On September 25, 2015 the United Nations announced a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved over the next 15 years, and that, if realized, will “end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all.”   These goals are in no way legally binding for states and are simply recommendations for state behavior, however, if many of these goals are not realized, the result could mean the suffering and displacement of hundreds of millions of people and possibly the disruption of entire economies, especially if climate change continues along its current path.  In full understanding of its enforcement deficiency, the United Nations has also embarked on a strategy to entice states to cooperate with the undertaking of these monumental aspirations, utilizing peer pressure and social norm.  State leaders, however, constantly deal with more immediate and consequential demands from both the international community and their domestic constituents.  Given these conflicting demands, peer pressure and social norms alone will likely not be sufficient to make significant progress on these global problems, regardless of how critical their success is to global stability.  How then do we balance the long-term needs of global environmental health and poverty eradication with the immediate need of economic growth and political stability on the national level?

One SDG that has environmental, social, economic, and political implications is SDG 2 – End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.   Essentially a natural resource, life necessity, tradable commodity, and political instrument, food is more intricately linked to global well-being than any other potential crisis facing the world.  The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations states, “Food consumption and production trends and patterns are among the main causes of pressure on the environment.  Fundamental changes in the ways food is produced, processed, transported and consumed are indispensable for achieving sustainable development…Agrifood systems develop within a finite and sometimes shrinking resource base.  They therefore need to make use of natural resources in ways that are environmentally, economically, socially and culturally sustainable to conserve the ecosystem.”   Although the mismanagement of the food system can be potentially devastating, the universality of food also gives it the greatest potential to serve as a solution, increasing environmental resilience, individual health and productivity, economic growth, and political stability.  The United Nations High Level Panel of Experts on food security and nutrition (HLPE) proclaims “a sustainable food system (SFS) is a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised.”   By transforming the current international food system, which is characterized by poverty, malnutrition, environmental degradation, and contention, into one of economic and environmental sustainability, we can also tackle the bulk of many other SDGs at the same time.

As beneficial as a sustainable food system may seem in the long-term, state leaders are ultimately the ones tasked with weighing those benefits against the immediate demands of economic growth through foreign direct investment, trade liberalization, and resource extraction, which can further hinder the development of sustainable food systems.  States are the sole sovereign actors over a defined geographic region, and thus have the exclusive ability to take action that either supports or hinders the development of a sustainable food system within their boundaries.  State actions, however, are influenced by many factors, which need to be considered when examining their behavior.  Gourevitch (1978) argues that the international system and domestic structures are interrelated, and thus, should be analyzed simultaneously.   More specifically, international influence on the domestic structure comes from the international state system and international economy.   Thus, when examining factors that influence states’ actions toward the food system, the international balance of power and the international economy will likely exhibit a strong influence on the decisions of state actors.  From the domestic side, however, Edwards and Wood (1999) argue that, when considering foreign policy, the president acts in a reactive manner towards world events and the media, however, where domestic policy is concerned, the president can also act proactively to influence congress’s actions.   Thus, when examining domestic factors that influence states’ actions toward the food system, world events and the media should be considered for their influence on the president, who can then influence congress.  Fankhauser, et al. (2014) illustrate the relationship between international interests and domestic demands on state policy through their examination of the passage of climate change legislation.  Fankhauser, et al. (2014) argue that the passage of climate change legislation is influenced by a strong executive, cross-national peer pressure and learning effects, and international media attention.   In addition, “it appears that domestic (perhaps unilateral) action could be as important in creating momentum through peer pressure and learning effect, and that more domestic action might be a possible route to unlock the stalemate in the international negotiations.”   Thus, although the U.N.’s efforts to persuade states through peer pressure may have some influence on their passage of sustainable food policy, other influences, such as the international balance of power, international economic fluctuations, the media, and the strength of the state executive can have additional or conflicting influence that must also be considered.

In addition to the more recent international attention on the need to transform the global food system, political contention has been percolating from below for the last two decades as international and local peasant movements have organized to demand sovereignty over their food systemand volatile food prices in 2007-2008 sparked riots in numerous countries, some leading to broad political uprisings and regime change.   As developing countries have become more urbanized and industrialized, access to food has become increasingly volatile in price, diversity, and nutritional value.  Local social movements have emerged with demands ranging anywhere from local control over food production and supply chains to simply access to enough food to eat.  It is clear that international interests and domestic demands both influence state behavior concerning foreign and domestic policy, but what is not clear is how state behavior shifts as the intensity of international interests and domestic demands shift with the influence of the international economy and social movements, and how the state mediates between these demands when both sides exhibit strong and/or conflicting pressures on the state.  Through cross-national and within-case analysis, this study will examine how international interests and domestic demands shape the state's support for domestic sustainable food systems and the role of the state in mediating conflicting international interests and domestic demands.  Through a cross-national longitudinal analysis, this study will compare the passage of national food system legislation for Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela between 2016 and 2020, along with the strength and nature of international interests and domestic demands in order to identify correlations and patterns among the independent and dependent variables.  In addition, this study will construct a causal narrative through within-case analysis of Bolivia and Venezuela in order to identify and compare the sequence along which the causal mechanisms occur.

As Sartori (1970) argues, “No comparative science of politics is plausible – on a global scale – unless we can draw on extensive information which is sufficiently precise to be meaningfully compared.”   Thus, this study strives to utilize popular definitions and measurements for all variables in order to maximize its applicability and replicability.  We shall also follow Sartori’s (1970) advice and establish concrete conceptual definitions before operationalizing each variable.   The dependent variable under examination, state action toward the food system, is defined as legislative action taken by state officials at the national level that impact the development and enhancement of information platforms on agro-food products and sustainable food systems, reliable and sustainable communication of food product information throughout the supply chain, the conditions for uptake of sustainable production, or the use of market-based approaches to affect sustainable consumption and production.   State action will, thus, be measured through the number and quality (whether it, in theory, facilitates or hinders the sustainability of the food system) of legislation passed by state legislatures between 2016 and 2020.  As discussed above, the independent variables that will be examined for their influence on state action will be international interests and domestic demands.  International interests are defined as global events (i.e. international economic fluctuations, natural disasters) and actions taken by international actors (i.e., states, international organizations, transnational corporations, international NGOs, the international media) that impact the decision-making of national actors regarding action toward the food system.  Domestic demands are defined as actions taken on the national level by the state executive, the national media, and civil society organizations that impact the decision-making of the national legislature.  International interests and domestic demands will be measured through the review and cataloguing of international and national newspaper articles to identify influential events and actions, the actor(s) involved, their quality, and their level of influence on the state legislature.

In addition to international interests and domestic demands, a number of intervening variables may affect the state’s action toward the food system, including the degree of liberalization in the national economy, the degree of democratization at the national level, and the degree of decentralization within the state.  The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom is used to measure the degree of economic liberalization annually in each country, where they define economic liberalization as the freedom of movement for labor, capital, and goods and “the refrain of government from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.”   Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report is used to measure the degree of democratization annually in each country,  which corresponds to Teorell’s (2010) definition of democracy:  “the holding of periodic, free, fair, and effective elections to the legislative and/or chief executive offices of state, together with a bundle on continually upheld political rights, most notably freedom of association and opinion.”   Due to their parsimony, this study will utilize Falleti’s (2005) definition of decentralization – “a process of state reform composed by a set of public policies that transfer responsibilities, resources, or authority from higher to lower levels of government in the context of a specific type of state”  – and an average of Schneider’s (2003) operationalization of fiscal, political, and administrative decentralization for each country.

In addition to identifying relationships among the independent, intervening, and dependent variables listed above, this study will apply an ordinal approach and construct a spectrum on which to rank each country’s relationship to the domestic food system.  At one end of the spectrum, the relationship between the population and the food system is one of contention, characterized by food riots and broad-based contentious demonstrations against the government.  Food riots are defined as the activity of two or more persons who forcibly seize food objects over restraint or resistance, attempt to seize food objects but are effectively met with restraint or resistance, or demand food without attempting to force entrance.   Food riots will be measured through the review and cataloguing of international and national newspaper articles to identify food riot events, the actor(s) involved, their demands, and their level of influence on the state legislature.  A step up from food riots on the food relationship spectrum is food security, where the main concern of the population is securing enough nutritious food to ensure their survival and well-being.  Food security is defined as “the state in which people at all times have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs for a healthy and active life,” and measured annually at the national level using The Economist’s Global Food Security Index.

Once a population is relatively food secure, their main concern will likely be to gain more direct control and input, or sovereignty, over how the food system is structured and governed.  Food sovereignty was first defined by La Via Campesina as “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally-appropriate food produced through sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.”   This includes ensuring that local producers have the right to use and manage lands, territories, water, seeds, livestock, and biodiversity for the local production and consumption of culturally-appropriate food.   Food sovereignty will be measured by supplementing the food security measurement with measurements for resource use, environmental health, and local ownership in the agriculture and natural resource sector.   Once a population is relatively food secure and feels a sense of control over their food system, their goal should then turn toward increasing the sustainability of the food system for future generations.  Defined above, a sustainable food system is a consumer-driven system that includes, not only the production, but also the processing, transportation, distribution and consumption of food in a way that respects the capacities of the natural ecosystem and sustains the economic and social strength of the population.   The sustainability of the domestic food system will be measured by supplementing the food sovereignty measurement with national measurements for poverty, gender, economic, and racial inequality, and government spending on food assistance and education programs.  Thus, as a population’s relationship with the food system moves from contention to cooperation, the country will move from left to right on the food relationship spectrum from food riots to food security to food sovereignty to sustainable food system.  A country’s position on the spectrum will be measure based on the strength and nature of domestic demands.

In order to examine how international interests and domestic demands shape the state's support for domestic sustainable food systems and the role of the state in mediating conflicting international interests and domestic demands, this study will compare the behavior of five national cases. Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela, between 2016 and 2020.  This study will make use of secondary information in all cases and collect longitudinal quantitative data for the indicators identified above from publically available sources.  Field research will be conducted in order to measure domestic demands regarding the food system, including field observations and interviews with key actors in agriculture and food markets, social movement leaders, and the media.  The open-ended interviews will be conducted using a standardized set of questions along with tailored questions for that interviewee and will be recorded for accuracy.  A newspaper database will be constructed to track domestic demands, international interests, and state action regarding food, and will be supplemented with interviews with state officials when possible.   The goal of the cross-case analysis will be to identify trends and patterns among the independent and dependent variables, and develop a hypothesis that accurately categorizes the cases along the food relationship spectrum. In addition, this study will dive deeper into the cases of Bolivia and Venezuela to construct a narrative of the causal processes within the country that result in their positions on opposite sides of the food relationship spectrum (see Table 1 below).   The methodological techniques employed for the within-case analyses will be similar to those employed for the cross-case analysis, only more extensive and will include a greater number of actors.  The goal of the within-case analysis will be to construct the casual sequence from international interests and domestic demands to state actions concerning the food system.  It is likely that international interests and domestic demands also have an indirect influence on each other that can be examined more explicitly through the within-case construction of a causal narrative.

Although, this study begins with a preliminary hypothesis on the relationship between the independent, intervening, and dependent variables, it also seeks to confirm this hypothesis in order to refine the theory through its future application to developing countries in other regions.  As expected, this study anticipates that both international interests and domestic demands have a significant influence on state action toward the domestic food system.  The influence of those demands, however, should vary depending on their strength and whether international interests and domestic demands conflict or agree.  In a situation where a state faces strong conflicting demands from both international and domestic actors, this study anticipates that state action will depend on the degree of democratization, decentralization, and economic liberalization.  If the degree of democratization is low, decentralization is high, and economic liberalization is high, the state will likely act in accordance with strong international interests and against conflicting domestic demands because the state is less accountable to public opinion, local governments have more autonomy to respond to domestic demands, and the economy is more vulnerable to sways in the international economy.  On the other hand, if the degree of democratization is high, decentralization is low, and economic liberalization is low, then the state will act in accordance with strong domestic demands, while ignoring international interests, because the state is more accountable to public opinion, local governments have less autonomy to respond to domestic demands, and the economy is less vulnerable to sways in the international economy.  In addition, as states respond to strong international interests, it is likely that conflicting domestic demands may gain strength causing the state to shift course in order to balance those demands, and vice versa.  This relationship is likely unique when focused on food-related issues, compared to other issues, because of the high moral economy around food and the significant role agriculture plays in the economies of developing countries, especially in an environment of increasing market volatility and extreme weather.  The five states under examination will fall between the two extremes described above and thus will allow for a more intricate analysis of the significnce democratization, decentralization, and economic liberalization play in influencing state action toward the food system.

The scope of this particular study is currently restricted to developing countries in Latin America, controlling for most similar historical, political and demographic characteristics of countries within the region.  Although the countries under study are all located in the Andean region, the cases vary in their level of democratization, decentralization, economic liberalization, and size of indigenous populations, and thus, could likely be replicated for countries throughout Latin America.  The application of this study to states outside of Latin America is less certain due to the unique cultural, historical, and demographic characteristics of the region.  For example, the region as a whole is characterizes by a Spanish colonial history, a strong influence and interference of U.S. interests, and low ethnic cleavages despite the political, economic, and social marginalization of large diverse indigenous populations.  Similar studies in developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and Asia, however, would be equally important to understanding this dynamic relationship and how better to encourage policies that support sustainable food systems on the national level. In addition, a broader, or counter, theory may be developed if the hypothesis is also applied to the behavior of developed countries in regards the development of sustainable food systems.

As Collier, et al. (2004) argue, “cross-case comparisons encompassing the full range of variance on the dependent variable yield a greater capacity to refine conceptualization and measurement, which is in turn a foundation for good causal inference.”   Thus, the five states examined through this most similar systems design all fall at different points on the food relationship spectrum, while also varying in the nature and strength of the international interests and domestic demands they experience.  Based on preliminary exploratory research, a summary of measurements for select variables for each case is presented below in Table 1.  In the last year, Bolivia has experience little to no contention over food, while also receiving support from international NGOs to increase the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of their food system, placing them at the sustainable food system level of the food relationship spectrum.   Ecuador has experienced mild contention from indigenous social movements, however, their demands have focused on increasing food sovereignty and land reform as they battle international interest for foreign direct investment, placing them at the food sovereignty level of the food relationship spectrum.   Although Peru has not experienced much contention over food, there have been widespread protest by peasant organizations over foreign ownership of natural resources and an increase in international trade, placing in the middle of the food relationship spectrum between food security and food sovereignty.   Colombia has faced moderate broad-based contention over the economic slump they are suffering due to the decrease in international oil prices, which has also led to a spike in food prices, placing them at the food security level of the food relationship spectrum.   Similar to Colombia, Venezuela is experiencing severe broad-based contention and demands for regime change due to food shortages and drastic food inflation because of the decrease in international oil prices, placing them at the food riot level on the food relationship spectrum.   Thus, each case under examination varies in the strength and nature of international interests and domestic demands, as well as their position on the food relationship spectrum.  In addition, the exploratory research shows an interesting initial relationship between the nature of international interests, the strength of domestic demands, the measurement of food price inflation, the degree of food security, and the position of the country on the food relationship spectrum, a relationship that can be further investigated in the full study.

The United Nations has taken the step to coordinate efforts to resolve critical global issues, but getting states on board is more difficult that just passing around a petition.  In order for solid progress to happen, global issues will have to be balanced with the immediate needs of both the international community and domestic populations.  Developing a sustainable food system is a step toward improving life on this planet, and the international community and individual citizens both agree on the benefits. The trick now is to find ways to facilitate the cooperation of state leaders by balancing the many demands they face.  Examining this process in five states, whom all currently have different relationships to the food system, is the first step in refining the casual relationship that can make the difference in developing a sustainable global food system for future generations.

References

Alsema, Adriaan. 2016. "Fed up with Santos, Colombia's Workers, Students, and Farmers Go on Strike." Colombia Reports, March 17. Accessed March 17, 2016. http://colombiareports.com/fed-santos-colombia-goes-strike/.

Auyero, Javier, and Timothy Patrick Moran. 2007. "The Dynamics of Collective Violence: Dissecting Food Riots in Contemporary Argentina." Social Forces (Oxford University Press) 85 (3): 1341-1367. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4494976.

BBC News. 2015. "Peru Anti-Mining Protest Sees Deadly Clashes." September 29. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-34389803.

Berazneva, Julia, and David R. Lee. 2013. "Explaining the African Food Riots of 2007-2008: An Empirical Analysis." Food Policy (Elsevier Ltd.) 39: 28-39. Accessed October 2, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.12.007.

Cawthorne, Andrew. 2016. "Small Protest Proliferate in Simmering Venezuela." Reuters, March 17. Accessed March 17, 2016. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-venezuela-politics-protests-idUKKCN0WJ1CG.

Collier, David, James Mahoney, and Jason Searight. 2004. "Claiming Too Much: Warnings About Selection Bias." Chap. 6 in Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 85-102. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Edwards, III, George C., and B. Dan Wood. 1999. "Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress, and the Media." The American Political Science Review (American Political Science Association) 93 (2): 327-344.

Falleti, Tulia G. 2005. "A Sequential Theory of Decentralization: Latin American Cases in Comparative Perspective." The American Political Science Review (American Political Science Association) 99 (3): 327-346. Accessed March 9, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038943 .

Fankhauser, Sam, Caterina Gennaioli, and Murray Collins. 2014. "Domestic Dynamics and International Influence: What explains the passage of climate change legislation?" Working Paper (The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment) 175/156: 1-33.

FAO. 2016. Sustainable Food Consumption and Production. Accessed March 16, 2016. http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/sustainable-food-consumption-and-production/en/.
Freedom House. 2016. "Freedom in the World." Index, Washington, D.C. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2016.

Gourevitch, Peter. 1978. "The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics." International Organization (The MIT Press) 32 (4): 881-912. Accessed September 6, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706180.

La Via Campesina. 2016. La Via Campesina: International Peasant's Movement. Accessed March 16, 2016. http://viacampesina.org/en/.

Mahoney, James. n.d. "Strategies of Causal Assessment in Historical Comparative Analysis." Chap. 10, 337-372.

Pena, Karla. 2015. "Ecuador's Quest for Food Sovereignty and Land Reform: Indigenous Groups and Social Movements in Ecuador Seek to Translate the COncept of "Buen Vivir" into Policy." North American Congress on Latin America, December 30. Accessed March 16, 2016. https://nacla.org/news/2015/12/30/ecuador%E2%80%99s-quest-food-sovereignty-and-land-reform.

Rasmussen, Erik. 2015. "The Miracle in Bolivia: A Model for Sustainable Development." HuffPost Green, October 16. Accessed March 16, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-rasmussen/the-miracle-in-bolivia-a-_b_8303520.html.

Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. "Concept Misinformation in Comparative Politics." The American Political Science Review (American Political Science Association) 64 (4): 1033-1053. Accessed November 20, 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1958356.

Schneider, Aaron. 2003. "Decentralization: Conceptualization and Measurement." Studies in Comparative International Development (Transaction Publishers) 28 (3): 32-56.

Teorell, Jan. 2010. Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime CHange in the World, 1972-2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Economist Intelligence Unit. 2016. Global Food Security Index. Accessed March 16, 2016. http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/.

The Heritage Foundation. 2016. Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country. Accessed March 16, 2016. http://www.heritage.org/index/.
United Nations. 2016. Sustainable Development Goals. Accessed March 16, 2016. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.

Yashar, Deborah J. n.d. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. Cambridge University Press.