MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332045836 · doi:10.1017/s0021911812000551

Powers of Exclusion: Land Dilemmas in Southeast Asia. By Derek Hall, Philip Hirsch and Tania Murray Li. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2011. vii, 257 pp.

2012· article· en· W2332045836 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian G. Baird

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Asian Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsGeographerLegitimationAgrarian societyState (computer science)Power (physics)SociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceGeographyLawEconomic geographyArchaeologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occasionally a book appears that represents an especially important contribution, one likely to have lasting impact, and fill a crucial gap in the literature. Powers of Exclusion is such a book. This volume is worthy of attention by those with an interest in political ecology, land tenure and conflicts, as well as nature-society issues in Southeast Asia more generally. The interdisciplinary collaboration that brought a political scientist (Hall), geographer (Hirsch) and anthropologist (Li) together emerged as a result of a multi-faceted Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada-funded research project titled Challenges of the Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia (CHATSEA).The book is focused on the idea of “exclusion,” a term commonly used in studies of land access globally. However, the authors conceptualize it differently than most, not simply thinking of exclusion as something negative counterposed with the positive idea of “inclusion,” but rather as inevitable; something that everyone with an interest in land issues sees as valuable in some way. Viewing the opposite of exclusion as “access” rather than inclusion, and being attentive to power relations, the authors examine an array of ways people have both been excluded and have excluded others from land in Southeast Asia in the 1990s and 2000s, including villagers excluding other villagers. Crucial to their conceptual framework, they argue that interaction between regulation, force, the market and legitimation are fundamental to understanding the processes that result in various kinds of exclusion. Regulation, as they conceptualize it, is linked with the state and legal instruments. Force refers to exclusion through violence or the threat of violence from both state and non-state actors. The market limits access through price and also provides incentives for private land claims. Finally, legitimation establishes the moral grounds for excluding others.The book is divided into eight chapters with the six main ones (apart from the introduction and conclusion) each dealing with one of the key processes that the authors believe are driving changes in rural land relations. They are 1) the regularization of access to land, through land titling, formalization and settlement; 2) the spatial expansion and intensification of efforts to restrict agriculture and thus protect forest; 3) the cultivation of various “boom crops” that result in the conversion of significant amounts of land; 4) the conversion of land for non-agricultural uses; 5) processes of agrarian class formation on an intimate village scale; and 6) the collective mobilization for defending or asserting access claims to land, often at the expense of others.Powers of Exclusion is notable for the rich empirical accounts drawn mainly from Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines and (to a lesser extent) Malaysia. The book is full of insightful observations and analysis, clearly indicating the depth of the authors' research experiences, which span the geographical coverage of the volume.Without wanting to diminish its value, Powers of Exclusion, like every other great book, does have some limitations. It does a fantastic job illustrating how exclusion occurs at various scales, and in a wide variety of ways, especially in relation to class and ethnicity, but much less is included about other important factors, such as religion and gender. How, for example, do men exclude women within families in particular contexts? But it is never possible for one book to do everything, so in many ways this is more of a quibble than a substantial criticism.One of the key points of the book relates to “Exclusion's Double Edge.” Exclusion is seen as both necessary and potentially harmful. Even village farmers need to be able to exclude others from taking their crops, but one group's gain can result in another's loss. This is a valuable insight with considerable analytical traction. To take the point further, their idea could be usefully extended to encompass the idea of “Exclusion's Multiple Edges,” moving beyond the binary of exclusion and access to consider the spaces that exist between being fully excluded and having complete access. The authors frequently refer to people who are either excluded or not, but their own empirical material seems to points to a framing that considers in more depth the nuanced varieties of exclusion and access that occur over space and time. In much the same ways as boundaries are presently seen as varyingly fuzzy, broad, contested and conditional, and never static, exclusion too, is frequently partial and incomplete, and is always shifting, something I think the authors would have been well positioned to discuss more considering their thought-provoking field observations.Overall, Powers of Exclusion provides an excellent balance between easily accessible theory and well described and analyzed empirical material. Apart from being of considerable scholarly value, the book represents a useful teaching tool for upper level undergraduate or graduate courses. Practitioners should also find it thought provoking. I certainly plan to make use of it!

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Asian StudiesSame topicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical StudiesFrench-language works237,207