The international political economy of agriculture and food: An introduction
The international political economy of agriculture and food: An introduction
复制标题
农业和粮食的国际政治经济学：简介
DOI：
10.4337/9781782548263.00006
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
L. Busch
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Bonanno;L. Busch
弗里德里希·冯·哈耶克（Friedrich von Hayek，2011[1960]; 2007[1944]）在阐述新自由主义的优点和自由市场的运作时，谴责了试图政治指导经济的危险。哈耶克将政治选择的经济目标和措施称为“智能设计”，认为它们永远不能取代市场自主运作所提供的高度可取的解决方案。他认为，任何类型的政治计划都需要从经济管理中消除。因此，对于哈耶克和志同道合的新自由主义者来说，政治经济学应该只限于市场的自由运作。这种新自由主义立场与农业食品的政治经济学在几乎整个现代时代，当然也包括整个世纪的解释和演变方式形成了鲜明的对比。凯恩斯主义、激进主义、社会主义、社会民主主义以及世纪初的自由放任主义方法从经济、社会、文化、政治和地缘政治领域各种因素的相互作用的角度来解释和管理农业和粮食。这些因素和其他因素被认为是指导农业食品发展和实现分配给该部门的具体目标的核心。在这种背景下，在世纪的大部分时间里，世界各地的农业、粮食生产和分配都是在民族国家的干预下得到支持和协调的高度规划的活动。发达国家的资本主义民族国家继续采取前几个世纪开始的做法，不仅从该部门的经济增长和社会稳定的角度，而且首先从整个社会的全面平衡发展的角度来指导农业和粮食的组织。为不断增长的城市中下层阶级生产负担得起的食物，控制农业劳动力向制造业和城市的迁移，以及为国内市场和安全建立可靠的粮食生产系统，几乎成为这一时期所有国家的基本目标。事实上，民主和专制政权都明白，廉价的食品会限制社会动荡。坚持使用
In his illustration of the virtues of neoliberalism and the functioning of the free market, Friedrich von Hayek (2011[1960]; 2007[1944]) denounces the perils associated with attempts to politically direct the economy. Referring to politically selected economic objectives and measures as “intelligent design,” Hayek contends that they can never be replacements for the highly desirable solutions offered by the autonomous functioning of the market. Political plans of any type, he contends, need to be eliminated from the managing of the economy. Accordingly, for Hayek and likeminded neoliberals, political economy should be confined to nothing more than the free functioning of the market. This neoliberal position stands in sharp contrast to the manner in which the political economy of agrifood has been interpreted and evolved for virtually the entire modern era and, certainly, throughout the 20th Century. Keynesian, radical, socialist, social democratic, but also beginning of the century laissezfaire approaches have interpreted and managed agriculture and food in terms of the interplay of a variety of factors pertaining to the economic, social, cultural, political and geopolitical spheres. These and other factors have been considered central in the directing of agrifood development and the achievement of the specific goals assigned to this sector. In this context, for the greatest part of the 20th Century, agriculture and the production and distribution of food around the world were highly planned activities supported and coordinated by the intervention of the nationstate. Continuing practices initiated in previous centuries, the capitalist nationstates of advanced countries directed the organization of agriculture and food not only in terms of the economic growth and social stability of the sector, but, above all, in terms of the overall balanced development of the entire society. The production of affordable food for the growing urban lower and middle classes, the controlled migration of agricultural labor to manufacturing jobs and cities and the creation of a reliable system for the production of food for the domestic market and security became the period’s fundamental objectives of virtually all nations. Indeed, both democratic and authoritarian regimes understood that cheap food limited social unrest. The insistence on the use