Conceptualizing food as Commons

JOSE LUIS VIVERO POL PhD Research Fellow in Food Governance

Zurich Doctoral SeminarTHE LAW OF THE COMMONS24 November 2016 – University of Zurich

Conflicting epistemologies and diverse narratives of a vital resource

Food system is the greatest driver of Earth transformation

• Food systems accounts for 48% of land use• 70% of water use • 33% of total GHG emissions • 40% relies on agriculture for their livelihood • Phosphorus & Nitrogen exceeded Planetary

Boundaries

(Steffen et al., 2015; Ivanova et al., 2015; Clapp, 2012)

3

4

Food systems can alsosteward, enhance,

custody Earth resources

Can FOOD be valued as a commons?

• Normative regard• Systematic regard• Historical regard• Author’s Approach

6

Commons are material / non-material resources, jointly developed and maintained by a community/society and shared according to community-defined rules, irrespective of their mode of production (private, public or commons-based means), because they benefit everyone and are fundamental to society’s wellbeing

My definition (2015) for this workshop, adapted from http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons

7Photo: ukhvlid, Creative Commons, Flickr

8

COMMONS = RESOURCE + COMMONING(a social construct)

Whatever we consider it is a commons

9

NORMATIVE REGARD

Multiple meanings: Genealogy & hegemony of narratives

What do commons mean today? the concept across history leads us up to modern concepts (Foucault, 1993)

What is the dominant meaning of commons? Economic approach to the commons is culturally hegemonic

A diverse society (multiple proprietary regimes, valuations of commons, political arrangements) is influenced by the univocal economists’

approach to commons (ruling class) so that their reductionist approach (a narrative based on rivalry & excludability) is imposed and accepted as the universally valid dominant ideology that justifies the social, political,

and economic status quo as natural and beneficial for everyone, rather than as an artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class

(Adapted from Gramsci)

Tragedy of the Commons, Absolute Proprietary Regimes, Private property as natural law & foundation of capitalism, individualism, rational choice, profit maximisation, Homo economicus

Same term, different meanings

Commons (in plain language) may refer to: • common-pool resources (material goods in

economic vocabulary, i.e. ocean tuna), • commonly-owned goods (material & non-material

in legal vocabulary; i.e. forests), • open free-access knowledge (IP righted or not in

legal vocabulary: i.e. cooking recipes) or • abstract desirable situations (i.e. peace, price

stability, universal health in political vocabulary) • Rival or not (air), Excludable or not (seeds)

Schools of Thought Epistemic Regards

A.- Historical

• De Moor, Polanyi, Linebaugh, E.P. Thompson, IASC Group, Inca & Roman Empires

• Defining political arrangements, narratives, institutions, legal frameworks, economic systems that actually existed (based on past reality facts interpreted by historians)

• For most part of human history, food was considered as a commons. Only the last 200 years have seen a commodification shift

Commons-Public-Private Rebranding

• Commodification (social construct): dominant force in XX century (Polanyi, Saffra, Sandel, Mattei)

• Privatization of goods crowds out other non-economic values & dimensions worth caring (Sandel, 2013).

• Physical enclosure, expanding copyrights, issuing permits and quotas, binding regulations, proprietary schemes or taxing are means of re-branding goods (Benkler, 2006; Young, 2003; Rocha, 2007; Lucchi, 2013)

• Foundation of current neoliberal system is based on commodification of former commons-public goods.

15

25% of Galicia is onwed in communal property

Private property

B.- Legal: who owns ?

5% of Europe is communal property

17

C.- Economic:

Science and/or Ideology?

• Samuelson (1954), Buchanan (1965), Ostrom & Ostrom (1967)

• Because their non-excludability, public goods get under-produced (Sands, 2003) or over-consumed (Hardin, 1968)

• Tragedy debunked by Ostrom, 2009, 2005: Institutional approach (legal + politics + history) but just for common-pool resources

D.- Political• Degree of excludability/rivalry depends on nature of the

good and the definition and enforcement of property rights, regulations & sanctions (Kaul, Stiglitz, Sweden-France Comm.)

• Both properties are neither ontological to the goods nor permanent, but mostly social constructions whose nature evolves along time and depending on societal norms.

• Society can modify the (non)-rivalry and (non)-excludability of goods that often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy choices (Kaul & Mendoza, 2003).

Political Approach

• Vocabulary with fuzzy meanings: the public good, the common good, Commonwealth, global public goods

• Global Public Goods are goods whose benefits or costs are of nearly universal reach in terms of countries, peoples, and generations or potentially affecting anyone anywhere, and they are public in consumption (Kaul, 2013).

• GPG enable markets and states to work better. Do no confront the Status Quo.

• However, “Public Good” no always means communities that manage their local resources (Quilligan, 2012)

E.- Activist (Crisis-triggered)

• Capitalism greatly developed by enclosing the commons (Bauwens, Bollier, Magdoff, Helfrich)

• Struggle for old commons (land grabbing), inventing new commons (CC licenses, internet) are part of a larger rejection of neoliberal globalizing capitalism

• Praxis & theory of the commons as counter-hegemonic and alter-hegemonic to capitalism Non-compatible with neoliberalism.

Academics theorized from different epistemologies (schools of thought) • Historical (describing institutional diversity, explaining

the commons-commodity rebranding)• Legal (reductionist, tool to enclose or defend commons

after Capra & Mattei, 2015)• Economic (reductionist, ontological, dominant)• Political (phenomenological, social construct, situated

valuations, compatible with capitalism)• Activist (struggle for old commons, inventing new

commons, alternative to capitalism-neoliberalism)

Schools of Thought – Epistemic Regards

• Different epistemologies create different narratives regarding commons with shared terms that carry (receive) different meanings

• Therefore, the debate about the commons is confused & confusing (a fuzzy concept)

• A vocabulary meant to be applied to specific domains create confusion when extended to other domains (i.e. the economic approach becoming dominant)

Different epistemologies, confusing vocabularies

• Water: private good (ECO), public-private-collective ownership with different bundle of rights (LEG), public good (POL), commons (HIS)

• Health/Education: public goods (ECO), public goods provided by public & private means (POL), non-defined propietary regimes (LEG), private goods (HIS)

• Food: private good (ECO), private good provided by private, public & collective means (POL), public-private-collective properties (LEG), commons for 1000 centuries, commodity for last 200 yrs (HIS)

Food as a commons

• None of major authors described food as a commons (Polanyi, Marx, Ostrom)

• Food Security as Global Public Good is not yet considered by the hegemonic discourse

• Food can be considered as commons according to the historical, legal, political and activist schools, not the dominant economic school though

SYSTEMATIC REGARD IN

THE ACADEMIA

Background

• Szymanski (2015, 2016): critical feminist theory• Food has multiplicity of meanings (not univocal)• Meanings can be oppositional, always situated

(place, time, power)• Epistemic valuations define politics• Academia shapes narratives (Ferree & Merrill,

2000) & Academia is shaped by power, serving elites (Wallerstein, 2016)

Methodology• Google Scholar: 160 M docs (90% English published articles)• Period 1900-2016 (1960, decades, 2008)• PRISMA guidelines for systematic review

1900-1959 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000-2007 2008-20160

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

The idea of food in academia: long-term trends

Food + Commodity Food + Private Good Food + Commons Food + Public Good

179 hits “food + commons + public good”

49,100 hits “food + commodity + private good”

76%

24%

Total: 49 references (1900-2016)

“Food AS a public good” “Food IS a public good”

A

88%

12%

Total: 34 references (1900-2016)

“Food AS a commons” “Food IS a commons”

B

76%

24%

Total: 806 references (1900-2016)

“Food AS a commodity” “Food IS a commodity”

C

25%

75%

Total: 40 references (1900-2016)

“Food AS a private good” “Food IS a private good”

D

HISTORICAL REGARD

Methodology

• Google Ngram Viewer (1800-2008)• Relative frequencies of N-grams in Google

Books (in English, 1.5 M books, 361 B words ) • Frequency as importance or popularity • No judgement on (un) favourable stance• Historical trends and comparative purposes

No “food + commons + public good”

Commons precedes Commodities

Food Commodification: rising in 30 yrs

Conclusions • Food as a commons preceded the Ontological

Absolute of food is a private good (economists´ view after WWII)

• Commons concepts were more relevant than commodities until 1880

• In Academia, commodified food prevails• Academia has been shaped by dominant narratives

and has also contributed to manufacture consent.• The 2008 food crisis as turning point that has

unlocked the exploration of other normative valuations of food (as commons & public good)

37

Author´s Approach

39

The current way of producing & eating

(western diets & industrial food system) is

unsustainableAnd yet, none proposes an alternative normative view of food as commons

IAASTD (2008)

UNEP (2009)

UNCTAD (2013)UK Foresight (2011)

40

Food as a new old commons

(innovative + historic, urban hipsters + rural

indigenous people)

Sustainable agricultural practices (agro-ecology) Open-source knowledge (creative commons licenses) Polycentric governance (states, enterprises, civic actions)

Social MarketEnterprisesSupply-demand Food as private good

Public

Private

Not f

or p

rofitForm

alFo

r pro

fitInform

alCollective actionsCommunitiesReciprocityFood as common good

Partner StateRedistribution Citizens welfareFood as public good

Tri-centric Governance of

Food Commons Systems

Incentives, subsidies, Enabling legal frameworks

Limiting privatization of commons

Farmers as civil servants

Banning food speculation

Minimum free food for all citizens

Local purchaseRights-based Food

banks

42

I am eager to exchange on food as a commons and the contents and implications of

this presentation

@joselviveropol

http://hambreyderechoshumanos.blogspot.com

http://hungerpolitics.wordpress.com

Jose Luis Vivero Poljoseluisvivero@gmail.com