> [!warning] lit review should include justification of why I'm looking at certain theory by looking at the success or failure of what others have done > - food regimes: friedmann See @friedmann_2016 on cleft between Bernstein , mcmichael > - resilience theory: eg what @dwiartama_2014 did in their work # Literature Review #### Scratch - ##### Ideas to touch on (8/29/24) - From Patterns to Systems in human cognition - From Cybernetics to World Systems - To Food Regimes & Food Systems - Risk & Connectivity - Risk society - Panarchy? Connected scales - Resilience & Crises - Resilience theory - Crisis - Interdependence & Localization - System and Disaster Management - Adaptive cycle management --- - theoretical framework / engagement / framing & themes - ![[2022-08-26]] - [[@nally_2011]] on how "a moral economy of hunger is gradually replaced by a political economy of food security that promotes market mechanisms as a better protection against scarcity" - [[@edelman_2005]] on - [[@marchand.etal_2016]] on reserves and trade jointly determine exposure to food supply shocks - [[@cady_1937]] on maritime strike? - [[@watts.bohle_1993]] on hunger poverty and vulnerability - [[@wisner.etal_2014a]] on risk - [[@vanhaute_2011]] on shift from famines to food crises/history of local+global subsistence crises - [[@schmitt_1970]] on famine mortality in HI - [[@currey.hugo_1984]] on famine as a geographical phenomenon - [[@southichack_2007]] on HI inshipment trends and implications for food security - [[@jackson_2021]] on "Critical junctures, agrarian change, and the (re)production of vulnerability in a marginalised Indigenous society" - @andrew.etal_2022 on continuity and change in pacific food systems - @foley.moncada_2021 on "what the concept of 'resilience' means in island contexts, how it is deployed, and the dynamics of governance and decision making for 'resilience'." #### From Systems to Food Systems - [ ] Build [[2024-08-02 - defining systems in food systems]] into at least a section of this lit review that is begun in [[Tracing Systems to Food Systems]]. Should consider the cybernetics angle too. - #### Social Ecological Systems & Complex Adaptive Systems #### Resilience & Food Systems The concept of resilience emerged from ecological models that emphasized stable equilibriums to consider the facets of systems not near, or moving between, equilibrium states [@holling_1973]. Over time the approach expanded to social-ecological systems [@gunderson.holling_2002], with growing interest [@folke_2006] that has spilled out from academia into popular thinking [@walker.salt_2006; @boin.etal_2010; @matthews_2020]. Resilience considers “how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change” thereby offering a valuable lens for the assessment of food systems [@folke_2006, p. 1]). @spies.alff_2020 offers how SES became acknowledge as complex adaptive systems Resilience analyses in food systems are often rooted in the ecological systems that underpin agricultural productivity. Biodiversity underlies all ecosystem services that are critical to the function of agroecosystems [@altieri_1999]. The relative presence of biodiversity impacts both regulating services like nutrient storage and cycling to supporting services like crop pollination [@bommarco.etal_2013]. Diversified farming systems that incorporate functional biodiversity require less external inputs to maintain productivity and can provide comparative advantages ecologically, socially, and economically [@kremen.miles_2012; @reganold.wachter_2016]. Despite these advantages federal funding in the United States to support diversified farming research and implementation has been slim [@delonge.etal_2016], and nearly nonexistent when compared to private and public funds spent globally to enable conventional production. Additionally, US policies enable the food system status quo and perpetuation of externalization of many ecological, social, and economic costs of conventional agricultural production [@shannon.etal_2015]. Some of those externalities exacerbate the risk to agrofood systems from climate change [@myers.etal_2017], so too does the need to define and develop more resilient production systems [@tendall.etal_2015]. Biologically diversified farming systems are the foundation of sustainable and resilient food systems. Reintegrating biological diversity into farming systems, from the genetic, to field, to landscape scales, is a key mechanism to reduce climate change vulnerability [@altieri.etal_2015]. Resilience assessments of food systems also scale beyond the farm landscape into broader social-ecological factors. Rotz and Fraser [[email protected]_2015] define food system resilience as a “system’s ability to absorb external shocks while maintaining core functions, such as food production and distribution”. Their analysis considers the vulnerabilities created by industrialization of the food system, not just through the loss of diversity (i.e., biological simplification), but increasing connectivity of system elements (e.g., crop similarity at landscape scale or firm consolidation). Similarly, but at the global scale, Hendrickson [-@hendrickson_2015] finds risk in consolidation and concentration in that have reduced key aspects of diversity in food systems through standardization and specialization. These various simplifications have led to a global food system that while vulnerable to myriad disruptions, has proven somewhat resilient to change. Oliver et al. [[email protected]_2018] term and attribute this undesirable resilience to ‘lock-in’ induced by various biophysical, knowledge, sociocultural, and economic and regulatory constraints. Others have sought to define critical factors to the production of resilient food systems. Tendall et al. [[email protected]_2015] find robustness, redundancy, flexibility and resourcefulness as key elements in their multi-level model of resilience in food systems. Seekell et al. [[email protected]_2017] compare national systems through the dimensions of socio-economic access limitations and the biophysical capacity and production diversity of agricultures. Schipanski et al. [[email protected]_2016], instead pursue the definition of strategies to produce food resilience from ecological processes to policy, through equity efforts and food system regionalization. Worstell and Green [[email protected]_2017] also find regionalization, framed as local self-organization, as an important factor on their index of resilient food systems qualities. Often in response to global food system vulnerabilities regional analyses are common in food system resilience assessments. Blay-Palmer et al. [[email protected]_2013] define and find the networks of food hubs as an important intervention in the production of resilient regional food systems. Kondoh [-@kondoh_2014] situates similar alternative food movement approaches, this time in Japan not Canada, both historically and within the context of crisis (the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster) and also finds social networking a critical aspect of resilience. At a more macro scale, Fraser’s [-@fraser_2007] review of historical famines in different countries determined three key mechanisms to be addressed in food system resilience building: limited livelihood diversity, agricultural specialization, and institutional social safety nets. These recommendations reasonably align with Pingali et al.'s [@pingali.etal_2005] finding, in the pursuit of managing food crises to build resilience, that crisis response policies should connect relief activities with longer term food system development. Doing so however requires an awareness of not just crisis dynamics but those of broader food system change. #### Risk Blaikie et al. in At Risk Risk society Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability / Capacity - natural hazard, i.e. the threat that a natural event will have a negative effect on human activities; - exposure, i.e. the number of elements at risk (e.g. people and their assets); - vulnerability, i.e. the set of physical, social, economic and environmental conditions that may increase the susceptibility of individuals, communities, assets to the impacts of a hazard #### Theoretical Antecedents of Food Regimes Food regimes emerged from Wallerstein's world-systems theory and Aglietta's capital regulation theory [@mcmichael_2021]. World systems theory in turn emerged from dependency theory, Marx, and the Annales school [@martinez-vela_2001]. World systems theory's core-periphery dialectic approach draws from the dependency theory and clearly echoes in food regimes theory focus on a hegemonic core. Wallerstein's early world-system theorizing focused on capital accumulation from periphery into core states, accomplished by flows bulk goods enabled through a division of labor across multicultural economies [@chase-dunn.hall_2019]. For Wallerstein a > "'world-system' is not a system 'in the world' or 'of the world.' It is a system 'that is a world.' Hence the hyphen, since 'world' is not an attribute of the system. Rather the two words together constitute a single concept." [1993, as cited in @frank_1994]. Additional scholars expanded on the theory to consider not just a singular world-system but a plurality of intersocietal interaction networks bounded spatially, materially, and or socially across the world [@chase-dunn.hall_1993]. Scale in these networks could be *inter alia* distinct and geographically isolated, as in the case of the Hawaiian archipelago in the time just before Western arrivals, or nested as supersytem and regional subsystems as in the case of global food regime effects in Hawaii considered in this dissertation. Intriguingly from the perspective of my research, an example is provided in highlighting the need to consider degrees of connectedness in defining system boundaries: > If the sweet potato had not somehow gotten from Peru to the Hawaiian Islands, the large semiarid regions of the islands would not have been able to sustain dense populations. The diffusion of genetic materials and technologies can have profound long-distance effects even though there are no regularized or frequent interactions. But do we want to say that "prehistoric"Hawaii and Peru were in the same world-system because of one sweet potato? We do not think so. [@chase-dunn.hall_1993] Defining boundaries was a critical step in enabling comparative analysis between world-systems and within world systems over time. With decomposition from global to regional analysis came expansion into theorizing of situated world-view meaning construction from inter- and intra-societal interfaces. Thus the world-system, defined by some as globally encompassing, came to also mean situated world-view meaning constructed from inter- and intra-societal interface. This world-view lens, applied by Ermoleava's [-@ermolaeva_1997] delineated myriad political, cultural, and religious differentiations over time and across the archipelago prior to Western contact. The core-periphery dynamics within the islands over the centuries before 1778, [see @ermolaeva_2012] from kin-based to chiefdoms to early state, highlight theoretical interest in different modes of accumulation over time [@chase-dunn.hall_2019]. When considered *as* a world-system Hawaii, is referenced more than most any where elsewhere in the Pacific. However, when considering Hawaii *within* world-systems the islands are scarcely considered. If anything, Hawaii has most commonly been considered in critiques that expanded early theory. Stein critiques world-systems theory as overly deterministic, sapping agency from periphery states and positing them as "passive victims of the expanding core." [-@stein_1999, p. 19]. Drawing from Sahlins' [-@sahlins_1994] work contrasting China and Hawaii's rebuke or embrace, respectively, of bi-directional trade relations with core economic interests, Stein confronts the structural logic of world systems theory in finding that "local ideologies and local political economy played key roles in determining the nature of interregional interaction" [@stein_1999, p. 21]. Similar critiques have been made of food regimes theory, with Jakobsen highlighting the problemitization of the 'global fixation' and a need for multi-scalar analysis [-@jakobsen_2021]. #### Food Regimes - Newer food regimes stuff - Jakobsen, J. (2021). New food regime geographies: Scale, state, labor. _World Development_, _145_, 105523. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105523](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105523) - [[@jakobsen_2021]] - Rioux, S. (2018). Rethinking food regime analysis: An essay on the temporal, spatial and scalar dimensions of the first food regime. _The Journal of Peasant Studies_, _45_(4), 715–738. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1351432](https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1351432) - Wang, K. (2018). East Asian food regimes: Agrarian warriors, edamame beans and spatial topologies of food regimes in East Asia. _The Journal of Peasant Studies_, _45_(4), 739–756. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1324427](https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1324427) - Wang, K.-C. (2021a). Reimagining the global food regimes for relational spaces. _Area_, _53_(4), 637–646. [https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12714](https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12714) - Wang, K.-C. (2021b). Measuring the Reach of Asian Regional Food Regimes in the WTO Era. _Geographical Review_, _111_, 327–351. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00167428.2019.1702428](https://doi.org/10.1080/00167428.2019.1702428) - @lin_2022 - Lin, S. Y. (2022). Localization of the corporate food regime and the food sovereignty movement: taiwan’s food sovereignty movement under “third regionalism.” _Food, Culture & Society_, _0_(0), 1–22. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2022.2030889](https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2022.2030889) - Mattioni, D., Milbourne, P., & Sonnino, R. (2022). Destabilizing the food regime “from within”: Tools and strategies used by urban food policy actors. _Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions_, _44_, 48–59. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.007) - Prause, L., Hackfort, S., & Lindgren, M. (2021). Digitalization and the third food regime. _Agriculture and Human Values_, _38_(3), 641–655. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10161-2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10161-2) - Tilzey, M. (2019). Food Regimes, Capital, State, and Class: Friedmann and McMichael Revisited. _Sociologia Ruralis_, _59_. [https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12237](https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12237 - @mcmichael_2023 on food regime dynamics and COVID Food regime analysis is ideal for articulating connections between state and global governance and identifying trajectories of accumulation in agrofood sectors [@marsden.etal_1996]. Each food regime is a _post hoc_ bounding of moments to aid in “the understanding of agriculture and food’s role in capital accumulation across time and space” [@mcmichael_2009]. In the first global food regime, dominated by British colonialism from 1870-1930s, foreign capital reconfigured agriculture across Pacific Islands to produce bulk commodities for export to colonial centers [@plahe.etal_2013]. In the second food regime roughly from the 1950s through the 1970s, United States ascension and global north productivity drove exports to postcolonial states, shifting the net flow of goods and creating food import dependence across much of the pacific [@plahe.etal_2013]. The third global food regime from the ==1980s== %% NEED TO VERIFY TIMELINE%% to today, framed by the politics of neoliberalism and evidenced in the “corporatization of agriculture and agro-exports” [@mcmichael_2005], has shifted the “locus of control for food security away from the nation-state to the world market” [@plahe.etal_2013]. Recent scholarship has pursued downscaling food regimes analysis from world-systems theory foundations to regional and even local study [@jakobsen_2021]. From @talbot_2015 These works pursue understanding of the interplay between global and local systems of agricultural political economy. McMichael posits that “the food regime is not a political–economic order, as such, rather it is a vehicle of a contradictory conjuncture, governed by the ‘double movement’ of accumulation/legitimation” [-@mcmichael_2005]. And indeed, in Hawaii today corporatized agrofood development is used as a means of state legitimation, clearly reflected in a recent newsletter from the Governor’s office stating that “businesses ... have heard about our commitment to doubling local food production and are interested in making significant investments here.” [@officeofthegovernor_2019]. Accumulation by capital in this regime is accomplished through the “appropriation of agricultural resources for capitalist consumption relations … realized through an expanding foundation of human impoverishment and displacement, and the marginalization of agrarian/food cultures” [-@mcmichael_2005]. The recent spate of land grabs in Hawaii by financial and corporate interests are exemplary of this type of appropriation, while marginalization is evidenced by the lack of material support for existing agricultural producers that was present in previous decades. These factors create vulnerabilities in the food system that contribute to the production of food crises. #### Food Crises ^281084 - [ ] Add Malthus and Belasco: "*Where is Malthus here? see Belasco - Meals to Come regarding different contexts of historical "crises*" See [[On Population and Resources]] Legal frameworks for the concept of food security begin with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights [@ayalew_1997], but as the concept developed the focus has shifted from the global and national level to the individual household [@loke.leung_2013a]. Scale jumps in the locus of management of food security trends well with the establishment of neoliberal approaches to governance. While the concept of food security has grown to encompass availability, access, utilization, and stability [@loke.leung_2013a], the party responsible for food security has increasingly become the individual citizen; exemplified in the three-day and fourteen-day supply of food and water recommendations by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, respectively. When individual food security is disrupted hunger and undernourishment can result. A food crisis occurs when hunger and undernourishment increase drastically across a population [@timmer_2010]. Hunger when scaled to the point of an absolute lack of food, is experienced by a population, is reclassified as famine [@ayalew_1997]. Food crisis encompasses both hunger and famine. Famine however has driven much of the theorizing around food crises. #### Famine and Food Crisis - [ ] Add [[@nally_2011]] on how "a moral economy of hunger is gradually replaced by a political economy of food security that promotes market mechanisms as a better protection against scarcity" The greatest tectonic shift in understanding food crises of the past decades came with Amartya Sen’s [-@sen_1981] work on poverty and famine. Sen’s ‘entitlement approach’ focuses on the ability of people to access food through, inter alia, production, trade, and state entitlements. The entitlement approach parses household endowments (e.g. wealth and ownership of productive resources), production possibilities (e.g., land and labor), and exchange conditions (market access). Sen distinguished between increasing supply (e.g. doubling local food production) and ensuring there are efficient distributive mechanisms achieved through a free market system. Currey’s [-@currey_1984] critique of Sen's entitlement approach however finds that it does little to articulate the causes of famine, in particular the lack of political and environmental factors. Devereaux’s (2001) sweeping review of Sen’s work finds shortcomings in a focus on legal mechanisms over socio-political factors. While famine is not the subject of this research, the embeddedness of famine within the taxonomy of food crisis is of import as the value of geographic inquiry to famine is well documented [@currey.hugo_1984]. #### Food Regimes, Dependency, and Crisis Talbot’s [-@talbot_2015] review of the development of Jamaica’s food import dependency as a byproduct of global food regimes over the latter half of the 20th century demonstrates the importance of local factors in shaping global food system integration, namely food preference and production capacity as well as local policy and history. Liu [-@liu_2008] focuses on shifts in Taiwan’s hog feeding to expound on the global food regime impacts to the island’s food dependency. The islandness of these analyses lend to the view that a theory of geographic proximity in relation to global regimes and offshore dependency may be in order. Only Liu however addresses the critical aspect of crisis production Reviewing the 2007-2008 food price spike McMichael (2009b) applies the concept of food regimes to trace the global repercussions of shifting approaches of capitalism and agribusiness, and neolieral restructuring in the production of food crisis. Usefully concluding that the “institutional mechanisms of the corporate food regime are unlikely to provide solutions to its socio-ecological contradictions” (McMichael, 2009b). Xu [-@xu_2019] vets food regimes theory in a quantitative approach by discerning three period of global ‘food price tranquility’ and thereby defines crisis periods as the price spikes occurring in transitions between them. This approach offers a mechanism to examine the price of effects of a crisis on the strategy of increasing local production and consumption. #### Food Localization Food system localization, the kneejerk antipode of globalized food, seeks a “voluntary regional closure that links production and consumption around particular sites” (Allen, FitzSimmons, Goodman and Warner, 2003). Allen et. al’s review of California’s early aughts alternative agrofood initiatives considered whether the programming provided alternatives within global food hegemony or acted directly in opposition to such a regime. In both cases localization narratives were present. Questions of who constructs these narratives and who benefits abound (Guthman on alternative food practice, 2008; Louis on transnational food sovereignty, 2016). Born and Purcell (2006) argue that local food systems are not inherently more sustainable or global ones and that localism for its own sake is a form of nativism that can impede social justice goals. Conscious use of relational scale and development of networks (both horizontal and vertical) are advised as complementary tools to navigate past the“local trap” (Born and Purcell, 2006). While DeLind (2006) agrees that enabling local consumption and production is insufficient to achieve the broad goals of local food, she finds the deficit coming from too great an emphasis on market-based solutions to the detriment of sensual, emotional, and cultural facets that undergird the values of local food movements. Similarly, Morgan (2010) echoes that local food chains are not inherently more ethical than global ones and, more importantly, that ethical consumerism is an insufficient tool to address social justice or environmental sustainability. DeLind (2011) decries the developmental direction of local food movements: the rise of locavorism and its individualistic consumerism, local being increasingly defined by corporate actors pursuing greater market share, and food localization celebrity edicts filling the place of democratic local foodway specificity. Connecting these concerns is a call for the “reintegration of local food into place-based practice”. #### Hawaii Food Rice’s (2020) recent work covering the production of famine in early 17th century Hawaii offers an invaluable context for framing understanding of early integrations of the islands and world markets. Other analysis in Hawaii has explored the interplay between “local” as both a place-based identity and a geographic distinction of foodways (Hobart, 2016) and recounted the trials of local food placemaking (Inda, Washburn, Beckham, Talisayan and Hikuroa, 2011). Yet unexamined are who constructs the narratives around local food in Hawaii; the degree to which planning and policy, during crisis or otherwise, are caught in the “local trap”; and how an embrace of “local” as identity in place-making and value-based initiatives aids or inhibits achieving local food movement goals. Kimura and Suryanata (2016) highlight the foibles of Hawaii’s agricultural planning and alternative food movements being caught in similar traps of food self-sufficiency and agricultural diversification. Kent’s (2016) work further outlines the costs of policy emphasizing food self-sufficiency to broader consideration and action on food security. While not a perfect synecdoche of late global changes in agrofood, Hobart’s take that “Hawai‘i’s food system represents the myriad issues that challenge communities in the continental United States and beyond” (2016) clearly has purchase. With the closure of the last sugarcane plantation in late 2016 (HNN Staff, 2016) the future of agriculture in Hawaii remains both uncertain and a broad field of opportunity. Melrose, Perroy, and Cares [@melrose.etal_2015] agricultural baseline study provides the most thorough snapshot of agricultural land use across the state in decades. Their review found increases in diversified agricultural production [@perroy.etal_2016] and potential to capture some of the previously identified considerable economic opportunity of increased local production (Leung and Loke, 2008). Despite uncovering a trend towards smaller diversified operations the baseline study only reviewed parcels three acres or larger, leaving a considerable portion of producers, albeit maybe only marginally productive, out of the analysis. From an economic perspective Arita, Hemanchandra and Leung [@arita.etal_2014] pointedly examined if Hawaii farms can survive globalization. While all diversified producers are the subject of their inquiry, the results find that smallholders are likely to be most negatively impacted. Though the globalization they consider focuses on imported goods, the new wave of agribusiness investment, in part focused on production for local consumption, is a new facet of globalization that this study intends to explore.