1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 47, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 47, 2022

Contemporary Populism and the Environment

Abstract

This review engages with literature on authoritarian populism, focusing specifically on its relationship to the environment. We analyze hybrid combinations of authoritarianism and populism to explore three themes from the literature: environmental governance, social and political representations of nature, and resistance. In the environmental governance section, we analyze how governments have increasingly resorted to populist politics to expand extractivism; certain commodities with national security implications have become key commodities to be protected; and borders, frontiers, and zones of inclusion/exclusion have become flash points. In the social and political representations of nature section, we analyze settler colonialism and sacrifice zones as organizing principles for relations with the environment. In our final section on resistance, we review literature highlighting pushback to authoritarian populism from peasant, indigenous, and worker movements. Variants of populism and authoritarianism are likely to persist amid increasing competition over resources as components of responses to environmental and climate crisis.

Keyword(s): environment, environmental governance, nature, populism, representation, resistance
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-124635
2022-10-17
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/47/1/annurev-environ-012220-124635.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-124635&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Hall S. 1979. The great moving right show. Marx. Today. 23:114–20
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Akram-Lodhi AH. 2022. I will follow? Authoritarian populism, past and present. J. Peasant Stud. 49:61316–30
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    van der Ploeg JD. 2020. Farmers’ upheaval, climate crisis and populism. J. Peasant Stud. 47:3589–605
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Mayer A. 2022. Development channelization, partisanship, and populism: possibilities for rural renewal in the death throes of coal. Sociol. Perspect 65:3529–54
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Russo Lopes G, Bastos Lima MG, dos Reis TNP 2021. Maldevelopment revisited: inclusiveness and social impacts of soy expansion over Brazil's Cerrado in Matopiba. World Dev 139:105316
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Arsel M, Adaman F, Saad-Filho A. 2021. Authoritarian developmentalism: The latest stage of neoliberalism?. Geoforum 124:261–66
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Bello W. 2018. Counterrevolution, the countryside and the middle classes: lessons from five countries. J. Peasant Stud. 45:121–58
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Bernstein H. 2020. Unpacking ‘authoritarian populism’ and rural politics: some comments on ERPI. J. Peasant Stud. 47:71526–42
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Borras SM. 2020. Agrarian social movements: the absurdly difficult but not impossible agenda of defeating right-wing populism and exploring a socialist future. J. Agrar. Change 20:13–36
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    McKay BM, Oliveira G de LT, Liu J. 2020. Authoritarianism, populism, nationalism and resistance in the agrarian South. Can. J. Dev. Stud. Rev. Can. Détudes Dév. 41:3347–62
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Scoones I, Edelman M, Borras SM Jr., Hall R, Wolford W, White B. 2018. Emancipatory rural politics: confronting authoritarian populism. J. Peasant Stud. 45:11–20
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    McCarthy J. 2019. Authoritarianism, populism, and the environment: comparative experiences, insights, and perspectives. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2301–13
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Wilson R. 2019. Authoritarian environmental governance: insights from the past century. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2314–23
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Hart G. 2020. Why did it take so long? Trump-Bannonism in a global conjunctural frame. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B 102:3239–66
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Fraune C, Knodt M. 2018. Sustainable energy transformations in an age of populism, post-truth politics, and local resistance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 43:1–7
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Biesel SA. 2021. When disinformation makes sense: contextualizing the war on coal in Appalachian Kentucky. Econ. Anthropol. 8:17–21
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Montenegro de Wit M, Roman-Alcala A, Liebman A, Chrisman S 2021. Agrarian origins of authoritarian populism in the United States: What can we learn from 20th-century struggles in California and the Midwest?. J. Rural Stud. 82:518–30
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Kenney-Lazar M. 2019. Neoliberalizing authoritarian environmental governance in (post)socialist Laos. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2338–48
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Fabricant N, Postero N. 2015. Sacrificing Indigenous bodies and lands: the political–economic history of lowland Bolivia in light of the recent TIPNIS debate. J. Lat. Am. Caribb. Anthropol. 20:3452–74
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Mullenite J. 2019. Infrastructure and authoritarianism in the land of waters: a genealogy of flood control in Guyana. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2502–10
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Acara E. 2019. Sequestering a river: the political ecology of the “dead” Ergene River and neoliberal urbanization in today's Turkey. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2422–33
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Adly A. 2021. Authoritarian restitution in bad economic times Egypt and the crisis of global neoliberalism. Geoforum 124:290–99
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Arefin MR. 2019. The state, sewers, and security: How does the Egyptian state reframe environmental disasters as terrorist threats?. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2412–21
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Sparke M, Bessner D. 2019. Reaction, resilience, and the Trumpist behemoth: environmental risk management from “hoax” to technique of domination. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2533–44
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Swyngedouw E. 2019. The perverse lure of autocratic postdemocracy. South Atl. Q. 118:2267–86
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Swyngedouw E. 2010. Apocalypse forever?. Theory Cult. Soc 27:2–3213–32
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Saguin K. 2019.. “ Return the lake to the people”: populist political rhetoric and the fate of a resource frontier in the Philippines. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2434–42
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Sinha S. 2021.. ‘ Strong leaders’, authoritarian populism and Indian developmentalism: the Modi moment in historical context. Geoforum 124:320–33
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Vanaik A. 2018. India's two hegemonies. New Left Rev 112:29–59
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Kantel AJ. 2019. Fishing for power: incursions of the Ugandan authoritarian state. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2443–55
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Clarke-Sather A. 2019. From the Heavens to the markets: governing agricultural drought under Chinese fragmented authoritarianism. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2456–64
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Graddy-Lovelace G. 2019. U.S. farm policy as fraught populism: tracing the scalar tensions of nationalist agricultural governance. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2395–411
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Koch N, Perreault T. 2019. Resource nationalism. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 43:4611–31
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Bastos Lima MG, Persson UM 2020. Commodity-centric landscape governance as a double-edged sword: the case of soy and the Cerrado Working Group in Brazil. Front. For. Glob. Change 3:27
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Myadar O, Jackson S. 2019. Contradictions of populism and resource extraction: examining the intersection of resource nationalism and accumulation by dispossession in Mongolia. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2361–70
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Lyall A, Valdivia G. 2019. The speculative petro-state: volatile oil prices and resource populism in Ecuador. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2349–60
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Poncian J. 2019. Galvanising political support through resource nationalism: a case of Tanzania's 2017 extractive sector reforms. Polit. Geogr. 69:77–88
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Balls JN, Fischer HW. 2019. Electricity-centered clientelism and the contradictions of private solar microgrids in India. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2465–75
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Graybill JK. 2019. Emotional environments of energy extraction in Russia. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2382–94
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Mamonova N. 2019. Understanding the silent majority in authoritarian populism: What can we learn from popular support for Putin in rural Russia?. J. Peasant Stud. 46:3561–85
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Bosworth K. 2019. The people know best: situating the counterexpertise of populist pipeline opposition movements. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2581–92
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Delina LL. 2021. Topographies of coal mining dissent: power, politics, and protests in southern Philippines. World Dev 137:105194
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Ramos CG. 2021. The return of strongman rule in the Philippines: neoliberal roots and developmental implications. Geoforum 124:310–19
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Wayland J. 2019. Black sand and the red court: scalar politics of a mining conflict in the Philippines. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:31006–23
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Nem Singh J, Camba A 2020. The role of domestic policy coalitions in extractive industries’ governance: disentangling the politics of “responsible mining” in the Philippines. Environ. Policy Gov. 30:239–51
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Lamour C, Varga R. 2020. The border as a resource in right-wing populist discourse: Viktor Orbán and the diasporas in a multi-scalar Europe. J. Borderl. Stud. 35:3335–50
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Wright MW. 2019. Border thinking, borderland diversity, and Trump's wall. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2511–19
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Milanez F. 2019. Rexistência nas fronteiras do capitalismo/colonialismo: a ecologia política do isolamento e da soberania. Tipití J. Soc. Anthropol. Lowl. S. Am. 16:1164–75
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Pulido L, Bruno T, Faiver-Serna C, Galentine C. 2019. Environmental deregulation, spectacular racism, and white nationalism in the Trump era. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2520–32
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Bosworth K. 2020. The People's Climate March: environmental populism as political genre. Polit. Geogr. 83:102281
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Borras SM, Franco JC, Nam Z 2020. Climate change and land: insights from Myanmar. World Dev 129:104864
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Benegal SD. 2018. The spillover of race and racial attitudes into public opinion about climate change. Environ. Polit. 27:4733–56
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Forchtner B, Kølvraa C. 2015. The nature of nationalism: populist radical right parties on countryside and climate. Nat. Cult. 10:2199–224
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Huber RA. 2020. The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection. Environ. Polit. 29:6959–82
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Koslov L. 2019. Avoiding climate change: “agnostic adaptation” and the politics of public silence. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2568–80
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    De Pryck K, Gemenne F. 2017. The denier-in-chief: climate change, science and the election of Donald J. Trump. Law Crit. 28:2119–26
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Daley J 2020. U.S. exits Paris Climate Accord after Trump stalls global warming action for four years: State-level efforts and a growing renewables market have mitigated federal emissions policy rollbacks—but Trump's climate impact could be long-lasting. Scientific American Nov. 4. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-exits-paris-climate-accord-after-trump-stalls-global-warming-action-for-four-years/
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Zhang Y-X, Chao Q-C, Zheng Q-H, Huang L. 2017. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 8:4213–19
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Aldy JE. 2017. Real world headwinds for Trump climate change policy. Bull. At. Sci. 73:6376–81
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Liu Z, Deng Z, He G, Wang H, Zhang X et al. 2022. Challenges and opportunities for carbon neutrality in China. Nat. Rev Earth Environ. 3:141–55
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Gilley B. 2012. Authoritarian environmentalism and China's response to climate change. Environ. Polit. 21:2287–307
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Alonso-Fradejas A. 2021. ‘Leaving no one unscathed’ in sustainability transitions: the life purging agro-extractivism of corporate renewables. J. Rural Stud. 81:127–38
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Rojas D, de Azevedo Olival A, Olival AAS. 2019. Cultivating alternatives to authoritarian populism in Amazonia. J. Lat. Am. Caribb. Anthropol. 24:4958–81
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Bledsoe A. 2019. Afro-Brazilian resistance to extractivism in the Bay of Aratu. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2492–501
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Forsyth T. 2019. Beyond narratives: civic epistemologies and the coproduction of environmental knowledge and popular environmentalism in Thailand. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2593–612
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Ivanou A. 2019. Authoritarian populism in rural Belarus: distinction, commonalities, and projected finale. J. Peasant Stud. 46:3586–605
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Adaman F, Akbulut B. 2021. Erdoğan's three-pillared neoliberalism: authoritarianism, populism and developmentalism. Geoforum 124:279–89
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Özkaynak B, Aydιn Cİ, Ertör-Akyazι P, Ertör I. 2015. The Gezi Park Resistance from an environmental justice and social metabolism perspective. Capital. Nat. Social. 26:199–114
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Walter BM. 2021. Nostalgia and precarious placemaking in southern poultry worlds: immigration, race, and community building in rural Northern Alabama. J. Rural Stud. 82:542–52
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Cortes-Vazquez JA. 2020. In the name of the people: the populist redefinition of nature conservation in post-crisis Spain. Geoforum 108:110–18
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Putsche L, Hormel L, Mihelich J, Storrs D 2017.. “ You end up feeling like the rest of the world is kind of picking on you”: perceptions of regulatory science's threats to economic livelihoods and Idahoans’ collective identity. Sci. Commun. 39:6687–712
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Skogen K, Krange O. 2020. The political dimensions of illegal wolf hunting: anti-elitism, lack of trust in institutions and acceptance of illegal wolf killing among Norwegian hunters. Sociol. Rural. 60:3551–73
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    McCarthy J. 2002. First world political ecology: lessons from the Wise Use movement. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space. 34:71281–302
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Ferrante L, Fearnside PM. 2019. Brazil's new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia's environment, traditional peoples and the global climate. Environ. Conserv. 46:4261–63
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Saad-Filho A, Boffo M. 2021. The corruption of democracy: corruption scandals, class alliances, and political authoritarianism in Brazil. Geoforum 124:300–9
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Mendes K, Pontes N. 2018. Indigenous land, culture at stake in Brazil election—experts. Reuters Oct. 26. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-election-landrights-deforestat/indigenous-land-culture-at-stake-in-brazil-election-experts-idUSKCN1N0241
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Kröger M. 2020. Field research notes on Amazon deforestation during the Bolsonaro era. Globalizations 17:61080–83
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Adams R. 2015. Neoliberal environmentality among elites: becoming “responsible producers” in Santarém, Brazil. Cult., Agric., Food Environ. 37:284–95
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Edelman M. 2021. Hollowed out Heartland, USA: how capital sacrificed communities and paved the way for authoritarian populism. J. Rural Stud. 82:505–17
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Holifield R, Day M. 2017. A framework for a critical physical geography of ‘sacrifice zones’: physical landscapes and discursive spaces of frac sand mining in western Wisconsin. Geoforum 85:269–79
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Mamonova N, Franquesa J, Brooks S 2020.. ‘ Actually existing’ right-wing populism in rural Europe: insights from eastern Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and Ukraine. J. Peasant Stud. 47:71497–525
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Kiely R. 2021. Conservatism, neoliberalism and resentment in Trumpland: the ‘betrayal’ and ‘reconstruction’ of the United States. Geoforum 124:334–42
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Gaventa J. 2019. Power and powerlessness in an Appalachian Valley—revisited. J. Peasant Stud. 46:3440–56
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Monnat SM, Brown DL. 2017. More than a rural revolt: landscapes of despair and the 2016 Presidential Election. J. Rural Stud. 55:227–36
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Ulrich-Schad JD, Duncan CM. 2018. People and places left behind: work, culture and politics in the rural United States. J. Peasant Stud. 45:159–79
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Jadhav A. 2021. Was it rural populism? Returning to the country, “catching up,” and trying to understand the Trump vote. J. Rural Stud. 82:553–69
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Taylor K-Y 2017. Building a multiracial movement in the Trump era. The Anti-Inauguration: Building Resistance in the Trump Era ed. A Gopal, J Scahill, K-Y Taylor, N Klein, O Jones Chicago: Haymarket Books
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Chandrasekaran PR. 2021. Remaking “the people”: immigrant farmworkers, environmental justice and the rise of environmental populism in California's San Joaquin Valley. J. Rural Stud. 124:594–605
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Thaler GM. 2017. The land sparing complex: environmental governance, agricultural intensification, and state building in the Brazilian Amazon. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 107:61424–43
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Taddei R, Bulamah RC, Schavelzon S. 2020. Bolsonaro and the unmaking of Brazil. Society for Cultural Anthropology Jan. 28. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/series/bolsonaro-and-the-unmaking-of-brazil
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Soyer G, Barbosa R Jr 2020. O extrativismo agrário do Governo Bolsonaro a partir das relações Estado-Sociedade. Rev. ANPEGE 16:29522–54
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Boadle A. 2019. Emboldened by Bolsonaro, armed invaders encroach on Brazil's tribal lands. Reuters March 3. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-indigenous-insight/emboldened-by-bolsonaro-armed-invaders-encroach-on-brazils-tribal-lands-idUSKCN1QK0BG
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Dolzan M. 2017. ‘Não podemos abrir as portas para todo mundo’ diz Bolsonaro em palestra na Hebraica: Durante encontro no Rio, deputado faz críticas a refugiados em ambiente judaico e promessas como candidato da disputa de 2018. Estadão April 3. https://politica.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,nao-podemos-abrir-as-portas-para-todo-mundo-diz-bolsonaro-em-palestra-na-hebraica,70001725522
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Spring J, Paraguassu L. 2020. Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon skyrockets to 12-year high under Bolsonaro. Reuters Nov. 30. https://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-environment/deforestation-in-brazils-amazon-skyrockets-to-12-year-high-underbolsonaro-idUSKBN28B3MV
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Lawreniuk S. 2020. Intensifying political geographies of authoritarianism: toward an anti-geopolitics of garment worker struggles in neoliberal Cambodia. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 110:41174–91
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Middeldorp N, Billon PL. 2019. Deadly environmental governance: authoritarianism, eco-populism, and the repression of environmental and land defenders. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2324–37
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Bledsoe A. 2019. Racial antagonism and the 2018 Brazilian Presidential Election. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 18:2165–70
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Kopack RA. 2019. Rocket wastelands in Kazakhstan: scientific authoritarianism and the Baikonur Cosmodrome. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2556–67
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Voyles T. 2015. Wastelanding: Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  100. 100.
    Mersha S. 2018. Black lives and climate justice: courage and power in defending communities and Mother Earth. Third World Q 39:71421–34
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Montoya T. 2019. #WeNeedANewCounty: enduring division and conquest in the Indigenous southwest. J. Anthropol. N. Am. 22:275–78
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Van Sant L, Milligan R, Mollett S. 2021. Political ecologies of race: settler colonialism and environmental racism in the United States and Canada. Antipode 53:3629–42
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Curley A. 2021. Unsettling Indian water settlements: the Little Colorado River, the San Juan River, and colonial enclosures. Antipode 53:3705–23
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Vasudevan P. 2021. An intimate inventory of race and waste. Antipode 53:3770–90
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Bosworth K. 2021.. “ They're treating us like Indians!”: political ecologies of property and race in North American pipeline populism. Antipode 53:3665–85
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Wright WJ. 2021. As above, so below: anti-Black violence as environmental racism. Antipode 53:3791–809
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Van Sant L. 2021. “The long-time requirements of the nation”: The US Cooperative Soil Survey and the political ecologies of improvement. Antipode 53:3686–704
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Sommerville M. 2021. Naturalising finance, financialising natives: indigeneity, race, and “responsible” agricultural investment in Canada. Antipode 53:3643–64
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    McCreary T, Milligan R. 2021. The limits of liberal recognition: racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and environmental governance in Vancouver and Atlanta. Antipode 53:3724–44
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Goodling E. 2021. Urban political ecology from below: producing a “peoples’ history” of the Portland Harbor. Antipode 53:3745–69
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Mollett S. 2021. Hemispheric, relational, and intersectional political ecologies of race: centring land-body entanglements in the Americas. Antipode 53:3810–30
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Global Witness 2021. Last line of defence.. Global Witness Sept. 13. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/last-line-defence/
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Le Billon P, Lujala P 2020. Environmental and land defenders: global patterns and determinants of repression. Glob. Environ. Change 65:102163
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Roman-Alcalá A, Graddy-Lovelace G, Edelman M. 2021. Authoritarian populism and emancipatory politics in the rural United States. J. Rural Stud. 82:500–4
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Scott JC. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  116. 116.
    High C. 2020. “Our land is not for sale!” Contesting oil and translating environmental politics in Amazonian Ecuador. J. Lat. Am. Caribb. Anthropol. 25:2301–23
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Wright WJ. 2020. The morphology of marronage. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 110:41134–49
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Ofstehage A. 2018. Farming out of place: transnational family farmers, flexible farming, and the rupture of rural life in Bahia, Brazil. Am. Ethnol 45:3317–29
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Ofstehage A. 2016. Farming is easy, becoming Brazilian is hard: North American soy farmers’ social values of production, work, and land in Soylandia. J. Peasant Stud. 43:2442–60
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    van den Berg L, Goris MB, Behagel JH, Verschoor G, Turnhout E et al. 2021. Agroecological peasant territories: resistance and existence in the struggle for emancipation in Brazil. J. Peasant Stud. 48:3658–79
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.
    Cadieux KV, Carpenter S, Liebman A, Blumberg R, Upadhyay B. 2019. Reparation ecologies: regimes of repair in populist agroecology. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2644–60
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Gioia P. 2018. Pathway to resilience: hands and hearts for peasant livelihoods and fair relations between humans and nature. Third World Q 39:71403–10
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    Rojas D. 2020. Crisis progressive: environmental ethics in a time of ‘unavoidable’ ecological destruction in Amazonia. Ethnos 86:5897–919
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Andrade D. 2020. Populism from above and below: the path to regression in Brazil. J. Peasant Stud. 47:71470–96
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Wolford W, Nehring R. 2015. Constructing parallels: Brazilian expertise and the commodification of land, labour and money in Mozambique. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 36:2208–23
     [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Wolford W. 2021. The colonial roots of agricultural modernization in Mozambique: the role of research from Portugal to ProSavana. J. Peasant Stud. 48:2254–73
     [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.
    Monjane B, Bruna N. 2020. Confronting agrarian authoritarianism: dynamics of resistance to PROSAVANA in Mozambique. J. Peasant Stud. 47:169–94
     [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Ashwood L. 2021. “No matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or neither”: pragmatic politics in opposition to industrial animal production. J. Rural Stud. 82:586–94
     [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Tilzey M. 2019. Authoritarian populism and neo-extractivism in Bolivia and Ecuador: the unresolved agrarian question and the prospects for food sovereignty as counter-hegemony. J. Peasant Stud. 46:3626–52
     [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    McKay BM. 2018. The politics of convergence in Bolivia: social movements and the state. Third World Q 39:71247–69
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    McKeon N, Berron G. 2020. Introduction to ‘Reclaiming democracy from below: from the contemporary state capitalist system to peoples’ sovereignty. ’. Globalizations 17:71241–64
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Knuth S. 2019. Whatever happened to green collar jobs? Populism and clean energy transition. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2634–43
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Coronado S. 2019. Rights in the time of populism: land and institutional change amid the reemergence of right-wing authoritarianism in Colombia. Land 8:8119
     [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Borras SM Jr., Moreda T, Alonso-Fradejas A, Brent ZW. 2018. Converging social justice issues and movements: implications for political actions and research. Third World Q 39:71227–46
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    Borras SM, Franco JC. 2018. The challenge of locating land-based climate change mitigation and adaptation politics within a social justice perspective: towards an idea of agrarian climate justice. Third World Q 39:71308–25
     [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Wolford W. 2010. This Land is Ours Now Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  137. 137.
    Franco J, Suárez SM. 2018. Why wait for the state? Using the CFS Tenure Guidelines to recalibrate political-legal struggles for democratic land control. Third World Q 39:71386–1402
     [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.
    Franco JC, Monsalve S, Borras SM. 2015. Democratic land control and human rights. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 15:66–71
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Schiavoni CM, Tramel S, Twomey H, Mongula BS. 2018. Analysing agricultural investment from the realities of small-scale food providers: grounding the debates. Third World Q 39:71348–66
     [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Moreda T. 2018. The right to food in the context of large-scale land investment in Ethiopia. Third World Q 39:71326–47
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Aitken SC, An L, Yang S 2019. Development and sustainable ethics in Fanjingshan National Nature Reserve, China. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2661–72
     [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Jodhka S. 2021. Why are the farmers of Punjab protesting?. J. Peasant Stud. 48:71356–70
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Kumar S. 2021. Class, caste, and agrarian change: the making of farmers’ protests. J. Peasant Stud. 48:71371–79
     [Google Scholar]
  144. 144.
    Lerche J. 2021. The farm laws struggle 2021–2021: class-caste alliances and bypassed agrarian transition in neoliberal India. J. Peasant Stud. 48:71380–96
     [Google Scholar]
  145. 145.
    Atkins A, Menga F. 2022. Populist ecologies. Area 54:2224–32
     [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Bhardwaj M, Jadhav R. 2021. Indian farmers call off year-long protest after govt assurances. Reuters Dec. 9. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indian-farmers-call-off-long-running-protests-after-government-offers-2021-12-09/
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147.
    Moore B Jr. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World Boston: Beacon Press
  148. 148.
    Pickering J, Bäckstrand K, Schlosberg D. 2020. Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22:11–15
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 149.
    Niemeyer S. 2020. Deliberation and ecological democracy: from citizen to global system. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22:116–29
     [Google Scholar]
  150. 150.
    Pickering J, Persson Å. 2020. Democratising planetary boundaries: experts, social values and deliberative risk evaluation in Earth system governance. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22:159–71
     [Google Scholar]
  151. 151.
    Takacs D. 2020. Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22:143–58
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 152.
    Delina LL. 2020. Climate mobilizations and democracy: the promise of scaling community energy transitions in a deliberative system. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22:130–42
     [Google Scholar]
  153. 153.
    Baber WF, Bartlett RV. 2020. A rights foundation for ecological democracy. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22:172–83
     [Google Scholar]
  154. 154.
    Edwards J, Haugerud A, Parikh S. 2017. Introduction: the 2016 Brexit referendum and Trump election. Am. Ethnol. 44:2195–200
     [Google Scholar]
  155. 155.
    Rosa J, Bonilla Y. 2017. Deprovincializing Trump, decolonizing diversity, and unsettling anthropology. Am. Ethnol. 44:2201–8
     [Google Scholar]
  156. 156.
    Goldstein JE, Paprocki K, Osborne T. 2019. A manifesto for a progressive land-grant mission in an authoritarian populist era. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2673–84
     [Google Scholar]
  157. 157.
    Pettorelli N, Barlow J, Cadotte MW, Lucas K, Newton E et al. 2019. Applied ecologists in a landscape of fear. J Appl Ecol 56:1034–39
     [Google Scholar]
  158. 158.
    Dillon L, Lave R, Mansfield B, Wylie S, Shapiro N et al. 2019. Situating data in a Trumpian era: The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2545–55
     [Google Scholar]
  159. 159.
    Neimark B, Childs J, Nightingale AJ, Cavanagh CJ, Sullivan S et al. 2019. Speaking power to “post-truth”: critical political ecology and the new authoritarianism. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:2613–23
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-124635
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error