The interrelated problems of over-industrialization, decades of poor land use policies, a rising population, scarcity of resources like water, and the skyrocketing prices of food have made governments in the developed parts of the world realise that they cannot feed their peoples with oil and asphalt, and therefore should seek out alternatives. Experts agree that something big is taking place and that there are risks involved to small-holder farmers. These fears revolved mainly but not exclusively around the themes of food insecurity and peasant dispossession. The disagreement is how to read the issue and what solutions are necessary in order to address the dangers. For organizations such as the World Bank, these are birth pains of a new but promising phenomenon, and whatever risks are taking place can be solved by corporate responsibility and efficient governance of land. This means making sure that there is no corruption, that small-holder farmers get to see the contracts to lease their land, that farmers are given titles so that they can transact freely and equally. The World Bank’s opinion on this matter is laid down in its recent publication, Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can It Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits by the World Bank (2010). For another group of experts, however, the phenomenon is something that must be resisted and that it indicates a new form of colonialism. They think that because the corporation wanting to take lands from the developing world are only after profit, it will result in farmers being displaced and dispossessed, and no more lands in the developing world to produce food. The World Bank report, dotted with case studies demonstrating the difficulties of rural peoples as a result of the rising phenomenon of transnational corporations and rich countries taking over their lands, states that the risks attaching to land grabbing actually “correspond to equally large opportunities” (page xxi) as long as access to technology, capital markets, infrastructure and information are granted. It contends that foreign investments have the potential to make positive contributions to rural livelihood and can support small-holder farmers.. It is supported by experts such as Liversage, who contends that “mutually beneficial partnerships between small-holder farmers and private sector investors” (2010: 2) give benefits to both. On the other hand, critics of land grabbing have also stated their case. We turn to an article entitled From Threat to Opportunity: Problems with the Idea of a “Code of Conduct” for Land Grabbing by Saturnino Borras and Jennifer Franco (2010: 1). Borras and Franco argue that global land grabbing is a threat in and of itself, and the institutionalization of corporate responsibility mechanisms only serves to legitimize existing capitalist interests at the expense of the rural poor in the global south. They make the call for a human rights-framed, categorically pro-poor land policy framework that questions current production and consumption patterns. This is similar to the Accumulation by Dispossession that David Harvey (2006: 112) speaks of – “the perpetual search for natural resources of high quality that can be pillaged for surplus and surplus value production has therefore been a key aspct to the historical geography of capitalism.”
Foreign Investment in Farmland: Good or bad? The issue that I have chosen is foreign investment in farmland, or what has been labeled “global land grabbing”. It has also been called outsourcing farming - the leasing or buying of farmlands in developing countries by developed countries for th purpose of agricultural cultivation, whether for biofuels, food production, feedstock production, and the like…
FDI can also be defined as an investment of a company in a foreign country by building a factory within the host country. It is through a company’s direct investment in machinery, building and equipment in another country that foreign direct investment is made possible.
Inward FDI increased from 9.6% of GDP in 1990 to 26.7% in 2006. (Woodward, 2011). There has also been a recent flow of FDI towards developing economies and this has had a plethora of effects, both for home and host countries. (Raj and Sager, 2005). Foreign Direct Investment has over the last three decades aroused conflicting responses from the first and third world.
Eventually, countries will continue to entice high level of investment coming specifically from foreign enterprises. It is believed that trans-national firms will consider this as potentially beneficial for their operations.
Globalisation is also considered as a primary contributor to the methods used to develop foreign direct investments.
Some of these countries became full European Union (EU) members in May 2004. They also experienced a significant increase in foreign direct investment (FDI). As a consequence, the ratio of inward FDI stock to the 12 CEE countries studied here in total world inward FDI stock increased more than three-fold, from 0.81% in 1994 to 2.89% in 2004.
The MFN clauses connect investment accords by making sure that the parties to a treaty confer treatment favorably no less than the treatment they confer under other treaties in matters embraced by the clause. Thus, MFN clauses have become an essential tool for economic liberalization in the matter of investment.1 Further, by granting the investors the right in a country's MFN clause for the same treatment no less favourable than that of a country's major partners, MFN forestalls economic changes that would arise by way of more country-by-country liberalization.
(Wikipedia, 2006). After the 1960's, foreign direct investments (FDI) have increased at a steady rate, with FDI stocks making up twenty percent of the world's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Currently, China leads the world in foreign direct investments.
The author states that a multinational firm in a developed country may face higher labor costs and higher production costs when locating its subsidiaries in its own home country, while a shift overseas may involve a larger initial investment but is economically beneficial in the long run because the margin of profits are higher.
ld Bank bonds are issued by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) in the international capital markets” ("Bonds and investment," 2011). Within this context of understanding it’s clear that money is making it to emerging markets.
rategies that enable entities to diversify its assets and risk across diverse countries by engaging in contractual agreements with multiple potential partners. Companies may find it advantageous by producing in foreign countries compared to exporting to those countries based on
Despite lucrative offers available in Qatar for foreign investments, the regulation of foreign capital requires that 51% of the capital belongs to the Qatari citizens. The foreign investment law that invites and protects the foreign
1 pages (250 words)Essay
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Foreign Investment in Farmland for FREE!