>[!prompt] The WHOLE DISS is about global and local interactivity > Dont worry about theoretical grounding, just focus on descriptive historical arc >Use [[Bernstein's 4 Key Questions of Political Economy]] > 1. Who owns what? > 2. Who does what? > 3. Who gets what? > 4. What do they do with it? ## Introduction from [[Historical Geography of Agrofood System Development in Hawaii]] %%Open with overview of chapter, introduce the three focal scales, - explain via @redman.kinzig_2003 - cascading effects - information flow **how will information flow be assessed???** - adaptive cycle phases reference other histories of Hawaii ag (phillip, mark, etc) and how/why this is different%% This chapter describes development and change in Hawaii's agrofood systems over the two and a half centuries since Western Contact in 1778. As a *longue durée* narrative, the chapter employs a comparative historical approach to longitudinally outline the contours of late modern and contemporary agrarian change in the Hawaiian islands. The chapter introduces ==actors, structures, and institutions== [per @borras_2009] to set the stage within which the later chapters will play out. As a rambling preamble, the chapter introduces actors, structures, and institutions and sets the stage within which the later chapters will play out. As a through line the chapter dynamic/shifting interplay of As a *longue durée* narrative, this chapter employs a comparative historical approach longitudinally to outline the contours of late modern and contemporary agrarian change in the Hawaiian islands. This chapter contextualizes the shifting interplay of dynamics between ==actors, structures, and institutions== in Hawaii's food system since Western Contact in 1778. The narrative focuses on Hawaii's agrofood system but, borrowing from @walker.salt_2012's resilience practice approach, considers global food regimes as the embedding scale influencing change in Hawaii, and also considers *foodways* (explicitly household provisioning) as a dependent embedded scale. | Scale | System | Effect | Aspects | Variables | | ----- | ---------------------- | ----------- | ------------- | --- | | Macro | Global food regimes | Independent | | | | Focal | Hawaii agrofood systems | Dependent | | Local production | | Micro | Household provisioning | Dependent | Entitlements? | | - What is covered - scales? - @marshall.etal_2021 typology? - what is not covered - details of household food provisioning - analysis? - “==Variables assessing diet, nutrition, and health were excluded from the construction of the typology because conceptually, these were considered as outcomes of food system processes as opposed to components within the food system==” (Marshall et al., 2021, p. 3) @borras_2009 notes the value of comparative approaches in works on agrarian change Other agricultural histories of Hawaii: @philipp_1951, @mark.lucas_1982, @clark_1986 Towards the goal of constructing a historical narrative of agricultural and foodways change in Hawaii, there are numerous trajectories of agrofood systems development models to draw from (CITATION, CITATION, CITATION). Marshal et al.'s [[email protected]_2021] recent global food systems typology collapses the complexity of food systems into dominant forms at a country level. Their typology sorts countries into five food system forms: rural and traditional; informal and expanding; emerging and diversifying; modernizing and formalizing; and industrial and consolidated. By using a few variables as surrogate measures of food supply chains, food environments, and consumer-related factors @marshall.etal_2021 parse a global snapshot at the country level. I instead apply their typology as a time-series narrative of agrofood system development in the Hawaiian islands. ==When possible the datasets used by @marshall.etal_2021 will be will be woven into the narrative, namely: *agricultural value added per worker* [^1] (food supply chains), *share of dietary energy from staples* (food environments), *supermarket density per 100K residents* (food environments), and *urban population* (consumer-related factors).== %%Maybe take this out??%% @marshall.etal_2021 highlight potential for the typology to be implemented a sub-national level while recognizing that the datasets' spatial granularity is a limitation. That said, the approach can aids broad comparisons of food systems to uncover potential risk factors in transition from one type to another, especially when paired with their outcomes analyses of health (dietary intake, nutritional status) and environmental impacts. In the case of applying the typology as a historical time-series however, much of the data needed for such outcomes remain uncompiled or non-existent. To wit, compiling aggregate fertilizer use or vegetable consumption in 1850's Hawaii, let alone as a cohesive time-series from the late 18th Century, constitutes an altogether separate research endeavor beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, where possible, inferences will be made from the scant data available and provided in the narrative. ##### Scales & Cross-Scale Interactions Considered Following from @walker.salt_2012 approach to contextualize a system for resilience analysis, the narrative will explore three scales: the embedding scale of global food regimes, the focal scale of Hawaii's agrofood system, and the embedded scale of household provisioning and entitlements. Cross-scale cascading effects are considered in the narrative, say global forces restructuring local conditions. However, while recognizing that embedded scales also can have influences on those they are embedded within, any such effects will be less emphasized. Such "bottom up" information transfer in social systems %%from smaller to larger scales%% can be more difficult, and is often lost or degraded in transit [@redman.kinzig_2003], thus cross-scale interactions from the smaller (read: embedded) scale of household provisioning to the focal scale of Hawaii's agrofood system, and from the focal scale to the larger (read: embedding) scale of global food regimes are, again similar to @walker.salt_2012 resilience practice approach, not widely considered in this dissertation. ##### Information flow %%and adaptive cycles%% within the focal scale @redman.kinzig_2003 on information flow @carpenter.etal_2005 on resilience surrogates %% explain why%%. Further, population health and nutrition are not considered within the narrative as, per (CITATION about these being outcomes not system components) these are viewed as system outcomes not components of the system. "the potential risks and benefits of different food system transformation pathways, their effects on the make-up of food environments, and possible implications for diets." [@marshall.etal_2021] Along this timeline global food regimes theory periods will be interwoven to explore the extent to which Hawaii's development aligns with dominant global food regimes. %% Define global food regimes here?%% food systems and nutrition transition literature, [^1Agricultural value per added worker is the ratio between value added in agriculture (constant US$) and number of people employed in agriculture. (via [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agriculture-value-added-per-worker-wdi) ##### @marshall.etal_2021's Variables ![[@marshall.etal_2021#^9666a0]] ## Periodization ### Rural & Traditional (≤18th century) #### Pre-Contact & The Ancient Hawaiian State ==What are the social relations of property (_Who owns what_)? How do they shape social divisions of labour (_Who does what_)? How do divisions of labor shape social distributions of income (_Who gets what_)? How do distributions of income shape the uses of the social product for consumption, reproduction, and accumulation (_What do they do with it_)? Land and resources were held as common, with usage rights mediated through a structures of social organization spatial and social stratification of controls, management, and use rights developed over centuries Governance and management of land > @lacroix_2002 > A relatively egalitarian society and subsistence economy were coupled with high population growth rates until about 1100 when continued population growth led to a major expansion of the areas of settlement and cultivation. Perhaps under pressures of increasing resource scarcity, a new, more hierarchical social structure emerged, characterized by chiefs (aliʻi) and subservient commoners (makaʻāinana). In the two centuries prior to Western contact, there is considerable evidence that ruling chiefs (aliʻi nui) competed to extend their lands by conquest and that this led to cycles of expansion and retrenchment Prior to Western contact with the islands in 1778, the Hawaiian Islands complex of dryland and wetland agricultural systems developed in response to landscape and climate heterogeneity [@lincoln.vitousek_2017]. The resulting mosaic of crop and production system diversity provided a bulwark against weather and climate disruptions [@winter.etal_2018]. Active management of functional agrobiodiversity was furthered by social controls in the form *kapu* restricting access or harvest to select species. In certain cases *kapu* would alternate between substitute species, allowing population recovery [@winter.etal_2018]. The management of productive systems for sustained surpluses is a key strategy for disaster risk reduction across the Pacific [@campbell_2006]. Beyond the productivity of the staple systems, Hawaii employed a variety of mechanisms to mitigate caloric disruption during lean periods. These strategies to address hunger or respond to famine relied on process, preference, social, and spatial shifts. Irrigated & rainfed systems support a complex state.  > [!NOTE] > What are the social relations of property (*Who owns what*)? How do they shape social divisions of labour (*Who does what*)? How do divisions of labor shape social distributions of income (*Who gets what*)? How do distributions of income shape the uses of the social product for consumption, reproduction, and accumulation (*What do they do with it*)? #### Early Post Contact ### Informal & Expanding (19th c.) #### Whaling and Fur New crops & animals, diverse early commerce. > The 1846 and 1847 values indicate the chief dependence of Island agriculture on the whalers for an external market , two or three times as much being sold to the whalers as was exported . ( The period 1849 1851 is a non homogeneous section of the whole series , for during the Gold Rush there was a temporary but violent demand for foodstuffs from California .) Through the fifties the shipping trade was in money value of about half the importance of the export market ; and already by 1858 had begun its abrupt decline to insignificance. > > The whalers demanded general garden produce , fruit , and meat ; and so gave the last continued stimulus to diversified agri culture .28 Beef , sweet and Irish potatoes , and firewood were brought to the ships in the largest money volume ; but many other products were sold , among which fowls , turkeys , hogs , pumpkins , melons , onions , yams , coconuts , limes , oranges , bananas , pine apple , molasses , and sugar were the most valuable . The temperate zone produce among these , which grew meagerly in the low warm plains and valleys , was cultivated on the slopes of several of the mountains . The flanks of Haleakala thrived with temperate crops . > > Farming organization was not stabilized: the kuleana of the native produced for the market in competition with larger farms and plantations of the nobility and the foreigner. A plantation type of organization became dominant only with the rise of sugar. > > [@morgan_1948, p. 151] ### Emerging & Diversifying (19th-20th c.) Plantation (sugar then pine) consolidation and power rises.  #### Gold Rush Provisions #### Early sugar & pineapple @maclennan_1997 on early sugar #### Agricultural society to Agricultural Societies ##### RHAS & settler colonial interest see Pumpkin for example: ![[Pumpkin in Hawaii - Research Notes#^8b0813]] ### Modernizing & Formalizing (20th c.) Plantations decline, ‘Diversified ag’ and coops rise/fall > @philipp_1960 focuses on changes between 1947-1949 and 1957-1958 in: > 1. Value and physical volume of diversified agricultural products > 2. Prices of diversified agricultural products, > 3. Size and number of diversified farms, and > 4. Oahu's share in Hawaii's diversified agricultural production. ### H2-A visas? ### Industrial & Consolidated (20th-21st c.) Influx of finance and agribusiness capital in large scale projects. ### Sugar #### New Actors (just speak to it, don't need to detail) ![[AgCensusFarmCount1900-2017.png.png]]