Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:24:29.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agricultural Expansion as a Tool of Population Redistribution in Southeast Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Rodolphe De Koninck  and
Steve Déry
Steve Déry
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Throughout history and throughout most major regions of the world, the expansion of agricultural land has served as a tool of population redistribution and has also played a key role in the formation and consolidation of States. This appears particularly true in twentieth-century Southeast Asia, as can be observed from case studies of the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand developed in this article, and may contribute to the originality and dynamism of State formation in the region.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The authors wish to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for its financial support (Grants nos. 410–93–1391 and 96–1145) as well as the following persons: Andrée Gauthier, Claire G. Daigle, Christine Veilleux, Lyne Chabot, Stéphane Bernard and Yann Roche.

1 Maurer, Jean-Luc, Modernisation agricole, développement économique et changement social. he riz, la terre et l'homme à Java (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Booth, Anne, Agricultural Development in Indonesia (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1988), pp. 100–138.Google Scholar

2 Alexandratos, Nicos (ed.), World Agriculture Toward 2000, an FAO Study (New York: New York University Press, 1988), chapter 4.Google Scholar

3 Wikkramatileke, R., “Federal Land Development Authority in West Malaysia 1957–1971”, Pacific Viewpoint 13, 1 (1972): 62–86Google Scholar; Bahrin, Shamsul and Thong, Lee Boon, FELDA. Three Decades of Evolution (Kuala Lumpur: FELDA, 1988).Google Scholar

4 Koninck, Rodolphe De, “The Peasantry as the Territorial Spearhead of the State in Southeast Asia: The Case of Vietnam”, Sojourn. Social Issues in Southeast Asia 11, 2 (1996): 231–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Ibid. and “La paysannerie et l'État en Asie du Sud-Est: une affaire de compromis … à suivre”, Espaces Temps 53 (1993): 130–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Koninck, Rodolphe De, “Forest Policies in Southeast Asia: Taming Nature or Taming People?”, in Le défi forestier en Asie du Sud-Est/The Challenge of the Forest in Southeast Asia, ed. Koninck, Rodolphe De (Québec: Université Laval, Documents du GÉRAC, 7, 1994), pp. 33–48.Google Scholar

7 Hirschman, Charles, “Population and Society in Twentieth-Century Southeast Asia”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 25, 2 (1994): 381–416 (397 and 398).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See, for example, Pryor, Robin J., ed., Migration and Development in Southeast Asia (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Jones, G. W. and Richter, H. V. (ed.), Population Resettlement Programs in Southeast Asia (Canberra: Australian National University, Development Studies Centre, Monograph no. 30, 1982)Google Scholar; Pagonini, A. (ed.), Migration from the Philippines (Quezon City: Scalabrinians, 1984)Google Scholar; Manshard, Walther and Morgan, William B. (eds.), Agricultural Expansion and Pioneer Settlements in the Humid Tropics (Tokyo: The United Nations University, 1988)Google Scholar; Reed, Robert R., Patterns of Migration in Southeast Asia (Berkeley: Center for South and South East Asian Studies, University of California, 1990)Google Scholar; Bremen, Labor Migration and Rural Transformation in Colonial Asia (Amsterdam: Free University Press for Center for Asian Studies); Eng, Chang Kok, “International Migration in a Rapidly Developing Country: The Case of Peninsular Malaysia”, Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography 25, 2 (1994): 69–78; Charles Hirschman, “Population and Society in Twentieth-Century Southeast Asia”.Google Scholar

9 See, for example, Tilly, Charles, “Reflections on the History of European State Making”, in The Formation of National States in Western Europe, ed. Tilly, Charles (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 3–83.Google Scholar

10 Charles Hirschman, “Population and Society in Twentieth-Century Southeast Asia”, p. 413.

11 Fegan, Brian, “The Philippines: Agrarian Stagnation Under a Decaying Regime”, in Agrarian Transformations. Local Processes and the State in Southeast Asia, ed. Hart, Gillian, Turton, Andrew and White, Benjamin (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 127.Google Scholar

12 Pelzer, Karl J., Pioneer Settlement in the Asiatic Tropics (New York: American Geographical Society, 1945), p. 129.Google Scholar

13 Gourou, Pierre, Les pays tropicaux, 4th ed. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966), p. 122 sq.Google Scholar

14 Pelzer, Pioneer Settlements, p. 134.

15 Kerkvliet, Benedict J., The Huk Rebellion. A Study of Peasant Revolt in The Philippines (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), p. 239.Google Scholar

16 Bahrin, Shamsul, “Rural Resettlement Programmes in the Asean Region”, in Beyond Settlement: A Comparative Study of the Impact of Resettlement Programmes in Southeast Asia, ed. Bahrin, Shamsul (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1988), pp. 1–28 (3).Google Scholar

17 Fisher, Charles A., South-East Asia. A Social, Economic and Political Geography (London: Methuen, second edition, 1966), p. 711Google Scholar; National Economic and Development Authority, Philippine Statistical Yearbook 1986 (Manila, 1987), p. 278.Google Scholar

18 Philippines Statistical Yearbook 1986, pp. 278–80.Google Scholar

19 In 1990, average population densities, in persons per square kilometre, were as follows: Philippines: 202; Luzon, 286; Cebu, 520; Negros, Leyte and Bohol all above 225; Mindanao, 136; cf. Koninck, Rodolphe De, L'Asie du Sud-Est (Paris: Masson, 1994), p. 103.Google Scholar

20 To facilitate the comparison between the two dates, the base maps have been standardized, that is aligned on the provincial divisions as they stood in 1990. Recent editions of the Philippines Statistical Yearbook do in fact provide figures on the basis of that contemporary provincial breakdown.

21 See, for example, Pelzer, Pioneer Settlements; Hardjono, Joan, Transmigration in Indonesia (Jakarta: Oxford University Press, 1977)Google Scholar and “The Indonesian Transmigration Programme in Historical Perspective”, International Migration 26, 4 (1988): 427–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benoit, Daniel, Levang, P., Pain, M. and Sevin, O., Transmigration and Spontaneous Migrations in Indonesia (Paris and Jakarta: ORSTOM, Departemen Transmigrasi, 1989)Google Scholar; Charras, Muriel and M.Marc Pain, Marc Pain, (eds.), Spontaneous Settlements in Indonesia: Agricultural Pioneers in Southern Sumatra (Paris and Jakarta: ORSTOM, CNRS and Departemen Transmigrasi, 1993).Google Scholar

22 Benoit et al., Transmigration, p. 106.

23 Glay, Marcel Le, “La Gaule romanisée”, in Histoire de la France rurale, ed. Duby, Georgeset al. (Paris: Seuil, vol. 1, 1975), pp. 195–285 (239).Google Scholar

24 Lattimore, Owen, Inner Asian Frontiers of China (London: Oxford University Press, 1940)Google Scholar; Studies in Frontier History. Collected Papers 1928–1958 (London: Oxford University Press, 1962).Google Scholar

25 Berque, Augustin, La rizière et la banquise. Colonisation et changement culturel à Hokkaido (Paris: Publications Orientalistes de France, 1980), p. 64.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., p. 65.

27 Fassbender, Karl and Erbe, Susanne, Towards a New Home: Indonesia's Managed Mass Migration. Transmigration between Poverty, Economics and Ecology (Hamburg: Verlag Weltarchiv GmbH, 1990), p. 30.Google Scholar

28 Colchester, Marcus, “The Struggle for Land. Tribal Peoples in the Face of the Transmigration Programme”, The Ecologist 16, 2–3 (1986): 99–110.Google Scholar

29 World Bank, Indonesia Transmigration Sector Review (Washington, D.C., 1990); see also Spontaneous Settlements in Indonesia, ed. Muriel Charras and Marc Pain.Google Scholar

30 Charras, Muriel, “L'Indonésie: le premier archipel du monde”, in Asie du Sud-Est, Océanie, ed. Antheaume, Benoitet al. (Paris: Belin, 1995), pp. 42–76 (51 and 67)Google Scholar; Hugo, Graeme J., Hull, Terence H., Hull, Valerie J. and Jones, Gavin W., The Demographic Dimension in Indonesian Development (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 196.Google Scholar

31 De Koninck, L'Asie du Sud-Est, p. 134. This refers to actual land devoted to agriculture and does not take into account the increase in cropped land, resulting essentially from the increase in the practice of annual double cropping of rice.

32 Booth, Agricultural Development, p. 41.

33 Ibid., pp. 43–44.

34 These statements concern the large islands and groups of islands and not necessarily all components of the latter. Some islands (such as Bali), provinces (such as Southeast Sulawesi) or kabupaten (such as Jayapura in Irian Jaya), have been the object of specific and different forms of demographic evolution.

35 Fisher, South-East Asia, p. 290; Nitisastro, Widjojo, Population Trends in Indonesia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970), p. 62.Google Scholar

36 Benoit, Daniel and Sevin, Olivier, “L'émigration javanaise: mythes et réalités”, Annales de géographie 571 (1993): 255–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Hugo et al., The Demographic Dimension, p. 106.

38 Khoi, Le Thanh, Histoire du Viet Nam des origines à 1858 (Paris: Sudestasie, 1981).Google Scholar

39 Hickey, Gerald C., Sons of the Mountains. Ethnohistory of the Vietnamese Central Highlands to 1954 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 309 sq.Google Scholar; Hill, Ron, “Primitives to Peasants?: The Sedentarisation of the Nomads in Vietnam”, Pacific Viewpoint 26, 2 (1985): 449–57.Google Scholar

40 See, for example, the map entitled “Ethnolinguistic Groups of Mainland Southeast Asia”, in LeBar, Frank M., Hickey, Gerald C., Musgrave, John K. and Williams, Robert Lee, Ethnic Groups of Mainland Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964). A simplified version can be found in De Koninck, “The Peasantry as the Territorial Spearhead”.Google Scholar

41 Gourou, Pierre, L'Asie (Paris: Hachette, fourth edition, 1964), p. 330.Google Scholar

42 Hickey, Gerald Cannon, Free in the Forest: Ethnohistory of the Vietnamese Central Highlands 1954–1975 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 6.Google Scholar

43 Jones, Gavin W. and Fraser, Stewart E., “Population Resettlement Policies in Vietnam”, in Population Resettlement Programs in Southeast Asia, ed. Jones, G.W. and Richter, H.V. (Canberra: Australian National University, Development Studies Centre, Monograph 30, 1982), p. 115.Google Scholar

44 The Far East and Australasia 1993 (London: Europa Publications, 1993), p. 956.Google Scholar

45 The 1926 figures and the location of the 1926 provincial boundaries relied on to compile Table 3 and to draft Figure 2 were drawn from Bouault, J., Géographie de l'Indochine (Hanoi: Imprimerie d'Extrême-Orient, 1930). In Bouault's book, no single map represents the provincial divisions for the whole of what corresponds to contemporary Vietnam. Rather, different maps provide the information separately, for portions of what was then Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina; furthermore these maps are drawn at different scales varying between 1: 3,300,300 and 1: 5,000,000. However, Bouault's maps seem to have been carefully drawn and although it is obvious that, in adapting them, we had to resort to some amount of approximation, we are confident that the final result is reasonably reliable. It should also be noted that, to facilitate the comparison between the 1926 and 1991 maps, the international boundaries of Vietnam were standardized, for the two maps, on the basis of the 1991 one. The regrouping of the 1926 provinces (Table 3) along the lines of the seven contemporary regions also entailed a number of small adjustments.Google Scholar

46 Region V includes four provinces: Kon Turn, Gia Lai, Dae Lac and Lam Dong; it corresponds, roughly, to the area which, in 1926, encompassed the three provinces of Kon Tum (since divided into Kon Tum and Gia Lai), Darlac (today's Dac Lac) and Haut Donnai, the sizes and boundaries of all these provinces having been modified since.

47 In 1991, population densities, as measured in persons per square kilometer, varied between 72 (Lam Dong) and 24 (Kon Tum), with a regional average of 50, versus 207 for the country as a whole.

48 Although Vietnamese Government officials remain vague about future expansion prospects, evidence from the ground, as seen by the first author on the occasion of field visits to several N.E.Z. during April and May 1995, seems to indicate that such prospects are substantial.

49 Evans, Grant, “Internal Colonialism in the Central Highlands of Vietnam”, Sojourn. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 9, 1 (1992): 274–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koninck, Rodolphe De, Dan, Tran Dac, Roche, Yann and Lundquist, Olivier, “Les fronts pionniers du Centre du Vietnam: évolution démographique et empreinte toponymique”, Annales de géographie 105, 590 (1996): 395–412; De Koninck, “The Peasantry as the Territorial Spearhead”.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 FAO Production Yearbook 1992.

51 Koninck, Rodolphe De, Le monde à la carte (Quebec: Fischer Presses, volume II, third edition, 1995).Google Scholar

52 Small, Leslie E., “Historical Development of the Greater Chao Phrya Water Control Project: an Economic Appraisal”, Journal of the Siam Society 61, 1 (1973): 1–24Google Scholar; Johnston, David B., “Opening a Frontier. The Expansion of Rice Cultivation in Central Thailand in the 1890's”, Contributions to Asian Studies 9 (1976): 27–44Google Scholar; Feeny, David, The Political Economy of Productivity. Thai Agricultural Development, 1880–1975 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1982).Google Scholar

53 Some official sources are even more “generous” concerning Thailand's agricultural land. As indicated in Table 3, according to the FAO, in 1991 total agricultural area stood at slightly over 23 million hectares (or 45.1 per cent of the country's total land area); however, according to the Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan (Bangkok: Royal Forestry Department, 1993), it had reached more than twenty-nine million hectares (or 57 per cent of the country's total land area). Drawn from satellite imagery, the latter figures probably include fallow land. Not infrequently, data compiled from satellite imagery and aerial photography tend to overestimate the amount of land devoted to agriculture. “Because cloud cover is at its minimum in the dry season, aerial photography and satellite image surveys are generally conducted in that season. Given that much of the cropping in Thailand is rain fed, it is difficult in the dry season to distinguish between areas that were cropped in the previous wet season and areas that were fallow; thus the tendency for these surveys to overestimate the area under cultivation”: see Feeny, David, “Agricultural Expansion and Forest Depletion in Thailand. 1900–1975”, in World Deforestation in the Twentieth Century, ed. Richards, J. F. and Tucker, R. P. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988), p. 282.Google Scholar

54 FAO Production Yearbook 1993; De Koninck, L'Asie du Sud-Est, p. 293. See also Table 6.

55 Barker, Randolph, Herdt, Robert W. and Rose, Beth, The Rice Economy of Asia (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1985), p. 98Google Scholar; World Bank, World Development Report 1994. Infrastructure for Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

56 Muscat, Robert J., The Fifth Tiger. A Study of Thai Development Policy (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994), p. 233.Google Scholar

57 Uhlig, Harald, “Spontaneous and Planned Settlement in South-East Asia”, in Agricultural Expansion and Pioneer Settlements in the Humid Tropics, ed. Manshard, Walther and Morgan, William B. (Tokyo: The United Nations University, 1988), p. 13.Google Scholar

58 Detailed and reliable figures per province and region are hard to come by. It is at least possible to calculate that, between 1939 and 1985, the Northeast's share of the nation's rice land has increased from 31 to 50 per cent. See Pendleton, Robert L., “Land Use in Northeastern Thailand”, Geographical Review 33, 1 (1943): 15–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Statistical Yearbook 1987–88 Thailand (Bangkok: National Statistical Office, 1988).Google Scholar

59 Wilson, Constance, Thailand. A Handbook of Historical Statistics (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1983), pp. 32–34Google Scholar and 1990 Population and Housing Census (Bangkok: National Statistical Office, 1992).Google Scholar

60 Uhlig, Harald, “Spontaneous and Planned Settlement in South-East Asia”, 1984, p. 14Google Scholar; Hirsch, Philip, “Spontaneous Land Settlement and Deforestation in Thailand”, in Changing Tropical Forests. Historical Perspectives on Today's Challenges in Asia, ed. Dargavel, J.et al. (Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, 1988), pp. 359–76 (360).Google Scholar On Europe, see Duby, Georges, Guerriers et paysans, VIle- XIIe s. Premier essor de l'économie européenne (Paris: Gallimard, 1973)Google Scholar; L'économie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans l'Occident médiéval (Paris: Flammarion, 2 vol., 1977).Google Scholar

61 Uhlig, “Spontaneous and Planned Settlement in South-East Asia”, p. 14.

62 Lohman, Larry, “Land, Power and Forest Colonization in Thailand”, in The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forest, ed. Colchester, Marcus and Lohman, Larry (London: Zed Books, 1993), pp. 198–227 (207).Google Scholar

63 David Feeny, The Political Economy, p. 80 sq; see also Fisher, South-East Asia, p. 490; Hirsch, Philip, “Deforestation and Development in Thailand”, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 8, 2 (1987): 129–38 (137) and “Spontaneous Land Settlement”, p. 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Blanadet, Raymond, L'Asie du Sud-Est. Nouvelle puissance économique (Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1992), p. 262.Google Scholar

65 These contrasts are not evident on Figure 4, because of the scale and of the population density categories used. But they definitely are when population distribution is represented with more precision. See, for example, East, W. G., Spate, O. H. K. and Fisher, Charles A., The Changing Map of Asia, 5th ed. (London: Methuen, 1971), p. 246Google Scholar and Neville, Warwick, “The Distribution of Population in Southeast Asia”, New Zealand Journal of Geography (Oct. 1990): 2–7.Google Scholar

66 See for example, as already mentioned, Augustin Berque, La rizière et la banquise. Colonisation et changement culturel à Hokkaido, p. 64 and Charles Tilly, “Reflections on the History of European State Making”, pp. 3–83.

67 Koninck, Rodolphe De, “Enjeux et stratégies spatiales de l'État en Malaysia”, Hérodote 21 (1981): 84–115Google Scholar; “Les politiques du développement agricole en Malaysia ou l'impatience de l'État tutélaire”, Archipel 31 (1986): 131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68 See, for example, Martin, M. A., Le mal cambodgien (Paris: Hachette, 1989).Google Scholar

69 See, for example, Les paysans du delta tonkinois (Paris: École Française d'Extrêime-Orient, 1936)Google Scholar; La terre et l'homme en Extrême-Orient (Paris: Colin, 1940)Google Scholar; Riz et civilisation (Paris: Fayard, 1984).Google Scholar

70 Repeatedly made in the above-mentioned works as well as in L'utilisation du sol en Indochine Française (Paris: Centre de politique étrangère, 1940)Google Scholar, Les pays tropicaux (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1947)Google Scholar and L'Asie (Paris: Hachette, 1953).Google Scholar

71 See, for example, Hirschman, “Population and Society in Twentieth-Century Southeast Asia”, p. 397, referring to Geertz's, CliffordAgricultural Involution: The Processes of Agricultural Change in Indonesia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963).Google Scholar

72 Charles Hirschman emphasizes this point in his “Population and Society in Twentieth-Century Southeast Asia”, pp. 398, 399 and 408.

73 Ibid., p. 414.

74 Ibid., p. 407 sq.

75 See, for example, Gibbons, David S., Koninck, Rodolphe De and Hasan, Ibrahim, Agricultural Modernization, Poverty and Inequality (Farnborough: Saxon House, 1980), p. 15; Charras and Pain (eds.), Spontaneous Settlements in Indonesia, p. 74.Google Scholar

76 See, for example, De Koninck (ed.), The Challenge of the Forest in Southeast Asia; or Bernard, Stéphane and Koninck, Rodolphe De, “The Retreat of the Forest in Southeast Asia: A Cartographic Assessment”, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 17, 1 (1996): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 Durand, Frédéric, Les forêts en Asie du Sud-Est. Recul et exploitation: le cas de l'Indonésie (Paris: L'Harmattan, 1994).Google Scholar

78 Kummer, David, Deforestation in the Postwar Philippines (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Cruz, Wilfrido D. and Cruz, Maria C., “Population Pressure and Deforestation in the Philippines”, ASEAN Economic Bulletin 7, 2 (1990): 200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernard, Stéphane, “Le défi forestier dans la péninsule malaise” (M.A. diss., Université Laval, Québec, 1995).Google Scholar

79 See, for example, Boulbet, Jean, Paysans de la forêt (Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient, 1975)Google Scholar; Dove, Michael, “Theories of Swidden Agriculture and the Political Economy of Ignorance”, Agroforestry Systems 1 (1983): 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hirsch, Deforestation and Development, p. 6; Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan. Subsectorial Plan for People and Forestry Environment (Bangkok: Royal Forestry Department, 1993), p. 17Google Scholar; Feeny, Agricultural Expansion and Forest Depletion, p. 121; Kooachoraen, Orawan and Paisarnpanichul, Darunee, “Promotion of Commercial Crop Cultivation”, in The Future of People and Forests in Thailand after the Logging Ban, ed. Leungaramsri, Pinkaew and Rajesh, Noel (Bangkok: Project for Ecological Recovery, 1992), pp. 88 and 94Google Scholar; San, Do Dinh, Shifting Cultivation in Vietnam. Its Social, Economic and Environmental Values Relative to Alternative Land Use (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 1992), p. 37.Google Scholar

80 Spencer, J. E., Shifting Cultivation in Southeastern Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), p. 3. Concerning the advantages for the State to “widen access to land”, to sedentarize the nomads, to “extend the tax base” and to control migration for those very purposes, see Bremen, Labour Migration, pp. 4, 5 and 72.Google Scholar

81 Brunet, Roger and Dollfus, Olivier, Mondes nouveaux (Paris: Hachette, 1990), p. 63.Google Scholar In French, the statement reads as follows: “L'État est panoptique: il aime voir ceux qu'il aime et surtout ceux qui ne l'aiment pas”. This need for the modern State to territorialize its control was emphasized several times by Rodolphe De Koninck. See for example “Enjeux et stratégies spatiales de l'État en Malaysia”; “Pourquoi les paysans? Interrogations sur la territorialité de l'agriculture familiale”, Cahiers de géographie du Québec 29, 73–74 (1984): 261–74Google Scholar; “La paysannerie comme fer de lance territorial de l'État: le cas de la Malaysia”, Cahiers des sciences humaines (ORSTOM) 22, 3–4 (1986): 355–70Google Scholar; “Qui a peur de la forêt? Les véritables enjeux de la forêt tropicale”, Cahiers de géographie du Québec 36, 99 (1992): 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar With specific reference to the forest realm, see Peluso, Nancy Lee, Vandergeest, Peter and Potter, Lesley, “Social Aspects of Forestry in Southeast Asia: A Review of Postwar Trends in the Scholarly Literature”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 26, 1 (1995): 196–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 On this issue of the relationship between agricultural expansion and State formation, see Déry, Steve, “Expansion agricole et déforestation: le modèle sud-est asiatique”, Cahiers de géographie du Québec 30, 109 (1996): 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar