Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie

The German Journal of Economic Geography

Editor-in-Chief: Henn, Sebastian / Thomi, Walter

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.276
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.000

CiteScore 2017: 1.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.263
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.567

Online
ISSN
2365-7693
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 60, Issue 1-2

Issues

Interplay between structural change in Central Asian agriculture and institutional scarcity of land and water: evidence from Tajikistan

Insa Theesfeld
  • Corresponding author
  • Insa Theesfeld, Institut für Agrar- und Ernährungswissenschaften, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Von-Seckendorff-Platz 4, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany, e-mail: insa.theesfeld@landw.uni-halle.de
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Frederike Klümper
  • Corresponding author
  • Frederike Klümper, Leibniz-Institut für Agrarentwicklung in Mittel- und Osteuropa, Halle, Germany
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-06-15 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2016-0003

Abstract:

This contribution focuses on the interaction between structural change in agriculture and the availability of key natural resources – land and water. The relationship is not unidimensional; therefore, we propose three dimensions of resource-induced structural change. The first dimension describes the links between the two critical input factors into agricultural production, namely land and water. To systematize this perspective, we use the concept of linking patterns that depict direct and indirect intersectoral linkages from a property rights perspective. Second, we examinee the dimension of how structural change in agriculture can be triggered by scarcity of natural resources. The third dimension describes structural change that may lead to overuse and scarcity. In this regard, we introduce resource scarcity not only as physical but most important as institutional scarcity. To illustrate these dimensions, we have chosen a case in Central Asia, where the availability and the control of access and withdrawal rights to land and water is of utmost importance for the agricultural sector. Tajikistan faces physical and institutional scarcity in arable land. The institutional scarcity is due to the non-transparent and costly processes that need to be followed to gain land rights. Likewise there is sufficient supply in water, in Tajikistan, but the de-facto access rights to water are limited for some groups. For instance, the post-socialist irrigation infrastructure is now inappropriate to serve all small-scale users on a canal. In the future, land use change due to a predicted increase of major investors, will have additional impact on the de-facto water rights. We conclude that a solid study not only on the physical but also on the institutional relations of agriculture to natural resources is important to come to reliable predictions of structural change in agriculture. We also show that structural change in agriculture may have wider implications for rural society that go beyond the agricultural sector.

Keywords: : Central Asia; institutional scarcity; land and water; property rights; structural change.

References

  • Akramov, K. T. and G. Shreedhar (2012). “Economic development, external shocks, and food security in Tajikistan.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 1163. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Google Scholar

  • Aldaya, M. M., G. Munoz and A. Y. Hoekstra (2010). “Water Footprint of Cotton, Wheat and Rice Production in Central Asia.” Value of Water Research Report Series. Delft, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education. 41. Google Scholar

  • Anseeuw, W., J. Lay, P. Messerli, M. Giger and M. Taylor (2013). “Creating a public tool to assess and promote transparency in global land deals: the experience of the Land Matrix.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 40 (3): 521–530. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Anseeuw, W., A. L. Wily, L. Cotula and M. Taylor (2012). Land Rights and the Rush for Land: Findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project. Rome, International Land Coalition. Google Scholar

  • Beccar, L., Boelens, R. and P. Hoogendam (2002). “Water rights and collective action in cummunity irrigation.” Water rights and empowerment, R. Boelens and T. Hoogendam (eds.) Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, 1–21. Google Scholar

  • Berbel, J. and J. A. Gómez-Limón (2000). “The impact of water-pricing policy in Spain: an analysis of three irrigated areas.” Agricultural Water Management 43 (2): 219–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boboyorov, H. (2012). “Personal networks of agricultural knowlege in cotton-growing communities of Southern Tajikistan.” Demokratizatsiya 20 (4): 409–435. Google Scholar

  • Chavas, J.-P. (2001). Chapter 5 Structural change in agricultural production: Economics, technology and policy. Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Elsevier. Volume 1, Part A: 263–285. Amsterdam. Google Scholar

  • Cotula, L. (2012). “The international political economy of the global land rush: A critical appraisal of trends, scale, geography and drivers.” Journal of Peasant Studies39 (3–4): 649–680. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Deininger, K. (2011). “Challenges posed by the new wave of farmland investment.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (2): 217–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Deininger, K. and D. Byerlee (2011). Rising global interest for farmland. Can it yield sustainable and equiable benefits? Washington, D.C., World Bank. Google Scholar

  • FAO (2013). Aquastat: Irrigation in Central Asia in Figures. Aquastat Survey – 2012. Rome, FAO Land and Water Division. Google Scholar

  • FAO (2015a). “AQUASTAT Main Database.” Retrieved 01.12.2015, from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en. Google Scholar

  • FAO (2015b). “FAOSTAT Database: Agri-Environmental Indicators, Land.” Retrieved 03.01.2016, from http://faostat3.fao.org/download/E/*/E. Google Scholar

  • FAO (2015c). “FAOSTAT Database: Population.” Retrieved 03.01.2016, from http://faostat.fao.org/site/550/default.aspx#ancor. Google Scholar

  • Franco, J., L. Mehta and G. J. Veldwisch (2013). “The Global Politics of Water Grabbing.” Third World Quarterly 34 (9): 1651–1675. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gehrigk, F., T. Herzfeld and I. Theesfeld (2013). Farmers’ perceptions of land and water property rights: Discrepancies between de jure and de facto rights in Tajikistan. Natural resource use in Central Asia: Institutional challenges and the contribution of capacity building. Giessen. Google Scholar

  • Hagedorn, K. (2008). “Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 35 (3): 357–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hofman, I. (2013). “Understanding forms of contention in the post-Soviet setting: rural responses to Chinese land investments in Tajikistan.” LDPI Working Paper, Land Deal Politics Initiative (LDPI). Google Scholar

  • Hofman, I. and O. Visser (2014). “Geographies of transition: The political and geographical factors of agrarian change in Tajikistan.” IAMO Discussion paper 151. Halle (Saale). Google Scholar

  • Ismar, J. (2013). How to govern the global rush for land and water? Handbook of Land ans Water Grabs in Africa. T. Allan, M. Keulertz, S. Sojamo and J. Warner. London and New York, Routledge: 286–298. Google Scholar

  • Kirschke, D., M. Odening, A. Häger and O. Mußhoff (2007). “Strukturwandel im Agrarsektor.“ HU-Spektrum 14 (1): 24–31. Google Scholar

  • Knickel, K. (1990). “Agricultural structural change: Impact on the rural environment.” Journal of Rural Studies 6 (4): 383–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kruchem, T. (2013). Land and Water. Frankfurt am Main, Brandes & Apsel Verlag. Google Scholar

  • Lerman, Z. (2012). “Rural Livelihoods in Tajikistan: What Factors and Policies Influence the Income and Well-Being of Rural Families,” in: V. Squire: Rangeland Stewardship in Central Asia: Balancing Improved Livelihoods, Biodiversity Conservation and Land Protection Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 165–187. Google Scholar

  • Mandler, A. (2013). “Knowledge and Governance Arrangements in Agricultural Production. Negotiating the Access to Arable Land in Zarafhsn Valley, Tajikistan.” ZEF Working Paper (106), Bonn. Google Scholar

  • Margulis, M. E., N. McKoen and S. M. Borras , Jr. (2013). “Land Grabbing and Global Governance: Critical Perspectives.” Globalizations 10 (1): 1–23. Google Scholar

  • Mbereko, A., Mukamuri, B., and M. Chimbari (2015). “Exclusion and contest over wetlands used for farming in Zimbabwe: a case study of broad-ridge and broad-furrow tillage system on Zugwi Vlei.” Journal of Political Ecology 21, 322–338 Google Scholar

  • Mehta, L., G. J. Veldwisch and J. Franco (2012). “Introduction to the Special Issue: Water Grabbing? Focus on the (Re)appropriation of Finite Water Resources.” Water Alternatives 5 (2): 193–207. Google Scholar

  • Ostrom, E. (1992). Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. ICS Press. Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco. Google Scholar

  • Pearce, F. (2013). “Splash and grab: The global scramble for water.” NewScientist 2906; 4 March 2013, Retrieved 16.02.2016 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729066.400-splash-and-grab-the-global-scramblefor-water.html Google Scholar

  • Ribot, J.C., Peluso, N.L., 2003. A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology 68 (2): 153–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Robinson, S. and T. Guenther (2007). “Rural Livelihoods in Three Mountainous Regions of Tajikistan.” Post-Communist Economies 19 (3): 359–378. Google Scholar

  • Robinson, S., I. Higginbotham, T. Guenther and A. Germain (2008). Land Reform in Tajikistan: Consequences for Tenure Security, Agricultural Productivity and Land Management Practices. The Socio-Economic Causes and Consequences of Desertification in Central Asia. R. Behnke, Springer Dordrecht: 171–203. Google Scholar

  • Rulli, M. C., A. Saviori and P. D’Odorico (2013). “Global land and water grabbing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (3): 892–897. Google Scholar

  • Sadoff, C., K. Kemper and D. Grey (2006). “Calming global waters: managing a finite resource in a growing world.” Global issues for global citizens : an introduction to key development challenges. V. Bhargava, World Bank, Washington D.C. 265–284. Google Scholar

  • Schlager, E. and E. Ostrom (1992). “Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis.” Land Economics 68 (3): 249–262. Google Scholar

  • Skinner, J. and L. Cotula (2011). Are land deals driving “water grabs”? IIED Briefing. London, IIED. Google Scholar

  • Soghd Agroserv Consulting (2012). Internal report on Crop Water Requirements in Tajikistan. Google Scholar

  • Specht, J. W., Katrin; Häring, Anna Maria; Braun, Charis Linda (2013). Wandel im ländlichen Raum: Von Wandlungsprozessen zu neuen Kompetenzbedarfen Wandel Wissen Wertschöpfung. Eberswalde. Eberwalde. Google Scholar

  • Swinnen, J. F. M. and S. Rozelle (2006). From Marx and Mao to the market: the economics and politics of agricultural transition. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

  • TAJStat (2012). МИНТАЌАЊОИ ЉУМЊУРИИ ТОЉИКИСТОН (TAJSTAT) (translation: Regions of Tajikistan). Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Google Scholar

  • TAJStat (2014). “Food Security and Poverty.” Tajikistan. Dushanbe, Tajikistan. 3. Google Scholar

  • TAJStat (2015) НИШОНДИЊАНДАЊОИ ГЕНДЕРЇ ОИД БА ФАЪОЛИЯТИ ИСТЕЊСОЛИИ ХОЉАГИЊОИ ДЕЊЌОНЇ ДАР СОЛЊОИ 2009 – 2014 (translation: Gender-Indicators in the agricultural sector 2009 – 2014). Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Google Scholar

  • Theesfeld, I., 2004. “Constraints on Collective Action in a Transitional Economy: The Case of Bulgaria’s Irrigation Sector.” World Development 32 (2): 251–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Theesfeld, I. (2015). „Das komplexe Geflecht von Land- und Wasserraub.“ KOMPASS Das Themenmagazin des Weltfriedensdienst.e. V. W. e. V. (WFD): 13–14 Google Scholar

  • Theesfeld, I. (2016). “The Impacts of Liberalized Land Markets on the Resource Water: A Property Rights Approach.” Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus e. V. Landwirtschaftsverlag: 261–270. Google Scholar

  • UNDP (2003). “Tapping the potential. Improving water management in Tajikistan.” National Human Development Report. New York, United Nations Development Programme. Google Scholar

  • USAID (2014). AgTCA Tajikistan – Agricultural Technology Commercialization Assessment. United States Agency for International Development – Enabling Agricultural Trade (EAT) project report. Retrieved 16.02.2016 from http://eatproject.org/portfolio-tca.html, last accessed. Google Scholar

  • van Atta, D. (2009). “White Gold or Fool’s Gold? The Political Economy of Cotton in Tajikistan.” Problems of Post-Communism 56 (2): 17–35. Google Scholar

  • van der Ploeg, J.D., Franco, J.C., Borras, S.M. (2015). “Land concentration and land grabbing in Europe: a preliminary analysis.” Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement 36 (2): 147–162. Google Scholar

  • Verdery, K. (2003). The vanishing hectare: property and value in postsocialist Transylvania. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Google Scholar

  • Visser, O. and M. Spoor (2011). “Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: the world’s largest agricultural land reserves at stake.” Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (2): 299–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Von Braun, J. and R. Meinzen-Dick (2009). “Land grabbing” by foreign investores in developing countries: risks and oppertunities.” IFPRI Policy Brief 13: 1–9. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Google Scholar

  • Walsh, C. (2004). “Aguas Broncas: The Regional Political Ecology of Water Conflicts in the Mexico-U.S. Borderlands.” Journal of Political Ecology 11: 43–58. Google Scholar

  • Wegerich, K., 2002. “Natural drought or human made water scarcity in Uzbekistan?” Central Asia and the Caucasus 2 (14): 154–162. Google Scholar

  • Woodhouse, P. (2012). “Foreign Agricultural Land Acquisition and the Visibility of Water Resource Impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Water Alternatives 5 (2): 208–222. Google Scholar

  • Woodhouse, P. and A. Ganho (2011). Is Water the Hidden Agenda of Agricultural Land Acquisition in sub-Saharan Africa? International Conference on Global Land Grabbing. Sussex, Land Deal Politics Initiative (LDPI). Google Scholar

  • World Bank (2012). “Tajikistan – Farmer and farm worker perceptions of land reform and sustainable agriculture.” Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved 16.02.2016 from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/06/16461734/tajikistan-farmer-farm-worker-perceptions-land-reform-sustainable-agriculture. Google Scholar

  • WorldBank (2016). “World Bank Data: Personal remittances, received (% of GDP).” Retrieved 03.01.2016, 2016 from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.DT.GD.ZS. Google Scholar

  • Zoomers, A. (2010). “Globalisation and the foreignisation of space: seven processes driving the current global land grab.” Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (2): 429–447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-06-15

Published in Print: 2016-06-01


Citation Information: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, Volume 60, Issue 1-2, Pages 81–96, ISSN (Online) 2365-7693, ISSN (Print) 0044-3751, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2016-0003.

Export Citation

© 2016 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Andrei Dörre and Chorshanbe Goibnazarov
Mountain Research and Development, 2018, Volume 38, Number 2, Page 104

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in