Conceptual analysis reveals limitations in applying Global North ruralization frames to Southeast Asia, highlighting the need for geographically divergent approaches to land relations.
This response speaks to ruralization's multifaceted potential by bringing Santi and Matthews’ three ruralizing frames – autonomy, reparation, and rematriation – into conversation with Southeast Asia. Mapping Southeast Asia onto their analysis of ruralization as a means of decolonizing land relations proves less fruitful than thinking about ruralization as a concept with productively divergent histories and geographies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gillen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: