Is contract farming an inclusive alternative to land grabbing? The case of potato contract farming in Maharashtra, India

- Problematises suggestions that contract farming is an inclusive alternative to land acquisition.
- Resituates contract farming as another important form of land control in the land grabbing debate.
- The livelihood implications of contract farming in India are poorly understood.
- Unequal power relations render participating households vulnerable to indebtedness.

In the recent explosion of attention given to the land grabbing phenomenon, contract farming has been identified as a potentially inclusive alternative for smallholders to outright acquisition of farm land by agri-business capital. This paper responds to these claims by resituating contract farming as an equally important form of land control. The focus of the paper is a case study of potato contract farming in Maharashtra, India. While there is 'nothing new' about contract farming as a mode of agriculture production in India, its influence on patterns of agrarian change is poorly understood. Adopting an agrarian political economy-informed livelihoods approach, the paper argues that rather than an inclusive alternative to land grabbing, contract farming in the study site represents another way that capital is coming to control land in rural India, with just as important implications for agrarian livelihoods. While some individual households have improved their livelihoods through participation, the contract scheme acts to reinforce already existing patterns of inequality. In particular, the unequal power relations between firm and farmer skew the capture of benefits towards the firm, and render participating households vulnerable to indebtedness and loss of autonomy over land and livelihood decisions.