IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i6p954-d100555.html

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. repec:wbk:wbpubs:15125 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:wbk:wbpubs:26447 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    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. Lijun Zhang & Gaofei Yin & Zihao Wei & Wenchao Li & Cha Cui & Mingli Wang & Chen Zhao & Huifeng Zhao & Fengrui Xue, 2024. "Potential and Pathways of Carbon Emission Reduction in China’s Beef Production from the Supply Chain Perspective," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Lei, Lei & Shimokawa, Satoru, 2020. "Promoting dietary guidelines and environmental sustainability in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Vardges Hovhannisyan & Stephen Devadoss, 2020. "Effects of urbanization on food demand in China," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 699-721, February.
    6. Bai, Junfei & Seale Jr, James L. & Wahl, Thomas I., . "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(01).
    7. Gao, Siqi & Cuffey, Joel & Li, Gucheng & Li, Wenying, 2024. "Diet in China during substantial economic growth: Quality, inequality, trends, and determinants," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Paris, Quirino & Caracciolo, Francesco, "undated". "Testing the Adding Up Condition in Demand Systems," Working Papers 171748, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. Hovhannisyan, Vardges & Devadoss, Stephen, "undated". "Effects of Urbanization on Food Demand in China," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258436, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Wen Lin & David L. Ortega & Danielle Ufer & Vincenzina Caputo & Titus Awokuse, 2022. "Blockchain‐based traceability and demand for U.S. beef in China," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 253-272, March.
    16. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    17. David Aubin & Frédéric Varone, 2013. "Getting Access to Water: Property Rights or Public Policy Strategies?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(1), pages 154-167, February.
    18. Gani, Azmat & Scrimgeour, Frank, 2014. "Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 363-372.
    19. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    20. Rémy Herrera & Poeura Tetoe, 2013. "The Papua Niugini Paradox. Land property archaism and Modernity of peasant resistance ?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00786274, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.