One central entry point for analyzing transformation strategies and their barriers is the current conflicts in the food regime. From a critical state-theoretical perspective, various actors, such as parties, interest groups, nongovernmental organizations, and social movements, shape the food regime due to their interests and strategies. Drawing on the concept of strategic selectivities (Jessop, 2010), we can analyze how specific interests are inscribed into the state, whereas others are not. For example, the specific interests and strategies imprinted in today’s food regime are dominated by those of transnational corporations (McMichael, 2009). For instance, this situation can be observed in policy-making (Torrado, 2016) when powerful actors push to retain direct payments or allow glyphosate within the European Union.

A further example is the transformation of the food regime in India and South Africa, where the right to food has been incorporated into state structures (Pritchard et al., 2016; Jakobsen, 2019). Political projects allow the joint action of diverse social forces by articulating their interests and strategies within the state. Certain projects operating in specific contexts might achieve hegemony (Staatsprojekt Europa, 2014; Brand et al., 2021; Voigt et al., 2024). Political projects differ in terms of values, interests and strategies of their actors (see Staatsprojekt Europa, 2014). Regarding food system transformation as understood by food regime theory, two major ideal-type political projects can be identified: “food from nowhere” as the dominant one and “food from somewhere” as fostered by food alternatives.

“Food from nowhere” (McMichael, 2009) is a hegemonic project that involves specific institutional structures concerning food production, processing, and consumption. Outcomes and constituent components of this project are highly unequal, for instance, private property-based ownership structures of land as well as the phenomena of land concentration and grabbing driven by the financialized capitalist system, the food industry, and major retail chains. “Food from somewhere” (McMichael, 2009), in contrast, focuses on food alternatives (i.e., how social movements become engaged in political action, how they aim to shape food policies or institutions, and how they aim to change access to land). Food alternatives, such as community-supported agriculture or regional food chains, can coexist with or challenge the dominant food regime (Plank et al., 2020) and are supported by the food sovereignty movement protesting, e.g., against implementing the Common Agricultural Policy at the national level (ÖBV-Via Campesina Austria, 2020). When investigating options for transformation, critical questions arise: How is “food from somewhere” supported or hindered by state structures? These are ideal-type projects on a high level of theoretical abstraction, the concrete articulation of which must be examined for each state. For Austria, e.g., Salzer (2015) demonstrated how small-scale farmers are embedded in the hegemony of the conservative political structures of their political economy. Thus, Schermer (2015) underlined that a sole focus on regional production, called “food from here,” stabilizes the dominant food regime in an Austrian context and hinders the emergence of radical alternatives, such as community-supported agriculture. Depending on the respective examined state, these characteristics must be explored.

Another starting point for analyzing transformation is examining a certain expression of values (e.g., how to foster cooperation within and between food alternatives). Better than a critical state-theoretical perspective, the social capital approach explains structures leading to (or constraining) cooperation in such food alternatives. According to Putnam (1993), the accumulation of social capital within a region enhances economic cooperation (see also Woolcock, 2001; McShane et al., 2016). According to this theory, robust social networks in the form of local associations contribute to the effective functioning of democracy and stimulate economic growth. Putnam argued that engagement in voluntary associations generates social capital, fostering trust in societal interactions. This trust encourages individuals to cooperate with the confidence that others will reciprocate (Rothenstein, 2005). In contrast to Bourdieu (1980), who understood social capital as one component of symbolic capital together with cultural and economic capital, exploring its role in reproducing social hierarchies, Putnam focused more on the mechanisms that strengthen the integration of communities through values (for a detailed elaboration of the concept, see Siisiäinen, 2003).

Putnam (2000) introduced the distinction between bonding and bridging social capital (Figure 1), the latter relating to the concept of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973). Bonding social capital creates internal cohesion in a system, such as a community or value chain, and is characterized by shared values, such as trust, loyalty, solidarity, and mutual assistance. For instance, traditional farming cooperatives rely on solid bonding social capital, empowering them to shape the regional food production system based on shared values (Schermer, 2009). In contrast, bridging social capital does not refer to close interpersonal interaction within groups sharing narrowly aligned values or value systems, but links individuals or social groups across social difference, enabling inter-group learning processes (Woolcock, 1998). For instance, small-scale producers are organized in different lobby groups (e.g., the association ‘Bio Austria’ of organic farmers in Austria) strengthened by horizontal integration through bridging social capital and contributing to mutual learning processes.

Finally, linking social capital, as developed by Woolcock (2001) to consider vertical power relations in capital terms and reflects the capability of individuals or social groups to link to the level of the state, enabling, e.g., the best use of the legal framework for their purposes. Combinations of bonding and bridging social capital are needed to maximize the positive political outcomes of cooperation (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). If shaping access to the state institutional level through linking social capital (Woolcock, 2001), such combination facilitates economic activities to the benefit of regional development (Schermer, 2009). While acknowledging the merits of Putnam’s social capital approach with regard to studies on food system transformation, we are aware of neoliberal tendencies inscribed in the social capital concept depending on how it is being used analytically and embedded theoretically, particularly when emphasizing the community as the sole source of social, economic and political support or individual responsibility, or when neglecting the exclusionary effects of (especially) bonding social capital and ensuing social stratification or uncritically interpreting the notion of linking capital (Ferraigina and Arrigoini, 2018).

Critics have scrutinized the Putnamian perspective for assuming that elevated social capital invariably yields positive outcomes (e.g., King et al., 2019; Baycan and Öner, 2023). They emphasized that high social capital could also result in adverse economic consequences or, regarding spatial configurations, lead to path dependencies and lock-ins (see also McShane et al., 2016). However, other scholars (e.g., Svendsen and Svendsen, 2000; Schermer, 2009) have underscored that the availability of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital is vital for the long-term economic performance of collective farmers’ marketing initiatives. The role of democracy, trust, and equal chances for a profit demonstrates the importance of social capital for the performance of dairy cooperatives (Svendsen and Svendsen, 2000). Urban and rural communities might differ regarding the amount and type of social capital and how they interlink. For instance, rural residents may display higher levels of bonding social capital than urban dwellers, whereas bridging social capital might be better developed in urban regions (Sørensen, 2016). We thus suggest to investigate both amount and composition of social capital in specific local and regional spatialities of the food regime in a nation-state context to better understand potentials and constraints of food alternatives.

A third, territorial approach links conflictive and cooperative transformation perspectives and examines them on scalar levels, including the materiality of food production. In this way, the interconnectedness of the biophysical materiality of food production with social relationships and processes of negotiation, power structures, and strategies across scales can be addressed (Dorn and Hafner, 2023). From an analytical standpoint, territoriality allows for the examination of how individuals and communities relate to, are part of, and interact with the physical space and place (Dorn, 2021). This approach calls for reassessing and abandoning container thinking for a more integrative understanding of inter- and intrasectionality between the physical and social space, defined by the actors’ interpretation of how control is exercised. Consequently, territory is not a fixed entity but must be continuously (re-)produced by material, discursive, and everyday practices (i.e., territorialization processes; Dietz and Engels, 2018).

Political decisions set the frame for forms of agricultural activity. Actions such as supporting farm size upscaling, facilitating monocultures, and applying genetically manipulated crops favor large-scale investors and agribusinesses and hold additional relevance for neighboring small-scale alternative production sites. For example, once the large-scale application of glyphosate is allowed and exercised, neighboring organic or agroecological production fields experience the effects of glyphosate carried by wind, contaminating organically produced crops (Lapegna, 2016). This materialization of state regulations results in a discrepancy between the alternative ideals and values of food production and their possibility in practice, emphasizing the necessity to explore how the interrelationships between humans and the environment are understood. This example could be extended, as “food from nowhere” (the large-scale application of glyphosate use in industrialized agriculture being one specific practice which is characteristic of this political project) and “food from somewhere” (as, e.g., connected with agroecological production) represent two fundamentally distinct methods of producing space. In other words, they constitute different territorialities that may overlap and often enhance the contestation around territories (see Porto-Gonçalves and Leff, 2015). For example, social movements that strive for food sovereignty are always about autonomy and access to physical land. In doing so, they do not only challenge the free market hegemony but also the territorial sovereignty of nation-states (Copeland, 2019; Storey, 2020).

Drawing on the perspectives of conflict and cooperation, we have covered a broader mix of transformation opportunities, representing possible entry points for empirical research. We suggest questions (Figure 2) to guide the interdisciplinary analysis.