Abstract:A convergence of factors creates a worrisome contemporary pattern of resource dispossession of local populations in developing countries. Growing market demand for commodities, states' interest in expanding their fiscally fertile territories, and environmental conservation pressures have promoted resource frontiers, where locals all too frequently lose access to land, water and livelihoods. To add momentum and legitimize outsiders' agendas, such locations are sometimes framed as "last frontiers" – the final places of possibility. While various forms of resource "grabbing" have gained increased attention, we argue that a crucial dimension of frontier dynamics – neglect and its role in facilitating dispossession – warrants further study as it tends to be overlooked. Drawing on the frontiers and political ecology literature, this article analyzes how neglect by state authorities, markets, and environmental organizations paves the way for dispossession in those landscapes. We compare two cases: the Matopiba soy frontier in the savannas of Brazil's Cerrado and the Chin Hills of western Myanmar. Our results show how neglect is critical to imaginatively frame regions as "empty" places of possibility, excluding local actors economically from development and politically from governance initiatives. We argue that neglect not only precedes but is an enduring feature of resource frontiers, and identify four consecutive phases: (I) pre-frontier abandonment, (II) selective support to outsiders, (III) overlooked harms to communities, and (IV) socially exclusive sustainability agendas. As environmental concerns gain increasing global salience, Phase I sometimes leaps to Phase IV as international actors pounce to control what they regard as "last frontiers" for conservation. We conclude that external actors' inaction enables local communities' dispossession as much as their actions. This raises critical policy and scholarly questions about actors' responsibility and accountability, not only for harms done but also for systematically failing to heed local actors' aspirations and needs.

What does it mean to be ‘left behind?’

Regional varieties of 'left-behindness' in the EU15

Persistently poor, left-behind and chronically disconnected

Rethinking 'left-behind' places in a context of rising spatial inequalities and political discontent

Whither physical geography Redux: Revisiting the place of physical geography in the United States

Exploring the Impact of the Absence of Parents on the Left-Behind Children and Its Countermeasures

Rural Life-Styles: Material Opportunity, Cultural Experience, and How Theory Can Undermine Policy

On geography’s skewed transnationalization, anglophone hegemony, and qualified optimism toward an engaged pluralist future; A reply to Hassink, Gong and Marques

Psychological well-being, family relations, and developmental issues of children left behind

Power, politics and peripheralization: Two Eastern German cities

Exploring Left Behind Children in China

Understanding the geography of discontent: perceptions of government’s biases against left-behind places

Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections

Climate Change and Property Experiments in Appalachia

Neglect paves the way for dispossession: The politics of “last frontiers” in Brazil and Myanmar

People and places left behind: work, culture and politics in the rural United States

Alienation: The critique that refuses to disappear

Left Behind Catching Up

No Child is Left Behind? —— Education Problems of Left-behind Children in China

The impact of left-behind experience on urban identity of new-generation migrant workers

Is a “critical” area studies possible?