Getting in between M and M′ or How farmland further debunks financialization

This commentary takes up some of the arguments Christophers develops in his piece on ‘The Limits to Financialization’ and spins them further through the prism of the ‘financialization’ of farmland and agriculture. The paper requalifies the optic, empiric, and strategic limits of the financialization...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inDialogues in human geography Vol. 5; no. 2; pp. 225 - 228
Main Author Ouma, Stefan
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London, England SAGE Publications 01.07.2015
Subjects
critique
capital
farmland
finance
financialization
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This commentary takes up some of the arguments Christophers develops in his piece on ‘The Limits to Financialization’ and spins them further through the prism of the ‘financialization’ of farmland and agriculture. The paper requalifies the optic, empiric, and strategic limits of the financialization literature that Christophers identifies, eventually making a call for ‘getting in between’ M and M′—exploring the practical activities of financial economization while at the same time maintaining the analytical validity of the category of capital. This is a frictional project. The contribution ends with a note on strategy, asking whether knowledge about such activities can be of any strategic political use.
ISSN:2043-8206
2043-8214
DOI:10.1177/2043820615588160