Storing value: The infrastructural ecologies of commodity storage

As Marx pointed out in the second volume of Capital, storage is a critical moment in the circulation of capital. Yet, despite the resurgent interest in the political economy of circulation, logistics, and infrastructures, commodity storage remains under-examined in critical human geography. This paper examines the “hidden abode” of storage by tracing attempts to control moisture and realize value in two different commodity chains: Newfoundland saltfish and American grain in the late-19th- and 20th centuries. Storing preserved codfish and grain presented different biophysical obstacles for firms, but both required interventions to discipline moisture to preserve and realize the value embodied in the commodities. Through our empirical work, we frame storage sites as infrastructural ecologies: complex, more-than-human assemblages that both constrain and enable the realization of value embodied in lively commodities. This paper contributes to debates on circulation, logistics, and infrastructures by highlighting historical geographies of storage as a novel vantage point from which to analyze the frictions and flows of value under capitalist social relations. By grounding logistics in a value-theoretical framework, this paper also contributes to recent debates regarding the value (and valuation) of nature in political economy, by highlighting the role of storage and realization in the nature–value nexus.

Commodity Storage, Post-Harvest Losses, and Food Security: Panel Data Evidence from Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, 95 % of total agricultural output comes from some 11 million smallholder farmers. A relatively significant proportion of the food grown in the country is stored at the household level by smallholder farm households, mainly for own consumption. Storage losses, generally perceived to be high, have significant implications for household food security. This study provides a microeconomic perspective of commodity storage, post-harvest losses (PHL), and food security in Ethiopia. It relies on a large-scale household panel dataset, the Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS), which comprises 4,000 households in rural areas and small towns that are representative of the most populous regions of Ethiopia. The data were collected as part of the World Bank’s LSMS-ISA project; it involved three “waves” or collection periods: 2011/12, 2013/14, and 2015/16. Data from only the second and third waves were used to estimate a random-effects probit model. Findings show that the magnitude of PHL is substantial: damage is due to rodents and rotting related to traditional storage facilities, poor ventilation, humidity/temperature, and undesirable post-harvest handling. Findings also show that PHL decreases with better market access and improved storage practices. Mitigation measures that improve and promote modern grain storage facilities appear to provide a double dividend – reducing PHL while addressing food insecurity.

Is Commodity Storage an Option for Enhancing Food Security in Developing Countries?

We revisit the underlying economics of commodity storage and its relation to food security by first clarifying the standard model used to analyze the economic efficiency and distributional effects of commodity storage programs. We find that producers prefer stabilization, although their incomes are more variable, while consumers are indifferent. However, numerical simulations indicate that physical stocks will build up inexorably over a sustained period or the government will need to raise prices continuously over a prolonged period. For the least developed countries facing fluctuating world prices, government should guarantee the price received by producers because, with price uncertainty, farmers could experience losses even under a ‘good’ weather outcome; this would guarantee the producer price, benefitting farmers, while allowing the consumer price to vary with the world price benefits consumers as they prefer price instability. In some cases, however, the government may wish to impose a price ceiling so that households living at or near subsistence can afford to buy grain – an argument based on the grounds of food security. Numerical simulations indicate that such a mixed-price policy increases the wellbeing of both consumers and producers. Physical storage is not a necessity.