Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies 第一、二章的英文與機械翻譯中文（google）對照

 

Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies 第一、二章的英文與機械翻譯中文（google）對照

Foreword	前言
Tania Murray Li	塔妮亞·穆雷·李
Let me begin with a stark but simple fact: more people than ever before make their homes in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, in whole or in part. Although the percentage of the global population classified as rural is declining, World Bank data show that the net number of people who live in rural areas continues to increase: from 2 billion in 1960 to 3 billion in 1990 and 3.4 billion in 2020. Anyone interested in global affairs should seek to be informed about the rural half of the global population, and yet rural people are largely absent from public and academic discourse, except perhaps at election time. A key reason for their absence is the stubbornly persistent modernization narrative which suggests that rural populations are anachronistic: they belong to the past, and sooner or later they too will move to cities and join the march of progress, enlightenment-style. From this perspective it is not worth worrying too much about who they are or how they live, how national and global currents affect them or their aspirations for themselves or their children. The only question seems to be how to move them more quickly along the transition path – out of their small farms and businesses into bigger, more capital-intensive ones; or off the land altogether, in order to free up space for large-scale corporate agriculture, extractive industries, conservation schemes or urban sprawl.	讓我從一個強而有力但簡單的事實開始：比以往任何時候都有更多的人在農村地區安家，並且全部或部分依賴農業為生。儘管全球農村人口的比例正在下降，但世界銀行的數據顯示，居住在農村地區的淨人口數量持續增加：從1960年的20億增加到1990年的30億和2020年的34億。全球事務應設法了解佔全球人口一半的農村人口，但農村人口基本上缺席公共和學術討論，也許除了選舉期間。他們缺席的一個關鍵原因是頑固地持續的現代化敘事，它表明農村人口是不合時宜的：他們屬於過去，遲早他們也會搬到城市，加入啟蒙式的進步行列。從這個角度來看，不值得過度擔心他們是誰或他們如何生活，國家和全球潮流如何影響他們或他們對自己或孩子的願望。唯一的問題似乎是如何讓他們更快走上轉型之路——從小農場和企業轉向更大、資本更密集的企業；或完全脫離土地，以便為大規模企業農業、採礦業、保護計畫或城市擴張騰出空間。
Critical agrarian studies, the subject of this volume, begins from a different premise: rural people will continue to occupy the countryside for many generations to come, and their actions will shape the course of history in the future, as they did in the past. Critical agrarian studies is critical of versions of modernization and Marxian theory which endlessly rehearse transition narratives in which all the people of the world will travel along a single pathway whose destination is known in advance. Its focus is agrarian in the sense that it foregrounds the people, processes and powers at play in the rural or peri-urban spaces where food, fuel and fodder are produced; and where different actors compete over land, water and other resources. Most significantly it is a rich field of study animated by a sense that – shorn of transition narratives – there is a great deal we should know about rural people and rural spaces, and their radically heterogeneous trajectories in different parts of the world.	批判性土地研究作為本書的主題，始於一個不同的前提：農村人民將在未來的許多世代中繼續佔據農村，他們的行為將塑造未來的歷史進程，就像他們過去所做的那樣。批判性土地研究對現代化和馬克思主義理論的版本提出了批評，這些理論無休止地演練過渡敘事，在這些敘事中，世界上所有人都將沿著一條預先知道目的地的單一道路行駛。它的重點是農業，因為它突顯了在生產糧食、燃料和飼料的農村或郊區空間中發揮作用的人員、過程和權力；不同的參與者爭奪土地、水和其他資源。最重要的是，它是一個豐富的研究領域，它充滿了一種感覺——拋開轉型敘事——我們應該了解很多關於農村人口和農村空間，以及他們在世界不同地區截然不同的軌跡。
Core questions posed by scholars working in the tradition of critical agrarian studies are empirical, conceptual and political. Empirically, if we do not assume that rural populations are disappearing or that the trajectory of change is the same world-over, some important questions follow. For example: How do rural people use land and how is their access to (and exclusion from) land and water changing? What are the resources they rely on to sustain themselves (e.g. farms, wages, remittances, transfers, rent)? How do they mobilize to defend their livelihoods or to improve upon their situation? How does competition over resources play out? The conceptual questions stem from the challenge of pursuing empirical research that is theoretically guided but open-ended. Scholars work with theories that raise questions about how capital, class, caste, race, gender, generation and ecology shape rural trajectories, while remaining alert to their intersections and site-specific constellations. The political questions are perhaps the most urgent. Many scholars in the critical agrarian studies tradition are ‘scholar-activists’ who work closely with agrarian social movements, or who move between activist and scholarly positions. Their questions concern the transformational possibilities that emerge when rural people are recognized as actors who are always already engaged in the production of new worlds. These worlds are shaped – but not determined – by national and global flows of capital, legal and policy regimes, and political alliances; understanding them demands the kinds of multi-scalar and multi-disciplinary analyses at which many agrarian scholars excel. By assembling leading-edge scholarship on these topics and more, this volume makes an essential contribution.	從事批判土地研究傳統的學者所提出的核心問題是經驗性的、概念性的和政治性的。根據經驗，如果我們不假設農村人口正在消失，或是世界範圍內的變化軌跡相同，那麼就會出現一些重要問題。例如：農村人口如何使用土地以及他們獲得（和排除）土地和水的機會發生了怎樣的變化？他們依靠什麼資源來維持生計（例如農場、工資、匯款、轉移、租金）？他們如何動員起來捍衛自己的生計或改善自己的處境？資源競爭如何發展？概念性問題源自於追求有理論指導但開放式的實證研究的挑戰。學者研究的理論提出了資本、階級、種姓、種族、性別、世代和生態如何塑造農村軌跡的問題，同時對它們的交叉點和特定地點的星座保持警惕。政治問題也許是最迫切的。批判土地研究傳統中的許多學者都是“學者活動家”，他們與土地社會運動密切合作，或在活動家和學術立場之間移動。他們的問題涉及當農村人口被視為始終已經參與新世界生產的參與者時出現的變革可能性。這些世界是由國家和全球流動所塑造的，但不是決定的 資本、法律與政治體制以及政治聯盟；要理解它們需要進行多尺度和多學科的分析，而許多農業學者都擅長這種分析。透過匯集這些主題及其他主題的前沿學術成果，本書做出了重要貢獻。

 

Acknowledgements	致謝
In May 2017 Harry Fabian of Edward Elgar Publishing approached A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi to enquire whether he would be interested in editing a volume on contemporary research agendas in agrarian studies. Over the next couple of months this idea developed into something somewhat different: a handbook of critical agrarian studies. Knowing the scale of a project designed in part to define the undefined, Ben McKay agreed to join as a co-editor in June, and Kristina Dietz and Bettina Engels joined the project in November. A first draft of the proposed contents and the contributors to be invited was agreed in February 2018. When invitations to contribute started to go out in the late winter of 2018 what was striking was the speed with which contributors agreed to participate, reflecting the extent of the excitement generated by the prospect of this Handbook. In May 2019, under the auspices of the Global Change – Local Conflicts (GLOCON) research programme at the Freie Universität in Berlin, a small selection of the contributions to the Handbook were reviewed by peers within the field. Similarly, in July 2019, under the auspices of the University of Waterloo and the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Kitchener/Waterloo, Canada, a second small selection of contributions to the Handbook were peer reviewed. What was notable about both was the level of engagement of the contributors with the project; debates were vigorous, rigorous and yet exceptionally good-natured. Yet, as with all such projects, there was still a great deal of work to be done before the final manuscript was ready to be delivered to Edward Elgar Publishing in March 2021. While it is the contributors, first of all, to which we owe our thanks, for their willingness and effort to have made this Handbook possible and – hopefully – a success, we would like to more generally thank all those colleagues who have contributed, in different ways, to this Handbook. We owe many thanks to Commissioning Editor Katy Crossan, Senior Assistant Editor Stephanie Hartley, Senior Desk Editor Christine Gowen, proofreader Gill Wheatley and the entire production team at Edward Elgar Publishing for their excellent work and acceptance of a manuscript that turned out to be much, much larger than originally anticipated.	2017 年 5 月，Edward Elgar Publishing 的 Harry Fabian 聯絡 A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi ，詢問他是否有興趣編輯一本關於當代農業研究議程的書。在接下來的幾個月裡，這個想法發展成了一些不同的東西：一本批判性農業研究手冊。 Ben McKay 知道這個計畫的規模在一定程度上是為了定義未定義的事物，因此於 6 月同意作為聯合編輯加入，Kristina Dietz 和 Bettina Engels 於 11 月加入該計畫。擬議內容和受邀貢獻者的初稿於 2018 年 2 月達成一致。當貢獻邀請於 2018 年冬末開始發出時，貢獻者同意參與的速度令人震驚，這反映了貢獻者參與的程度。本手冊的前景所帶來的興奮。 2019 年 5 月，在Freie 的全球變遷 – 地方衝突 (GLOCON) 研究計畫的支持下 在柏林大學，本手冊的一小部分內容經過了該領域同行的評審。同樣，2019 年 7 月，在滑鐵盧大學和加拿大基奇納/滑鐵盧巴爾斯利國際事務學院的贊助下，對手冊的第二小部分貢獻進行了同行評審。兩者值得注意的是貢獻者對專案的參與程度；辯論激烈、嚴謹，但氣氛異常友善。然而，與所有此類項目一樣，在最終手稿準備好於 2021 年 3 月交付給愛德華·埃爾加出版社之前，仍有大量工作要做。首先，我們要感謝貢獻者我們感謝他們的意願和努力，使本手冊成為可能並希望取得成功，我們要更廣泛地感謝所有以不同方式為本手冊做出貢獻的同事。我們非常感謝委託編輯凱蒂·克羅桑（Katy Crossan ）、高級助理編輯斯蒂芬妮·哈特利（Stephanie Hartley）、高級編輯克里斯汀·高文（Christine Gowen） 、校對員吉爾·惠特利（Gill Wheatley）以及愛德華·埃爾加出版公司的整個製作團隊，感謝他們的出色工作和對稿件的接受，結果證明，比最初預期的要大得多。
A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi would like to thank generations of undergraduate and graduate students at London South Bank University, the International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam and Trent University in Peterborough, Canada for the contributions that they have made to establishing the need for this Handbook. Their engagement with and questioning of agrarian political economy and critical agrarian studies has made him a better scholar, and for that he is in their debt. He would also like to thank Catherine, Cameron and Ròisìn, who have been exceptionally gracious in accepting the absences that work on a project like this entails. Finally, he would like to dedicate his work on this project to his sister, Soraiya, who died while it was being steered toward completion. Ben McKay is grateful to the network of critical agrarian scholar-activists at the International Institute of Social Studies, as well as his colleagues from the BRICS Initiative for Critical Agrarian Studies, the Emancipatory Rural Politics Initiative and the Land Deal Politics Initiative for their rigorous work, vibrant discussions and debates over the years, which have certainly shaped and helped define this emerging field of study. He would also like to thank Chelsea Klinke for her excellent copy-editing work. Finally, a very special thanks to his support team – Carolina, Sophia and Thomas. Kristina Dietz and Bettina Engels are indebted to the fantastic GLOCON team and GLOCON’s extended family all over the world, who have sustained and accompanied this and many other joint projects. A huge thanks also to Robin Faißt, Zoe Goldstein, Alina Heuser, Karin Hülsmann, Isabella Pfusterer and Mirka Schäfer for invaluable support in copy-editing the chapters.	A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi衷心感謝倫敦南岸大學、鹿特丹伊拉斯姆斯大學國際社會研究所和加拿大彼得伯勒特倫特大學的幾代本科生和研究生為建立這一需求所做的貢獻對於本手冊。他們對土地政治經濟學和批判性土地研究的參與和質疑使他成為一個更好的學者，為此他應該感謝他們。他也要感謝凱瑟琳、卡梅倫和羅伊森，他們非常慷慨地接受了此類計畫所需的缺席。最後，他想將自己在這個專案上所做的工作獻給他的妹妹Soraiya ，她在專案接近完成的過程中去世了。本·麥凱感謝國際社會研究所的批判性土地學者活動家網絡，以及金磚國家批判性土地研究倡議、解放農村政治倡議和土地交易政治倡議的同事所做的嚴謹工作多年來充滿活力的討論和辯論，無疑地塑造並幫助定義了這個新興的研究領域。他也要感謝 Chelsea Klinke出色的文案編輯工作。最後，非常特別感謝他的支援團隊 – Carolina、Sophia 和托馬斯。 Kristina Dietz 和 Bettina Engels 非常感謝出色的 GLOCON 團隊和遍布世界各地的 GLOCON 大家庭，他們支持並陪伴了這個計畫以及許多其他聯合計畫。非常感謝 Robin Faißt 、Zoe Goldstein、Alina Heuser、Karin Hülsmann 、Isabella Pfusterer和Mirka 感謝Schäfer在章節編輯上提供的寶貴支援。

 

1.      An introduction to the Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies	1.      批判土地研究手冊簡介
A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Kristina Dietz, Bettina Engels and Ben M. McKay	A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi、Kristina Dietz、Bettina Engels 與 Ben M. McKay
When Marc Edelman and Wendy Wolford (2017) published ‘Introduction: Critical Agrarian Studies in Theory and Practice’, it represented a significant intervention to seek to realign a number of heterodox strands of rural development theory and practice. Strikingly, none of the references in their article actually contained the phrase ‘critical agrarian studies’. The phrase itself has its most direct origin in the creation, in 2009, of the Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies at the International Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. The Initiative describes itself as:	當馬克·埃德爾曼和溫迪·沃爾福德（2017）發表《引言：理論與實踐中的批判性土地研究》時，它代表了一次重大干預，旨在尋求重新調整農村發展理論和實踐中的一些非正統流派。引人注目的是，他們文章中的參考文獻其實都沒有包含「批判土地研究」一詞。這個短語本身最直接的起源是 2009 年海牙國際社會研究所發起的批判土地研究倡議。該倡議將自己描述為：
a community of like-minded critical scholars, development practitioners and movement activists from different parts of the world who are working on agrarian issues. It responds to the need for an initiative that builds and focuses on linkages, and advocates a mutually reinforcing co-production and mutually beneficial sharing of knowledge. (ISS n.d.)	這是一個由來自世界各地志同道合的批判學者、發展實踐者和運動積極分子組成的社區，他們致力於解決土地問題。它滿足了建立並專注於聯繫的倡議的需要，並倡導相互加強的共同生產和互惠互利的知識共享。 （國際太空站日期）
This description, however, does not actually state what is meant by critical agrarian studies. In this light, Edelman and Wolford’s paper represents the first attempt to map out the meaning of the field and, as such, it ambitiously seeks to shape the future of a pluralist field of study, action and advocacy rooted in peasant studies and the broader field of critical development studies (Veltmeyer, this volume). Critical agrarian studies represents a field of research that unites critical scholars from various disciplines concerned with understanding agrarian life, livelihoods, formations and their processes of change. It is ‘critical’ in the sense that it seeks to challenge dominant frameworks and ideas in order to reveal and challenge power structures and thus open up the possibilities for change. Claiming to combine research and activism, it is ‘an institutionalized academic field, and an informal network (or various networks) that links professional intellectuals, agriculturalists, scientific journals and alternative media, and non-governmental development organizations, as well as activists’ (Edelman and Wolford 2017, 962).	然而，這種描述其實並沒有說明批判性土地研究的涵義。有鑑於此，埃德爾曼和沃爾福德的論文代表了首次嘗試闡明該領域的含義，因此，它雄心勃勃地尋求塑造植根於農民研究和更廣泛領域的多元化研究、行動和倡導領域的未來關鍵發展研究（ Veltmeyer ，本卷）。批判性土地研究代表了一個研究領域，它將來自不同學科的批判學者聯合起來，專注於理解農業生活、生計、形態及其變化過程。它是“批判性的”，因為它尋求挑戰主導框架和思想，以揭示和挑戰權力結構，從而開啟變革的可能性。它聲稱將研究與行動主義結合起來，是「一個體制化的學術領域，以及一個將專業知識分子、農業學家、科學期刊和另類媒體、非政府發展組織以及活動家聯繫起來的非正式網絡（或各種網路）」。愛德曼和沃爾福德 2017, 962）。
Edelman and Wolford (2017) stress that ‘critical frameworks … call into question dominant paradigms’. In international development studies, the dominant paradigm remains, still, modernization theory, which emerged in the 1950s. It is predicated on a dualism: that ‘traditional’ small-scale subsistence-oriented agriculture must be transformed into ‘modern’ capital-intensive market-oriented agriculture, and that this requires that the bulk of farmers eventually seek out off-farm livelihoods as waged workers or entrepreneurs in manufacturing and services. This approach to rural development remains predominant within the management of the World Bank; it is implicit within some strands of the United Nations such as divisions of the Food and Agriculture Organization; it lies behind the contemporary teaching of agricultural economics in most universities around the world; and in many countries, it is the foundation upon which ministries of agriculture and their ‘partners’ from bi- and multilateral donor agencies operate. Scholars from critical agrarian studies do not accept this paradigm, suggesting that it is predicated on the need to subsume everything to the market, to transform labour, natural resources, the means of production, goods and services into commodities, based on taken-for-granted principles of private property rights, money and competition—in short: capitalism (van der Linden 2016, 256f.). These values and principles are, in mainstream development theory and politics, associated with modernity, but are historically such recent social constructions that they are a dramatic ‘break with the past’ (Edelman and Wolford 2017, 961), in that the forms of knowledge they promote are not open-ended but rather closed-off. Closed bodies of knowledge make historically constructed social structures and institutions appear to be the inevitable way societies must be ordered. As opposed to this, the identification and analysis of biases within dominant paradigms in social science is done in order to construct ‘alternative forms of knowing and of acting in the world’ (Edelman and Wolford 2017, 962). This is the overarching purpose of critical agrarian studies.	Edelman 和 Wolford（2017）強調「關鍵架構…對主導典範提出質疑」。在國際發展研究中，主導典範仍是20世紀50年代出現的現代化理論。它基於二元論進行預測：「傳統」的小規模自給型農業必須轉變為「現代」資本密集的市場化農業，而這要求廣大農民最終尋求非農生計，以謀生。製造業和服務業的受薪工人或企業家。這種農村發展方法在世界銀行的管理中仍然占主導地位；它隱含在聯合國的某些部門中，例如糧食及農業組織的各部門；它是世界上大多數大學當代農業經濟學教學的基礎；在許多國家，它是 農業部及其來自雙邊和多邊捐助機構的「夥伴」運作的基礎。從事批判性土地研究的學者不接受這種範式，認為它的前提是需要將一切納入市場，將勞動力、自然資源、生產資料、商品和服務轉化為商品，其基礎是「取而代之」。授予私有產權、金錢與競爭原則－簡而言之：資本主義（van der Linden 2016，256f.）。在主流發展理論和政治中，這些價值和原則與現代性相關，但從歷史上看，它們是最近的社會建構，以至於它們是戲劇性的「與過去的決裂」（Edelman and Wolford 2017, 961） ，因為這些價值觀和原則他們所宣揚的知識不是開放式的，而是封閉式的。封閉的知識體系使得歷史建構的社會結構和體制似乎成為社會有序化的必然方式。與此相反，對社會科學主流範式中的偏見進行識別和分析是為了建構「世界上認知和行動的替代形式」（Edelman and Wolford 2017, 962）。這是批判農業研究的首要目的。
In the remainder of this introductory chapter, we review the emergence of critical agrarian studies vis-à-vis its relationship with peasant studies. We then discuss the relationship between agrarian political economy and critical agrarian studies. Finally, the concluding section presents the structure of this Handbook.	在本介紹章節的其餘部分中，我們回顧批判性土地研究的出現及其與農民研究的關係。然後我們討論土地政治經濟學和批判土地研究之間的關係。最後，結論部分介紹了本手冊的結構。
FROM PEASANT STUDIES TO CRITICAL AGRARIAN STUDIES	從農民研究到批判性土地研究
As a field of study, the origin of critical agrarian studies lies in peasant studies, which as a distinct field of investigation emerged during the 1960s and early 1970s, rooted in various complementary but distinct epistemological approaches: theories of agrarian change derived from the classical analysis of the agrarian question (originally tracing back to Kautsky 1899; see Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2010; Watts, this volume); agrarian Marxism (Levien et al. 2018; Akram-Lodhi and Kay, this volume); the Indian ‘mode of production’ debate (Patnaik 1990); quantitative analysis of agricultural data sets that featured in the analysis of the Organization and Production School (Chayanov 1986 [1925]); and the finely grained, intimately detailed ethnographic analysis that featured in the work of anthropologists who often took their initial impetus from the work of such luminaries as Eric Wolf, Maurice Godelier, Jack Goody and Sidney Mintz. In the field of peasant studies, Marxist agrarian political economy or radical agrarian populist lenses often framed central research questions and empirical knowledge was generated drawing on various research approaches and methods from sociology, political science, economics, human geography and social anthropology. Cumulatively, manifold insights into and analysis of social change in rural societies around the world were established in the peasant studies literature.	作為一個研究領域，批判土地研究的起源在於農民研究，它作為一個獨特的研究領域出現在20 世紀60 年代和1970 年代初期，植根於各種互補但又不同的知識論方法：源自古典分析的土地變遷理論土地問題（最初追溯到考茨基1899 年；參見Akram-Lodhi和 Kay 2010；瓦茨，本卷）；農業馬克思主義（ Levien et al. 2018； Akram-Lodhi and Kay，本卷）；印度「生產方式」辯論（Patnaik 1990）；農業資料集的定量分析，以組織和生產學派的分析為特色（ Chayanov 1986 [1925]）；人類學家的工作中以細緻入微、細緻入微的民族誌分析為特色，他們的最初動力往往來自埃里克·沃爾夫、莫里斯·戈德利爾、傑克·古迪和西德尼·明茨等傑出人物的工作。在農民研究領域，馬克思主義土地政治經濟學或激進的土地民粹主義視角常常框定中心研究問題，並利用社會學、政治學、經濟、人文地理學和社會人類學的各種研究途徑和方法產生經驗知識。農民研究文獻逐漸建立了對世界各地農村社會社會變遷的多種見解和分析。
In the past 25 years, this thread of theoretical and methodological approaches has, to a degree, unravelled. Rural research framed by the central concerns of the agrarian question has declined as social science orthodoxies tend to marginalize critical analysis, particularly in undergraduate university programmes and in policy-oriented research by think tanks, consultancies and international agencies. The agrarian question is fundamentally concerned with whether and to what extent capitalism is emerging in farming and agriculture, and the forms by which it does or does not emerge. However, in much of orthodox social science, capitalism is now taken for granted. The quantitative analysis of large data sets has now become the preserve of resolutely neoclassical economists, who have shaped statistical tools to reflect their concerns, in ways that can seriously compromise the reliability of the data that are collected and the resulting analysis that is produced (Akram-Lodhi 2010, 570–571; Oya and Pontara 2015). Many contemporary ethnographers are less interested in the rural, and those that are face significant personal, professional and financial constraints if they want to engage in the serious long-term work of understanding the detailed nuances of a rural social formation and the processes of change within which it is enmeshed (Greco, this volume).	在過去的 25 年裡，這條理論和方法論的線索在某種程度上已經瓦解了。由於社會科學正統觀念傾向於邊緣化批判性分析，以土地問題為中心關注的農村研究已經衰落，特別是在本科大學課程以及智囊團、諮詢機構和國際機構的政策導向研究中。土地問題從根本上涉及資本主義在農業中是否出現、在何種程度上出現，以及資本主義出現或不出現的形式。然而，在許多正統社會科學中，資本主義現在被認為是理所當然的。大數據集的定量分析現在已成為堅決的新古典經濟學家的專利，他們塑造了統計工具來反映他們的擔憂，但其方式可能會嚴重損害所收集數據和所產生的分析結果的可靠性（阿克拉姆） -Lodhi 2010, 570–571； Oya和Pontara 2015）。許多當代民族誌學家對農村不太感興趣，如果他們想要從事認真的長期工作，了解農村社會形態的細微差別以及農村內部的變化過程，他們就面臨著巨大的個人、專業和財務限制。它被捲入其中（Greco，本卷）。
The emergence of critical agrarian studies as a field of study is a response to the unravelling of the diverse approaches that have constituted peasant studies. With the latter, it shares Marxism as one of its common theoretical grounds, and thus engages with the processes, implications and limitations of pervasive capitalist insinuation into the agricultural sector; i.e. its transformation from subsistence and small-holder to capitalist production, including the separation of labour and the means of production, and its effects on class structure (Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2010, 179). Class is a key, though of course not the only, category of social structure and identity. How agrarian classes are historically and contemporarily formed, reproduced, transformed and cease to be is a central component of the analytical framework of critical agrarian studies. Class analysis is clearly more nuanced if it is multidimensional, identifying and exploring the cultural, ecological, social, political and economic factors and forces that facilitate or impede class formation.	批判性土地研究作為一個研究領域的出現是對構成農民研究的多種方法的瓦解的回應。與後者一樣，它以馬克思主義為共同的理論基礎之一，因此涉及資本主義滲透到農業部門的過程、影響和限制；即從自給自足和小農生產到資本主義生產的轉變，包括勞動和生產資料的分離，及其對階級結構的影響（ Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2010, 179）。階級是社會結構和認同的關鍵類別，儘管當然不是唯一的類別。土地階級如何在歷史上和當代形成、再生產、轉變和消亡是批判土地研究分析框架的核心組成部分。如果階級分析是多維的，可以辨識和探索促進或阻礙階級形成的文化、生態、社會、政治和經濟因素和力量，那麼階級分析顯然會更加細緻。
Critical agrarian studies often combines micro- and macro-level analyses, connecting individual and local dynamics with the global political economy, and by embedding its analysis and findings within the context of global processes such as the ecological, climate and energy crisis, financialization, COVID-19 or geopolitical transformations (see Hunsberger; Clapp and Isakson; Akram-Lodhi, Oliveira and McKay, all in this volume). In providing this macro and global context, critical agrarian studies goes significantly beyond the terrain of peasant studies as it developed in the 1970s. It connects the local to the global, in terms of both structures and agency, incorporates a plurality of perspectives and this, in an era of neoliberal globalization, allows it to ask a broad set of questions that point toward alternatives (see Bush; Dietz and Engels, this volume).	批判性土地研究通常將微觀和宏觀層面的分析結合起來，將個人和地方的動態與全球政治經濟聯繫起來，並將其分析和發現嵌入到生態、氣候和能源危機、金融化、新冠疫情等全球在進程的背景中。 Covid-19 或地緣政治轉型（參見Hunsberger ；Clapp 和 Isakson； Akram-Lodhi 、Oliveira 和 McKay，均在本卷中）。在提供這種宏觀和全球背景時，批判性農業研究明顯超出了 20 世紀 70 年代發展起來的農民研究的領域。它將地方與全球在結構和機構方面聯繫起來，納入了多元化的觀點，在新自由主義全球化時代，這使得它能夠提出一系列指向替代方案的廣泛問題（見布希、迪茨和恩格斯，本卷）。
Critical agrarian studies starts from a critique of ‘peasant essentialism’ that was widespread, including among critical scholars, in the 1970s and 1980s. Peasants do not form a homogenous class, nor are rural populations limited to peasants. Rather, the livelihoods of people living in the countryside build on animal husbandry and pastoralism, fisheries, paid labour in both the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, both formal and informal, crafts, trading, artisanal mining and many others. Analyses of agrarian structures and change reveal how the peasantry relates to other social classes in terms of property relations, capital–labour relations and rural–urban relations (Bernstein and Byres 2001, 8). Whereas historical debates on agrarian questions were based on a much sharper line between the city and the countryside, it has now become a key assumption of critical agrarian studies that the rural and the urban are mutually constitutive of each other, in particular concerning patterns and linkages of production, distribution and consumption that increasingly transcend national borders.	批判性土地研究始於對 20 世紀 70 年代和 80 年代廣泛傳播的「農民本質主義」的批判，其中包括批判學者。農民並不構成一個同質性的階級，農村人口也不限於農民。相反，生活在農村的人們的生計建立在畜牧業和畜牧業、漁業、農業和非農業部門（正規和非正規）的有償勞動、手工藝、貿易、手工採礦等許多其他部門。對土地結構和變化的分析揭示了農民如何在財產關係、資本-勞動關係和城鄉關係方面與其他社會階層建立聯繫（Bernstein and Byres 2001, 8）。儘管歷史上關於土地問題的爭論是建立在城市與鄉村之間更為清晰的界限的基礎上的，但現在鄉村與城市是相互構成的，特別是在模式和聯繫方面，這已成為批判性土地研究的一個關鍵假設。生產、分配和消費日益超越國界。
FROM AGRARIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY TO CRITICAL AGRARIAN STUDIES	從農業政治經濟學到批判性農業研究
Scholars in critical agrarian studies often analyse agrarian change through an agrarian political economy lens by focusing on patterns of accumulation; on processes of production, i.e. the distribution of the means of production, technological changes and labour commodification; and on how agrarian politics interact with processes of accumulation and production. As defined in the mission statement of one of the leading journals in the field, the Journal of Agrarian Change, agrarian political economy investigates ‘the social relations and dynamics of production and reproduction, property and power in agrarian formations and their processes of change, both historical and contemporary’ (Bernstein 2010, 1). Henry Bernstein, in his fundamental ‘small’ book on Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change, summarizes this focus through four guiding questions (Bernstein 2010, 22–24): Who owns what? Who does what? Who gets what? What do they do with it? These four questions align with changes in: access and control over resources; agricultural production, most notably the distribution of assets, the capture of the benefits of technical change by social forces, and processes of commodification; the accumulation that emerges out of changing technical coefficients of production; and the political implications, across a myriad variety of forms, of changing patterns of production and growth. Cumulatively, these changes may or may not facilitate the rural transformation that is the object of knowledge among scholars and the purpose of action among advocates. However, the analysis of actually existing rural societies cannot limit itself to what was, within the agrarian question literature, an evaluation of the political economy of production, distribution, accumulation, consumption and the structural and institutional governance of these stocks and flows, but must also, critically, integrate within its arguments the socio-cultural dimensions of these processes.	從事批判性土地研究的學者經常透過土地政治經濟學的視角來分析土地變化，並專注於累積模式；關於生產過程，即生產資料的分配、技術變革和勞動力商品化；以及土地政治如何與累積和生產過程相互作用。正如該領域領先期刊之一《土地變化雜誌》的使命宣言所定義的，土地政治經濟學研究“生產和再生產的社會關係和動態、土地形態中的財產和權力及其變化過程，歷史和當代” （Bernstein 2010，1）。亨利·伯恩斯坦（Henry Bernstein）在他關於農業變革的階級動態的基本「小」書中，透過四個指導性問題總結了這一焦點（Bernstein 2010，22-24）：誰擁有什麼？誰做了什麼？誰得到什麼？他們用它做什麼？這四個問題與以下方面的變化一致：對資源的存取和控制；農業生產，尤其是資產的分配、社會力量對技術變革的好處的取得、商品化過程；生產技術係數變化而產生的累積；以及生產和成長模式變化的各種形式的政治影響。總的來說，這些變化可能會也可能不會促進鄉村轉型，而鄉村轉型是學者們的知識對象和倡導者的行動目的。然而，對實際存在的農村社會的分析不能局限於土地問題文獻中對生產、分配、積累、消費的政治經濟以及這些存量和流量的結構和體制治理的評估，而必須此外，批判性地將這些過程的社會文化向度納入其論點。
Critical agrarian studies has a broader approach to agrarian questions, reflective of its more open and pluralist lines of inquiry. More recent contributions to the field emphasize the importance of ‘local and national dynamics’ (Bush and Martiniello 2017, 200). These studies investigate the respective histories of social struggles related to the economic valuation of agriculture under different systems (colonialism, capitalism, socialism) and the historical production of the social world. They look at the various dimensions of structural change in the countryside, and at human–nature and nature–culture relations (see Nightingale and Harcourt; Copeland, this volume). They go beyond rural–urban linkages by exploring ‘nature in the city’ and similar planning logics in urban and rural settings (Edelman and Wolford 2017; Watts 2009; Tornaghi and Halder, this volume).	批判性土地研究對土地問題有更廣泛的研究方法，反映了其更開放和多元化的探究路線。最近對該領域的貢獻強調了「地方和國家動態」的重要性（Bush 和Martiniello 2017，200）。這些研究調查了不同體制（殖民主義、資本主義、社會主義）下與農業經濟價值相關的社會鬥爭的歷史以及社會世界的歷史生產。他們著眼於鄉村結構變化的各個方面，以及人與自然和自然與文化的關係（見南丁格爾和哈考特；科普蘭，本卷）。他們透過探索「城市中的自然」以及城鄉環境中的類似規劃邏輯，超越了城鄉連結（Edelman 和 Wolford 2017；Watts 2009； Tornaghi和Halder ，本卷）。
As Edelman and Wolford (2017, 963) put it, ‘[c]ritical agrarian studies, like the Marxism on which it draws, is not a consensus field’. However, Marxist perspectives still remain a central theoretical foundation to critical agrarian studies, though not all empirical studies in the field explicitly refer to it. As Edelman and Wolford (2017, 965) note, the ‘institutional forms’ that critical agrarian studies takes are epitomized by the Journal of Peasant Studies and the Journal of Agrarian Change. Both of these journals were founded by Terence J. Byres, who co-edited both with Henry Bernstein. Under their editorships, both journals utilized explicitly Marxist theoretical frameworks to guide the empirical studies that they published. However, when the editorship of the Journal of Peasant Studies passed to Saturnino M. Borras, Jr., the journal adopted a more pluralist heterodox standpoint, continuing to publish papers within a Marxist framework but also publishing work rooted in critical non-Marxist social theory, such as radical agrarian populism, among others. However, while there are diverse analytical categories, class dynamics around land and labour remain central, as is reflected in this Handbook. In line with critical agrarian studies in general, the way categories are conceptualized vary depending on epistemological approaches and analytical aims. But beyond theoretical and methodological variation, scholars in the field are increasingly united by the claim that research and activism need to be linked to each other. This is equally reflected in the way Marxism is understood in critical agrarian studies: not as a theory for its own sake, but as a political intervention.	正如 Edelman 和 Wolford (2017, 963) 所說，「批判性土地研究，就像它所依據的馬克思主義一樣，並不是共識領域」。然而，馬克思主義觀點仍然是批判性土地研究的核心理論基礎，儘管並非該領域的所有實證研究都明確提及它。正如 Edelman 和 Wolford (2017, 965) 所指出的，批判性土地研究所採取的「體制形式」以《農民研究雜誌》和《土地變革雜誌》為縮影。這兩本期刊均由特倫斯·J·拜爾斯 (Terence J. Byres) 創辦，他與亨利·伯恩斯坦 (Henry Bernstein) 共同編輯。在他們的編輯下，這兩本期刊都明確地利用馬克思主義理論架構來指導他們發表的實證研究。然而，當《農民研究雜誌》的編輯權交給小薩圖尼諾· M ·博拉斯時，該雜誌採取了更加多元化的非正統立場，繼續發表馬克思主義框架內的論文，但也發表根植於批判非馬克思主義社會理論的作品，如基進農業民粹主義等。然而，儘管有各種分析類別，但正如本手冊所反映的那樣，圍繞土地和勞動力的階級動態仍然是核心。與一般的批判性農業研究一致，類別概念化的方式根據認識論方法和分析目的而有所不同。但除了理論和方法論上的差異之外，該領域的學者們越來越一致地認為，研究和行動主義需要相互連結。這同樣反映在批判性土地研究中對馬克思主義的理解方式：不是作為一種理論本身，而是作為一種政治干預。
THE EDWARD ELGAR HANDBOOK OF CRITICAL AGRARIAN STUDIES	愛德華‧埃爾加批判土地研究手冊
Critical agrarian studies is an emerging rather than an established field. Far from being a monolithic theory on agrarian issues, it is characterized by theoretical and methodological pluralism and innovation. Its internal variety, controversies and even contradictions represent its strengths rather than a weakness. This Handbook does not try to impose any theoretical standpoint but rather it seeks to bring together a wide range of contributions from scholars of various backgrounds and perspectives who are united by their enthusiasm for critical analysis of, and controversies about, historical and contemporary social structures and processes in agrarian and rural settings. The Handbook consists of 72 chapters, including this introduction. It brings together many of the leading scholars in critical agrarian studies, and attempts to lay down the key parameters of an emerging field by subdividing the chapters into six parts:	批判農業研究是一個新興領域，而不是一個成熟的領域。它並非關於土地問題的單一理論，而是具有理論和方法論的多元化和創新性。它內部的多樣性、爭議甚至矛盾代表了它的優勢而不是劣勢。本手冊並非試圖強加任何理論立場，而是力求匯集來自不同背景和觀點的學者的廣泛貢獻，這些學者因對歷史和當代社會結構和社會結構的批判性分析和爭議的熱情而團結在一起。農業和農村環境中的過程。本手冊包含 72 章，包括本簡介。它匯集了許多批判性土地研究領域的頂尖學者，並試圖透過將章節分為六個部分來確定一個新興領域的關鍵參數：
I. Origins: although critical agrarian studies has emerged out of an encounter with peasant studies, the historical origins of both lie in the late nineteenth century, and in the evolution of a set of ideas through the twentieth century in various world regions. The evolution of the ideas underpinning critical agrarian studies demonstrates its historically innovative character, its diversity, its pluralism and its willingness to fundamentally rethink perceived orthodoxies.	一、起源：雖然批判土地研究是在與農民研究的相遇中產生的，但兩者的歷史起源都在於十九世紀末，以及整個二十世紀世界各個地區的一系列思想的演變。支撐批判性土地研究的思想的演變表明了其歷史上的創新特徵、多樣性、多元性以及從根本上重新思考所認知的正統觀念的意願。
II. Concepts: underpinning the diverse theoretical approaches of critical agrarian studies lie a set of central concepts that are deployed in work that falls within it. Concepts explicitly or implicitly lie behind the analytical explanations and advocacy that are witnessed in the field of critical agrarian studies and understanding and interrogating such concepts is of central importance in evaluating the claims that are made within the field about understanding processes of social change.	II. 概念：批判性土地研究的多種理論方法的基礎是一系列核心概念，這些概念被部署在其所屬的工作中。批判性土地研究領域中所見證的分析解釋和倡導背後的概念明確或隱含地存在，理解和質疑這些概念對於評估社會變革過程理解領域中提出的主張至關重要。
III. Methodologies: the way in which those that work within critical agrarian studies come to ‘know’ and understand a contemporary rural setting and the changes that are being witnessed starts from different epistemologies and disciplines and the methodologies that different epistemologies and disciplines rely upon. At the same time, however, critical agrarian studies explicitly confronts the strengths and weaknesses of the epistemologies and methodologies that are adopted in order to produce understandings and explanations of social development and change that are both stronger and more finely grained.	三．方法論：從事批判性土地研究的人們「了解」和理解當代農村環境以及正在目睹的變化的方式始於不同的認識論和學科以及不同認識論和學科所依賴的方法論。然而，同時，批判性土地研究明確地面對了所採用的知識論和方法論的優點和缺點，這些知識論和方法論是為了對社會發展和變化產生更強有力和更細緻的理解和解釋。
IV.Regional perspectives: the central concerns of critical agrarian studies demonstrate both overlapping domains of investigation and debate and unique specificities when examined at the regional and subregional levels. This part of the Handbook therefore offers a limited number of perspectives from major regions and countries in order to introduce readers to how agrarian change is playing out in both similar and different ways in important contemporary rural settings.	IV.區域視角：批判性土地研究的核心關注點表明，在區域和次區域層面進行考察時，調查和辯論的領域存在重疊，並且具有獨特的特殊性。因此，手冊的這一部分提供了來自主要地區和國家的有限觀點，以便向讀者介紹 在當代重要的農村環境中，土地變化如何以相似和不同的方式發生。
V. Debates: the key areas of contemporary investigation and analysis within critical agrarian studies are wide-ranging and diverse. This part of the Handbook deploys both the key concepts within the field and the epistemologies engendered by such concepts to provide insights and arguments into some of the key domains of contemporary research and advocacy within critical agrarian studies. Thorough but by no means exclusive, this part of the Handbook will facilitate the capacity of readers to quickly come to understand a broad array of key analytical perspectives within critical agrarian studies.	V. 論點：批判農業研究中當代調查和分析的關鍵領域是廣泛而多樣的。手冊的這一部分部署了該領域的關鍵概念以及這些概念所縮小的知識論，為批判性農業研究中當代研究和倡導的一些關鍵領域提供見解和論點。手冊的這一部分內容詳盡但絕不排他，將有助於讀者快速理解批判性農業研究中廣泛的關鍵分析觀點。
VI.Trajectories: as an open-ended field of investigation and advocacy, future developments within critical agrarian studies will emerge out of both its action-oriented research as well as an intersection with and dialogue between it and other fields of research and activism. By opening up a number of intersections between critical agrarian studies and other fields it becomes clear that the forward trajectories of it remain to be defined and as such produce a rich and often yet-to-be unearthed terrain for future research and engagement.	VI.軌跡：作為一個開放式的調查和倡導領域，批判性土地研究的未來發展將來自其以行動為導向的研究以及它與其他研究和行動主義領域的交叉和對話。透過開闢批判性農業研究與其他領域之間的許多交叉點，很明顯，它的前進軌跡仍有待確定，因此為未來的研究和參與創造了豐富且往往尚未發掘的領域。
Many of the chapters could, indeed, fit into more than one section. However, by suggesting this structure, we hope to contribute to the systematization of an otherwise heterogeneous and exciting field of research. While we have attempted to be extensive in our coverage, there will no doubt be shortcomings and gaps as critical agrarian studies remains a highly diverse and emerging interdisciplinary field of study.	事實上，許多章可以分入不同區塊。然而，透過提出這種結構，我們希望為一個異質且令人興奮的研究領域的系統化做出貢獻。雖然我們試圖擴大覆蓋範圍，但毫無疑問存在缺點和差距，因為批判農業研究仍然是一個高度多樣化和新興的跨學科研究領域。
This Handbook seeks to provide students, scholars and activists with an overview of the field of critical agrarian studies and insights into its variety of epistemologies, methodologies, theoretical questions, empirical issues and contemporary debates. It will be suitable, we hope, as a book of reference and as a resource for teaching at all levels. It is also aimed at readers not yet familiar with critical agrarian studies—and if flipping through this Handbook sparks interest and motivates readers to delve deeper into the field, this joint project by a considerable number of authors will have accomplished its goal.	本手冊旨在為學生、學者和活動家提供批判農業研究領域的概述，並深入了解其各種知識論、方法論、理論問題、實證問題和當代辯論。我們希望它適合作為一本參考書和各級教學的資源。它也是針對還不熟悉批判性土地研究的讀者的——如果翻閱這本手冊能夠激發讀者的興趣並激勵讀者更深入地研究這個領域，那麼這個由相當多的作者共同完成的項目就已經達到了它的目的。
REFERENCES	參考
Akram-Lodhi, A.H. (2010), Land, labour and agrarian transition in Vietnam, Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(4), 564–580.	Akram-Lodhi ，AH（2010），越南的土地、勞動力和農業轉型，《農業變遷雜誌》，10（4），564-580。
Akram-Lodhi, A.H.; Kay, C. (2010), Surveying the agrarian question (Part 1): Unearthing foundations, exploring diversity, Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), 177–202.	阿克拉姆·洛迪，A.H.； Kay, C. (2010)，土地問題調查（第 1 部分）：挖掘基礎，探索多樣性，《農民研究雜誌》，37(1), 177–202。
Bernstein, H. (2010), Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change, Halifax: Fernwood. Bernstein, H.; Byres, T.J. (2001), From peasant studies to agrarian change, Journal of Agrarian Change, 1(1), 1–56.	Bernstein, H. (2010)，《土地變遷的階級動態》，哈利法克斯：Fernwood。伯恩斯坦，H.； Byres, TJ (2001)，從農民研究到土地變化，《土地變化雜誌》，1(1), 1-56。
Bush, R.; Martiniello, G. (2017), Food riots and protest: Agrarian modernizations and structural crises, World Development, 91, 193–207.	布希，R.； Martiniello , G. (2017)，糧食暴動與抗議：農業現代化與結構性危機，世界發展，91, 193–207。
Chayanov, A.V. (1986 [1925]), The Theory of Peasant Economy, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Edelman, M.; Wolford, W. (2017), Introduction: Critical agrarian studies in theory and practice, Antipode, 49(4), 1–18.	Chayanov ，AV（1986 [1925]），《農民經濟理論》，麥迪遜，威斯康辛州：威斯康辛大學出版社。艾德曼，M.； Wolford, W. (2017)，簡介：理論與實踐中的批判性農業研究，Antipode，49(4)，1-18。
ISS (n.d.), Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies (ICAS), The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies, accessed 26 September 2020 at www.iss.nl/en/research/research-networks/initiatives-critical -agrarian-studies.	ISS ( nd )，批判性農業研究倡議 (ICAS)，海牙：國際社會研究所，2020 年 9 月 26 日造訪 www.iss.nl/en/research/research-networks/initiatives-ritic -agrarian-studies。
Kautsky, K. (1899), Die Agrarfrage: Eine Uebersicht über die Tendenzen der modernen Landwirthschaft und die Agrarpolitik der Sozialdemokratie, Stuttgart: Dietz.	Kautsky, K. (1899)，《土地問題：現代農業趨勢與社會民主黨農業政策概述》，斯圖加特：迪茨。
Levien, M.; Watts, M.; Yan, H. (2018), Agrarian Marxism, Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(5–6), 853–883.	萊維恩，M.；瓦茨，M.；嚴浩 (2018)，《土地馬克思主義》，《農民研究期刊》，45(5-6), 853-883。
Oya, C.; Pontara, N. (2015), Rural Wage Employment in Developing Countries: Theory, Evidence, and Policy, London: Routledge.	奧亞，C.； Pontara , N. (2015)，《發展中國家的農村工資就業：理論、證據和政策》，倫敦：Routledge。
Patnaik, U. (1990), Agrarian Relations and Accumulation: The ‘Mode of Production’ Debate in India, Mumbai: Sameeksha Trust.	Patnaik, U. (1990)，土地關係與累積：印度的「生產方式」辯論，孟買： Sameeksha Trust。
van der Linden, M. (2016), Final thoughts, in Kocka, J.; van der Linden, M. (eds), Capitalism: The Reemergence of a Historical Concept, London: Bloomsbury, 251–266.	van der Linden, M. (2016)，最終想法，載於Kocka , J.； van der Linden, M.（編），《資本主義：歷史概念的重新出現》，倫敦：布魯姆斯伯里，251-266。
Watts, M. (2009), The Southern question: Agrarian questions of labour and capital, in Akram-Lodhi, A.H.; Kay, C. (eds), Peasants and Globalization: Political Economy, Rural Transformation and the Agrarian Question, London: Routledge, 262–287.	Watts, M. (2009)，南方問題：勞動力和資本的土地問題， Akram-Lodhi ，AH； Kay, C.（編），《農民與全球化：政治經濟、農村轉型與土地議題》，倫敦：勞特利奇，262-287。

 

2. Frontiers, regimes and learning from history	2. 邊界、體制和歷史教訓
Ulbe Bosma and Eric Vanhaute	烏爾伯 博斯馬和埃里克·萬豪特
Today’s world knows a wide patchwork of social and environmental regimes; some are agrarian – this pertains particularly to the poorest areas of the world – whereas others have reached the state of post-industrial societies. This global landscape of different socio-metabolic regimes constitutes a deep source of contention. It reflects huge global inequalities and is the outcome of different roles in the rise of the capitalist world economy. This contention includes questions about ecologically unequal exchange – the unequal flows of the proceeds of land and nature – the disproportionate utilization of ecological systems and the externalization of negative environmental costs by core industrializing and industrialized countries. In sum, it pertains to the prevalence of history.	當今世界的社會和環境體制錯綜複雜。有些是農業社會——尤其是世界上最貧窮的地區——而有些則達到了後工業社會的狀態。這種不同社會代謝機制的全球格局構成了爭論的深層根源。它反映了巨大的全球不平等，是資本主義世界經濟崛起過程中不同角色的結果。這個論點包括生態不平等交換的問題——土地和自然收益的不平等流動——生態系統的不成比例的利用以及核心工業化國家和工業化國家的負環境成本的外部化。總而言之，它與歷史的普遍性有關。
Global capitalist expansion derived much of its impetus from the unstinting expansion of vast rural and agrarian frontiers of labour, food, energy and raw materials. Slave-based sugar and cotton production, for example, supplied the calories and clothing that industrializing Britain could never have procured from its own soil, providing so-called ‘ecological relief’ at the expense of others (Mintz 1985; Pomeranz 2000; Bosma 2019). Up to now, capitalist growth has overcome problems related to the declining resilience of its production system thanks to the progressive incorporation and appropriation of natural resources and labour through the constant opening up of new frontier zones. Boundless accumulation and geographical appropriation have driven capitalism’s extension to new, not yet fully commodified, zones.	全球資本主義擴張的大部分動力來自於勞動力、食品、能源和原材料的廣大農村和農業邊疆的不斷擴張。例如，以奴隸為基礎的糖和棉花生產提供了工業化英國永遠無法從自己的土地上獲得的卡路里和衣服，以犧牲他人為代價提供了所謂的「生態救濟」（ Mintz 1985； Pomeranz 2000； Bosma 2019 ） ）。迄今為止，透過不斷開放新的前沿地區，逐步吸收和佔用自然資源和勞動力，資本主義成長已經克服了生產體系彈性下降的問題。無限制的累積和地理佔有推動了資本主義向新的、尚未完全商品化的地區擴張。
Capitalism’s dependence on external resources increases over time, as it requires ever larger energy inputs in order to reproduce itself. Historically natural limits have been overcome mainly through geographical expansion and production intensification. This occurs in a very unequal way. The accumulation strategies that work at the beginning of a cycle of expansion, through particular forms of science, technology, territoriality and governance, create new forms of exhaustion, which in turn increase production costs and commodity prices and reduce profits. The effects can be highly contradictory.	資本主義對外部資源的依賴隨著時間的推移而增加，因為它需要越來越大的能源投入才能自我複製。歷史上的自然限制主要是透過地理擴張和生產集約化來克服的。這是以一種非常不平等的方式發生的。在擴張週期開始時透過特定形式的科學、技術、領土和治理而發揮作用的累積策略創造了新的耗盡形式，進而增加了生產成本和商品價格並減少了利潤。其效果可能非常矛盾。
The study of multiple commodity frontiers throughout the history of capitalism helps us to map its relentless expansion, but also the unevenness and diversity of that expansion (Moore 2000, 2015; Beckert et al. 2021). The concept of the commodity frontier explains how place-specific commodity production shapes and is shaped by the socio-spatial expansion, as well as the deepening and widening, of capitalism’s social division of labour (see also Lund and Borg Rasmussen 2021). Commodity frontier expansion is the classic instance of capitalism’s ‘metabolic rift’, whereby the nutrient cycle between town and country is progressively disrupted, leading to ecological exhaustion in the countryside and worsening pollution in cities (Foster 1999).	對整個資本主義歷史中多種商品前沿的研究有助於我們描繪出其不斷的擴張，以及這種擴張的不平衡性和多樣性（Moore 2000，2015； Beckert et al. 2021）。商品前沿的概念解釋了特定地點的商品生產如何塑造以及如何被社會空間擴張以及資本主義社會分工的深化和擴大所塑造（另見 Lund 和 Borg Rasmussen 2021）。商品邊界擴張是資本主義「代謝裂痕」的典型例子，城鄉之間的養分循環逐漸被破壞，導致農村生態衰竭和城市污染惡化（Foster 1999）。
The commodity frontier is a conceptual device that enables an integrated, historically informed approach to the transformation of the global countryside. It deals with the dynamics of capitalist commodity production in relation to social, economic and ecological inequality, depletion and resilience. It provides a multi-scalar and longue durée understanding of the workings of capitalism, its immense transformative capabilities and flexibility, but also its limits, and the feedbacks and resistances it provokes.	商品前沿是一種概念手段，它能夠以綜合的、歷史性的方法來實現全球農村的轉型。它涉及資本主義商品生產與社會、經濟和生態不平等、資源枯竭和復原力相關的動態。它提供了對多標量和長期的理解 資本主義的運作方式、其巨大的變革能力和靈活性，但也有其限制及其引發的回饋和阻力。
In this chapter we argue that the complex relationship between capitalist development and rural transformation requires a global historical-comparative approach that takes into account both historical variation and spatial divergences. We propose the analytical devices of commodity regimes and commodity frontiers to link structural changes with local resistance and accommodation.	在本章中，我們認為資本主義發展與農村轉型之間的複雜關係需要一種考慮歷史變異和空間差異的全球歷史比較方法。我們提出了商品體制和商品前沿的分析方法，將結構性變化與當地阻力和調節聯繫起來。
REGIMES OF COMMODITY FRONTIER EXPANSION	商品邊境擴張體制
To systematically analyse how processes of value extraction vary across time and place, how and why such variations are patterned and how and why key dynamics change, we need to reflect upon the periodization of capitalism. An influential approach is Friedmann’s (2009) and McMichael’s (2013, 2021) work on successive food regimes. Thinking about food regimes has developed into a device for periodization, and a proposal for a comparative historical method that links broad political economic change to local agency and contestation. The regime concept is a meta-historical device that allows us to capture the ways in which different societal domains at commodity frontiers (ecological, technological, social and political) are organized and related to one another. Every commodity regime is characterized by particular labour relations, particular patterns of land ownership, particular forms of the insertion of capital, as well as particular sets of technologies and state policies.	為了有系統地分析價值提取過程如何隨時間和地點而變化、這種變化如何以及為何形成模式以及關鍵動力如何以及為何變化，我們需要反思資本主義的分期。 Friedmann (2009) 和 McMichael (2013, 2021) 關於成功食物體制的研究是一種有影響力的方法。對糧食體制的思考已經發展成為一種分期手段，以及一種將廣泛的政治經濟變化與地方機構和爭論聯繫起來的比較歷史方法的提議。體制概念是一種後設歷史手段，它使我們能夠捕捉商品前沿的不同社會領域（生態、技術、社會和政治）的組織方式和相互關聯的方式。每一種商品體制都有特定的勞動關係、特定的土地所有權模式、特定的資本注入形式以及特定的技術和國家政策。
While capitalism has to be understood as a singular historical system, the ways in which frontiers have become integrated into globalizing markets vary greatly over space and time. About five to six centuries ago, global commodity trade began to involve large populations in production and processing, exerting a significant impact on local, and increasingly global, social and ecological systems (De Zwart and Van Zanden 2018). By and large, one can identify three, maybe four, different regimes in the advancement of global commodity production: an early capitalist regime, which lasted until the Industrial Revolution gained traction (by the mid-nineteenth century); an industrial regime, marked by the prominent roles of industrial markets and the state from the mid-nineteenth century to the 1970s; a corporate regime, dominated by a new market ideology and transnational businesses; and, conditionally, a still unfolding contemporary regime from the early 2000s onward (Beckert et al. 2021). Each regime had its own trajectory of labour relations, property relations, technological progress, roles of the state, degrees of vertical integration between countryside and end producers and movements of reaction and resistance. The two key transformations demarcating these regimes were the Industrial Revolution, as it became transnational by the mid-nineteenth century, and the emergence of exceptionally powerful transnational businesses beginning in the 1970s. These two transitions coincided with the changing role of the state, which was more prominent in economic life between the 1850s and 1970s than either before or since.	資本主義必須被理解為一個獨特的歷史體系，而前沿地區融入全球市場的方式在空間和時間上有很大的差異。大約五至六個世紀前，全球商品貿易開始涉及大量人口的生產和加工，對當地乃至日益全球化的社會和生態系統產生了重大影響（De Zwart與Van Zanden 2018年）。總的來說，可以辨識出三種，或許是四種，在全球商品生產推進上的不同體制：一個早期的資本主義體制，持續到工業革命獲得推動（大約到19世紀中葉）；一個工業體制，以工業市場和國家自19世紀中葉到1970年代的突出角色為標誌；一個由新的市場意識形態和跨國企業主導的企業體制；以及有條件地，一個從2000年代初期開始仍在展開的當代體制（Beckert等人 2021年）。每個體制都有自己的勞動關係、財產關係、技術進步、國家角色、農村與最終生產者之間垂直整合的程度，以及反應和抵抗運動的軌跡。劃分這些體制的兩個關鍵轉變是工業革命，因為它在19世紀中葉成為跨國性的，以及從1970年代開始出現的特別強大的跨國企業。這兩個轉變與國家角色的變化相吻合，從1850年代到1970年代，國家在經濟生活中的角色比之前或之後都更為突出。
The first regime, which lasted from the 1450s to the 1850s, was characterized by the direct and violent dispossession of people from land and nature, as well as unfree labour systems with a proliferation of chattel slavery, peonage and subcontracting. Its forceful expansion was sanctioned by states, but its principal expansionary driver was merchant capital (Wallerstein 1974; Beckert 2014). In the second regime, which lasted from the 1850s to the 1970s, industrial markets and interventionist states gained prominent roles, as did multinational capital, global bulk commodity markets and new transport and communication technologies. This thoroughly reinforced the infrastructural capabilities to shape the conditions under which frontiers expanded. In the 1970s, a new so-called corporate commodity regime emerged, driven by a refurbished ideology of free commodity markets and the concentration of transnational corporate power. This was reinforced by the changing role of the state vis-à-vis transnational corporations and financial institutions, and new global political divisions among and between North and South, reproducing and in some ways remapping imperial, colonial and Cold War political geographies. The concentration of power in the hands of a few producers took a quantum leap as commodity trade and financial institutions became tightly connected from the 1980s on. Since the early 2000s, firms and financial actors looking for new investment opportunities have come to own or finance increasing amounts of land around the world, largely through dispossession, and often with the assistance of state power. Rising authoritarianism around the world is pressuring people and environments at commodity frontiers in South America, the United States, South East Asia and elsewhere. Companies, often with states’ assistance, are expanding into radically new production and information technologies (Srnicek 2016). As a still-unfolding regime, many questions remain about which processes and relations will be most important in this phase of capitalism, which ones will spur or encounter the most resistance and what forms will this resistance take.	第一個體制從 1450 年代持續到 1850 年代，其特徵是直接暴力地剝奪人們的土地和自然，以及不自由的勞動體制，動產奴隸制、勞役和分包現象氾濫。它的強力擴張得到了國家的批准，但其主要擴張動力是商業資本（Wallerstein 1974； Beckert 2014）。在 1850 年代持續到 1970 年代的第二個體制中，工業市場和干預主義國家發揮了重要作用，跨國資本也是如此。 全球大宗商品市場以及新的運輸和通訊技術。這徹底加強了基礎設施能力，以塑造邊境擴張的條件。 1970 年代，在自由商品市場意識形態更新和跨國公司權力集中的推動下，出現了一種新的所謂公司商品體制。國家相對於跨國公司和金融機構的角色變化，以及南北之間新的全球政治分歧，再現並在某種程度上重新映射了帝國、殖民和冷戰的政治地理，強化了這一點。自 1980 年代起，隨著大宗商品貿易和金融機構的緊密聯繫，權力集中到少數生產者手中發生了質的飛躍。自 2000 年代初以來，尋求新投資機會的公司和金融參與者開始在世界各地擁有或資助越來越多的土地，主要是透過剝奪，而且往往是在國家權力的幫助下。世界各地不斷抬頭的威權主義正在給南美、美國、東南亞和其他地區的商品邊境地區的人民和環境帶來壓力。公司通常在國家的幫助下，正在擴展到全新的生產和資訊技術（ Srnicek 2016）。作為一個仍在發展中的體制，仍然存在許多問題：哪些進程和關係在資本主義的這一階段最為重要，哪些進程和關係將刺激或遇到最大的阻力，以及這種阻力將採取什麼形式。
Clearly, there are overlaps between the different regimes, which underscores the fact that each regime sets at least some of the conditions for the one that follows. Over time, these historical movements became increasingly interwoven, revolutionizing the preceding production systems and incorporating new commodity frontiers. This continual process of frontier expansion has transformed former rural societies and configured the world of today.	顯然，不同體制之間存在重疊，這強調了這樣一個事實：每個體制至少為後續體制設定了一些條件。隨著時間的推移，這些歷史運動變得越來越交織在一起，徹底改變了以前的生產系統並納入了新的商品領域。這種持續不斷的邊境擴張過程改變了以前的農村社會，並塑造了當今的世界。
Commodity regimes have been the subject of profound social and political contestation. Together with the physical limits to further expansion, contestation has been a destabilizing force, eventually leading to a transition towards a new regime. This speaks against a teleological or linear interpretation of capitalist expansion and urges us to try to uncover its historical and spatial logic. Historical research shows us that each commodity regime exhibits particular frictions in the realms of nature, land and labour, inciting resistance and counter narratives (Mintz 1985; Bosma 2019). It also shows us that capitalism at a global scale has, so far, overcome these frictions by various fixes; using ‘fixes’ as a metaphor for particular sets of solutions to capitalist social and ecological crises. The most well known is the spatial fix (Harvey 2001), but we can also discern technological fixes (particularly since the Industrial Revolution), state-led fixes (with the rise of nineteenth-century bureaucracies) and since the 1970s corporate fixes (Arrighi 2004). These fixes are cumulative and become entangled over time.	商品體制一直是深刻的社會和政治爭論的主題。加上進一步擴張的物理限制，競爭一直是一種不穩定的力量，最終導致向新體制的過渡。這反對對資本主義擴張的目的論或線性解釋，並敦促我們嘗試揭示其歷史和空間邏輯。歷史研究表明，每個商品體制在自然、土地和勞動力領域都表現出特定的摩擦，煽動抵抗和反敘事（ Mintz 1985； Bosma 2019）。它也向我們表明，迄今為止，全球範圍內的資本主義已經透過各種解決辦法克服了這些摩擦。使用「修復」來比喻針對資本主義社會和生態危機的特定解決方案。最著名的是空間修復（Harvey 2001），但我們也可以辨別技術修復（特別是自工業革命以來）、國家主導的修復（隨著19 世紀官僚機構的興起）以及自20 世紀70 年代以來的企業修復（阿瑞吉2004）。這些修復是累積的，並且隨著時間的推移而變得糾纏在一起。
Since capitalism inherently seeks the cheapest answers to environmental and resource problems, it often comes down to the export of these problems from richer and more powerful countries to poorer and more peripheral countries, through the opening up of new frontiers of commodity cultivation or extraction and even waste disposal. This can be regarded as a spatial fix. It can lead to robber capitalism, the extraction of resources by the dispossession of local communities, resulting in highly uneven development. Global treaties on environmental protection (a state-led fix) and technological progress (a technological fix) may shift some parameters, but they will not change the basic contradictions of capitalism and its hunger for cheap labour, nature and land. Historical configurations, rather than objective physical conditions and technological limits, endanger our common future. The problem is not about a lack of technology to ensure global survival. It is about the political will to change the parameters of human survival, despite the fact that most politicians, for instance, agree that global warming is human-caused and poses an existential threat. Moreover, even if political blaming and anxieties can be overcome in the international political arena, there is no guarantee that the burden of the resulting political arrangements will not fall on the shoulders of the world’s poorest rural communities.	由於資本主義本質上尋求以最便宜的方式解決環境和資源問題，因此它常常歸結為通過開闢商品種植或開采的新領域，將這些問題從較富裕和較強大的國家輸出到較貧窮和較外圍的國家。廢棄物處理。這可以被視為空間修復。它可能導致強盜資本主義，透過剝奪當地社區來攫取資源，導致發展高度不平衡。關於環境保護（國家主導的解決方案）和技術進步（技術解決方案）的全球條約可能會改變一些參數，但它們不會改變資本主義的基本矛盾及其對廉價勞動力、自然和土地的渴望。危害我們共同未來的不是客觀物質條件和技術限制，而是歷史模式。問題不在於 缺乏確保全球生存的技術。這是關於改變人類生存參數的政治意願，儘管事實上大多數政治家都同意全球暖化是人為造成的並構成生存威脅。此外，即使可以在國際政治舞台上克服政治指責和焦慮，也不能保證由此產生的政治安排的負擔不會落在世界上最貧窮的農村社區的肩上。
The prospect is real that these communities will be shorthanded in the geopolitical tussles over ecological survival. History has many grim lessons to teach in this regard. The past centuries are marked by stronger societies, colonial powers usually, who compensated their ecological deficits through colonial exploitation. And as recently as the 1980s and 1990s, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund forced governments of the Global South out of their national food markets, while at the same time the protection of farmers in the United States and the European Union reached staggering heights. Meanwhile, the most powerful countries of the world still import far more biomaterial than they export, and in addition they tend to export their most polluting industries. This approach to historical regimes, through the lens of multiple frictions and fixes, surpasses single-factor explanations. This in turn is pivotal for grasping present socio-ecological conditions and contestations, and the future options we have towards engendering more equal societies.	這些社區在生態生存的地緣政治鬥爭中可能會出現人手短缺的情況。在這方面，歷史有許多慘痛的教訓。過去幾個世紀的特徵是社會更加強大，通常是殖民國家，它們透過殖民剝削來彌補其生態赤字。就在 1980 年代和 1990 年代，世界銀行和國際貨幣基金組織迫使全球南方國家政府退出國內糧食市場，同時，美國和歐盟對農民的保護達到了驚人的高度。同時，世界上最強大的國家進口的生物材料仍然遠遠多於出口，此外，它們傾向於出口污染最嚴重的工業。這種透過多重摩擦和修正的視角來研究歷史體制的方法超越了單因素解釋。反過來，這對於掌握當前的社會生態條件和爭議，以及我們未來縮小更平等社會的選擇至關重要。
THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY	歷史的重要性
Historical concepts are crucial for understanding present issues in longer trajectories. For a long time, social scientists have argued that global capitalism emerged on the eve of the Columbian voyages across the Atlantic; that capitalism, in fact, was born global. Commodity frontier expansion and the transformation of the countryside was hence one of its key features from the very beginning, and the historical perspective illuminates its determining impact. Global historians have picked up on some of these ideas. Studies of the history of commodities and of commodity chains have persuasively shown the deep links between agriculture and industry, between the countryside and the city and between the household and expanding production systems (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994; Collins 2014). These studies reveal how the global has emerged from local configurations, and they show the essential role played by the politics, ideas and collective actions of rural cultivators, especially in the Global South, who have been central in shaping commodity frontiers and thus the political economy of global capitalism. Similarly, many historians have been sensitive to the ecological dimension of the economic and technological divergence between core and periphery (Hornborg et al. 2007; Ross 2017). Since for most of human history technological advances were slow and piecemeal, the global economy derived much of its growth from the unflagging expansion of vast frontiers of labour, food, energy and raw materials. This started as early as the fourteenth century, when the Baltics began to provide timber and wheat for the relatively densely populated and urbanized coastal provinces of the Low Countries.	歷史概念對於理解長期軌跡中的當前問題至關重要。長期以來，社會科學家一直認為，全球資本主義是在哥倫布橫渡大西洋的前夕出現的。事實上，資本主義誕生於全球。因此，商品邊境的擴張和鄉村的改造從一開始就是其主要特徵之一，歷史的視角闡明了其決定性的影響。全球歷史學家已經接受了其中一些想法。對商品和商品鏈歷史的研究令人信服地表明了農業和工業之間、農村和城市之間以及家庭和擴張生產系統之間的深刻聯繫（ Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994；Collins 2014）。這些研究揭示了全球如何從地方結構中崛起，並展示了農村耕種者的政治、思想和集體行動所發揮的重要作用，特別是在南半球國家，他們在塑造商品邊界和政治經濟方面發揮核心作用。全球資本主義。同樣，許多歷史學家對核心和邊緣之間經濟和技術差異的生態維度非常敏感（ Hornborg et al. 2007；Ross 2017）。由於在人類歷史的大部分時間裡，技術進步都是緩慢而零碎的，全球經濟的成長很大程度上來自於勞動力、食品、能源和原材料廣闊領域的不斷擴張。這種情況早在十四世紀就開始了，當時波羅的海國家開始為低地國家人口相對稠密和城市化的沿海省份提供木材和小麥。
Throughout its history, global capitalism has been organized through frontiers, transforming socio-ecological relations and producing more and more goods and services that circulate through an expanding series of exchanges. The commodity frontier approach, which developed from world-system analysis, moves analytically from chains of commodities, to labour relations, to frontiers of spatial expansion that include not only land and labour but also the incorporation and extraction of non-human nature (Moore 2015). Over time, commodity frontiers have exhibited regularly shifting combinations of labour systems, property regimes, technology and state interventions. Any systematic analysis of the long history of these frontiers thus needs to begin by acknowledging this diversity. Yet we also need to acknowledge that despite diversity, we can see certain patterns. Properly analysed, these patterns help us to understand the historical development of capitalism and the transformation of the global countryside. Applying the conceptual device of regimes, we learn that historical capitalism developed in a very unequal way. It engendered widely divergent forms of expansion and exploitation, marking capitalism as a highly adaptive and flexible system. And just like capitalism more broadly, each regime contains profound tensions, with dynamics that were (and are) the subject of fierce contestation.	縱觀其歷史，全球資本主義一直透過前沿（邊界）組織起來，改變了社會生態關係，並生產出越來越多的商品和服務，並透過一系列不斷擴大的交換進行流通。商品前沿方法是從世界體系分析發展起來的，它的分析範圍從商品鏈轉向勞動關係，再到空間擴張的前沿，空間擴張的前沿不僅包括土地和勞動力，還包括土地和勞動力。 非人性的融入與提取（Moore 2015）。隨著時間的推移，商品前沿呈現出勞動力體制、財產體制、技術和國家干預的定期變化的組合。因此，對這些前沿的悠久歷史的任何系統分析都需要從承認這種多樣性開始。然而我們也需要承認，儘管存在多樣性，我們還是可以看到某些模式。如果分析得當，這些模式有助於我們理解資本主義的歷史發展和全球鄉村的轉型。應用體制的概念手段，我們了解到歷史上的資本主義以一種非常不平等的方式發展。它縮小了廣泛不同的擴張和剝削形式，將資本主義標記為高度適應性和靈活的體系。就像更廣泛的資本主義一樣，每個體制都包含深刻的緊張關係，其動態曾經是（並且現在）是激烈爭論的主題。
There are compelling reasons to shift academic attention to the global countryside: global poverty is overwhelmingly concentrated in rural areas, while a considerable share of global warming is caused by industrial agriculture, and the loss of biodiversity leads to a decreasing capacity for ecological regeneration. Current debates on ‘sustainability’ are unduly optimistic, as they leave out the historical trajectory of capitalist commodity regimes and tend to overlook the fact that centuries of global commodity production have seriously weakened institutional capabilities in the global peripheries. Meanwhile, structural approaches tend to homogenize the global countryside, ignoring agency that might change these regimes.	有令人信服的理由將學術注意力轉移到全球農村：全球貧困絕大多數集中在農村地區，而全球暖化的很大一部分是由工業化農業造成的，生物多樣性的喪失導致生態再生能力下降。目前關於「永續性」的爭論過於樂觀，因為它們忽略了資本主義商品體制的歷史軌跡，並且往往忽略了這樣一個事實：幾個世紀以來的全球商品生產嚴重削弱了全球外圍的體制能力。同時，結構性方法往往使全球農村同質化，忽略了可能改變這些體制的機構。
There is an urgent need to ‘learn from history’, to uncover the rootedness of sequential commodity regimes in a history of six centuries of global capitalism which has created massive inequalities. The complexities of this global condition require an historically informed and comparative analytical approach that unites the myriad case studies which reveal how local rural populations and societies resist, accommodate or even benefit from capitalism. By doing so, we can address an urgent and unresolved question within the current debates on global growth, inequality and sustainability, namely how to avoid simply applying another set of fixes that would allow the relentless exploitation of the global countryside to continue.	迫切需要“從歷史中學習”，以揭示連續商品體制在六個世紀的全球資本主義歷史中的根源，這種體制造成了巨大的不平等。這種全球狀況的複雜性需要一種歷史性的、比較性的分析方法，將無數的案例研究結合起來，揭示當地農村人口和社會如何抵制、適應甚至受益於資本主義。透過這樣做，我們可以解決當前關於全球成長、不平等和永續性的辯論中一個緊迫且懸而未決的問題，即如何避免簡單地應用另一套解決方案，從而使全球農村繼續遭到無情的剝削。
FURTHER READING	延伸閱讀
Barbier, E.B. (2011), Scarcity and Frontiers: How Economies Have Developed through Natural Resource Exploitation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	Barbier , EB (2011)，《稀缺與前沿：經濟如何透過自然資源發展發展》，劍橋：劍橋大學出版社。
Beckert, S. (2014), Empire of Cotton: A Global History, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.	Beckert , S. (2014)，《棉花帝國：全球歷史》，紐約：Alfred A. Knopf。
Beckert, S.; Bosma, U.; Schneider, M.; Vanhaute, E. (2021), Commodity frontiers and the transformation of the global countryside: A research agenda, Journal of Global History, open access, https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1740022820000455.	貝克特，S.；博斯馬，美國；施耐德，M.； Vanhaute , E. (2021)，商品前沿和全球鄉村的轉型：研究議程，《全球歷史雜誌》，開放獲取，https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022820000455。
Bosma, U. (2019), The Making of a Periphery: How Island Southeast Asia Became a Mass Exporter of Labor, New York: Columbia University Press.	Bosma , U. (2019)，《外圍的形成：東南亞島嶼如何成為大規模勞動力輸出國》，紐約：哥倫比亞大學出版社。
Moore, J. (2015), Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, London: Verso.	Moore, J. (2015)，《生命網絡中的資本主義：生態與資本累積》，倫敦：Verso。
REFERENCES	參考
Arrighi, G. (2004), Spatial and other fixes of historical capitalism, Journal of World-Systems Research, 10(2), 527–539.	Arrighi , G. (2004)，歷史資本主義的空間和其他修復，世界系統研究雜誌，10(2), 527–539。
Beckert, S. (2014), Empire of Cotton: A Global History, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.	Beckert , S. (2014)，《棉花帝國：全球歷史》，紐約：Alfred A. Knopf。
Beckert, S.; Bosma, U.; Schneider, M.; Vanhaute, E. (2021), Commodity frontiers and the transformation of the global countryside: A research agenda, Journal of Global History, open access, https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1740022820000455.	貝克特，S.；博斯馬，美國；施耐德，M.； Vanhaute , E. (2021)，商品前沿和全球鄉村的轉型：研究議程，《全球歷史雜誌》，開放獲取，https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022820000455。
Bosma, U. (2019), The Making of a Periphery: How Island Southeast Asia Became a Mass Exporter of Labor, New York: Columbia University Press.	Bosma , U. (2019)，《外圍的形成：東南亞島嶼如何成為大規模勞動力輸出國》，紐約：哥倫比亞大學出版社。
Collins, J. (2014), A Feminist approach to overcoming the closed boxes of the commodity chain, in Dunaway, W.A. (ed.), Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 27–37.	Collins, J. (2014)，克服商品鏈封閉盒子的女性主義方法，載於華盛頓州達納韋（編輯），性別商品鏈：在全球生產中審視女性的工作和家庭，加利福尼亞州斯坦福：斯坦福大學出版社，27-37。
De Zwart, P.; Van Zanden, J. (2018), The Origins of Globalization: World Trade in the Making of the Global Economy, 1500–1800, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	德茲瓦特， P.； Van Zanden , J. (2018)，全球化的起源：全球經濟形成中的世界貿易，1500-1800 年，劍橋：劍橋大學出版社。
Foster, J.B. (1999), Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology, American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366–405.	Foster, JB (1999)，馬克思的代謝裂痕理論：環境社會學的經典基礎，美國社會學雜誌，105(2), 366–405。
Friedmann, H. (2009), Moving food regimes forward: Reflections on symposium essays, Agriculture and Human Values, 26(4), 335–344.	Friedmann , H. (2009)，推動糧食體制向前發展：對研討會論文的反思，農業和人類價值，26(4), 335–344。
Gereffi, G.; Korzeniewicz, M. (eds) (1994), Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, Westport, CT: Praeger	格萊菲，G.； Korzeniewicz ，M.（編）（1994），《商品鍊與全球資本主義》，康乃狄克州韋斯特波特： Praeger
Harvey, D. (2001), Globalization and the ‘spatial fix’, Geographische Revue, 2, 23–30.	Harvey, D. (2001)，全球化與“空間修復”，地理評論，2, 23–30。
Hornborg, A.; McNeill, J.R.; Martinez-Alier, J. (eds) (2007), Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change, Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.	霍恩堡，A.；麥克尼爾，J.R.； Martinez- Alier , J.（編）（2007），《重新思考環境史：世界體系歷史與全球環境變遷》，Lanham，醫學博士：阿爾塔米拉出版社。
Lund, C.; Borg Rasmussen, M. (2021), Frontiers, in Akram-Lodhi, A.H.; Dietz, K.; Engels, B.; McKay, B.M. (eds), Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.	隆德，C.； Borg Rasmussen, M. (2021)，《前沿》，位於美國阿克蘭-洛迪；迪茨，K.；恩格斯，B.；麥凱，BM（編輯），《批判土地研究手冊》，英國切爾滕納姆和美國馬薩諸塞州北安普頓：愛德華·埃爾加出版社。
McMichael, P. (2013), Food Regimes and Agrarian Questions, Halifax: Fernwood Books.	McMichael, P. (2013)，食品體制與農業議題，哈利法克斯：Fernwood Books。
McMichael, P. (2021), Food regimes, in Akram-Lodhi, A.H.; Dietz, K.; Engels, B.; McKay, B.M. (eds), Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.	McMichael, P. (2021)，食物體制，在阿克蘭-洛迪 (Akram-Lodhi) ，阿拉巴馬州；迪茨，K.；恩格斯，B.；麥凱，BM（編輯），《批判土地研究手冊》，英國切爾滕納姆和美國馬薩諸塞州北安普頓：愛德華·埃爾加出版社。
Mintz, S.W. (1985), Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History, New York: Viking.	Mintz , S.W. (1985)，《甜蜜與力量：糖在現代歷史中的地位》，紐約：維京。
Moore, J. (2000), Sugar and the expansion of the early modern world-economy commodity frontiers, ecological transformation, and industrialization, Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center, 23(3), 409–433.	Moore, J. (2000)，糖與早期現代世界經濟商品前沿的擴張、生態轉型和工業化，評論：費爾南德·布羅代爾中心雜誌，23(3), 409–433。
Moore, J. (2015), Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, London: Verso.	Moore, J. (2015)，《生命網絡中的資本主義：生態與資本累積》，倫敦：Verso。
Pomeranz, K. (2000), The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.	Pomeranz , K. (2000)， 《大分流：中國、歐洲與現代世界經濟的形成》，新澤西州普林斯頓：普林斯頓大學出版社。
Ross, C. (2017), Ecology and Power in the Age of Empire: Europe and the Transformation of the Tropical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	Ross, C. (2017)，《帝國時代的生態與權力：歐洲與熱帶世界的轉型》，牛津：牛津大學出版社。
Srnicek, N. (2016), Platform Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity	Srnicek , N. (2016)，平台資本主義，劍橋：政體
Wallerstein, I. (1974), The Modern World-System, Vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, New York: Academic Press.	Wallerstein, I. (1974)， 《現代世界體系》，第一卷：資本主義農業與十六世紀歐洲世界經濟的起源，紐約：學術出版社。