privilege that actors in a position of authority have to concentrate or direct benefits in their individual or group‟s favour (Nuijten 2004). This situation includes concentrating or distributing benefits not exclusively from land-based resources, but other programmes and activities that produce both material and economic benefits. (Such as direct conditional cash transfers or the provision of development aid programmes). Furthermore, gaining access through authority can be related with who holds the rights over resources (Ribot 1998; Lane 2006). In relation to the land reform process, the main authorities regarding the use of resources within the community are the different groups‟ comisariados; while the mediator authorities between the local village organization and the official government institutions are the delegados52. Being a local authority can provide privileged access to certain benefits above all when it comes to lobbing or distributing resources. One of the participants at a focus group with Posesionarios and Avecindados (FG-4) mentioned:
“Sometimes the problem [about solving the problems of the community] is that Ejidatarios and Comuneros cannot agree on the [distribution] of goods. When Ejidatarios or Comuneros get apoyos (cash transfers or material endorsements) they give them to their own families or friends, even when they do not need them. For example, last administration people were angry because the delegados gave to their [families and friends] materials for constructing latrines that the federal government gave. […] We know who really need the apoyos and who has received them because they know the village authorities; nobody watches the authorities and when we need support, sometimes we do not know who to ask for it: delegados, comisariados, or with the Jefe Supremo…”
The last comment illustrates several issues behind the role of authority. First, that belonging or being close to a local authority can imply obtaining benefits from resources in an easiest way. This demonstrates that authority can be seen as a type of social relation, in which individuals fulfil their needs even at the cost of the community‟s rejection. Second, there are problems related to the boundaries of
52 For a discussion about how powers are divided and transferred from the central government to this authority bodies, refer to chapter 4, on the history of land reform in Mexico. Further discussion about the role of local authorities on access to resources can be found in chapter 5.
174
jurisdictions each authority has. This situation allows individuals holding authority positions or with good relationship with them to maintain and control the distribution of benefits from different notions of what can be considered as legitimate. Other villagers can react by neglecting the jurisdiction of these authority bodies by lobbing the fulfilment of their needs in other legal or customary authorities. Furthermore, when taking authority as an organizational trait “[…] authority is an important juncture in the web of powers that enables people to benefit from things. In effect, authorities are nodes of direct and indirect forms of access control where multiple access mechanisms or strands are bundled together in one person or institution. People and groups gain and maintain access to other factors of production and exchange through them” (Ribot and Peluso 2003:170). The process by which individuals can access positions of authority at the agrarian community level is similar to the processes and politics behind standing for a public position in any politico-legal institution from the State.
Interpersonal relations play a central role when placing individuals or groups in positions where they can determine the distribution of benefits. The analysis of San Francisco Oxtitilpan shows that for some villagers having a close relation with delegados and comisarios represents either having or being excluded from the distribution of benefits. Besides concentrating the benefits from policies and aid programmes, interpersonal relations with villagers in privileged socio-political positions can be translated into land-based benefits. Farm income is considered here as a benefit based on the economic product of agricultural- and livestock-related activities that are physically associated to land-based resources.
Agricultural and grazing lands, when combined with variable inputs and other assets, have been acknowledged as a source of income for rural households (de Janvry et al. 2001).
For the Matlatzinca case, three activities where reported as sources of farm income: agriculture, livestock activities and renting out land. For Matlatzincas, farming activities are embedded in their particular social and communitarian structure. Hence, farming activities illustrate the structural mechanisms put in place not only to obtain economic benefits from these activities, but also for accessing other resources that are difficult to assess in the form of income
175
generated, but that are valued by their users in terms of their complementary use (the case of fodder, agricultural products, or manure). For better understanding that conclusion, it is necessary first to analyse the distribution of farm income and its role in the conformation of different wealth categories (Table 6.2.).
Table 6.2. Distribution of agricultural land income by wealth ranking
abWealth Ranking N Minimum Maximum Average income
(per year)
b. Data expressed in Mexican Pesos per year
The figures of income generated from livestock and renting out land shows that the „well off‟ group concentrates the highest means of income, 6937 and 432 Mexican Pesos, respectively. These numbers reflect the benefits „well off‟
households can obtain from land-based resources due to their privilege position within the community in terms of access to bigger agricultural plots and technology. For instance, having bigger plots might imply „well off‟ households to produce more fodder for feeding their livestock and better infrastructure for maintaining them, plus the possibility to spare some plots for sharecropping and renting out (note that only „well off‟ and „middle‟ households receive income due to renting out land). While some „well off‟ and „middle‟ households can afford agriculture to be more an expenditure than a source of income, „poor‟ households have at least some net agricultural income, and furthermore, they have the highest mean of net agriculture income (3647 Mexican Pesos). Being „well off‟ however does not imply the same privilege income generation in terms of net agricultural income.
176