Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Genetic Resources in a Potato Breeding Program for Chip Quality
Previous Article in Journal
Inducing Drought Tolerance in Wheat through Exopolysaccharide-Producing Rhizobacteria
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/agronomy12051141
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Food Autonomy within Food Sovereignty: Evidence from a Structural Model

by
Arnaldo Vergara-Romero
1,*,
Juan-Antonio Jimber-del-Río
2 and
Fidel Márquez-Sánchez
1
1
Research Department, Universidad Ecotec, Samborondón 092302, Ecuador
2
Department of Agriculture Economics, Finance Accounting, Córdoba University, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(5), 1141; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051141
Submission received: 1 April 2022 / Revised: 21 April 2022 / Accepted: 3 May 2022 / Published: 9 May 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Food sovereignty as a model to solve food problems is being used in political, economic, and agricultural thought, but academic literature does not offer insight into its impact and the dimension of food autonomy. We have chosen to study Ecuador, given that, in 2008, the country reformed its constitution and adopted the concept of food sovereignty as a right of the Ecuadorian people, being the first country to do so. In this article, we apply the multiple indicators and multiple causes model to uncover scientific findings with the observable data available, and estimate the phenomenon of food sovereignty, which will be called the latent variable. The article aims to determine the main indicators associated with a synthetic index of food sovereignty and one that integrates a measurement model. In order to meet the goal of this research, eight hypotheses are raised, of which four are confirmatory and four are exploratory. The exploratory hypotheses are given because the theoretical foundations contradict themselves in favor of and against the latent variable. The findings of the statistical model relate to inflation, cereal yield, agricultural-value added, prevalence of malnutrition, food export, and food import as causes and indicators that are part of food sovereignty.

1. Introduction

In 2008, 821 million undernourished people were projected in the world, with 63% concentrated on the Asian continent and 31% on the African continent [1]. Latin America comprises 5% of undernourished people in the world, yet it can also be observed that, from 2010 to 2018, two million more people were added to this number [2]. This is of great concern to governments, academics, and control bodies. For this reason, key concepts are raised in the discussion on how to feed the world in a sufficient, sustainable, and healthy way, such as food sovereignty [3].
The concept of food sovereignty and its development through agroecology has gained strength in indigenous movements and, as such, it is used by political leaders in their speeches aiming to transform current food systems [4]. The world food system still concentrates on the vision of agribusiness, which includes food speculation, land grabbing, deterioration of the environment, and its impact on climate change [5].
Quantitative methods have not been thoroughly used in the subject of food sovereignty [4,5,6]; therefore, this will be one of the first studies involving multivariate analysis techniques, specifically a model of structural equations, relating the main direct effects of the hypothetical causes and control variables. From this type of analysis, a measure can be approximated to evaluate the applied public policies and infer the policies to be implemented, which would be the main focus of this article.
Ecuador is the first country to incorporate food sovereignty into its constitution [6], which justifies the design of a measurement model that analyzes the evolution of the implemented policies, originated by legal bodies that affect the economic structure, providing a unique opportunity to observe the changes in past and current food systems.
Following the initial concepts first put forward in 1996 by the NGO La Via Campesina and the World Food Summit Forum, food sovereignty has evolved by including the interests of a wide range of social groups and, at the same time, adapting to different regional and local contexts [7]. This prompted the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to incorporate food sovereignty as an alternative to achieve a world without hunger and poverty at the 32nd FAO Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean, thus creating framework law on the right to food, security, and food sovereignty [8]. This framework law was approved at the XVIII Latin American and Caribbean Parliament Ordinary Assembly, from November 30 to December 1, 2012, in Panama City [9].
At present, several authors [10,11,12,13,14] consider the concept of food sovereignty as a political definition that
refers to the right of a country to autonomously define its agricultural and food policies, as well as its production and consumption patterns, in a socially fair and environmentally friendly way, which allows citizens and inhabitants of an area the access to sustainable food and promotes the development of the area in which they live.
Several other authors [15,16,17,18,19] analyze the importance of food sovereignty in peasants and mention that
it is based on revitalizing family and peasant agriculture, as well as its contribution to national food production with technologies that are not very dependent on external inputs, imported machinery and technology; the substitution of imported food and improved access to land and domestic markets.
In the same way, it is addressed that food justice escalates in the depth of the concept and makes a participatory call to the current situation of food sovereignty. This forms the integration of the so-called egalitarian and democratized food systems [20,21].
What all of these definitions have in common is a focus on food sovereignty regarding how food is produced, under what control it is carried out, and under what social and environmental conditions it is developed. This makes it imperative for the relationships of production to be openly communicated [22].

Food Sovereignty in Ecuador

In the 1990s in Ecuador, millions of poverty-stricken people from rural areas left agriculture, emigrating to urban centers and even to other countries in search of improving their quality of life, thus changing public policies around poverty and hunger [23]. This migration led, according to Villegas [24], to harmful and unintended consequences of agricultural modernization, which fueled social protest over hegemonic food regimes.
Ecuador began its political and economic “post-neoliberal turn”, which brought about a modernization of unconventional ideas and models in agricultural issues [25]. Ecuador became the first country to incorporate food sovereignty as a constitutional right [6]. The Ecuadorian Constitution [26], in article 281, mentions that “food sovereignty constitutes a strategic objective and an obligation of the State to guarantee that individuals, communities, peoples and indigenous groups achieve self-sufficiency in healthy and culturally appropriate food on a permanent basis” (p. 138).
Once food sovereignty was included as a constitutional right, previous agricultural and food policies were observed, analyzed, and transformed by sustainable agricultural production guided by social and environmental justice. We call these types of production agroecological systems [27]. Under this premise, the Ecuadorian government expanded the concept of food sovereignty and focused on strategies through the Food Sovereignty Regime’s Organic Law [28], which lays out the principles of application in Article 4:
“This law will be governed by the principles of solidarity, self-determination, transparency, non-discrimination, sustainability, participation, priority of national supply, gender equity in access to production factors, economic equity and social inclusion, interculturality, efficiency and safety, with special attention to microentrepreneurs, microenterprises or micro, small and medium production” (p. 2).
Likewise, for effective compliance with the constitutional code on food sovereignty, the Ecuadorian government has signed agreements with international organizations such as the United Nations [29]. The United Nations [30] established the Sustainable Development Goals for the 2030 Agenda, whose second goal was putting an end to hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture. This was added, given the food and agricultural sectors’ capacity of offering key solutions for development, as a vital actor in the elimination of hunger and poverty [31].
However, at a local level, this goal is part of the 2017–2021 National Development Plan, in its second axis, with the title of “Economy at the Service of Society”, as the sixth objective to develop the productive and material conditions to achieve food sovereignty and the rural Good Living [32]. These goals should be achieved by reviewing policies and monitoring key food indicators [33].
In this context, the article aims to determine the main indicators associated with a synthetic index of food sovereignty and integrates a measurement model to then evaluate the public policies implemented.

2. Materials and Methods

This research uses a quantitative approach with a hypothetical-deductive paradigm, whose design will be correlational–explanatory–predictive. The analysis of the variables started with the theoretical foundation and review of previous studies to define the variables that conformed to the definition of food sovereignty, and then a robust statistical analysis was carried out to see the cause–effect relationship of the observable variables, latent variables, and the control variables.
The exploration options were taken from the oldest articles to the most recent, for which the research cutoff was August 2020. Additionally, literature in English, Spanish, and Italian was analyzed to include the terms “food sovereignty AND Ecuador”, “sovereignty AND food AND Ecuador”, “soberania alimentaria AND Ecuador”, and “soberania AND alimentaria AND Ecuador”, the analysis of which was incorporated into the topic, title, keywords, and summary tags.
The data were obtained from document reviews and the World Bank official website database. The analysis was done with secondary data, supported by various public and/or private institutions and their respective specializations. The sample came from the indicators of the said database from 1998 to 2017. The information was processed with the statistical program RStudio, with the lavaan and semplot packages [34].

2.1. Empirical Methodology

In this research, we used the multiple indicators and multiple causes (MIMIC) approach, which is a variant of the structural equations model (SEM). This approach is the most complete in multivariate analyses, as it is based on a well-structured behavior model [35,36]. MIMIC is suitable for the research, because it can analyze the effects of causal variables on food sovereignty, which is the latent variable, as well as the effects of food sovereignty on the indicator variables [37,38].
The MIMIC model consists of two parts—the structural equation (1) and the measurement equations system (2). The structural model examines the relationships between the latent variable (η) and the causes (Xq), and the measurement model links the indicators (Xp) and the latent variable (η). In the MIMIC model, food sovereignty is the latent variable (η) and is linearly determined, subject to a disturbance (ζ) by a set of observable exogenous causes such as
η = γ 1 x 1 + γ 2 x 2 + …   … + γ q x q + ζ
The latent variable (η), determined linearly, is subject to disturbances ε1, ε2, … εp; the set of observable indicators y1, y2, … yp is as follows:
y 1 = λ 1 η + ε 1   y 2 = λ 2 η + ε 2   y p = λ p η + ε p  
Once the empirical methodology has been explained, the next step is to confirm the hypothetical relationships between the latent variable and the cause and indicator variables; then, these relationships with their respective parameters are identified and estimated [39,40]. These results can be used to calculate the scores for the latent variable. Then, the exogenous variable with the greatest impact on food sovereignty is chosen. In this way, the ordinal scores of food sovereignty are transformed into cardinal scores in order to estimate a value with a measurable scale [41].
Figure 1 illustrates the hypothetical path diagram of the MIMIC model for the latent variable of this research, which is food sovereignty in Ecuador [42]. Additionally, the expected signs are presented in the estimated parameters.

2.2. Cause Variables

The main research points to consider regarding food sovereignty in Ecuador are presented, which comprise the structural part of the model.

2.2.1. Inflation and Consumer Prices

These variables measure inflation using the consumer price index, which reflects the annual percentage change in cost for the average consumer of acquiring a basket of goods and services that can be fixed or changed at specific intervals, such as annually. The formula that is generally used in all countries is Laspeyres. The international World Bank code is added to replicate this analysis in other research (FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG).
It is necessary to evaluate the impact of this variable, as an increase in consumer prices affects food prices [43]. The increase in food restricts the population’s access to it or makes them opt for food rationing.
Hypothesis 1 (γ1). 
The better the cereal yield, the greater the size of food sovereignty in Ecuador, ceteris paribus.

2.2.2. Cereal Yield

This variable refers to the yield of cereals, measured in kilograms per hectare of harvested land; it includes wheat, rice, corn, barley, oats, rye, millet, sorghum, buckwheat, and mixed cereals. Cereal production data relate to crops harvested for dry grains only. Cereal crops intended for hay or harvested unready for food, silage, and those used for grazing are excluded. FAO distributes the production data for the calendar year in which most of the harvest took place. The international World Bank code is added to replicate this analysis in other research (AG.YLD.CREL.KG).
The variable has an integrating effect; from the data, it is observed that elements such as access to land, water, electricity, seeds, fertilizers, financing, and even specialized machinery all play a role in cereal yield, as without them, land could not be cultivated and crops could not be harvested [44].
Hypothesis 2 (γ2). 
The higher the inflation, the smaller the size of food sovereignty in Ecuador, ceteris paribus.

2.2.3. Agriculture, Value Added

This variable corresponds to ISIC divisions 1–5 and includes agriculture, forestry, hunting, and fishing, as well as crop cultivation and animal husbandry. Value added is the net production of a sector after adding all the products and subtracting the intermediate inputs. It is calculated without making deductions for the depreciation of manufactured goods or for the depletion and degradation of natural resources. The international World Bank code is added to replicate this analysis in other research (NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS).
Agricultural production within a country’s economy is essential to guarantee the food that the population needs for its basic nutrition, as well as to develop scale economies, building backward and forward links or generating added value [45].
Hypothesis 3 (γ3). 
The higher the production of the agricultural sector, the greater the size of food sovereignty in Ecuador, ceteris paribus.

2.3. Indicator Variables

An increase in the latent variable can be reflected in the following indicators:

2.3.1. Prevalence of Malnutrition

This variable defines the population located below the minimum dietary energy consumption level, which shows the percentage of the population whose food intake is insufficient to meet their dietary energy requirements on a continuous basis. The international World Bank code is added to replicate this analysis in other research (SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS). The importance of food sovereignty focuses on eradicating hunger and caring for the environment [42,46].
Hypothesis 4 (λ1). 
The greater the size of food sovereignty in Ecuador, the lower the number of malnourished people, ceteris paribus.

2.3.2. Food Export

This variable includes exports of food and live animals, beverages, oil, animal and vegetable fats, oil seeds, oil nuts, oil grains, and tobacco. Its international World Bank code is (TX.VAL.FOOD.ZS.UN).
Hypothesis 5 (−λ2). 
The greater the size of food sovereignty in Ecuador, the lower the food export levels, ceteris paribus.
Hypothesis 6 (+λ2). 
The greater the size of food sovereignty in Ecuador, the higher the food export levels, ceteris paribus.

2.3.3. Food Import

This variable corresponds to imports of food and live animals, beverages, oil, animal and vegetable fats, oil seeds, oil nuts, oil grains, and tobacco. It has an annual periodicity and its aggregation method is the average weight (TM.VAL.FOOD.ZS.UN).
Hypothesis 7 (−λ3). 
The greater the size of food sovereignty in Ecuador, the lower the food import levels, ceteris paribus.
Hypothesis 8 (+λ3). 
The greater the size of food sovereignty in Ecuador, the higher the food import levels, ceteris paribus.
With respect to hypotheses 5 and 7, they are based on the fact that food sovereignty rejects any type of control at the global level over the food system and, as a result, the liberalization of agricultural markets that affects small producers [47].
According to [48], although food sovereignty in Ecuador is institutionalized, the synergy between peasant organizations and the state is still fragile. The uncertainty of progress aimed at implementing and practicing this approach leads the state to follow the same public policies for the liberalization of agricultural markets. In other words, liberalization will remain latent in the statistics until the structure of public foreign trade policies in Ecuador gradually changes, thus establishing hypotheses 6 and 8.

3. Results

This section presents the estimation of the structural component’s parameters, which provides ordinal estimates of food sovereignty. In the empirical research results, 20 observations were collected by variables of causes and indicators for Ecuador (see Table 1).
Table 1 shows that the mean is within the range of the central limits theory and its standard deviation shows normality in the treatment of the data. Additionally, the reliability of the data is denoted for the necessary mathematical convergence and guarantees the viability of the future index.
To verify the preconditions of a good MIMIC model, the data found in Table 2 show the correlations between the causal variables and the indicator variables; correlations greater than 0.50 are significant for the subsequent analysis.
Table 2 shows that the variables of added value–inflation, import–export, and added value–yield are highly correlated. Likewise, export–malnutrition, import–malnutrition, and yield–inflation are correlated at an intermediate level.
To evaluate the general model, some statistics, called the adjustment index, are estimated. Other statistical research [49,50,51] coincides with the intervals of good fit or acceptable fit (see Table 3).
The values calculated in Table 3 show that the model has a good fit, as four of the statistics are in the indicated range. Likewise, the mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is evaluated in depth, which shows strong statistical evidence that the said statistic will remain at an interval less than 0.05, including the maximum likelihood method.
Table 3 shows that the model has internal validity and its composite reliability is acceptable for making future or evaluative predictions for control purposes. The estimated results of the cause and indicator parameters of the specified model are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that the results of the model relationships are statistically significant, as the model adjusts very well to the most important determining data and its results show the theoretically expected signs. Therefore, the validity of the MIMIC model for food sovereignty is accepted in Ecuador; therefore, hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are verified. In the same way, hypotheses 5 and 7 are rejected, as the signs of the variables are positive and thus significant.

4. Discussion

The estimation of the causes and effects of food sovereignty in Ecuador is an issue that has not been quantitatively researched in a territory that, since 2008, has incorporated laws and norms applied to its conceptual dimension.
The results obtained here show that hypothesis 1 was fulfilled. This means that consumer price inflation had a negative statistical effect on food sovereignty, as it was based on the notion that inflation has serious adverse effects on society [52,53,54], especially on food prices. This price volatility affects access to food, which causes governments to frequently resort to subsidies in the agricultural sector, in order to ease the cost of food in households with economic limitations [55,56,57,58].
Hypothesis 2 was also fulfilled, where the yield of cereal production had a positive effect on food sovereignty, accepting hypothesis 1, which was caused by technological changes, scientific research, or cheaper financing [59,60,61,62]. Similarly, some scientists have shown the relationship between performance and food security versus income and population growth in the current biofuel context [63,64,65].
In the same way, hypothesis 3 was contrasted, where agricultural production also had a positive effect on food sovereignty, as the data comprised all food production without industrialized processes within the gross value added [66,67,68]. There were also findings of bidirectional causality between agricultural value added and agricultural land use [57]. These findings raised the debate that this growth in added value is due to organic or agroecological products that further the increase in food sovereignty.
Food sovereignty reduces the prevalence of malnutrition in the population, confirming one of the main purposes of the concept, which is to eradicate hunger. By being more sovereign in its food production, society can feed its people and reduce this prevalence, validating hypothesis 4.
Additionally, the model shows that food sovereignty had a positive impact on food imports and exports, accepting hypotheses 6 and 8, which was largely due to the public policy adopted in 2014 called the Ecuadorian Fair-Trade Strategy, where the approach was to help small producers promote the sales of their products, including agro-ecological ones, in a social and solidarity economy [69,70,71].
Therefore, we can infer from the data and the experience that Ecuador continues to promote an economic model fueled by exports, but with a more inclusive approach. This can be explained by the need to attract foreign exchange, as the country is dollarized and needs to attract these resources through exports [31].

5. Conclusions

Food sovereignty is a phenomenon that has many dimensions and complex definitions, and addresses food law, security, and justice. Research on this phenomenon is theorized by several other prominent researchers and, as this topic progresses, it is essential to initiate more quantitative analyses that help understand and evaluate public policies.
This research confirms that inflation, cereal yields, and agricultural value added are causes of food sovereignty, and the effects of said sovereignty imply the prevalence of malnutrition, food export, and food import. The findings from this research will allow governments to plan and monitor issues related to the right to food.
Similarly, these findings contrast the draft laws and public policies that originate from the Plurinational and Intercultural Conference on Food Sovereignty (COPISA). One of these projects is agrodiversity, where an attempt is made to establish an adequate zoning for the diagnosis, monitoring, development, and dynamization of agrodiversity and seeds.
Likewise, the bill on agribusiness formulates a Sustainable Rural Agroindustry Development Program, where society and all forms of popular and solidarity economy are involved. The draft law on communes strengthens the competences and attributions that the communal government should have, as well as the communication mechanism with the corresponding parish council.
Among the main public policies that the Republic of Ecuador has created are small-scale agreements with decentralized autonomous governments, where work plans oriented to agroecology, training, and advice are established annually at a food sovereignty analysis table, and local public policies are formulated, along with their respective promotion and dissemination.
Regarding the limitations of this study, variables that were not explored in previous research could have been included, such as biodiversity and the number of agroecological zones.
Based on the discussion and conclusions, the following points are recommended for future research:
  • Analyzing an econometric study between the prevalence of malnutrition, food export, and food import in the Latin American region, and updating the parameters with data after the study.
  • Calibrating the dimensionless data of the model and evaluating the behavior of food sovereignty, thus validating it through a historical context.
  • Calibrating the dimensionless data of the model and evaluating the behavior of food sovereignty, and validating the laws and public policies originated by COPISA.
  • Comparing the results of food sovereignty calibrated with the public policies on food adopted and implemented in the Ecuadorian territory.
  • Evaluating, through an econometric study, the calibrated food sovereignty and the price of oil, as a way of observing oil dependence in agriculture.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.V.-R. and F.M.-S.; methodology: A.V.-R. and F.M.-S.; software: A.V.-R. and J.-A.J.-d.-R.; validation: A.V.-R., F.M.-S. and J.-A.J.-d.-R.; formal analysis: A.V.-R., F.M.-S. and J.-A.J.-d.-R.; research: A.V.-R.; resources: F.M.-S. and J.-A.J.-d.-R.; data curation: A.V.-R. writing—original draft preparation: A.V.-R.; writing—review and editing: A.V.-R.; visualization: A.V.-R.; supervision: F.M.-S. and J.-A.J.-d.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO; FIDA; OMS; PMA; UNICEF. El Estado de la Seguridad Alimentaria y la Nutrición en el Mundo 2019. Protegerse Frente a la Desaceleración y el Debilitamiento de la Economía; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5162es/ca5162es.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  2. Pérez, D.; Seplovich, J.; Gusman, N.; Vidal, V. Creating food alternatives in four Argentinean provinces. Rev. Colomb. Sociol. 2018, 41, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Blesh, J.; Hoey, L.; Jones, A.D.; Friedmann, H.; Perfecto, I. Development pathways toward “zero hunger”. World Dev. 2019, 118, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rosset, P.; Val, V.; Barbosa, L.P.; McCune, N. Agroecology and La Via Campesina II. Peasant agroecology schools and the formation of a sociohistorical and political subject. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 43, 895–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Collins, A.M. Financialization, resistance, and the question of women’s land rights. Int. Fem. J. Politics 2018, 21, 454–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Akchurin, M. Constructing the Rights of Nature: Constitutional Reform, Mobilization, and Environmental Protection in Ecuador. Law Soc. Inq. 2015, 40, 937–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kepkiewicz, L.; Dale, B. Keeping ‘our’ land: Property, agriculture and tensions between Indigenous and settler visions of food sovereignty in Canada. J. Peasant Stud. 2019, 46, 983–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. FAO. Ley Marco Derecho a la Alimentación, Seguridad y Soberanía Alimentaria. Panamá. 2013. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-au351s.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  9. Parlamento Latinoamericano. Proyecto de Ley Marco “El Derecho a la Alimentación y Soberanía Alimentaria”. Buenos Aires. 2012. Available online: http://parlatino.org/pdf/leyes_marcos/leyes/proyecto-derecho-alimentacion-soberania-pma30-nov-2012.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  10. Ningrum, V.; Subroto, A. Do the state and market affect the farmer’s sovereignty? Study of organic agriculture in indonesia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 436, p. 012011. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kaletnik, H.; Lutsiak, V.; Melnichuk, O.; Dovhan, Y.; Malicki, M. Organizational basis of the development of innovative functional food products by the Ukrainian enterprises of deep walnut processing. Ukr. Food J. 2019, 8, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Al Shamsi, K.B.; Compagnoni, A.; Timpanaro, G.; Cosentino, S.L.; Guarnaccia, P. A Sustainable Organic Production Model for “Food Sovereignty” in the United Arab Emirates and Sicily-Italy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Isaac, M.E.; Isakson, S.R.; Dale, B.; Levkoe, C.Z.; Hargreaves, S.K.; Méndez, V.E.; Wittman, H.; Hammelman, C.; Langill, J.C.; Martin, A.R.; et al. Agroecology in Canada: Towards an Integration of Agroecological Practice, Movement, and Science. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Gonzalez, R.A.; Thomas, J.; Chang, M. Translating Agroecology into Policy: The Case of France and the United Kingdom. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Anderson, C.R.; Bruil, J.; Chappell, M.J.; Kiss, C.; Pimbert, M.P. From Transition to Domains of Transformation: Getting to Sustainable and Just Food Systems through Agroecology. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Rodríguez, E.B. Políticas agrarias, Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional y Soberanía Alimentaria: Luces y sombras del caso cubano (1990–2015). Mundo Agrar. 2018, 19, e096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wezel, A.; Goette, J.; Lagneaux, E.; Passuello, G.; Reisman, E.; Rodier, C.; Turpin, G. Agroecology in Europe: Research, Education, Collective Action Networks, and Alternative Food Systems. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Rodríguez, L.C.; González, J.A.C. How to make prosperous and sustainable family farming in Cuba a reality. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2018, 6, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Marsden, T.; Hebinck, P.; Mathijs, E. Re-building food systems: Embedding assemblages, infrastructures and reflexive governance for food systems transformations in Europe. Food Secur. 2018, 10, 1301–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Clendenning, J.; Dressler, W.H.; Richards, C. Food justice or food sovereignty? Understanding the rise of urban food movements in the USA. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Giménez, E.H.; Shattuck, A. Food crises, food regimes and food movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? J. Peasant Stud. 2011, 38, 109–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vergara-Romero, A.A.; Moreno Silva, A.N. Soberanía alimentaria en Ecuador: Fundamentos teóricos y metodológicos para un modelo de medición. Rev. Científica Ecociencia 2019, 6, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tilzey, M. Authoritarian populism and neo-extractivism in Bolivia and Ecuador: The unresolved agrarian question and the prospects for food sovereignty as counter-hegemony. J. Peasant Stud. 2019, 46, 626–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Villegas, L.F. Estado, cuestión agraria y movilización india en Ecuador. Los desafíos de la democracia. Nueva Soc. 1998, 56–72. Available online: https://nuso.org/media/articles/downloads/2652_1.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  25. Villalba-Eguiluz, C.U.; Etxano, I. Buen Vivir vs Development (II): The Limits of (Neo-)Extractivism. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 138, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Constitución del Ecuador, Registro Oficial, Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. Available online: https://vlex.ec/vid/constitucion-republica-ecuador-631446215 (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  27. Val, V.; Rosset, P.M.; Lomelí, C.Z.; Giraldo, O.F.; Rocheleau, D. Agroecology and La Via Campesina I. The symbolic and material construction of agroecology through the dispositive of “peasant-to-peasant” processes. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 43, 872–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. LORSA, Ley Orgánica del Régimen de la Soberanía Alimentaria. Registro Oficial Suplemento 583. Available online: https://www.soberaniaalimentaria.gob.ec/prueba/servicios/marco-legal-2/ (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  29. Clark, P. Neo-developmentalism and a “vía campesina” for rural development: Unreconciled projects in Ecuador’s Citizen’s Revolution. J. Agrar. Chang. 2017, 17, 348–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. United Nations. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/objetivos-de-desarrollo-sostenible/ (accessed on 31 August 2021).
  31. Satgar, V.; Cherry, J. Climate and food inequality: The South African Food Sovereignty Campaign response. Globalizations 2020, 17, 317–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Senplades. Plan Nacional Para el Buen Vivir 2017–2021; San Francisco de Quito: Quito, Ecuador, 2021.
  33. Lyall, A.; Colloredo-Mansfeld, R.; Quick, J. Post-agrarian aspirations: Tourism and rural politics in Ecuador. Can. J. Dev. Stud. Rev. Can. D’études Dev. 2020, 41, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. RStudio. Open Codec Version 1.3.1073; RStudio PBC: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kline, R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Farzanegan, M.R. Illegal trade in the Iranian economy: Evidence from a structural model. Eur. J. Political-Econ. 2009, 25, 489–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Vergara-Romero, A. Soberanía alimentaria en Ecuador: Un modelo de medición. In Agricultura y Soberanía Alimentaria; Universidad ECOTEC: Samborondón, Ecuador, 2019; pp. 55–81. [Google Scholar]
  38. Siebert, A. Transforming urban food systems in South Africa: Unfolding food sovereignty in the city. J. Peasant Stud. 2020, 47, 401–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Del Río, J.A.J.; Hernández-Rojas, R.D.; Vergara-Romero, A.; Millán, M.G.D.D. Loyalty in Heritage Tourism: The Case of Córdoba and Its Four World Heritage Sites. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hernández-Rojas, R.D.; del Río, J.A.J.; Fernández, A.I.; Vergara-Romero, A. The cultural and heritage tourist, SEM analysis: The case of The Citadel of the Catholic King. Herit. Sci. 2021, 9, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bolaños, A.G.B.; Tapia, D.A.S. La productividad agrícola más allá del rendimiento por hectárea: Análisis de los cultivos de arroz y maíz duro en Ecuador. La Granja. Rev. Cienc. Vida 2019, 29, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Edelman, M.; Weis, T.; Baviskar, A.; Borras, S.M.; Holt-Giménez, E.; Kandiyoti, D.; Wolford, W. Introduction: Critical perspectives on food sovereignty. J. Peasant Stud. 2014, 41, 911–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Zimmerer, K.S.; De Haan, S.; Jones, A.D.; Creed-Kanashiro, H.; Tello, M.; Amaya, F.P.; Carrasco, M.; Meza, K.; Tubbeh, R.M.; Nguyen, K.T.; et al. Indigenous Smallholder Struggles in Peru: Nutrition Security, Agrobiodiversity, and Food Sovereignty amid Transforming Global Systems and Climate Change. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 2020, 19, 74–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tilzey, M. Political Ecology, Food Regimes, and Food Sovereignty; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  45. Peña, K. Social Movements, the State, and the Making of Food Sovereignty in Ecuador. Lat. Am. Perspect. 2015, 43, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Almenar, V.; Sánchez, J.L.; Sapena, J. Measuring the shadow economy and its drivers: The case of peripheral EMU countries. Ekon. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 33, 2904–2918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dewi, C.K.; Mohaidin, Z.; Murshid, M.A. Determinants of online purchase intention: A PLS-SEM approach: Evidence from Indonesia. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2019, 14, 281–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Prentice, C. Testing complexity theory in service research. J. Serv. Mark. 2019, 34, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Anwer, E.; Sahoo, B.K.; Mohapatra, S. Spatio-temporal variations in agricultural diversification in India Determinants and convergence. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2019, 9, 476–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ginn, W.; Pourroy, M. Optimal monetary policy in the presence of food price subsidies. Econ. Model. 2019, 81, 551–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Khakbazan, M.; Mohr, R.M.; Huang, J.; Xie, R.; Volkmar, K.M.; Tomasiewicz, D.J.; Moulin, A.P.; Derksen, D.A.; Irvine, B.R.; McLaren, D.L.; et al. Effects of crop rotation on energy use efficiency of irrigated potato with cereals, canola, and alfalfa over a 14-year period in Manitoba, Canada. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 195, 104357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Thompson, W.; Dewbre, J.; Pieralli, S.; Schroeder, K.; Domínguez, I.P.; Westhoff, P. Long-term crop productivity response and its interaction with cereal markets and energy prices. Food Policy 2019, 84, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Otero, G.; Pechlaner, G.; Gürcan, E.C. The Political Economy of “Food Security” and Trade: Uneven and Combined Dependency. Rural Sociol. 2013, 78, 263–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Miyajima, K. Exchange rate volatility and pass-through to inflation in South Africa. Afr. Dev. Rev. 2020, 32, 404–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Aydoğan, B.; Vardar, G. Evaluating the role of renewable energy, economic growth and agriculture on CO2 emission in E7 countries. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2019, 39, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nchanji, E.B.; Lutomia, C.K.; Chirwa, R.; Templer, N.; Rubyogo, J.C.; Onyango, P. Immediate impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on bean value chain in selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Syst. 2021, 188, 103034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Dethier, J.-J.; Effenberger, A. Agriculture and development: A brief review of the literature. Econ. Syst. 2012, 36, 175–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Kalkuhl, M.; Braun, J.V.; Torero, M. Volatile and extreme food prices, food security, and policy: An overview. In Food Price Volatility and Its Implications for Food Security and Policy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 3–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Ben Jebli, M.; Ben Youssef, S. Investigating the Interdependence Between Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy, Agricultural Value Added, and Arable Land Use in Argentina. Environ. Model. Assess. 2018, 24, 533–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Dixon, J.; Richards, C. On food security and alternative food networks: Understanding and performing food security in the context of urban bias. Agric. Hum. Values 2015, 33, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dwivedi, S.L.; van Bueren, E.T.L.; Ceccarelli, S.; Grando, S.; Upadhyaya, H.D.; Ortiz, R. Diversifying Food Systems in the Pursuit of Sustainable Food Production and Healthy Diets. Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 842–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Sasson, A. Food security for Africa: An urgent global challenge. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Renzaho, A.; Kamara, J.K.; Toole, M. Biofuel production and its impact on food security in low and middle income countries: Implications for the post-2015 sustainable development goals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 503–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hertel, T.W. The challenges of sustainably feeding a growing planet. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mc Carthy, U.; Uysal, I.; Badia-Melis, R.; Mercier, S.; O’Donnell, C.; Ktenioudaki, A. Global food security—Issues, challenges and technological solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 77, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Van Der Ploeg, J.D. Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. J. Peasant Stud. 2014, 41, 999–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Altieri, M.A.; Funes-Monzote, F.R.; Petersen, P. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. McMichael, P.; Schneider, M. Food Security Politics and the Millennium Development Goals. Third World Q. 2011, 32, 119–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. PRO ECUADOR. 2021. Anuario de Exportaciones del Sector Asociativo y Comercio Justo. San Francisco de Quito. Available online: https://www.proecuador.gob.ec/anuario-comercio-justo-2017/ (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  70. COPISA. 2021. Conferencia Plurinacional e Intercultural de Soberanía Alimentaria. San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador. Available online: https://www.soberaniaalimentaria.gob.ec/prueba/servicios/ (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  71. Vergara-Romero, A.; Sorhegui-Ortega, R.; Garnica-Jarrin, L. Factores de desarrollo local desde el enfoque de la gestión organizativa. Rev. Univ. Zulia 2020, 11, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 01141 g001 550
Figure 1. MIMIC path analysis food sovereignty.
Figure 1. MIMIC path analysis food sovereignty.
Agronomy 12 01141 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables.
Cause VariablesObservationsMeanStandard Deviation
inflation (H1)2014.622.39
yield (H2)202898605.23
added value (H3)2010.812.77
Indicator variables
malnutrition (H4)2011.835.92
export (H5–H6)2037.9210.67
import (H5–H6)208.901.23
Table
Table 2. Correlation matrix of the variables.
Table 2. Correlation matrix of the variables.
Cause VariablesInflationYieldAdded Value
inflation (H1)1
yield (H2)−0.60 **1
added value (H3)0.82 ***−0.70 ***1
Indicator VariablesMalnutritionExportImport
malnutrition (H4)1
export (H5–H6)−0.55 *1
import (H5–H6)−0.52 *0.82 ***1
Note. Very significant ***, significant **, not very significant *.
Table
Table 3. Model fit indices.
Table 3. Model fit indices.
Fit IndexRMSEAχ2/dfSRMRGFICFI
Good fit0 ≤ X ≤ 0.050 ≤ X ≤ 20 ≤ X ≤ 0.050.95 ≤ X ≤ 10.95 ≤ X ≤ 1
Acceptable fit0.05 ≤ X ≤ 0.082 ≤ X ≤ 50.05 ≤ X ≤ 0.100.90 ≤ X ≤ 0.950.90 ≤ X ≤ 0.95
Model0.041 ***1.03 ***0.078 **0.963 ***0.996 ***
Note. Very significant ***, significant **.
Table
Table 4. Summary of the MIMIC model.
Table 4. Summary of the MIMIC model.
Cause VariablesSignsStandardized Coefficientp-Value
inflation (H1)−0.7350.03 ***
yield (H2)+0.6390.00 ***
added value (H3)+1.7390.02 ***
Variables indicadoras
malnutrition (H4)−0.6690.01 ***
export (H6)+0.9070.03 ***
import (H8)+0.8620.04 ***
R20.877
Note. Very significant ***.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vergara-Romero, A.; Jimber-del-Río, J.-A.; Márquez-Sánchez, F. Food Autonomy within Food Sovereignty: Evidence from a Structural Model. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051141

AMA Style

Vergara-Romero A, Jimber-del-Río J-A, Márquez-Sánchez F. Food Autonomy within Food Sovereignty: Evidence from a Structural Model. Agronomy. 2022; 12(5):1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051141

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vergara-Romero, Arnaldo, Juan-Antonio Jimber-del-Río, and Fidel Márquez-Sánchez. 2022. "Food Autonomy within Food Sovereignty: Evidence from a Structural Model" Agronomy 12, no. 5: 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051141

APA Style

Vergara-Romero, A., Jimber-del-Río, J. -A., & Márquez-Sánchez, F. (2022). Food Autonomy within Food Sovereignty: Evidence from a Structural Model. Agronomy, 12(5), 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051141

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop