforts are needed in order to accomplish the third task, which is to offer a new theoretical paradigm to oppose the rational choice model. It is extremely difficult to outline even just the general features of such a new paradigm. What it is possible to do, instead, is to mention some insights from different theoretical approaches useful for addressing three relevant issues left open by the standard model, namely: 1) how to ethically justify economic (and food) policy; 2) how to solve problems of collective action for the allocation of common pool resources; 3) how to represent a complex system such as the food (and more generally the economic system) system made from the interaction of different human, natural, institutional and

In order to address the first two issues, related to moral and collective action problems, it is worth starting by observing that the basic element to go beyond neoliberal food policy is to consider food for community instead of food as commodity, a concept which entails the management of public common pool resources. For these kinds of resources, four kinds of property rights, (setting aside the right of alienation that would entail private property) access, withdrawal, management and exclusion (Olstrom, 2003), must be defined and enforced through collective choice and participatory decision processes aimed at equity besides efficiency. The selfish agents of the rational choice model and the exchange paradigm are incompatible with cooperative collective actions. The feminist scholar Vaughan (1997) has contrasted the exchange paradigm with the gift-paradigm, which emphasizes the importance of giving to satisfy needs. Because the gift-paradigm is needoriented rather than profit-oriented, it precludes the possibility of opportunistic behaviors and free-riding and solves the dilemmas of the classical theory of collective action (Olson, 1971). This paradigm is not utopia because gift-giving is already practiced, but is invisible because goods and services made available for the members of society through it are not accounted for in economic statistics. Mothering, caring, volunteering are all ways of providing goods and services without relying on market exchanges. Similar to the Vaughan concept of giftgiving is the idea of caring economics launched by Eisler (2007). Eislers's starting point is that "we need a new economics", i.e. an economic theory able to help building economic structures that meet human needs. So far neither capitalism nor socialism have proven to accomplish such a task. Eisler notices that the failure of both these economic systems (and their supporting economic theories) is explained by the fact that both have inherited and taken for granted the domination system of patriarchal culture, which may be reassumed into the following typical 'Dominator' economic assumptions: - the main motivations for work are fear of pain and scarcity; - people cannot be trusted; - soft qualities and activities are inappropriate for social and economic governance;- caring and caregiving are impediments to productivity, or at best irrelevant to economics.; - selfishness will lead to the greater good of all. Caring economics calls for a redefinition of economic indicators and measures of welfare in a way so as to take into account not only the wealth produced in the market economy (as it is currently done) but also the wealth produced in the other sectors of the economic system, i.e.: unpaid community economy; household economy; natural economy; government economy; illegal economy (which diminishes welfare). The fundamental change to move towards a caring economics is to substitute the current social and economic relationships based on domination (which is the core trait of patriarchy and

technological entities.

perspective, which insists that intent counts and that policy choices must respect the imperative of "doing the right thing". Embracing an ethical perspective alternative to utilitarianism not only helps to justify the state mandate to uphold positive obligations, it also helps to deal with typical policy choice dilemmas (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2005). When trade-offs exist between different policy options and redistributive problems are at stake (for example: should the well being of poorest children be improved, even when this would lower the total social welfare?) utilitarianism is not useful. This latter point is very important because in the case of food policy many policy actions tend to produce controversial effects; therefore clinging on to utilitarianism greatly narrows the scope of public intervention.

Where the fiction of value-free economic policy (the first mystification) hampers the guarantee of social human rights, the fiction of a market economy as an efficient power-free form of economic organization (the second mystification) hampers the regulatory state capacity and puts equity and democracy in the food system at risk. As highlighted in table 1, food policy neoliberalization has entailed the shift from direct state regulation to private governance (i.e. privatization, self-regulation, CSR), on the grounds that market (which is deemed to coincide with the private sector) is always better than planning (deemed to coincide with the state). That this is actually not the case has been largely clarified by a good deal of literature produced on the issues of private governance and the erosion of state authority due to neoliberal globalization. This literature has demonstrated that waiving of state planning and authority (Strange, 1997) has not entailed a more decentralized and free socio-economic organization but rather an authoritative undemocratic system led by the private planning of TNCs (Hall, Bierstker, 2002), a sort of private international regime (Cutler, 2002). With respect to the food sector, the emergence of private governance has been described through the analysis of the retail revolution and the emergence of third-party certification (Sodano, 2007; Sodano et al., 2008; Clapp, Fuchs, 2009; Van der Meulen, 2011; Fuchs et al. 2011). Conceptualizing the governance of the agrifood system as a field of power struggles between various global and local actors, Fuchs and Kalfagianni (2010) explain the rise of retail private governance on the grounds of structural and ideational power. Structural power refers to the control of material resources (mainly financial means), while ideational sources of power are located in the actor's ability to influence the framing of political issues and to constrain behaviors and actions, drawing on the symbolic meaning of social practices and institutions (Fuchs, Glabb, 2011). Ideational sources of power are particularly important for the legitimisation of private power, which makes retail governance much less likely to be challenged on the basis of concerns over democracy. Assessing consequences of private food regulation, Fuchs and Kalfagianni (2010) conclude that the rise of food retail governance may "have serious consequences for two fundamental attributes of global food governance, namely environmental sustainability and food security…,with the vulnerable and marginalized rural population being the most severely affected groups".

As regards the case of right to food and private governance, both theoretical literature and actions carried out by social movements indicate that many steps forwards in the construction of a counter neoliberal agenda have been already undertaken. Concrete interventions have been suggested and prompted by political protests, such as: agrarian reforms for redistributing land to women and landless rural people; a WTO moratoria for allowing states to pursue independent agricultural policies; a more effective antitrust enforcement for limiting corporate power; public agricultural investments targeted towards

perspective, which insists that intent counts and that policy choices must respect the imperative of "doing the right thing". Embracing an ethical perspective alternative to utilitarianism not only helps to justify the state mandate to uphold positive obligations, it also helps to deal with typical policy choice dilemmas (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2005). When trade-offs exist between different policy options and redistributive problems are at stake (for example: should the well being of poorest children be improved, even when this would lower the total social welfare?) utilitarianism is not useful. This latter point is very important because in the case of food policy many policy actions tend to produce controversial effects; therefore clinging on to utilitarianism greatly narrows the scope of public intervention.

Where the fiction of value-free economic policy (the first mystification) hampers the guarantee of social human rights, the fiction of a market economy as an efficient power-free form of economic organization (the second mystification) hampers the regulatory state capacity and puts equity and democracy in the food system at risk. As highlighted in table 1, food policy neoliberalization has entailed the shift from direct state regulation to private governance (i.e. privatization, self-regulation, CSR), on the grounds that market (which is deemed to coincide with the private sector) is always better than planning (deemed to coincide with the state). That this is actually not the case has been largely clarified by a good deal of literature produced on the issues of private governance and the erosion of state authority due to neoliberal globalization. This literature has demonstrated that waiving of state planning and authority (Strange, 1997) has not entailed a more decentralized and free socio-economic organization but rather an authoritative undemocratic system led by the private planning of TNCs (Hall, Bierstker, 2002), a sort of private international regime (Cutler, 2002). With respect to the food sector, the emergence of private governance has been described through the analysis of the retail revolution and the emergence of third-party certification (Sodano, 2007; Sodano et al., 2008; Clapp, Fuchs, 2009; Van der Meulen, 2011; Fuchs et al. 2011). Conceptualizing the governance of the agrifood system as a field of power struggles between various global and local actors, Fuchs and Kalfagianni (2010) explain the rise of retail private governance on the grounds of structural and ideational power. Structural power refers to the control of material resources (mainly financial means), while ideational sources of power are located in the actor's ability to influence the framing of political issues and to constrain behaviors and actions, drawing on the symbolic meaning of social practices and institutions (Fuchs, Glabb, 2011). Ideational sources of power are particularly important for the legitimisation of private power, which makes retail governance much less likely to be challenged on the basis of concerns over democracy. Assessing consequences of private food regulation, Fuchs and Kalfagianni (2010) conclude that the rise of food retail governance may "have serious consequences for two fundamental attributes of global food governance, namely environmental sustainability and food security…,with the vulnerable and marginalized rural population being the most severely affected groups".

As regards the case of right to food and private governance, both theoretical literature and actions carried out by social movements indicate that many steps forwards in the construction of a counter neoliberal agenda have been already undertaken. Concrete interventions have been suggested and prompted by political protests, such as: agrarian reforms for redistributing land to women and landless rural people; a WTO moratoria for allowing states to pursue independent agricultural policies; a more effective antitrust enforcement for limiting corporate power; public agricultural investments targeted towards smallholders; and so on. At least the two tasks of denouncing the mystification of economic theory underlying neoliberal policies and their ineffectiveness in reaching the common well being have been accomplished. Nevertheless, further efforts are needed in order to accomplish the third task, which is to offer a new theoretical paradigm to oppose the rational choice model. It is extremely difficult to outline even just the general features of such a new paradigm. What it is possible to do, instead, is to mention some insights from different theoretical approaches useful for addressing three relevant issues left open by the standard model, namely: 1) how to ethically justify economic (and food) policy; 2) how to solve problems of collective action for the allocation of common pool resources; 3) how to represent a complex system such as the food (and more generally the economic system) system made from the interaction of different human, natural, institutional and technological entities.

In order to address the first two issues, related to moral and collective action problems, it is worth starting by observing that the basic element to go beyond neoliberal food policy is to consider food for community instead of food as commodity, a concept which entails the management of public common pool resources. For these kinds of resources, four kinds of property rights, (setting aside the right of alienation that would entail private property) access, withdrawal, management and exclusion (Olstrom, 2003), must be defined and enforced through collective choice and participatory decision processes aimed at equity besides efficiency. The selfish agents of the rational choice model and the exchange paradigm are incompatible with cooperative collective actions. The feminist scholar Vaughan (1997) has contrasted the exchange paradigm with the gift-paradigm, which emphasizes the importance of giving to satisfy needs. Because the gift-paradigm is needoriented rather than profit-oriented, it precludes the possibility of opportunistic behaviors and free-riding and solves the dilemmas of the classical theory of collective action (Olson, 1971). This paradigm is not utopia because gift-giving is already practiced, but is invisible because goods and services made available for the members of society through it are not accounted for in economic statistics. Mothering, caring, volunteering are all ways of providing goods and services without relying on market exchanges. Similar to the Vaughan concept of giftgiving is the idea of caring economics launched by Eisler (2007). Eislers's starting point is that "we need a new economics", i.e. an economic theory able to help building economic structures that meet human needs. So far neither capitalism nor socialism have proven to accomplish such a task. Eisler notices that the failure of both these economic systems (and their supporting economic theories) is explained by the fact that both have inherited and taken for granted the domination system of patriarchal culture, which may be reassumed into the following typical 'Dominator' economic assumptions: - the main motivations for work are fear of pain and scarcity; - people cannot be trusted; - soft qualities and activities are inappropriate for social and economic governance;- caring and caregiving are impediments to productivity, or at best irrelevant to economics.; - selfishness will lead to the greater good of all. Caring economics calls for a redefinition of economic indicators and measures of welfare in a way so as to take into account not only the wealth produced in the market economy (as it is currently done) but also the wealth produced in the other sectors of the economic system, i.e.: unpaid community economy; household economy; natural economy; government economy; illegal economy (which diminishes welfare). The fundamental change to move towards a caring economics is to substitute the current social and economic relationships based on domination (which is the core trait of patriarchy and

Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 399

policies. Privatization and deregulation are passed off as bulwarks of liberty and efficiency, while they are consigning the system to corporate power and transnational financial elites. All this is made possible not only through the power of organizations with vested interests, but also through the adamant trust of the majority of academics and bureaucrats in the mainstream economics. The paper has explored the way ahead to go beyond neoliberal food policy. The main conclusion is that a viable alternative needs to recognize food as a human right, which implies a shift from the idea of food as commodity to the idea of food for community. It has been demonstrated as well that this shift requires we abandon the particular ethical and political theories underlying the standard economic model, utilitarianism and contractarianism, and look for new theories grounded on the notions of deliberative reflexivity and participatory democracy. Moreover, to design effective alternative policies it is indispensable to foster research in system and network modeling, in order to take into account the complexity and volatility of the system. Research efforts in these fields, together with the political struggles of social movements, are the true challenges

for a counter-neoliberal "reloading" of the global food system.

Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge. The MIT Press.

Cambridge University Press.

Oxford. Blackwell.

Archer M. (1988). Culture and agency. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Bagnoli C. (2007). The authority of reflection. Theoria, 22/1, pp.43-52.

Agriculture and Human Values, 26:267-279.

Archer M. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge,

Archer M. (2000). Being human: the problem of agency. Cambridge, Cambridge University

Archer M. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge, Cambridge

Backer, L.C. (2008). Multinational corporations as objects and sources of transnational regulation. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 14:2, pp.1-26.

Borras S.M. (2008). La Vía Campesina and its Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform. Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 8 Nos. 2 and 3, April and July pp. 258–289. Burch D., Lawrence G. (2009).Towards a third food regime: behind the transformation.

Clapp J., Fuchs D. ,editors. (2009). Corporate power in global agrifood governance.

Cutler A.C. (2002). Private international regimes and interfirm cooperation. In: Hall,

Ellerman D. (1992). Property and contract in economics: the case of economic democracy.

EtcGroup (2008). Who owns nature? Corporate power and the final frontier in the

Biersteker, editors. The emergence of private authority in global governance.

Castroriadis C. (1975). L'imaginaire social et l'institution. Editions du Seuil, Paris.

Eisler R. (2007). The real wealth of nations. Berret-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.

Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.

commodification of life. Available at: www.etcgroup.org.

**7. References** 

Press.

University Press.

capitalism, but also of "real" socialist regimes) with relationships based on partnership and cooperative behavior10. The giftgiving paradigm and caring economics help to found a new ethics for economic policy, based on the fulfillment of human needs (which is different from personal utility) through cooperative other-regarding behavior. This ethics is grounded in a notion of human subjects who, rejecting both the notions of 'modernity's man and society's being (which in Archer's terminology are the kind of agents featured respectively by the individualistic and constructionist approach of social science), possess the human capacity to transcend instrumental rationality and to have 'ultimate concerns', thanks to the distinctive human power, reflexive deliberation. Reflexive deliberation, i.e. the ability to continuously examine themselves and engage in critical reflection, is what makes individuals autonomous11. It is the basis for an autonomous society, where processes of participatory democracy can achieve order without relying on force and power, a "self-instituting" society, in Castroriadis' language, which interprets the ideals of libertarian socialism.

Finally, with regards the third issue let open by the standard model, at the present there are not meaningful suggestions. Interesting insights may come from the ANT program. Whereas an ethics based on the concept of reflexive deliberation helps to integrate moral arguments in policy decision processes and to solve collective choice problems, the analytical/descriptive power of approaches such as ANT, network theory and complex system theory, helps to understand patterns and property of the food system, which is the main field/object where food policies are deployed. In fact, once the τέλοϛ of policy has been defined with respect to particular ethical concerns, still remains the problem of choosing effective, besides morally acceptable, tools and strategies of intervention. It is a matter of fact that the food system is a complex system, where the intertwining of natural objects, human beings and technological and institutional artifacts affect the system's properties and performances. Understanding this complex system, its degree of adaptivity, self organization and autonomy, is a conditio sine qua non for designing effective food policies.
