IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i6p954-d100555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property Rights and the Soybean Revolution: Shaping How China and Brazil Are Telecoupled

Author

Listed:
  • Sara M. Torres

    (Department of Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA)

  • Emilio F. Moran

    (Department of Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA)

  • Ramon Felipe Bicudo da Silva

    (Center for Environmental Studies and Research, State University of Campinas, 13083-867 Campinas, Brazil)

Abstract

China currently has the largest population in the world and is currently experiencing rapid economic and urban growth, becoming the world’s number one pork and poultry consumer. In order to meet this growing demand for meat, China has increased its demand for soybeans to produce chicken and pork. It has imported soybeans from the United States, Brazil, and Argentina, while keeping its soybean production for direct human consumption stable at home. Brazil has become the largest soybean exporter to China, and, in response specifically to Chinese demand, has become the second largest producer of soybeans in the world. This has changed land use in Brazil, particularly in its central plateau. In this paper, we indicate how these two countries, telecoupled by trade in soybeans, are depending on each other as they try to balance environmental and economic objectives. Brazil, as a sending system, has created pressures on its natural ecosystems, which have led to losses particularly in the Cerrado biome and its ecotones in the Amazon’s tropical moist forest biome. China, as a receiving system, has created a land asset important to regenerating its lost natural systems (e.g., forest cover areas). Both countries have different property rights regimes, which have created distinct circumstances in which they are to protect or regenerate their natural ecosystems. Throughout this paper, we analyze how both countries have dealt with the lure offered by the soybean commodity trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara M. Torres & Emilio F. Moran & Ramon Felipe Bicudo da Silva, 2017. "Property Rights and the Soybean Revolution: Shaping How China and Brazil Are Telecoupled," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:6:p:954-:d:100555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/6/954/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/6/954/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elizabeth Alice Clements & Bernardo Mançano Fernandes, 2013. "Land Grabbing, Agribusiness and the Peasantry in Brazil and Mozambique," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 2(1), pages 41-69, April.
    2. Klaus Deininger, 2003. "Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15125, December.
    3. Liu, Hongbo & Parton, Kevin A. & Zhou, Zhang-Yue & Cox, Rod, 2009. "At-home meat consumption in China: an empirical study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    4. Hongbo Liu & Kevin A. Parton & Zhang-Yue Zhou & Rod Cox, 2009. "At-home meat consumption in China: an empirical study ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 485-501, October.
    5. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    6. Justin Yifu Lin, 1987. "The Household Responsibility System Reform in China: A Peasant's Institutional Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(2), pages 410-415.
    7. World Bank, 2017. "World Development Indicators 2017," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 26447, December.
    8. Qu, Futian & Kuyvenhoven, Arie & Shi, Xiaoping & Heerink, Nico, 2011. "Sustainable natural resource use in rural China: Recent trends and policies," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 444-460.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kelly E. Kapsar & Ciara L. Hovis & Ramon Felipe Bicudo da Silva & Erin K. Buchholtz & Andrew K. Carlson & Yue Dou & Yueyue Du & Paul R. Furumo & Yingjie Li & Aurora Torres & Di Yang & Ho Yi Wan & Juli, 2019. "Telecoupling Research: The First Five Years," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Russo Lopes, Gabriela & Bastos Lima, Mairon G. & Reis, Tiago N.P. dos, 2021. "Maldevelopment revisited: Inclusiveness and social impacts of soy expansion over Brazil’s Cerrado in Matopiba," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    3. Pires, Aliny P.F. & Amaral, Aryanne G. & Padgurschi, Maíra C.G. & Joly, Carlos A. & Scarano, Fabio R., 2018. "Biodiversity research still falls short of creating links with ecosystem services and human well-being in a global hotspot," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 68-73.
    4. Huaquan Zhang & Abbas Ali Chandio & Fan Yang & Yashuang Tang & Martinson Ankrah Twumasi & Ghulam Raza Sargani, 2022. "Modeling the Impact of Climatological Factors and Technological Revolution on Soybean Yield: Evidence from 13-Major Provinces of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-16, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ghebru, Hosaena, 2015. "Is There a Merit to the Continuum Tenure Approach? A Case of Demand for Land Rights Formulation in Rural Mozambique," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211683, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Quisumbing, Agnes & Doss, Cheryl & Theis, Sophie, 2019. "Women's land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: Framework and review of available evidence," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 72-82.
    3. Lei, Lei & Shimokawa, Satoru, 2020. "Promoting dietary guidelines and environmental sustainability in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Doss, Cheryl R. & Theis, Sophie, 2017. "Women’s land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: A framework and review of available evidence," IFPRI discussion papers 1663, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, 2014. "Property rights and sustainable irrigation: A developing country perspective," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 23-31.
    6. Rentsch, Dennis & Damon, Amy, 2013. "Prices, poaching, and protein alternatives: An analysis of bushmeat consumption around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 1-9.
    7. Jacob Hawkins & Chunbo Ma & Steven Schilizzi & Fan Zhang, 2018. "China's changing diet and its impacts on greenhouse gas emissions: an index decomposition analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(1), pages 45-64, January.
    8. Vardges Hovhannisyan & Stephen Devadoss, 2020. "Effects of urbanization on food demand in China," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 699-721, February.
    9. Akhmadiyeva, Zarema & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2021. "How does practice matches land laws in Central Asia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Bai, Junfei & Seale Jr, James L. & Wahl, Thomas I., 2020. "Meat demand in China: to include or not to include meat away from home?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(1), January.
    11. Kvartiuk, Vasyl & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2019. "Welfare effects of land market liberalization scenarios in Ukraine: Evidence-based economic perspective," IAMO Discussion Papers 287762, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    12. Xu, Huayu, 2021. "The long-term health and economic consequences of improved property rights," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    13. Gwendoline Promsopha, 2018. "Risk†Coping, Land Tenure And Land Markets: An Overview Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 176-193, February.
    14. Paris, Quirino & Caracciolo, Francesco, 2014. "Testing the adding up condition in demand systems," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182827, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Ma, Meilin & Wang, H. Holly & Hua, Yizhou & Qin, Fei & Yang, Jing, 2021. "African swine fever in China: Impacts, responses, and policy implications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Klümper, Frederike & Theesfeld, Insa & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2018. "Discrepancies between paper and practice in policy implementation: Tajikistan’s property rights and customary claims to land and water," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 75, pages 327-339.
    17. repec:zbw:iamodp:287762 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Reshmita Nath & Yibo Luan & Wangming Yang & Chen Yang & Wen Chen & Qian Li & Xuefeng Cui, 2015. "Changes in Arable Land Demand for Food in India and China: A Potential Threat to Food Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-27, April.
    19. Cao, Li‐Juan & Tian, Wei‐Ming & Wang, Ji‐Min & Malcolm, Bill & Liu, Hong‐Bo & Zhou, Zhang‐Yue, 2013. "Recent Food Consumption Trends in China and Trade," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 21, pages 1-30.
    20. Michael Kopsidis & Katja Bruisch & Daniel W. Bromley, 2013. "Where is the Backward Peasant? Regional Crop Yields on Common and Private Land in Russia 1883-1913," Working Papers 0046, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).
    21. Xin Gu & Zhang-Yue Zhou & Yan-Rui Wu, 2019. "Understanding China’S Urban Consumption Patterns: New Estimates And Implications," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(04), pages 961-981, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:6:p:954-:d:100555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.