Transforming food systems in the Global South: a radical approach
Andres Suarez1,2* 
Chukwuma Ume3- 1Department of Civil and Environmental, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla, Colombia
- 2International Ph.D. program in Agricultural Economics, Bioeconomy and Sustainable Food Systems –IPPAE, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Giessen, Germany
- 3Institute for Agricultural Policy and Market Research, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Nutritional Sciences, and Environmental Management, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Giessen, Germany
Sustainability within food systems (FS) transcends approaches that only consider FS transformation via changing agricultural practices or consumption patterns. The essence lies in addressing the root causes of current unsustainable FS and their associated social and environmental ramifications. This paper aims to outline the solutions needed to revamp these challenges, by paying special attention to the state-capital nexus in the context of the FS’global core-periphery dialectics. Thereby, we embrace radical political agroecology as being essential in promoting sustainability within the FS, especially in the Global South. Agroecology is proposed as the strategy to address the food system’s complexity in terms of the social, environmental, and economic embeddedness. We conclude with potential solutions that contribute to the pathway for FS sustainability.
1 Introduction
Food systems (FS) are complex webs of processes and products, involving production, processing, packaging, distribution, retail and consumption of food, which finally have implication on social and natural systems (Eliasson et al., 2022). Current challenges of FS arise from several dynamics shaped by capitalist values (Bakker and Gill, 2019). Various authors have highlighted the need to consider social, economic, and ecological outcomes within FS as the starting point in their transformation (FAO, 2019; Giraldo, 2019; Ume, 2023). Others have called for transformative processes in socio-natural relationships, the urgency of shifting mental models, and the need for more democratic and less oligopoly-driven FS (El Bilali et al., 2019; Fanzo et al., 2021; Kugelberg et al., 2021). Achieving sustainability in FS therefore requires addressing root causes and avoiding simplistic approaches. Literature reveals various proposed approaches that emphasize the importance of holistic strategies, innovative collaboration, and systemic transformation (Table 1). Equity, inclusivity, interdisciplinary efforts, and resilience are consistently mentioned priorities that aim to shift paradigms toward more sustainable FS. Yet, there is no universally accepted approach to FS transformations (Juri et al., 2022).
Table 1. Complex emergent problems of FS in the Global South.
Table 2 in this paper, we aim to offer an initial guide for approximating FS’ transformation toward sustainability, by recognizing their non-linear nature. We reflect on the intricate process of transformation particularly needed in and coming from the Global South to highlight two main points: unequal ecological exchange and peasant resistance. Global North’s reliance on extractive practices in the South affects environmental sustainability (core-periphery relation), while Southern peasants play a crucial role in challenging the dominant neoliberal food regime (Tilzey, 2020). We propose a bricolage approach, incorporating various strategies to navigate the complex journey toward achieving more sustainable FS, but from a radical perspective (Tilzey, 2024). By grounding this process in the principles of Critical Realism,1 we aim to comprehend the root pathways of radical transformation by answering: What is needed to achieve radical FS transformation toward sustainability in the Global South?
Table 2. A mini review of literature related to FS transformations.
2 The nature of radical transformations
Previous studies underscore the nonlinear nature of FS transformation by considering imbalances and the dynamic nature of power in the agricultural sector (Kok et al., 2019; Eliasson et al., 2022). According to Eliasson et al. (2022) confronting the inherent power structures across geographical scales and promoting social movements advocating for food sovereignty are important. Collective understanding and agency are also deemed crucial for creating more sustainable FS. Examining structural and agential aspects in FS transformation through the lens of Critical Realism is also important for understanding to understand the dialectics of socio-natural relations in FS (Tilzey, 2018). Following the critical realist Transformational Model of Social Activity (Bhaskar, 2008), this paper seeks to reveal the interplay between social-natural-agrarian structures and human agency as a “structured agency” (Potter and Tilzey, 2005). The approach posits that social structures influence human actions, which, through social interactions, can reproduce or transform these structures. Critical Realism provides a comprehensive framework for navigating the complexity of FS transformation through human agency, by considering material transactions with nature, social interactions, social structure, and individuals’ inner being (Bhaskar, 2008; Buch-Hansen and Nesterova, 2023). This wide insight into the FS posits that its essence is profoundly interconnected across these 4 dimensions. Acknowledging and actively addressing this interconnected nature enhances the potential of radical transformative initiatives to foster sustainable changes.
Since FS unfold in these four dialectically interrelated dimensions of human agency, it is essential to determine the origin of the causal mechanisms that lead to discrepancies across these four planes. This comprehension introduces even greater complexity, specifically, when considering the open and multi-scaler nature of social-natural-agrarian systems, which requires a layered explanation (Collier, 2013). According to Bhaskar and Danermark (2006), layered systems pertain to multiple levels of reality organized on a hierarchical scale. In such systems, it is possible to delineate distinct levels of agency and collectivity. Explanations within layered systems involve mechanisms at various of these levels. This involves understanding comprehensively all aspects of society and not only what and where things happen, as represented by the four-planar social being, but also exploring how and why they occur (causal mechanisms), as depicted in the multi-scalar social being (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Four planar and multi-scalar social being (Bhaskar and Danermark, 2006).
While various approaches aim to provide guidance for achieving sustainability transformations in food systems, (Table 2) it is crucial to recognize that the complexity inherent in this transformation (Figure 1) requires a comprehensive perspective, and in our case, a radical one. We will navigate the intricacies discussed earlier by examining the instance of FS in the Global South.
3 A layered approach for analyzing FS transformations
The recognition that social-natural-agrarian phenomena unfold across the four dialectically interrelated planes provides a comprehensive framework for understanding FS transformations. Recognizing transactions with nature, social structures, social interactions, and deep personality enables a nuanced understanding of the scenario where mechanisms behind FS unsustainability across various scales emerge (Table 1). Therefore, the challenge is to address transformations in the myriad of scales that produce unintended and unsustainable consequences in global FS occurring in the four planes throughout multiple scales.
The structural framework enabling and constraining human agency on the four planes when analyzing contemporary FS consists of the complex state-capital nexus, which acts as the primary source of legitimation and enforcement by facilitating capital accumulation through varying degrees of mediation (Tilzey, 2020; Tilzey and Sudgen, 2024). This structure enables the intricate web of the global economy, where the world is starkly divided into dialectical imperial-peripherical relations; i.e. the Global North pressures the socio-natural systems of the Global South (Tilzey, 2020). Large-scale corporations (supported by the state-capital nexus), wielding immense power, spearhead the production and commercialization of commodities (Tilzey, 2024). The deeply rootef historical legacy of colonization lingers, perpetuating extractive activities in the agricultural sector (McKay et al., 2021; Petras and Veltmeyer, 2023). National, regional, and municipal policies, rather than nurturing local initiatives, fuel the relentless expansion of commodity cultivation (Veltmeyer and Lau, 2020). Amidst this backdrop, non market-oriented peasantry (c.f. Tilzey, 2024) find themselves marginalized, overshadowed by the preeminence of corporate growers, with a surge in land grabbing and rural proletarianization exacerbating their plight (Tilzey and Sudgen, 2024). In the midst of these dynamics, plantations become arenas of conflicted experiences, where individuals navigate through a process of apprehension, particularly in the Global South (Suarez and Gwozdz, 2023). Meanwhile, in the Global North, a personal quest for healthy and trendy diets further complicates the intricate tapestry of global agricultural dynamics.
4 Toward FS sustainability
4.1 Radical transformations
The transformations needed in the four-planar social being of current FS could be rooted in the principles of agroecology2. As underscored by Botelho et al. (2016), agroecology emerges as a strategic agenda for restructuring prevailing models of agricultural development. It has evolved into an encompassing framework for advancing FS, strategically addressing the interconnected social, economic, and environmental challenges inherent in current dominant systems (Coe and Coe, 2023). However, agroecology has undergone co-optation processes (Biel, 2016a; Walthall et al., 2024), therefore its proposal must manifest clear positionalities.
In order to outline pathways toward a radical FS transformation, our approach must be based on aspects that support such radicality. Thus, our positionality is based on a counter-hegemonic approach (Tilzey, 2016, 2024), which differs from other positions that also embrace agroecology as a transformative strategy (c.f. Tilzey, 2024). Following Tilzey (2024), we stress that FS transformations needed in the four-planar social being could be rooted in radical political agroecology. Here, reversing the causal mechanism of unsustainable FS embodied by the state-capital nexus depends on “class struggle” acting as a structured agency that challenges both the discursive and material predicates of capitalism (Tilzey, 2016, 2018). In this sense, an important driver of transformation in the Global South is the middle and low peasantry,3 which, through processes of resistance (prioritizing use values over exchange values), can mobilize FS transformations, and prevent co-optation within existing hegemonic FS social-property relations (Tilzey, 2018).
Once this counter-hegemonic positionality is clear, we emphasize how an agroecological approach, driven by the organized efforts of the middle and low peasantry in the Global South, can facilitate significant transformations across the four dimensions of social being (Figure 1). First, at the level of social structures, the structured agency of middle and lower peasants can counteract the centralized, top-down approach in which society and production are organized by elites through class struggle (Biel, 2016a,b). Here, the radical transformative approach must reckon not only with capitalism (social-property relations and access to land) and neoliberalism (market compulsion), also with the entire history of exploitation, particularly in FS (Biel, 2016b), which overlap with the state-capital nexus (Tilzey, 2019).
In the plane of transactions with nature, if ecological degradation produces class struggle (Vlachou, 2004), then class struggle can also confront the capitalist roots of current ecological threats (Shantz, 2004). One way to subvert this dynamic is by promoting agroecological principles and practices, which have shown efficacy in promoting biodiversity-based agriculture (Duru et al., 2015a,b). Beyond this, agroecology also seeks to address social interactions, including considerations of gender (Ume et al., 2022), liberation from oppressive relations (Bezner Kerr et al., 2019), and the enhancement of skills, knowledge, work capacity, and health. Furthermore, agroecology, as emphasized by Coe and Coe (2023), supports transitions in thought. Involving the inner being, refers to non-material factors intertwined with culture, values, ethics, identity, and emotions. Some authors argue that the practice of agroecology leads middle and low peasants to strengthen their religious beliefs and redefine personal relationships with the natural and social environment (Botelho et al., 2016).
4.2 Radical solutions needed
Transformation in FS requiere multifaceted mechanisms (Gupta et al., 2021), particularly those challenging the current state-capital nexus (Tilzey, 2024). We explore six different radical-solutions through the lens of the multi-layered scale (Figure 1). The identified solutions are interconnected components of a comprehensive strategy for transforming FS.
First, it is important to advocate for a diversified and locally adapted FS that promotes healthier diets and involves recognizing the inherent class struggle within the current global FS (Biel, 2016a; Tilzey, 2018). This advocacy inherently challenges the dominance of capitalist interests prioritizing profit over people and planet, and encourages policies and initiatives that prioritize indigenous and sustainable food sources (Agrawal et al., 2021) and represents a form of counter-hegemonic resistance against the prevailing narrative of globalized and resource-intensive crop production, that often exploits both labor and natural resources for the benefit of capitalist elites (Biel, 2016b; Tilzey, 2024). Second, struggles for regulations and incentives to support decentralized and community-based (use-value oriented) agricultural models further disrupt the core-periphery dynamics perpetuated by capitalist exploitation, allowing low and middle peasantry to control their own means of production (Tilzey and Sudgen, 2024).
Third, addressing historical injustices through land reform policies acknowledges the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, that systematically marginalized and exploited indigenous peoples and peasants (Scheidel et al., 2024). The prioritization of sustainable agricultural practices focusing on soil health, biodiversity, and community well-being challenges the capitalist logic of endless growth and profit (Veltmeyer and Lau, 2020), and lays the groundwork for more equitable and resilient FS. Fourth, struggles for policy changes that prioritize diversified and locally driven agricultural practices amplify the voices of marginalized communities and challenge the dominance of corporate interests in shaping agricultural policies (Sargani et al., 2020).
Five, strengthening land rights for low and middle peasantry is crucial for preventing further dispossession and promoting sustainable and equitable land use (Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner Kerr, 2017; Akram-Lodhi et al., 2021; McKay et al., 2021). Finally, promoting agroecological practices that integrate environmental sustainability with local dietary needs challenges the dominant paradigm of industrial agriculture (Agrawal et al., 2021), which favors monoculture and chemical inputs at the expense of environmental and human health (Biel, 2016a). Educational programs and awareness campaigns empower consumers to make informed choices supporting local and sustainable FS, thereby challenging the dominance of corporate agribusiness in shaping consumer preferences.
5 Discussion
Literature on scaling-up agroecology have reported various additional challenges. Some authors emphasize the need to recognize agroecological systems as systems in transition, and that supportive policies are required to scale up agroecology (Dumont et al., 2021). Similarly, scaling-up agroecology requires understanding constraints at the farmer level, an agricultural knowledge system favoring mainstream approaches, adverse and intertwined political and economic interests, and cross-cutting ideological and discursive pressures (Isgren, 2016). Other aspects that requires attention are insecure land tenure and unequal access to land, unequal systems of exchange, and a culture that favors silver bullet narratives (Jiménez-Soto et al., 2024). To attain sustainable FS, it is important to explore diverse solutions while acknowledging their interconnected components. This entails embracing radical transformation through a counter-hegemonic stance (Tilzey, 2024). This approach is crucial for comprehending root problems, such as the pervasive state-capital nexus, and the development of the green revolution paradigm and its discourses (Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018).
Drawing on this counter hegemonic positionality, we emphasize the need to confront power structures through class struggles embedded in FS advocating for food sovereignty (Biel, 2016a; Tilzey, 2018, 2020, 2024; Tilzey and Sudgen, 2024). Such emphasis puts a spotlight on power dynamics within FS and addressing the unequal distribution of resources and the marginalization of certain groups. Recognizing power imbalances highlights the crucial role of agroecology in challenging these power dynamics though processes immbicated in class struggles, promoting fairer access to resources and inclusive decision-making processes. We expand on this narrative by highlighting the significance of social movements in fostering transformation. We argue that agroecology goes beyond ecological practices and encompasses a socio-political dimension (Biel, 2016a). Social movements advocating for food sovereignty though class struggle, align with agroecological principles by seeking to empower local communities, challenge corporate dominance, and promote participatory decision-making in food production.
6 Recommendations
Conflicted dynamics reflecting the tensions between economic motivations, health-conscious consumer trends, and environmental sustainability. These tensions underscore the complexities inherent in transforming FS, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach. This perspective paper contributes to the broader literature on food systems’ transformation by providing guidelines rooted in Critical Realism and the four-planar and multi-scalar social being framework. By acknowledging the interplay between social-natural-agrarian structures and human agency as a structured agency (Potter and Tilzey, 2005), our proposal provides a theoretical foundation for navigating the intricate journey toward sustainable food systems.
In this vein, and acknowledging the transformative role of the peasantry in the Global South due to their dynamics of constant resistance and social reproduction (prioritization of use values over exchange values), we offer recommendations that must necessarily be grounded in a dialectical process. Through class struggle and the subversion of center-periphery dynamics, this process enables the construction of pathways that contribute to more sustainable FS.
• Promote Agroecological Principles: building on the agroecological framework discussed, advocate for adopting practices that integrate environmental sustainability with local and global food needs.
• Advocate for Local Empowerment through Policy Reforms: extend the paper’s call for policy changes to various governance levels, prioritizing diversified and locally driven agricultural practices, thus empowering low and middle peasantry.
• Secure Land Rights for Sustainable Agriculture: addressing historical injustices, champion strengthened land rights for local communities, countering land grabbing and dispossession, and rectifying past exploitation.
• Challenge Corporate Dominance in Agriculture: corresponding to the paper’s recommendations, lobby for regulations favoring decentralized agricultural models, ensuring fair profit distribution, and implementing policies that prioritize local farmers over large corporations.
• Foster Global Collaboration for Dietary Sustainability: engaging in efforts to counter pressures from the global North’s push for resources. Advocate for policies prioritizing indigenous and sustainable FS, thus fostering a global shift in dietary habits and challenging the core-periphery logics.
Collective efforts dentify and address potential weaknesses in the proposed approach is essential. One concern is the feasibility of implementing recommended strategies across diverse socio-political regimes. While advocating for agroecological principles and local empowerment through policy reforms is crucial, future research should delve deeper into challenges such as resistance from entrenched interests, bureaucratic hurdles, and the need for substantial financial and technical support to facilitate meaningful change.
Considering the long-term sustainability and scalability of proposed solutions is crussial, given factors like the state/caoital nexus, market changes and climate variability. Future research should investigate these aspects to ensure effectiveness. Additionally, exploring unintended consequences of challenging neoliberal dominance in agriculture is essential, requiring careful consideration of supply chain disruptions and socio-economic impacts. Through empirical research, valuable insights can enhance the proposed approach’s robustness and applicability.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
AS: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. CU: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) under the Development-Related Postgraduate Courses (EPOS) program, contract number P1401273.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) under the Development-Related Postgraduate Courses (EPOS) program, contract number P1401273, for funding this research. In addition, we would like to thank the Justus Liebig University-Giessen and the International PhD Program in Agricultural Economics, Bioeconomics and Sustainable Food Systems (IPPAE) for their academic support. Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Wencke Gwozdz for her support.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^Critical realism is a philosophical framework that seeks to understand the underlying structures and mechanisms that shape reality. It acknowledges the existence of an objective reality independent of our perceptions, but recognizes that our knowledge of this reality is mediated through our social context (Danemark et al., 2019). For this paper, critical realism is key because this approach seeks human emancipation by providing tools to analyze and critique existing social structures and systems of power.
2. ^Agroecology is the proposition that agroecosystems should strive to replicate the biodiversity and functioning of natural ecosystems. However, agroecology suggests more than agricultural practices by including social resistance and subverting the state-capital nexus (Tizley, 2024).
3. ^One of Tilzey’s (2024) criticisms of other approaches promoting agroecology is the lack of differentiation of the peasant class. There, Tilzey proposes low, middle and upper peasants that have different characteristics and positions in resisting the state-capital nexus.
References
Agrawal, T., Hirons, M., and Gathorne-Hardy, A. (2021). Understanding farmers’ cropping decisions and implications for crop diversity conservation: insights from Central India. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 3:100068. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100068
Akram-Lodhi, A., Dietz, K., Engels, B., and McKay, B. (2021). Handbook of critical agrarian studies, vol. Issue 1. Chelmsford: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Anderson, M. D. (2015). Roles of rural areas in sustainable food system transformations. Development 58, 256–262. doi: 10.1057/s41301-016-0003-7
Bakker, I., and Gill, S. (2019). Rethinking power, production, and social reproduction: toward variegated social reproduction. Cap. Class 43, 503–523. doi: 10.1177/0309816819880783
Bezner Kerr, R., Hickey, C., Lupafya, E., and Dakishoni, L. (2019). Repairing rifts or reproducing inequalities? Agroecology, food sovereignty, and gender justice in Malawi. J. Peasant Stud. 46, 1499–1518. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2018.1547897
Bhaskar, R., and Danermark, B. (2006). Metatheory, interdisciplinarity and disability research: A critical realist perspective. Scandinavian J. Disabi. Res. 8, 278–297. doi: 10.1080/15017410600914329
Biel, R. (2016b). “Systemic issues with the crisis of capitalism. The case of land and food” in Crisis system a critical realist and environmental critique of economics and the economy. eds. P. Naess and L. Price (Abingdon: Routledge), 228.
Botelho, M. I. V., Cardoso, I. M., and Otsuki, K. (2016). “I made a pact with god, with nature, and with myself”: exploring deep agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 40, 116–131. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2015.1115798
Buch-Hansen, H., and Nesterova, I. (2023). Less and more: Conceptualising degrowth transformations. Ecol. Econ. 205:107731. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107731
Coe, E. S., and Coe, R. (2023). Agroecological transitions in the mind. Elementa 11, 521–529. doi: 10.1525/elementa.2022.00026
Collier, A. (2013). Stratified explanation and Marx’s conception of history. Crit. Real. Essen. Read. 1998, 258–281
Danemark, B., Exstrom, M., and Karlssson, J. (2019). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. Explain. Soc. Critical Real. Soc Sci. doi: 10.4324/9781351017831
Dumont, A. M., Wartenberg, A. C., and Baret, P. V. (2021). Bridging the gap between the agroecological ideal and its implementation into practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 41, doi: 10.1007/s13593-021-00666-3
Dupouy, E., and Gurinovic, M. (2020). Sustainable food systems for healthy diets in Europe and Central Asia: introduction to the special issue. Food Policy 96:101952. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101952
Duru, M., Therond, O., and Fares, M. (2015a). Designing agroecological transitions. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1237–1257. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x
Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire, R., Magne, M. A., Justes, E., et al. (2015b). How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1259–1281. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1
El Bilali, H., Callenius, C., Strassner, C., and Probst, L. (2019). Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food Energy Secur. 8, 1–20. doi: 10.1002/fes3.154
Eliasson, K., Wiréhn, L., Neset, T. S., and Linnér, B. O. (2022). Transformations towards sustainable food systems: contrasting Swedish practitioner perspectives with the European Commission’s farm to fork strategy. Sustain. Sci. 17, 2411–2425. doi: 10.1007/s11625-022-01174-3
Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Schneider, K. R., Béné, C., Covic, N. M., Guarin, A., et al. (2021). Viewpoint: rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy 104:102163. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102163
FAO. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. nutrition (Summary) (Issue June).
Gupta, N., Dahal, S., Kumar, A., Kumar, C., Kumar, M., Maharjan, A., et al. (2021). Rich water, poor people: potential for transboundary flood management between Nepal and India. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 3:100031. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100031
Isgren, E. (2016). No quick fixes: four interacting constraints to advancing agroecology in Uganda. Intern. J. Agricul. Sustain. 14, 428–447. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2016.1144699
Jiménez-Soto, E., Fairbairn, M., Muramoto, J., and Shennan, C. (2024). Agriculture against the wall: barriers and opportunities for agroecological transitions in California’s industrial agricultural landscapes. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Sys. 48, 432–460. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2024.2303454
Juri, S., Baraibar, M., Clark, L. B., Cheguhem, M., Jobbagy, E., Marcone, J., et al. (2022). Food systems transformations in South America: insights from a transdisciplinary process rooted in Uruguay. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:887034. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.887034
Kok, K. P. W., den Boer, A. C. L., Cesuroglu, T., van der Meij, M. G., de Wildt-Liesveld, R., Regeer, B. J., et al. (2019). Transforming research and innovation for sustainable food systems-a coupled-systems perspective. Sustainability 11:717. doi: 10.3390/SU11247176
Kugelberg, S., Bartolini, F., Kanter, D. R., Milford, A. B., Pira, K., Sanz-Cobena, A., et al. (2021). Implications of a food system approach for policy agenda-setting design. Global. Food Secur. 28:100451. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100451
Levkoe, C. Z. (2021). Scholars as allies in the struggle for food systems transformation. Agric. Hum. Values 38, 611–614. doi: 10.1007/s10460-021-10208-y
McKay, B. M., Alonso-Fradejas, A., and Ezquerro-Cañete, A. (2021). “Agrarian Extractivism in Latin America” in Agrarian Extractivism in Latin America. eds. B. M. McKay, A. Alonso-Fradejas, and A. Ezquerro-Cañete (Abingdon, UK: Routledge).
Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, M., Giraldo, O. F., Aldasoro, M., Morales, H., Ferguson, B. G., Rosset, P., et al. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42, 637–665. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313
Niewolny, K. L. (2022). AFHVS 2021 presidential address: critical praxis and the social imaginary for food systems transformation. Agric. Hum. Values 39, 1–4. doi: 10.1007/s10460-021-10278-y
Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., and Bezner Kerr, R. (2017). Land grabbing, social differentiation, intensified migration and food security in northern Ghana. J. Peasant Stud. 44, 421–444. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2016.1228629
Patay, D., Ravuvu, A., Iese, V., Wilson, D., Mauli, S., Maelaua, J., et al. (2023). Catalysing sustainable development through regional food system governance: strengthening the translation of regional food system policy guidance to national level in the Pacific. Sustain. Dev. 32, 1261–1278. doi: 10.1002/sd.2732
Petras, J., and Veltmeyer, H. (2023). Extractive imperialism in the Americas. In Transforming Globalization.
Potter, C., and Tilzey, M. (2005). Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 29, 581–600. doi: 10.1191/0309132505ph569oa
Ridolfi, R., Dernini, S., Morrison, J., Mathiesen, Á. M., and Capone, R. (2020). Changing route: common action on food systems transformation in the mediterranean. New Medit 19, 119–128. doi: 10.30682/nm2003h2
Ruben, R., Cavatassi, R., Lipper, L., Smaling, E., and Winters, P. (2021). Towards food systems transformation—five paradigm shifts for healthy, inclusive and sustainable food systems. Food Secur. 13, 1423–1430. doi: 10.1007/s12571-021-01221-4
Sargani, G. R., Zhou, D., Raza, M. H., and Wei, Y. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship in the agriculture sector: the Nexus of the triple bottom line measurement approach. Sustainability 12, 1–24. doi: 10.3390/su12083275
Scheidel, A., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Bara, A. H., Del Bene, D., David-Chavez, D. M., Fanari, E., et al. (2024). Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on indigenous peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights. Sci. Adv. 9:eade9557. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ade9557
Shantz, J. (2004). Radical ecology and class struggle: a re-consideration. Crit. Sociol. 30, 691–710. doi: 10.1163/1569163042119796
Sonnino, R., and Milbourne, P. (2022). Food system transformation: a progressive place-based approach. Local Environ. 27, 915–926. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2022.2084723
Suarez, A., and Gwozdz, W. (2023). On the relation between monocultures and ecosystem services in the global south: a review. Biol. Conserv. 278:109870. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109870
Tilzey, M. (2016). Global politics, capitalism, socio-ecological crisis, and resistance: Exploring the linkages and the challenges. Global governance/politics, climate Justice & Agrarian/social justice: Linkages and challenges, February.
Tilzey, M. (2018). Political ecology, food regimes, and food sovereignty: Crisis, resistance, and resilience. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tilzey, M. (2019). Food regimes, capital, state, and class: Friedmann and McMichael revisited. Sociol. Rural. 59, 230–254. doi: 10.1111/soru.12237
Tilzey, M. (2020). Capitalism, imperialism, nationalism: agrarian dynamics and resistance as radical food sovereignty. Canadian J. Dev. Stud. 41, 381–398. doi: 10.1080/02255189.2020.1767543
Tilzey, M. (2024). Food democracy as radical political agroecology: Securing autonomy (alterity) by subverting the state-capital nexus. Front. Sustain. Food Sys. 8, 1–16. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1044999
Tilzey, M., and Sudgen, F. (2024). Peasants, capitalism, and imperialism in an age of politico-ecological crisis. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ume, C., Nuppenau, E. A., and Domptail, S. E. (2022). A feminist economics perspective on the agroecology-food and nutrition security nexus. Environ. Sustain. Indicat. 16:100212. doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2022.100212
Ume, C. O. (2023). Agroecology as a political concept: A case study of the southeast geopolitical region of Nigeria. In DISSERTATION for the award of the degree of Doktor der Agrarwissenschaften. (Dr. agr.) (Issue September).
Veltmeyer, H., and Lau, E. Z. (2020). “Buen Vivir and the challenges to capitalism in latin America” in Buen Vivir and the challenges to capitalism in Latin America (London: Taylor & Francis Group).
Vlachou, A. (2004). Capitalism and ecological sustainability: the shaping of environmental policies. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 11, 926–952. doi: 10.1080/0969229042000313082
Walthall, B., Vicente-Vicente, J. L., Friedrich, J., Piorr, A., and López-García, D. (2024). Complementing or co-opting? Applying an integrative framework to assess the transformative capacity of approaches that make use of the term agroecology. Environ Sci Policy 156:103748. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103748
Keywords: critical realism, state-capital nexus, food regime, class struggle, radical political agroecology
Citation: Suarez A and Ume C (2024) Transforming food systems in the Global South: a radical approach. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8:1397100. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1397100
Edited by:
Robert Hunter Manson, Instituto de Ecología (INECOL), MexicoReviewed by:
Mark Tilzey, Coventry University, United KingdomCopyright © 2024 Suarez and Ume. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andres Suarez, asuarez24@cuc.edu.co