Sistemas de riego agrícola

The proliferation of free trade oriented ideas and discourses has from the 1980s constituted a central global political dynamic, associated with the demise of Fordist development models in the West, as well as the transition away from the different developmentalist strategies in many developing countries. The intersubjective meanings and collective images associated with neo-liberal ideology have thereby emerged as a parallel ideational dimension to the economic and institutional manifestations of the change in the hegemonic structures of capitalism in the late 20th century. So, market-oriented transformations of institutions and the increased transnational proliferation of capital in this period can thereby be claimed both to have been underpinned by, but also contributed to, a discursive paradigm advocating free trade and deregulation.

Transformations within the international system have unfolded in a similar manner within global agriculture. The reform process within agricultural sectors from the 1980s is referred to by Otero (2012) as "neoliberal globalism" and characterized as an ideology below which the importance of privatization and free trade is emphasized (OTERO 2012, p.288). Transformation within the agri-food system are described by Buck (2014) as a reorientation towards the market, which to a high degree has been conditioned by principles propagative of free trade (BUCK 2014, p.52). Gimenez and Shattuck (2011) accentuate how the central political dynamic within the food regime since the late 20th century has been predominantly neo-liberal. The authors detect an economically liberal and market-oriented foundation of discourses proponent of

"corporate-led technological innovation", "entrepreneurial farmers", and "land mobility"

(GIMENEZ & SHATTUCK 2011, p. 166). A similar value-loaded significance is detected by McMichael in the notion of "global agriculture", which he portrays as a

"discursive construct embedded in the political narrative of globalization, as a

104

progressive realization of economic liberalization" (MCMICHAEL 2005, p.265).

McMichael projects a view of GATT as an instrument to gradually remove agriculture from its embeddedness in national policies (Ibid 1993, p. 201). This movement towards agricultural liberalization is supported by appeals to "efficiency", "free trade" and in some cases "food security" (Ibid 2012, p. 682).

Coleman (2003) identifies a gradual condensation of an epistemic community within agriculture, associated with globalization and anchored in a neoliberal knowledge framework (COLEMAN 2003, p.4-6). The OECD and GATT/WTO, Coleman stresses, provided a fertile environment for these ideas to make roots, and they hereby gained a central place within the policy-making process of these institutions (Ibid 2003, p.6). Coleman (1998) traces a perception expressed within OECD policy documents of structural adjustment as paradigmatic vehicles for agricultural restructurings based upon markets signals, and the abandonment of specific policy measures for agriculture, meaning that price and demand mechanisms should determine the specific allocation of production activities (COLEMAN 1998, p.643). This has broken with the post-war perception of agriculture as a sector with a specific social purpose and national goal of ensuring general food access, which for a long time had legitimized its shielding from international exposure and price oscillations (Ibid, p.636).

Liberal ideational frameworks predominant within the global economy also resonated increasingly within Brazil throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The market-oriented belief systems which underpinned the structural transformation of the Brazilian economy during this period hereby also wielded a range of strong repercussions within Brazilian agriculture. Recommendations from international financial institutions implied that debt mitigation measures included market opening and increased governmental non-intervention (WELCH 2006, p.36-37). As stressed by Vigevani &

Cepaluni, liberal ideas gained ground within Brazil due to a combination of factors, related to the exhaustion of the previous developmentalist model, the active transmission from international economic agencies, as well as a change in the convictions of large parts of dominant elites (VIGEVANI & CEPALUNI 2007, p.285).

A growing resentment towards an interventionist economic model amongst business elites, combined with an emerging perception of the capacity of the Brazilian economy to compete on international markets, meant that a new approach of global economic openness was pursued (DINIZ 1992, p.3; 1996, p.55-56). The adhesion to a competitive insertion within the new global economical order was also firmly supported by

105

governmental institutions, and in particular the Itamaraty (FARIAS 2010, p. 673; 2015, p.29). This resulted in the conviction of the vital necessity to ratify the accord reached during the Uruguay Round, so as to avoid exclusion from the central developments within the global economy at the time (Ibid 2015, p.29). In spite of its enormous significance in terms of Brazil´s international economic connectedness, the perception of the potentially negative consequences associated with exclusion from this "new international consensus", meant that the agreement was ratified without closer scrutiny from the Brazilian Senate (Ibid 2015, p. 24 & 27). From 1987 to 1993, some 77 studies funded by the World Bank propagated agricultural liberalization and contained a range of proposals for the deregulation and economic opening of Brazilian agriculture (WELCH 2006, p.42). The premises of the Washington Consensus thereby also lay at the hearth of reforms that were part of a "second green revolution" within rural Brazil, which implied deregulation and the scaling down of governmental support (Ibid, p.37).

The implementation of the Novo Mundo Rural programme in the 1990s also became much more characterized by land privatizations, than by the land reforms which the constitution of 1988 had prescribed (MENDONÇA 2015, p.394).

The embracement of free trade and internal deregulation also became ever more pronounced within Brazilian commercial agriculture throughout the 1990s. The newfound liberal orientation did not only result in a call for the - partial - retreat of the state in terms of internal regulation, but was also expressed in form of a series of offensive claims for a more consequent liberalization of external agricultural markets.

As early as in a 1992 article, Raul Paulo Costa, President of the Brazilian Soy Producers Association (ABIOVE) denounced the agricultural protectionism of developed countries, emphasized its negative effects, not only in term of direct loss for exporters, but also for the entire Brazilian agro-industrial complex due to unrealized multiplier effects (COSTA 1992, p.20). Costa expressed a profound free market orientation and the conviction of the need for a prohibition of internal subsidies and protectionist measures, in relation to which he pinpointed recent Brazilian steps in that direction as an important example for northern countries to follow (Ibid, p.21). The following year, other voices from the Brazilian agricultural sector continued to point towards the perceived negative consequences which subsidies globally created for Brazilian export potential (GRAMACHO 1993, p.15) and in relation to the international competitiveness of the sector (PEREIRA 1993 (2), p.23). Clamors from within the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture also began to lash out against agricultural subsidy practices and

106

protectionist measures within developed countries (ZANDONADI 1994, p.10).

The early 1990s thus became characterized by a the incipient crystallization of a shared consciousness between the state and agribusiness, that the essential mission of Brazilian agriculture was to seek commercial insertion, while that of the state was to reorganize its engagement, domestically and internationally, in order to assist in this process. Markedly increasing competitiveness of the agribusiness sector from this point in time also helped to propagate the idea of commercial liberalization⁵. The consensus formation between state and agribusiness converging around the principle of commercial openness, has been strongly underlined by various contributors as a central trait of the corporate food regime, from authors within this perspective (CÁCERES 2015; LICHTENBERGER 2014, p.175-176; TORRADO 2016; MCMICHAEL 2005, p.292; PECHLANER & OTERO 2008, p.351-352). This appears to have been strongly characteristic of the process of Brazilian agricultural liberalization. Prevailing ideas of free trade hereby disseminated from the global level of the food system, and downwards towards the level of the state, and the main actors within the private sector. In line with Pritchard et al. (2016, p.706), it is important to underline, that the shift in the role of the Brazilian state, - which was spurred by its incrementally more neo-liberal ideological orientation, - in relation to agriculture did not mean that the state directly retreated from its engagement with the sector. Rather, its new role can be understood as a self-imposed re-regulatory function, which implied a realigning of domestic regulation in order to favor export-oriented branches. Internationally, the liberal environment provided a fertile ground for making offensive claims in response to continued protectionism, which were further legitimized due to their consonance with the ideational climate within this context.