Search

International audience; Although evidence continues to indicate an urgent need to transition food systems away from industrialized monocultures and toward agroecological production, there is little sign of significant policy commitment toward food system transformation in global North geographies. The authors, a consortium of researchers studying the land-food nexus in global North geographies, argue that a key lock-in explaining the lack of reform arises from how most food system interventions work through dominant logics of property to achieve their goals of agroecological production. Doing so fails to recognize how land tenure systems, codified by law and performed by society, construct agricultural land use outcomes. In this perspective, the authors argue that achieving food system “resilience” requires urgent attention to the underlying property norms that drive land access regimes, especially where norms of property appear hegemonic. This paper first reviews research from political ecology, critical property law, and human geography to show how entrenched property relations in the global North frustrate the advancement of alternative models like food sovereignty and agroecology, and work to mediate acceptable forms of “sustainable agriculture.” Drawing on emerging cases of land tenure reform from the authors' collective experience working in Scotland, France, Australia, Canada, and Japan, we next observe how contesting dominant logics of property creates space to forge deep and equitable food system transformation. Equally, these cases demonstrate how powerful actors in the food system attempt to leverage legal and cultural norms of property to legitimize their control over the resources that drive agricultural production. Our formulation suggests that visions for food system “resilience” must embrace the reform of property relations as much as it does diversified farming practices. This work calls for a joint cultural and legal reimagination of our relation to land in places where property functions as an epistemic and apex entitlement.

In the western world, farming is the most dangerous occupation with the highest rates of accidents and fatalities. Farming remains largely a family business and most accidents happen to family members. Why do safety campaigns have such limited success and why do farm families bring this terrible grief on themselves? This article argues that farm accidents are a persistent social pattern requiring analysis of how families are socialised to interact with the farming space. Based on qualitative data gathered for a Scottish study, it is argued that within farm families there is a socialisation and normalisation of danger. Accidents are to be expected. Two key arguments are advanced. First, danger is normalised and children are socialised to undertake risky behaviour. Second, it is suggested that when women do take up farming, they consciously undertake dangerous farming activities to prove that they are 'authentic' farmers. No previous research has considered women's approach to danger, and the existing literature suggests women are more safety conscious. This is not supported by our findings. We argue that farm accidents and fatalities are a persistent social problem because family members socialise each other to accept danger as the norm.

Are you happy at work? For too many people, the answer is no. McKee discusses why people are unhappy in these settings and what can be done about it. She explains certain myths (such as that you are not necessarily supposed to be happy on the job) and traps (such as the overwork trap). To counter these, she notes the power of purpose, hope, and friendships, and emotional intelligence, an area in which she has co-authored books with Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis. Within this construct, she cites the components of self-awareness, empathy, self-management, and emotional self-control. Happiness at work is within your own power and your own reach—a comforting thought.

The empowerment and resilience of communities in rural contexts is often seen to be linked to their capacities – for example, organisational, infrastructural and personal capacity – and the types of capital – e.g., social, physical, human and financial – that the community can access. While the ‘community capital’ and ‘capacities’ perspectives overlap, they define community characteristics in slightly different ways, with different analytical categories at their disposal. Here, we loosely draw on the capacities perspective and supplement it in a grounded manner with aspects from the community capital literature, to analyse the development of a small rural, dispersed community in Scotland over the course of two years. Our analysis is based on two sets of qualitative interviews with residents of the community and other relevant actors, conducted around an interval of two years, combined with observation of community events in the interim period. While at the beginning of the study, the community appeared a place where people were cautiously hopeful, with an asset transfer planned that was intended to support empowerment and resilience, the case unfolded – at least temporarily – as an ‘unsuccess story’, due to the failure of the asset transfer. Our analysis elucidates how organisational, infrastructural and personal capacities of the community interacted, and leads to three major findings. First, interactions between capitals and capacities are crucial to a comprehensive understanding of a community's situation, but tend to be understudied. Second, capacities can not only be ‘low’, they can also be negative (thus not only neutral but outright destructive), and extremely hard to overcome through standard approaches to capacity building. And third, in our study case, ‘social capacities’ that emerged from people's experiences of social interactions acted as powerful microstructures that constrained individuals' abilities to engage in community action. To conclude, we discuss these findings in terms of their implications for community empowerment and resilience more broadly.

Land reform was given high political priority in Scotland following devolution in 1999. The overall objective of the 2003 Land Reform Act (LRA) was to remove the land-based barriers to the sustainable development of rural communities. Using a combination of an expert survey, published commentaries and empirical evidence, this paper critically analyses stakeholder perceptions of the early impacts of the Act and its likely future effects. Further, it evaluates theclaims and counter-claims regarding the pros and cons of two contrasting models of land ownership: private ownership, which has long dominated rural Scotland, and the new forms of ‘social ownership’ by community and conservation bodies. We find that the LRA has accelerated a pre-existing trend away from a dualistic pattern of ownership (private and state) towards amore pluralistic pattern with many experimental models and multi-stakeholder partnerships. The research shows that neither the positive expectations nor the fears expressed about...

PurposeThe authors contend that the current, intensive emphasis on short‐term results prevalent in much of corporate America unwittingly undercuts the ability of companies to achieve long‐term financial success. Given the “always on” nature of life for senior executives in the Digital Age, leaders find themselves subject to tremendous, ever‐increasing pressures and a perceived and/or real need to work harder and longer. The mental, physical and psychological toll extracted by these pressures over time leads to escalating personal sacrifice and ultimately, if unaddressed to the well‐known phenomenon known as “burnout”. Through recognizing what the authors refer to as the Cycle of Sacrifice and Renewal, executives can renew themselves using Mindfulness, Hope and Compassion. Through renewal, senior leaders can counteract the effects of work‐related pressures, perform at their best over the long‐term, and lead their organizations to sustained long‐term financial success.Design/methodology/approachThe authors rely on research conducted by co‐author Annie McKee and Richard Boyatzis as outlined extensively in their current book, Resonant Leadership.FindingsThe authors discuss the Cycle of Sacrifice and Renewal as well as Mindfulness, Hope and Compassion, defining each term, and explain the relevance of each to a leader committed to achieving sustained, long‐term performance.Originality/valueThe paper is relevant to current and aspiring leaders and to Human Resource executives interested in working with people to help them perform at their best.

As the demographics of the workforce continue to change dramatically and the globalization of the marketplace escalates, it becomes increasingly important for employees, managers, and leaders to value differences and to work effectively with people who have various cultures, backgrounds, races, genders, sexual orientations, and languages. The competencies and skills necessary for effectively working across these boundaries do not necessarily come naturally, and it is increasingly essential for organizations to provide opportunities for people to develop the capacity to deal with volatile issues such as diversity, prejudice, and stereotyping. These issues, which lie at the heart of many problematic interpersonal conflicts and systemic dysfunctionalities, are extremely difficult to address in learning situations, whether classroom or boardroom. In this article, we present a management development experience based on the notion that sharing accurate information, developing self awareness, and enhancing the capacity for empathy lead to heightened awareness of the negative consequences of prejudice and stereotyping and quite possibly encourage people to consider adopting more effective attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, we present a conceptual framework upon which diversity education initiatives may be based and a brief activity entitled, “Prejudice in Our Lives,” which has proven very effective in both higher education and management development venues.