Sustainable livelihoods in the global land rush? Archetypes of livelihood vulnerability and ...

19 Pages·2016·2.7 MB·English

by  Christoph Oberlack

GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Sustainable livelihoods in the global land rush? Archetypes of

livelihood vulnerability and sustainability potentials

Christoph Oberlacka,b,*,Laura Tejadaa,Peter Messerlia,b,Stephan Rista,b,Markus Gigera

aUniversityofBern,CentreforDevelopmentandEnvironment,Hallerstrasse10,3012Bern,Switzerland
bUniversity of Bern, Institu teo fGeography,H alle rstrasse12,30 12Bern,Swit zer land

A RTICLE IN FO A BSTRACT

Articlehistory:
Receiv ed19April2016 Large-scalelandacquisitions(LSLAs)havebecomeamajorconcernforlandusesustainabilityataglobal

Receivedinrevisedform30September2016 scale.AconsiderablebodyofcasestudieshasshownthatthelivelihoodoutcomesofLSLAsvary,butthe

Accepted3October2016 understandingoffactorsandprocessesthatgeneratetheselivelihoodoutcomesremainscontroversial
Available on line21 October2016 andfragmented in terms ofca ses,conte xts,a ndnorma tiveo rientations .Therefore ,thisstu dypresentsa

meta-analysisofcasestudiesandappliesthearchetypesapproachdevelopedinglobalchangeresearch
Keywords: toanalysethe con figu rationso ffac torsand pro cessesthat generate differentliv eli hoodo utcome sinLSLA
Archetypes sit uations. The analysisisbas ed on44s yste maticallys elec tedstudi escoverin g66cases in21coun tr iesin
Global land rush Africa, Lat in A merica, So uthea st A sia , and Eastern Europe. The res ults sho w t hat L SL As affect rur al
Large-scale land acquisitions liveliho odst hroughas mallseto farch etypi calconfi guration s.Ad verseli veliho odou tcome sarise most
Livelihoods
frequently from processes of (1) enclosure of livelihood assets, (2) elite capture, (3) selective
Meta-analysis of case studies marginalis ation o f people a lrea dy living in di ffic ult conditio ns, and (4) polar isation of dev elopment

discourses,andlessfrequentlyfrom(5)competitiveexclusion,(6)agribusinessfailure,and(7)transient
jobs.Thep roce sses areactivat edin spe cificconfigu rationsof soc ial-ecological factors .Mo vin gbeyond
diagn osis , the pap er i dentifies arc hetypic al potentials f or safeguarding or enhanc ing sust ainable

livelihoods in LSLA target regions at multiple levels of decision-making. Finally, we analyse how

contextual factors modify these general insights. This paper helps to advance the archetypes

methodology for use in global change research that aims at integral analysis of recurrent patterns

expressedinlocalmanifestations.Theresultscanbeusedtobetterlinklocalcasestudieswithregional

andglobalinventoriesofthegloballandrush.
ã2016ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

1.Introduction subnational drivers, such as national development strategies

(Cotula, 2012), land titling programmes (Dwyer, 2015), and elite

Large-scaleacquisitionsoflandhavebecomeamajorconcern struggles (Keene et al., 2015). Investments come from countries

forlandusesustainabilityataglobalscale.Since2008,large-scale acrosstheglobalNorth,South,andEast(Zoomersetal.,2016),and

landacquisitions(LSLAs)havespreadrapidlyworldwide(Vander theirtargetregionsaresimilarlydispersedaroundtheglobe,with

Ploegetal.,2015).Thedriversofthisgloballandrushrangefrom mostofthemlocatedinAfrica,SoutheastAsia,LatinAmerica,and
globa l d yna mics, s uch as incre as ing deman d and pric es for food Easte rn Europ e (Land M atrix, 2016). By crea ting n ew flow s of

and non-food agricultural commodities (Zoomers, 2010; Borras goods,money,people,andinformation,LSLAsareincreasingthe
et a l., 2015) a nd financial derivates (W ill et al., 2 016), energy interco nnected nessof land useacrossge ograp hica ldistances ,i.e.

system transitions (Scheidel and Sorman, 2012), biodiversity thetelecouplingoflandusesystems(Liuetal.,2013;Eakinetal.,

conservation (Meyfroidt et al., 2016), climate change responses 2014;SetoandReenberg,2014).

(Davisetal.,2015),andgeopolitics(Oliveira,2016)tonationaland This increasing interconnectedness immediately impacts on

resourceuserswhoselivelihoodsdependonthelandandnatural

resources that are being acquired. LSLAs have the potential to

transform livelihoods in their target regions tremendously by
En*v iCroonrrmesepnotn,dHianlgle rasutrthasosre a1t0: ,U30n1iv2eBrseirtyn ,oSfw Bitezrenr,l aCnedn.tre for Development and altering th e use, acces s t o, and owner ship of l and (Boamah a nd

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](C.Oberlack), Overå,2016;Yengohetal.,2016),andthroughtheappropriationof
laura.tejad [email protected] e.ch (L. Tejada), peter.messerli@c de. unibe.ch (P. Messerli), foodan dwat erbyco rp ora teinve stor s(Rullia nd D’Odorico,201 4;
[email protected](S.Rist),[email protected](M.Giger).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.001
0959-3780/ã2016ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
154 C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171

Breu et al., 2016). Previous research has documented adverse includedataonthelocationoflanddeals,investors’origins,land

livelihoodimpactsofLSLAs,forexamplethroughlossofaccessto size, and targeted land uses. The inventory approach has been
land, env ironmen tal degra dati on, and increase d c on flict (e .g. chall enge dforabst ractin ghea vilyf romtheco ntextuald etail sand
Whit e et al., 2012; A hrends et al., 2015 ). Other st udies sh owed processual ins ightsthatca sestud iesha ve identifieda scrucia lin

that LSLAs can increase livelihood sustainability, for example shapingoutcomes.Thisabstractionleadstoovergeneralisationof

through employment creation and technological spillovers (e.g. knowledge claims and to ineffective policy panaceas if crucial

WorldBank and UNCTAD, 2014;Smalleret al., 2015).Manycase heterogeneity of contexts and processes is disregarded (Ostrom,

studiesdescribeandexplainsuchdiverginglivelihoodoutcomesin 2007).Tobetterinformpolicydebatesatmultiplescales,thetwo
specific social-e colo gical c ontex ts at loc al to regi onal scale s. approa che s need to be combi ned to p ro vide scie ntific e vide nce
Howeve r, this literature does not ye t offe r c lear expl anatory thatcoversl argea rea s– anadvanta ge ofinvent ories–an disbased
patternsf orth evaryingl iveliho odo utco mes. on r obust field data re gar ding local to regional p r oces se s and
There fore , w e condu cted a me ta-analysis of case studies to out comes – an advan tage of ca se stu die s (Scoon es et al., 2 013;

investigate the factors and processes that generate varying Messerli et al., 2014). This study uses the archetypes approach

outcomes of LSLAs for livelihoods in different social-ecological (Section2)tocontributetothisresearchagenda.

contexts in low- and middle-income countries. The paper Weaddressthethreeresearchchallengesbyadoptingameta-

addresses three major challenges in current research on these analytical design to synthesise case study evidence of LSLA-

topics:researchfragmentation;adisconnectbetweendiagnosesof inducedlivelihoodchanges.InlinewiththeLandMatrixcriteria

livelihood vulnerability and knowledge about sustainability (Anseeuwetal.,2012),wefocusonrecentLSLAsthathavebeen
potentials ; and limited integ ration of lo cal case studies with implemen ted sin ce200 0.W edefi ne LSLAsa strans fers ofrigh tsto

regionalorglobalinventoriesofLSLAs. use, control, or own land from smallholder households or
First, cu rrentk nowledgeab ou tthelivelihoodimpactsofLSLAs com munities to corpor ate ac tors ( e.g. commerc ial firms, pu blic
is fragm ented a cross the s cientifi c c ommunity with re sp ect to investmentfu nd s)through sale,lea se,o rconcessiono fareas larger
sp ecificcases, regions ,and diagnose s.Thewealt hofc asestud ies than200ha (Ansee uweta l.,20 13).Tw o researchqu es tions guide

offers diverse empirically grounded explanations of livelihood thisstudy:(1)Arethererecurrentprocessesacrosscontextsthat
chang es in sp ecific contex ts. Howev er, few meta- ana lyses have expl ain ad vers e li veliho od outcom es of LSL As, an d if so, w hat

beendonetosystematicallycumulateandsynthesisethisdiversity factorsactivatetheseprocesses?(2)Arethererecurrentpotentials

ataglobalscale(Oya,2013).Hence,theexternalvalidityofsmall- for safeguarding or increasing livelihood sustainability in LSLA

N, contextualised case study explanations remains unclear. targetregions,andifso,whatfactorsactivatethesepotentials?

Further, the patterns that can be generalised across cases and

contexts remain elusive, and it is not well understood how 2.Thearchetypesapproachinglobalchangeresearch

contextualfactorsmodifygeneralinsights.

Global change research has a strong tradition of synthesising Global change research has a strong tradition of analysing

local-level, case-study-based evidence through meta-analysis recurrent patterns across cases, contexts, and scales. The
(Magliocca et al., 2015). Exa mples incl ude stud ies on tropical ‘syndrome s of glob al chan ge’ app roach prov ided a first g lobal
deforestatio n( Gei standL ambin,200 2),dese rtificatio n(G eistand synopsis of loc al and regional human–e nvironmen t inter actions

Lambin, 2004), food insecurity (Misselhorn, 2005), swidden leading toenvironmental degradation(Schellnhuberetal.,1997;

cultivation(VanVlietetal.,2012),watercrises(Srinivasanetal., Lüdeke et al., 2004). Each syndrome represents a functional
2012), trad e imp act o n sma ll-scale fisher ies (C rona et al., 201 5), pattern of facto rsobse rvable inmultipl eworldreg ion s,whereit
and so il and water c on servation (S ietz and Van Dij k, 2 015 ). Our manifes ts in case -specific wa ys (Manuel -Navar rete et a l., 200 7;

studybuildsonthislineofresearch. Srinivasanetal.,2012).
Sec ond, num ero us s tu dies provide detailed diagnoses of The UN E nvi ronmental Programme’s (2007) ‘archetypes of
adverselive lihoodoutc omesofL SLAs.Ou tcomesof tenvarywit hin vulnera bilit y’ were inspired by the synd rome ap proach, but go

heterogeneous local communities (Borras and Franco, 2012). beyond the mapping of problems by identifying potentials for
However,these insigh tsremainhigh lydiscon nect edfromi nsights more su stai nable dev elo pment. ‘Ar che types of vu lnerability’ are
intopoten tialsf orsafegu arding anden hancingliveli hood sustain- recurr ent configu rations of facto rs that gene rat e vulnerabilit y to

abilityinLSLAtargetregions(LocherandMüller-Böker,2014).It socio-economicandecologicalchangeatglobalandregionalscales

remainselusive underwhatconditions,atwhat scales,andhow (Sietz et al., 2011; Kok et al., 2016). The archetypes concept has
actors c an tap specifi c pot entials to r ed uce v ulnerab ility and recent ly bee n used in g lo bal change rese arch to ana lyse clim ate

enhancelivelihoodsustainability.Hence,weneedtodiagnosethe changeadaptation(Eisenack,2012;OberlackandEisenack,2014;

essential features of social-ecological contexts and governance Oberlack, 2016), land systems (Václavík et al., 2013), and

problemsinLSLAcasestodevisetailoredresponsesthatmatchthe agriculturalsystemdynamics(Bansonetal.,2014),amongothers.
specificp rob lems insp ec ificcon texts(O strom,200 7). Drawing on the se lines of research , we define archety pes as
Third , integrat ion of case study r esearch w ith regional and recurrent p atte rns th at ex pl ain how confi guratio ns of facto rs

globalLSLAinventoriesremainslimited.Whilelarge-N,statistical generate an outcome byactivating processesof social-ecological

analysesofLSLAsarefewtodate(e.g.Rullietal.,2013;Schoneveld, interaction. In this study, an archetype explains how social-

2014b; Breuetal.,2016),case studiesandinventoriesconstitute ecological factors activate processes that generate livelihood
twoma inap pr oach esfor gene ratings cient ificevidence onLSLAs outcomes in LSLA situation s. Archetyp es ar e ‘recurren t’ because
(Me sserli et al., 2015 ). C ase studies usually provide fi eld work- they are obs erved in multip le cases. Ra the r than pro viding a
basedexp lan atio nsofpr ocess esando utcomes ofoneor fewLSLAs, detai led descriptio n o f one sp ecific c ase, arc hetyp es focus o n

andarerichindetailandcontextualunderstanding.Arecognised essential factors and their associations that explain outcomes in

challengeisthelimitedvalidityofcasestudyresultsbeyondthe multiplecases.Archetypesarenotmutuallyexclusive;asinglecase
specific st ud y s ites (Yin , 2014). In vento ries o f LSLAs have b een (e.g.ofLS LA)ca nbecharac teris ed bymultip learchetyp e sandt heir
created atnati onal( e.g.G IZ,2009 ;Schönweg ere tal.,2 012;C otula cont ex t-spec ific ma nifestations(U N EP,2007) .
et al., 2 01 4), region al ( e.g. F riis an d Reenberg, 20 10 ), and global This definitio n of archetype s cont ains a causal component,

scales(e.g.DeiningerandByerlee,2011;GRAIN,2012;LandMatrix, which is needed to explain how and why the phenomenon of

2016). They are suitable for large-N comparisons and typically interest occurs. We adopt the mechanismic approach to causal
C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171 155

explanation(Mayntz,2004;Elster,2007),which“restsontheidea understandasprocessesthanasactivities.Wedefineaprocessasa

that there are recurring processes that (...) can be considered chain of events, activities, and outcomes over time; the term
resp onsibl e fo r producin g an obse rved o u t c o me p att ern” (Bies- ‘proce ss’ hence conceptua lises the dynam ic n ature of s ocial-
broeketal., 201 4:109).Arc het ypeshave oftenbee nunderst oodas ecologica l intera ctions more ex plici tly than t he term ‘a ctivity’.
config ur atio ns of fact ors and ou tcom es an d th eir function al Furthermo re, it was a nalytic ally usefu l to d istin guish between
relations (e.g. Sc hellnhu ber e t al., 199 7). T he m echanismic ‘core process es ’ and ‘facilitatin g proc ess es’. The fo rmer are

approach complements this by identifying recurrent processes processesthatimpactlivelihoodsimmediately,whereasthelatter

through which factors produce their effect (Meyfroidt, 2015). facilitatethecoreprocesses.

Hence, it strengthens the analysis of causality in archetypes by Togainresolutioninouroutcomevariable,livelihoodchanges,

explaining the processual link between factors and outcomes. we used the sustainable livelihoods framework (Ashley and
Understand ing thisprocess uall inkisimp ortantb ecau seafactor Car ney, 1 999) . It distingui shes five co mponents o f liveliho ods:

can generate different outcomes through different processes. livelihoodcontexts,livelihoodassets,institutionsandtransforma-

Likewise, a sustainability potential may be suited to address tion structures, livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcomes
particular ad verseprocesse sbutinef fectiv efo rothers (M eyfroidt, (Sco ones,1998). Weusethe term‘livelih ood outcome’to refertoan
2015).Ap rocessdo esnotope rate inallcases ata lltime s.Instead,it LSLA-inducedch ang ein an yoft hesefiveli velihoodc om pon en ts.
isactiv a tedbys pecifi cco nfigura tio ns offac to rs( Biesbr oeketa l., Livelihoodvul nerabili ty refer st othes usce ptibilityof landusersto

2014).Takentogether,thisstudyconsistsinameta-analysisofcase experiencingadverselivelihoodoutcomeswhentheyareexposed

studies to identify archetypes that explain recurrent patterns of to LSLA-induced changes and have limited capacity to adapt to

livelihoodoutcomes,outcome-generatingprocesses,andprocess- them (Yaro, 2004; Adger, 2006). Our normative reference for

activatingfactorsinLSLAtargetregions. assessing livelihood outcomes is the concept of sustainable
livelihood s: “A liveli hood is sus tai nable when it ca n cope with

3.Materialsandmethods and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its

capabilities, assets and entitlements, while notundermining the
3.1.Keyconceptsandanalyticalframework natural reso urce b ase” (Chambers an d Con way, 1992:6). In s um,

thesustainablelivelihoodsframeworkenabledustoconceptualise
WeusedOstrom’s(2009)social-ecologicalsystemsframework the diverse LS LA-induced livelihood change s, w hile the SES

to code case study results (Fig. 1). It explains outcomes (here: framework enabled us to organise and decompose the many

livelihoodchanges)asaresultofinteractionsbetweenfourmain social-ecologicalfactorsandprocessesthatcasestudieshadfound

components of social-ecological systems (SES): the attributes of toexplainthesechanges.

resourcesystems,resourceunits,governancesystems,andactors.

An SES is embedded in broader social, economic, and political 3.2.Method:meta-analysisofcasestudies

settings and related ecosystems. Each SES component can be

characterised by multiple second-tier variables, which may be Because most research on livelihood outcomes of LSLAs uses

further decomposed into third- and fourth-tier variables. A qualitativeormixedmethods,weadoptedamodel-centredmeta-
challen ge in operatio nalisi ng Ostr om’s SES framew ork concer ns analysisap pro ach(R udel,2008 ).It consists in codingandana lysing
the ‘inter act ion’ category (M cGinnis and Ostrom, 20 14). The relations between variab les (‘m o dels’) th at receiv ed empirical

originaloperationalisationalongactivitieswasoflimiteduseful- support in primary studies. The study protocol is illustrated in

ness for our study because case study results were easier to Fig.2 anddescribedbelow.

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

Resource Systems Governance
(RS) Systems (GS)
d
set conditions for set conditions for e
fin
e
a
of nd
are part InterFa occtia oln Asc (tIi) o →n S Oituutactoiomn ess (O) set rules
fo
participate in r
are inputs to

Resource Units Actors (A)

(RU)

Direct link Feedback

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

Fig.1. Social-ecologicalsystemsframework.

Source:McGinnisandOstrom(2014).
156 C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171

Fig.2. Studyprotocol.

3.2.1.Retrievalandselectionofcasestudies contained a configuration of at least three elements: (1) a
Pr imarystu dies wereide nti fiedt hroughkeywordsearch(Fig.2) livelihood ch ange; (2) the pro ces s that gener ated this c hang e;

inWebofScience;Scopus;andEconLit.Thesearchyielded2794 and(3)thesocial-ecologicalfactorsthatactivatedtheprocess.We
un ique ref erences.W easses sedt hesedoc ume ntsbas edona setof call suc h a configuration a ‘mode l’. M ore comp lex interact ion

thematic; methodological; and contextual inclusion criteria (see effects such as causal clusters or chains were coded byallowing
Fig.2);44 casestudieswer efin allyinclude dinthem eta-ana lysis. multip le cod es for ou tcomes, pro cesses , and factors wi thin one

Theycover66casesofLSLAin21countriesinAfrica;Southand model. We did not code results if livelihood outcomes were

CentralAmerica;SoutheastAsia;andEasternEurope.Fig.3shows reportedbutnotexplainedintermsofprocessesandfactors.We

their locations; and Appendix A lists the references and coded distinguishedmodelsthatdiagnoseadverselivelihoodoutcomes

archetypes. Among the selected papers; 29 report on local case from models that identify potentials forlivelihood sustainability

studiesfocusingononeorfewlanddeals;and15presentregional (Wiesmannetal.,2011).

case studies of LSLAs in subnational administrative units (e.g. Increasing the number of coded case studies, we gradually
distr icts). developed an d re fined a de tailed codeb ook of varia bles that

Allincludedcasestudieshaveincommonthattheyexplainhow characterise livelihood changes, processes, and factors. The
LSLAs affect sp ecifi c comp onen ts of previ ous land users’ (e.g. primary stud ies were re ad and co ded by two auth ors inde pen-
settled small holders’, mobilepastor alis ts’)livelih oods .Thestu dies dently, w ith a third autho r re viewin g t he c oding. T he coded
analyse livelihood ch anges i n diverse bio physical, so cioc ultural, models and p ropos ed refi nements o f th e code book were

political,andeconomiccontexts,undervariouspriorandtargeted discussed in weekly meetings to ensure consistent coding.
land use s, a nd under differen t prior prope rty re gim es. This Difference sw ere reso lved throu gh d iscussio ns. In a fina l round,
diver sityen able d us to identify p rocess es that re cur in diff erent all studies were recoded using t he final cod ebo o k, w hich is

contextsandregions. documented in Appendix B in Supplementary information.
Through thi s p rocedure, w e i dentified n=113 empirically

3.2.2.Iterativecodebookdevelopmentandcoding supported models that explain adverse livelihood outcomes

Using MaxQDA software, the results of each case study were and n=74 empiricallysupported models thatexplainpotentials
codedas specificm anifestatio nso f,andre lat ionsb etwe en,se cond- for sa fe gu arding or in creasing li velihood sust ainabili ty in LSLA

,third-andfourth-tiervariablesoftheSESframework.Eachcode targetregions.
C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171 157

Fig.3. Locationsofthecases.

Note:ThemapwascreatedbyDr.SandraEckert,CentreforDevelopmentandEnvironment,UniversityofBern,Switzerland.

3.2.3.Dataanalysis of activating factors per process. Next, we analysed the concept
Th esed atawereanalysedinfoursteps.First,weclusteredthe lat tices tofin d recur rent associat ions b etw een these piv otal and

models based on their process codes to identify recurrent otherfactorsforeachprocess.Werecordedthefrequencyofeach

processes through which social-ecological factors affect live- factor and of the associations between any two factors. We

lihoods.Second,weusedformalconceptanalysis(FCA)toanalyse calculated the consistency of every association by dividing its
theconfi guratio nso ffact orstha tactivat especific proc ess eswith frequency byth efrequency of theass ociatedfacto rs. Forinstan ce,

adverse outcomes. FCA is a tool for qualitative knowledge iffactorAispartoftenmodelsinourdatasetandineightofthemis

representation and inference developed in mathematics (Ganter associatedwithfactorB,theconsistencyofitsassociationwithBis

and Wille, 1999). We used the Concept Explorer software. The 80percent.Fortheoutcomevariables(i.e.livelihoodchanges),we

input is a table of models (called objects) and their binary recordedfrequencies,associationswithfactors,andconsistencyin

attributes (presence/absence of factors, process, and outcome in thesameway.Finally,werepresentedthesewebsoffactorsand

themodel).FCAgeneratesaconceptlatticeandcompileslogical associationsgraphically.

implicationsbetweenattributes.Theconceptlatticeorganisesthe In the third step, we compiled the codes for sustainability

attributes in a hierarchical structure such that higher-tier potentials. While the diagnoses of adverse outcomes typically

attributes are logical implications of lower-tier attributes, while provide multifactorial explanations, 62 of the 74 models on

lower-tier items show distinct combinations with higher-tier potentialsaresingle-factorialexplanations.Therefore,wechosea

attributes in the dataset. FCA is suited for model-centred meta- simpler approach: We created a table that compiles the coded
analyses a s it vi sualises the m ultiple con figurations of factors potentia ls,theiract ivat ingcond iti ons,a ndth eirliveliho ode ffects.

represented in the case study models. In contrast to qualitative Astheprimarystudiesfrequentlyreportonriskfactorsthathave

comparativeanalysis(QCA)(Ragin,1987),FCAretainsfactorseven impeded the effective activation or operation of a potential, we

if their presence and absence has led to the same outcome in codedandcompiledriskfactorsinthistableaswell.

different cases. In QCA, such factors are assumed to make no Fourth,weusedasetofcontextandcontrolvariablestoanalyse
differenc etoth eo utcom eand arehen ced isregarde dfo rpatt ern whether s pec ific a r che ty pes wit h a dverse outcomes a rise in
identificat ion .Wh ilethisp roce dure enabl esparsimoni ous results, specificc ontextsa ndwhethert heyar eobserve dthroughp articu lar

it does not analyse the possibility that contextual differences casestudydesigns.

betweencasesmightexplaindivergentprimary-studyresults.In Takentogether,wedelineatearchetypesalongtheirnecessary
thisstud y,ther efore, weopte dtoretain suchfactorsa ndtofi nd compone nt(i.e.ac ore process). Astheresul ts(Sec tion 4)show,a

patternswithintheactivatingfactorsofaprocess.Tothisend,we core process is not associated to a single pattern of activating
partition edthe dive rseconfig urations o f factorsfo re ach proc ess. facto rs. Rath er, mu ltiple confi gu ra tions o f factor s, facilitating
Weidentifie dth ose‘piv otal’factorsth at minimi set henu mberof process es,ando utcomese xistforeachcor ep rocess.T herefore,an

partitionswhilerepresentingallmodelsandminimisingmember- archetype consists of a core process and its frequently or

ship of models in multiple partitions. This resulted in a small consistently associated factors, facilitating processes, and out-
num ber of‘pivo tal’ factorspe rprocessw hich distingui sh pa tterns comes.
158 C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171

3.2.4.Limitations contrasts with QCAtechnique, which typically establish causal

Thismeta-analysissynthesisescasestudiesreportedinEnglish- claims in their analysis of secondary data rather than through
languag e scientific jo urnals that we re retri eved by m eans of coding (R udel,2 008;Ob erla ck,2016).

systematickeywordsearchinWebofScience,Scopus,andEconLit.

Inclusion of grey literature and additional languages could have 4.Results

increased the coverage in terms of cases and case studies. This
couldhav eyie ldedaddi tio nalem pir icalsu ppor tfor theident ified 4.1.Whatadverselivelihoodoutcomesarerecurrentlyreported?

archetypes.Likewise,itmighthaveyieldedevidenceforadditional
patternsno tidentifie d inthe inclu dedcas estudies. No netheless, AsFig.4shows,landuserswhoexperienceincreasedlivelihood

theadoptedsearchstrategyandinclusioncriteriaensurethatour vulnerability and losses through LSLAs do so most frequently
resu ltsareb asedon abroad cove rageofth escient ificliter ature ,as through loss of ac cess to land and natur alr eso urces ( 44% of the
evidenc ed by the n um ber o f 44 incl ud ed studies of 66 cases in models) ,incr ea sedcon flic tint heir liveliho odcontext s(35% ), and

diverse social-ecological contexts on four continents. Moreover, increasedmaterialorproceduralinequalitywithintheircommu-

manyreportsinthegreyliteratureprovidelittleinformationabout nity(17%).Contestedcompensation(15%),ecosystemdegradation

their research procedures, analytical foundations, and data (13%),andadverselabourconditionsonLSLA-createdfarms(11%)

sources, and would have been excluded based on the methodo- areotherfrequentadverselivelihoodimpacts.

logicalinclusioncriteria.

Meta-analyses in global change research typically face the 4.2.Archetypesoflivelihoodvulnerability:howandwhydolarge-

challenge of integrating evidence from multidisciplinary studies scalelandacquisitionsgenerateadverselivelihoodoutcomes?
(Van Vlie t e t al., 2016 ). Here, w e us ed Ostrom’s (200 9) SES

frameworkasanintegrativelanguageintowhichthecodingteam The results showthat LSLAs generatelivelihood vulnerability

translated primary-study results, combined with double-coding through seven archetypes. The most frequently diagnosed

and constant reliability checks. Case studies typically report a archetypesare(1)enclosureoflivelihoodassets,(2)elitecapture,
spec ificsetof variablesth atdono tfull yoverlap withthe variabl es (3)selectiv em argi nalisation ,an d(4)pola risation of deve lopment
reported in o ther stud ies. T he cod eboo k of a meta -ana lysis can dis courses.T hreefurtherarch ety pes –(5)compe tit iveexclusion,
hencebe see nasa valuable tool thatcomp iles a comprehensive set (6)agribusi nessfa ilure,an d(7)transi en tjo bs–arerepe atedly,but

of variables that previous research has shown to affect the lessfrequentlyobservedinthecasestudyliterature.

phenomenon under consideration. This tool (see Appendix B in

Supplementary information) can help in futureresearch tolimit 4.2.1.Enclosureoflivelihoodassets

problemsofomittedvariables.Nonetheless,researchfragmenta- More than half of the models (52%; n=71) attribute adverse

tionalwaysimpliesmissingdatainmeta-analyses.Wetackledthis livelihoodoutcomesofLSLAstotheenclosureoflivelihoodassets

problem by coding the models rather than the primary data on (Fig.5).Thisisaprocessinwhichpreviouslandusersloserightsin

attributes of social-ecological systems reported in case studies. communalorprivatelandandnaturalresourcesasaconsequence

Modelsarethecausalexplanationsforoutcomes.Casestudiesof of the privatisation of land or resource rights in favour of an
high m etho dol ogical quality estab lish and verify this causal ity in vesto r.Previousla nd users val uepotent ialben efit s,ifthe re are
with intheirstudycon texts,fo rexampl eby process trac ing,using any, as insufficie nt to com pensa te for th e lost ri gh ts. M ost

comparative designs, or contrasting alternative hypotheses with enclosuresoccurbylegalmeans(e.g.contractsthatchangeformal

contextualisedlocalnarratives(Yin,2014).Amodel-centredmeta- landrights)orbyphysicalmeans(e.g.bulldozingorfencing),ora

analysis that codes causal explanations from the case studies combinationofboth.Inknowledge-basedenclosures,landrights

50
40
30 n = 113 models of adverse impacts;
mul(cid:2)ple outcomes per model possible.

20
10
50 39 19 17 15 12 12 9 8

0
Fig.4. Mostfrequentlyreportedadverselivelihoodoutcomesoflarge-scalelandacquisitions.
C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171 159

Fig.5. Enclosureoflivelihoodassetsarchetype.

change is triggered by new representations of knowledge about participationiftheyhavenopriorknowledgeaboutthelanddeal

land.InnorthernSierraLeone,forexample,new,remote-sensing- (n=10).

basedrepresentationsofknowledgeaboutlandmadeitpossibleto The second most frequent single factor facilitating livelihood

redrawtheboundariesoflandcontrol(Millar,2016). asset enclosures is governmental support for LSLA (n=19).

Processes of livelihood asset enclosure are activated under GovernmentalactorscansupportLSLAbyfacilitatingadministra-
specificcond itio ns.AsFig.5 show s,thereisn oto neunique cluster tiveprocedure sandp olit icalnego tiatio ns, byprovidin geconomic

of activating conditions across cases. Rather, enclosures are incentives,orbytransferringformallandrightstoinvestors,thus
ac tivated by a set of re current factor s and va rious recur rent aidingand gu idin ginvestors’ access tota rgetre gio ns.

combinationsamongthem. Two discursive practices of international, governmental, and

Thesinglemostfrequentfactorisasymmetricparticipationof communityactorsareinstrumentalinfacilitatingenclosures.One

land users in the negotiation and implementation of land deals isthediscourseofmarginalland,whichconceivestargetedlandas

(n=33). User participation can be asymmetric in three crucial marginal,unused,orunderused.Thishasrecurrentlybeenshown

ways.First,selectiveexclusionoccurswhenagroupoflandusers tobeanillusion(n=17),withtargetedlandactuallycontributing
(e.g. s pecifi c villager s, ethnic groups ) is ex cl uded by not being sig nifi ca ntlytoru ra ll ivel ihood s.Stateac tors aremore pronetothe
repr esented at all in negotia tions wi th investors or the state. illusion of m ar ginal land if the y wo rk wit h d eficien t or a bs ent
Selectiveexc lus ion ism orelikelyifc onsul tationprac tice sbe tween official lan d cadast re (n = 7). T he se cond discursiv e p ractice

localleadersandlandusersatthecommunitylevelareabsentor consists in creating visions of progressive change (n=13). Such
defic ient.Sec ond ,asym metr ic barg ainingoccu rswh enl anduse rs discours e a ssociates LSLA w it h narratives of deve lop m en t and

participateinnegotiationsdirectlyorthroughrepresentatives,but frequentlysucceedsinenticinglanduserstoinitiallyacceptaland

negotiationsareskewedduetounequaldistributionofbargaining deal.

resources such as legal knowledge, legal backing, technical Land deals have recurrently targeted regions with a recent
knowledg e, lang uag e skil ls, financial m eans , political positions, historyo fviole ntco nflictorrese ttlement (n=12). Such a history
and networ ks. Third, the fo rmation o f coalit ions – fo r example tends t o trigger livelihoo d asset enclosu re in as sociat io n with
betw eenthest ate,inv esto rs,andas ubs etofland us ers –creates asymm et ricparti cipation,go vernm entalsupp ort oflanddeal s,and

asymmetricparticipationbyexcludingcoalitionoutsiders. illusions of marginal land. Involuntaryland sales form a distinct

Asymmetric participation is recurrently triggered by control pattern of livelihood asset enclosure (n=7). They occur when

asymmetries at the community level (n=14), which arise if holdersofprivatelandtitlesareforcedtosellland.Forexample,
community l ead ers’ authority is not ba lan ce d b y accou ntabil ity high le ve ls of i ndeb tedne ss eventua lly fo rced pea sants in

mechanisms. Moreover, land users consistently face asymmetric Guatemalatoagreetoselltheirland(Alonso-Fradejas,2012).As
160 C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171

Fig. 5 shows, several other activating factors contributed to facilitated by asymmetric participation at the community level

livelihoodassetenclosureinmultiplecases. (n=12),inparticularifcommunityleadersselectivelyexcludeland

In termsof outcomes, processes of livelihood assetenclosure usersandformcoalitionswithinvestorstotheirownadvantage.
affect rurall ive lihoodsinm ultiplewa ys .Theydepr ivelan dusersof More over, disp roportiona l ca pture of b enefit s by elites is

accesstonaturalcapitalintheformoflandandnaturalresources supportedbygovernancesystemsthatcreateunbalancedcontrol

(n=40). Both the enforcement of land rights transfers and land asymmetrieswithincommunities(n=9).Forinstance,theabsence
us er resi stanc ema kelivelihood co ntext smore conflictua l(n =21). ofinstitution almec hanismsthat wo u ld hold custom ary authori-

Compensationisfrequentlycontested(n=16),andlanddealscan ties accountable vis-à-vis community members, combined with
haveadversee ffe ctsonecos ystems(n =1 0 ).Se vera lstud iesfo und land users’defer encetocu stomaryaut horities,w eremainfa ctors

maladaptive livelihood strategies (n=9), such as farmingon less forlocalelitecaptureinZambia(GermanandSchoneveld,2012).

fertilelandoroutmigration.Forexample,TsikataandYaro(2014) Coalitionsarelikelytolegitimiselanddealsbycreatinganillusion

documented that several families left the village of Kpachaa in of marginal land (n=4) or avision of progressive change (n=3).
Ghana’sNort hern Regiona fterlosin gfa rmla ndtoa bio fuelproje ct. La nd deals were s om e tim e s (n=3 ) legitimised because e li tes
Asaresu lt,theylo staddi tiona lliveli hoodasse ts a ndhad tobuild perce ivedth emsel vestobeper son a lly entitledtob enefitsfro mthe

upalifeintheirnewlocationswithoutcompensation. land.Intermsofoutcomes,localelitecaptureaffectslivelihoods

adverselybyincreasingmaterialandproceduralinequalitiesatthe

4.2.2.Elitecapture communitylevel(n=9)aswellasbycausinglossofaccesstoland

Elite capture is diagnosed by 15% of the models explaining andresourcesfordisadvantagedlandusers(n=8)andassociated
adverse outcome s (n=21). It i s a proc ess inw hich lo cal or state confl icts(n=4 ).
elites ex tract disp rop o rtion a lly h igh shar es of ben efits fro m an State elit e capture(n=8;Fig.7)ischieflyactivatedbycoalitions

LSLA or use it to reinforce their control over land and decision- between state actors and investors, which is the main form of

making,whilelanduserscarrythebulkofthesocio-economicand asymmetricparticipationinthisarchetype(n=7).Governmental

ecological costs. Depending on the sociocultural context, local support for LSLAs (n=5) and fragmented (i.e. scattered and
elites may includ e regional chie fs, v illage elders, domestic elite insuffici ently coord ina te d) state responsibil ities (n=3) have led

families, and other local leaders, whereas state elites comprise particularstateactorstogainorreinforcetheircontroloverland

governmental and executive actors whose power in land gover- governance,forexamplebysettingupforeigninvestmentsupport

nanceisbasedonformalstateinstitutions. agencies that are controlled at national levels (Moreda, 2015).

Processesoflocalelitecapture(n=14;Fig.6)areactivatedby Propertyrightssystemsinwhichlandisstateproperty(n=2)aid

community-level factors. Almost any local elite capture is state elite capture. Typical livelihood outcomes of state elite

Fig.6. Localelitecapturearchetype.
C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171 161

Fig.7. Stateelitecapturearchetype.

capturearelossofaccesstoland(n=3)andanincreaseinconflicts 4.2.4.Polarisationofdevelopmentdiscourses

(n=3). Apolarisationofdevelopmentdiscoursesisdiagnosedin9%of

the models (n=12; Fig. 9). While the selective marginalisation

archetype describes social differentiation regarding livelihood
4.2.3.Selectivemarginalisation
assets, polarisation of development discourses refers to social
Selective marginalisation is diagnosed in 14% of the models
differentiation regarding discourses about future developments
explaining adverse outcomes (n=19; Fig. 8). In this process, a
andLSLAimplicationsinthetargetregion.Discoursepolarisation
subset of previous land users experience a dynamic decrease of
is typically activated by illusions of marginal land (n=4) and
their livelihood assets as the LSLA project becomes operational,
wher eas other land u ser s ar e har dly affe cted or e ven benefit. visions of LSLA-induced progressive change (n = 5) that are
contestedamonglandusers.Deeplydividedinterests(n=4)and
Women, migrants living in the LSLA target region, and people
low social capital (n=2) among land users, including between
disadvantaged due to prior poverty or lowskills are particularly
generations (n=3), as well as asymmetric participation due to
pronetoselectivemarginalisation.Genderedimpacts(n=9)arise
coalition formation (n=5) aid the polarisation of discourses.
when men and women depend differentially on communal
Supportfromnon-governmentaladvocacygroupsforasubsetof
resources based on how family life is commonly organised in
landusers(n=2)andgovernmentalsupport(n=3)canexacerbate
thetargetregionandonitslandtenuresystem.Genderedimpacts
suchdivideswithincommunities.Ambiguousformalandinformal
also arise when men and women have differential opportunities to land classific ations exacerbatepo larisationby suppo rting contra-
accessagribusinessemploymentoroutgrowerschemesbasedon
the inv estor’s busin ess model. M ig rants (n = 6 ) and pa rticula rly pdiocltairnigsa vtiioenwrse (snu l=t s4)in. Bmyo erreocdoinnflg icctoumalmliuvneiltihy ocoodhceosinotne,x tdsis(cno=u1rs0e)
poor people (n=5) were found to be vulnerable to selective
and can create uncertainty about the changing socio-economic
marginalisation if they were poorly represented in collective
decision-making a nd d epende d on d ecision-mak ers’ goodwill. order in LSLA target regions (n = 3).
Local people’s lo w sk ills (n=2) h ave been cited as a reason for
4.2.5.Otherrecurrentprocesses
employing foreign workers instead of locals on LSLA-created
Limitedevidenceexists onthree other recurrent processesin
farms. In termsof outcomes,selective marginalisationprocesses
9.6%ofthemodels.Competitiveexclusion(4.4%;n=5),ariseswhen
reinforce inequality within the community (n=10), deprive
particular users of a ccess to reso urces (n=7) , in cr ease conflict an LSLA creates new competition in which previous land users are
progressivelyexcludedfromvaluechains(Mamonova,2015).Such
(n=3), and deepen poverty through maladaptive livelihood
competition can occur over land, over jobs, over employees for
strategies(n=3).
outgrowerschemes,andinoutputmarkets.
162 C.Oberlacketal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange41(2016)153–171

Fig.8. Selectivemarginalisationarchetype.

Agribusiness failures (5.3%; n=6) – that is, unsuccessful 4.3.1.Household-levelpotentials

economic operation of LSLA-created farms, for example, ending The most frequent archetypical potential is the creation of
inbankru ptcy–affec tl ivelihoodsadv ersely ifpr eviouslan dusers benefit sforp reviousla ndusersfrom theLSLA ,as asse ssedbyt he
ha ve become to o dep endent on the agrib us iness. Int erest ingly, landuse rs( 35%ofthe pote ntials ;n=2 6). Variou sf actorsinfl ue nce

case studies observe agribusiness failure if two of the following whetheranLSLA-inducedtransformationhasanetpositiveeffect

factorsconcur:lackofdownstreamdemand,constrainedaccessof on livelihoods: the number of jobs per hectare, remuneration
theinv estorgro upt ofi nancialresou rces,ext remeweathe reven ts, lev els, income stab ility acro ss seas ons, labour s tandards, and
sub stantial price flu ctuations , and gro wing di ssatisfac tion of access to jobs for local s and w omen. A cceptan ce of incom ing

outgrowersinarigidLSLA-connectedoutgrowerscheme. agribusinesses is more likely in target regions with a history of

Finally,wefoundearlyevidenceoftransientjobs(2.7%;n=3). large-scalefarminganddependentlabour.Acceptanceisalsomore

AnLSLAprojectoftengenerateshighdemandforlabourinitsstart- likely from individuals and groups who perceive the LSLA as a
up phase .Inthe “tran sientjobs ”case s,initial hig hlabo ur de mand promi sing e scape route from struct ural poverty. S uch visio ns of

and associated employment effects diminished when the farms progressivechangeareunderpinnedbyexpectationsandexperi-

becamefullyoperational. ences of new access to infrastructure, technical equipment, and
know- ho w. Fi nally, l and users’ opport unity cost s of land lo sses

4.3.Archetypesofsustainabilitypotentials:whatactivatespotentials crucially determine the net livelihood impact of an LSLA.

forlivelihoodsustainabilityinthecontextoflarge-scaleland Opportunity costs depend on the scarcity of land relative to

acquisitions? existinglanduses,andonthedegreetowhichlivelihoodsdepend
on targe ted land. Ben efic iari es’ live lih oods h ave becom e more

Potentials for safeguarding or enhancing livelihood sustain- sustainable through improved livelihood assets, new livelihood
abilityinLSL Ata rgetregionsa ref oundatfiv elevelsofd ecision- opportuniti es,andim provedsu bjectivew ell-bein g.

making and socio-economic dynamics. Table 1 lists these Pathwaysoflivelihoodadaptationandcoexistenceareasecond

potentials, indicating the factors that aid their activation, their archetypicalpotentialatthehouseholdlevel(n=8,11%).Theyare

outcomes,andtheriskfactorsthatmayhampertheirrealisation. enabled if households can continue their previous farming

Themostfrequentpositiveoutcomesareprotectionoflandrights practices, for example if they retain land rights; if they receive

andthecreationofopportunitiesfornewlivelihoodstrategies. rightsinnewlandplotsofsimilarquality;oriftheycancultivate

land not used by the investor. The extent to which pathways of

adaptation and coexistence enhance or undermine livelihood

sustainabilitydependsaboveallonthescarcityoflandinthetarget