**4. Building alternatives**

Since its inception, the neoliberal project has been opposed by intellectuals and scholars from the tradition of Marxist research. Nonetheless, it is only since the spread of the antiglobalization movement, in the early 1990s, that critics of neoliberalism have gone beyond the boundaries of leftist intellectual circles and have affected the political arena and society at large. With respect to food-related issues within the antiglobalization movement a large network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), farmers' organizations and indigenous peoples' organizations have discussed and promoted alternatives to food neoliberal policies. Notwithstanding their diversity and multiplicity, alternatives proposed by different subjects share a common view of the main goals and instruments able to "adjust" the neoliberal model. This common view may be summarized in the following seven points, which form the pillars of the alternative vision:


Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 387

Devaluation and loss of local producers' knowledge and skills in sustainable agriculture.

Smallholders, as the poorest people, would suffer from higher prices and loss of local markets and self-production opportunities.

Devaluation and loss of local producers' knowledge and skills in sustainable agriculture

Women further excluded from land

marginal producers and landless farmers because of their lack of social capital and land entitlement.

Loss of autonomy of poor farmers and more exposure to harsh exploitation as

workers.

It is worth noticing that many of the arguments of the alternative view, are also acknowledged by the mainstream perspective. For instance, FAO, WB and OCDE have

Less benefits for women if not explicitly targeted as beneficiaries of the intervention.

ownership.

No effect. negative effects for

Innovation targeted to local specificity and able to treasure traditional practices and knowledge.

Strengthening local traditional markets.

Building local input markets, improving local resources and knowledge.

women

market.

local markets.

Guarantee the right to the land, especially to landless farmers and

Producers organizations should operate according to cooperative behavior, and oriented to the preservation of local

Combining production for self-consumption with sales on well functioning

Investing in universal programs of social security. Avoiding inkind food aid, which advantages vested interest in donor countries.

Widening the market

agrochemical TNCs.

Widening the market for supermarkets.

Widening the market

agrochemical TNCs.

More opportunities to exploit labour.

Widening the market for packaged food (more money spent by poor people and food distribution agencies as new customers).

Table 3. Copying with food crisis: mainstream and alternative proposals

for the big

Investment opportunities and land control by the richest actors.

for the big

Promote innovation through science and

Developing the highvalue markets (i.e. food

technology.

sold through supermarkets) for domestic consumption.

Facilitating input markets in order to assure better access to improved seed and

Improving the land market to facilitate agriculture consolidation processes.

fertilizers.

Enhance the performance of producer organization

to achieve

Linking local

competitiveness of smallholders.

economies to broader markets and shift from self-consumption and self-employment to production for the market and to wage employment.

Investing in safety nets for poorest people, preferring targeted cash transfers and inkind food distribution.


Table 3 offers an example of the kinds of food policies that opponents to neoliberalism, relying on these principles, sought as viable and effective means to face food crisis. It reassumes, for every "official" proposal of intervention suggested in the aftermath of the 2008 food crisis, the criticism (in terms of alleged corporate advantages and of negative effects on people hit by the crisis) and the counterproposals of the alternative approach.


5. Food system sustainability. Industrial agriculture, and more generally the whole capitalist economic system, is causing the collapse of earth ecological equilibria. The negative effects of global environmental problems, such as climate change, hit poor people more harshly. Over the coming years, due to climate change, many among the poorest regions in developing countries will face lower agricultural yields.

6. Fighting corporate power. Corporate power, as emerged from the processes of consolidation and internationalization of neoliberal globalization, is deemed to be dangerous, in addition to its capability of economic exploitation (through the exercise of market and buying power), because of its lack of responsibility towards society and the environment and because of its power to inform public opinion and capture state regulatory policy. The power-based organizational architectures of commodity chains and the phenomenon of private food governance are outstanding examples of the

7. Community/state sovereignty opposed to the dictates of WTO, WB and IMF. The opening up of agricultural markets for food imports has put small farmers from developing countries in unfair competition with subsidized farmers from rich countries, destroying production capabilities and worsening the dependence on food imports. WTO jeopardizes government's efforts to sustain agriculture in developing countries,

Table 3 offers an example of the kinds of food policies that opponents to neoliberalism, relying on these principles, sought as viable and effective means to face food crisis. It reassumes, for every "official" proposal of intervention suggested in the aftermath of the 2008 food crisis, the criticism (in terms of alleged corporate advantages and of negative effects on people hit by the crisis) and the counterproposals of the alternative approach.

EXPECTED

economic inequalities.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF NEOLIBERAL POLICIES

Expected increases in

Smallholder farms (and women) negatively affected.

Poorer farmers (especially women) negatively affected because of their low purchasing power.

COUNTERPROPOSALS

Nations should be free to choose the trade policy, which better helps to guarantee the right to the food, not subject to the dictates of WTO.

Improving productivity of small rural farmers guaranteeing their access to land, inputs, credit and

Public expenditure in agricultural extension and marketing services.

"ad-hoc" local innovations..

Sustainability is at its core a matter of social justice.

hindering state sovereignty and communities' autonomy.

CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES FROM NEOLIBERAL

New investment and market opportunities,

Affirming capitalistic agriculture as the only viable way to secure

POLICIES

accelerating consolidation processes.

food.

New market opportunities. Capitalistic control of public goods.

overwhelming corporate power.

COPYING WITH FOOD CRISIS: NEOLIBERAL PROPOSALS

Further trade liberalization.

Enhancing agriculture productivity by: shifting from

smallholders farms to labor-intensive commercial farming.

Relying on the private sector as provider of marketing services, irrigation, and risk management services.


Table 3. Copying with food crisis: mainstream and alternative proposals

It is worth noticing that many of the arguments of the alternative view, are also acknowledged by the mainstream perspective. For instance, FAO, WB and OCDE have

Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 389

It is clear that accepting these principles means to substitute the capitalistic market system, which is the only system envisioned by the mainstream approach, with a mixed economic system where a good deal of resources (for which private property rights might not be allowed) are allocated through state planning and participatory decision mechanisms at local community level, pursuing the objective of social justice before that of economic efficiency. Moreover even the (capitalistic) market sector should be subject to strict regulation in order to prevent concentration and speculation and to stabilize business cycles. In other words at the core of alternative food policy proposals there is the refusal of the capitalistic system as the only viable form of social and economic organization and the presumption that the main institutions of capitalism -private property, market and corporations-, can and must be regulated and limited in their scope when the public good is at stake. Obviously, this is at loggerheads with the mainstream view which instead advocates a worldwide economy and society subservient to the capitalistic accumulation process. And this is the reason why the appeals made by FAO, OCDE, and WB for concepts and goals which partially overlap with those claimed by the alternative approaches, -such as, for instance, the right to the food and to the land, the support to smallholders, market stabilization, sustainability- are more a matter of rhetoric than real programs and commitments. It is a matter of fact that is it not possible to defend the right to the land without genuine agrarian reforms based on redistributive and de-privatization policies, just as it is impossible to stop speculation on commodities without downsizing economic concentration and regulating financial markets. Moreover, in order to sustain local markets it is necessary to renounce to an utter trade liberalization, and to achieve sustainability one

In short, since it relies uniquely and completely on the economic standard model, the orthodox food policy approach is unwilling and unable to tackle the problem of justice/equity (social, economic and intergenerational justice), which is at the core of the heterodox approach. Among the three traditional goals of economic policy,-wealth distribution, stabilization of economic cycles and correction of market failures-, neoliberalism is consistent only with the latter. Moreover, it takes as its benchmark pareto efficiency (avoiding any interpersonal wealth comparison) and only admits privatization (according to the Coase theorem) as an instrument to face problems of externalities and public goods, and a Chicagoan competition policy to face market concentration. In contrast, the heterodox approach endorses all the three goals, uses as its benchmark justice/equity and is open to a large array of instruments, consistently with its multidisciplinary attitude.

Actually, at the moment, the counter-neoliberal food policy agenda is still a utopia. While many successful experiences of local resistance exist and social movements and heterodox

Understanding the causes which prevent the counter agenda from prevailing over the old model is essential in order to make food policy move beyond neoliberalism. These causes

3 Among the various alternatives it is worth mentioning the Local Economy Movement (Posey, 2011;

, the neoliberal

**5.Obstacles to the implementation of an alternative food policy** 

scholars continue to divulgate their programs and principles worldwide<sup>3</sup>

model remains unchallenged, at a political as well as at a cultural level.

Mount, 2011) and the agro-ecological project (Horlings, Marsden, 2010).

needs strict environmental regulations.

produced many studies on issues such as women's access to land, rural poverty, environmental and soil degradation, land grabbing and so on. Recently FAO (FAO, 2009) has also reviewed its traditional claim that high food prices would represent an opportunity for the agricultural sector in developing countries to increase production and raise incomes. Noting that the steady price increases after the 2008 crisis seem not to benefit smallholders, FAO has recognized what the alternative approach has always denounced, namely that smallholders are either engaged in local markets which are not well integrated with the international market, or they suffer from the buying power of distributors, or they lack resources to invest in production increases. Notwithstanding the fact that the "official" and the alternative views to food policy sometimes share the same diagnosis, they nevertheless profoundly differ with respect to the proposed cures and, more importantly, with respect to the economic and political values and credence they rely upon.

In order to understand the acute differences between the mainstream/official and the etherodox/alternative approaches it is helpful to look at the Food sovereignty policy framework, which is one of the more advanced and radical synthesis of alternative food policy view (Windfuhr and Jonsen, 2005; Borras, 2008). Launched at the World Food summit in 1966 by Via Campesina, this program has been endorsed by many organizations and social movements in various fora and international meetings. It is summarized by the Via Campesina's 'Seven Principles to Achieve Food Sovereignty':


388 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

produced many studies on issues such as women's access to land, rural poverty, environmental and soil degradation, land grabbing and so on. Recently FAO (FAO, 2009) has also reviewed its traditional claim that high food prices would represent an opportunity for the agricultural sector in developing countries to increase production and raise incomes. Noting that the steady price increases after the 2008 crisis seem not to benefit smallholders, FAO has recognized what the alternative approach has always denounced, namely that smallholders are either engaged in local markets which are not well integrated with the international market, or they suffer from the buying power of distributors, or they lack resources to invest in production increases. Notwithstanding the fact that the "official" and the alternative views to food policy sometimes share the same diagnosis, they nevertheless profoundly differ with respect to the proposed cures and, more importantly, with respect to

In order to understand the acute differences between the mainstream/official and the etherodox/alternative approaches it is helpful to look at the Food sovereignty policy framework, which is one of the more advanced and radical synthesis of alternative food policy view (Windfuhr and Jonsen, 2005; Borras, 2008). Launched at the World Food summit in 1966 by Via Campesina, this program has been endorsed by many organizations and social movements in various fora and international meetings. It is summarized by the Via

1. Food: A Basic Human Right –Each nation should declare that access to food is a constitutional right and guarantee the development of the primary sector to ensure the

2. Agrarian Reform – A genuine agrarian reform is necessary which gives landless and farming people – especially women – ownership and control of the land they work and

3. Protecting Natural Resources – Food Sovereignty entails the sustainable care and use of natural resources, especially land, water, seeds and livestock breeds. The people who work the land must have the right to practice sustainable management of natural resources and to conserve biodiversity free of restrictive intellectual property rights. 4. Reorganizing Food Trade – Food is first and foremost a source of nutrition and only secondarily an item of trade. National agricultural policies must prioritize production for domestic consumption and food self-sufficiency. Food imports must not displace

5. Ending the Globalization of Hunger – Food Sovereignty is undermined by multilateral institutions and by speculative capital. The growing control of multinational corporations over agricultural policies has been facilitated by the economic policies of multilateral organizations such as the WTO, World Bank and the IMF. Regulation and taxation of speculative capital and a strictly enforced Code of Conduct for TNCs is

6. Social Peace – Everyone has the right to be free from violence. Food must not be used as

7. Democratic control – Smallholder farmers must have direct input into formulating agricultural policies at all levels. Rural women, in particular, must be granted direct and

the economic and political values and credence they rely upon.

Campesina's 'Seven Principles to Achieve Food Sovereignty':

concrete realization of this fundamental right.

returns territories to indigenous peoples.

local production nor depress prices.

active decision making on food and rural issues.

therefore needed.

a weapon.

It is clear that accepting these principles means to substitute the capitalistic market system, which is the only system envisioned by the mainstream approach, with a mixed economic system where a good deal of resources (for which private property rights might not be allowed) are allocated through state planning and participatory decision mechanisms at local community level, pursuing the objective of social justice before that of economic efficiency. Moreover even the (capitalistic) market sector should be subject to strict regulation in order to prevent concentration and speculation and to stabilize business cycles. In other words at the core of alternative food policy proposals there is the refusal of the capitalistic system as the only viable form of social and economic organization and the presumption that the main institutions of capitalism -private property, market and corporations-, can and must be regulated and limited in their scope when the public good is at stake. Obviously, this is at loggerheads with the mainstream view which instead advocates a worldwide economy and society subservient to the capitalistic accumulation process. And this is the reason why the appeals made by FAO, OCDE, and WB for concepts and goals which partially overlap with those claimed by the alternative approaches, -such as, for instance, the right to the food and to the land, the support to smallholders, market stabilization, sustainability- are more a matter of rhetoric than real programs and commitments. It is a matter of fact that is it not possible to defend the right to the land without genuine agrarian reforms based on redistributive and de-privatization policies, just as it is impossible to stop speculation on commodities without downsizing economic concentration and regulating financial markets. Moreover, in order to sustain local markets it is necessary to renounce to an utter trade liberalization, and to achieve sustainability one needs strict environmental regulations.

In short, since it relies uniquely and completely on the economic standard model, the orthodox food policy approach is unwilling and unable to tackle the problem of justice/equity (social, economic and intergenerational justice), which is at the core of the heterodox approach. Among the three traditional goals of economic policy,-wealth distribution, stabilization of economic cycles and correction of market failures-, neoliberalism is consistent only with the latter. Moreover, it takes as its benchmark pareto efficiency (avoiding any interpersonal wealth comparison) and only admits privatization (according to the Coase theorem) as an instrument to face problems of externalities and public goods, and a Chicagoan competition policy to face market concentration. In contrast, the heterodox approach endorses all the three goals, uses as its benchmark justice/equity and is open to a large array of instruments, consistently with its multidisciplinary attitude.
