Minifundia in agrarian reform: a colombian example

Texto completo

(1),~.. ;. .. LTC Reprinl No. 47. Minifundia in Agrarian Reform: A Colombian Example. Dale W. Adams and Sam Schulman. NO TENURE CENTER. University of Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin 53706.

(2) Reprinted FIom LAND ECONOMICS Vol. XLIII No. 3 August 1967. Minifundia in Agrarian Reform: A Colombian Examplet By DALE W ADAMS' and SAM SCHULMAN ••. ETHODS USEn far correcting the prob-. M. lems of small farro units (minifundia) in Europe have proven inadequate in Latin America.t Attempts to remedy these problems have been frustrated partially because oí the heterogeneity of the small farm units found in I.atin America; the term minifundia covers a number of distinet types of units ,,,,hose characteristics, problems and possibilities for solution are very different. ~1oreover, many of the minifundia in Latin America diHer substantialIy from those found in Europe. On the basis oE several functional characteristics, ,ve go on to suggest a typology for classifying mínifundia in Latín America so that remedial alterna ti ves can be more easily identified. From this classification we se1ect one type, the dependent, for further discussion. By the use of a Coloffibian example, '''le describe the socioeconomic characteristics of several prominent forros of dependent minifundia and relate these characteristics to sorne of the remedial alternatives.. Types of Minifundia In a broad sense the term minifundia has been used in Latin America to describe small farrns '''/ hich are often in ~ adequate to meet the life-sustaining needs of the famiEes who exploit them. Generica11y, small farms with less than three to five hectares of land are usua11y cIassified as minifundia.2 Large numbers. of these types of unit'5 can be encountered in alrnost every part of Latín America. In Colombia, for example, over onehalf of a11 the farrn uni ts have less than three hectares of land. 3 A number of these minifundia concentratíons are 10cated close to urban centers but others are quite isolated. In sorne instances the rninifundia essential1y function as production units while others are rnainly places of residence. Occupants of minifundia may be highly dependent on income eamed from labor on nearby large landholdings; others are employed in urban areas or engaged in sorne type of horne industry. In a few areas these small fann units are made up of a num-. t This paper results from rcsearch carried out by the Land Tenure Genter, University of 'Visconsin with the cooperation of the Centro Interamericano de Reforma Agraria. The rcsearch was sponsored by the Agency fur International DeveJopment and the Organization of American Sta tes. The views herein exprcssed do not necessarily reflcct those of the abol'e mentioncd agencies. ,.. Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University. .. Professor oí Sociology, Colorado State University. ~ The most commonly wggcsted solutions for minifundia problems, drawing from the European experiencc, ¡nelude, parcd tonsolidation, laws which prohibit sub-divi~ion of small parcels and out-migration ptograms. 200 e hcctarc equals 2.47 acres. 8 Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE), Directorio Nacional de Explotaciones Agropecuarias (Censo Agropewario) 1960> Resumen Nacional (Segunda Parte) (Bogotá, Colombia: Multilith Estadinal, 1964), p. 39..

(3) AGRARIAN REFOR!14 IN COLOMBIA. 275. ber of fragmented parcels, in others they direet consumption needs. Small units contain ooly one OY oVO 10ts. The decay of this type are located throughout Coof the indigenous cornmunal systerns in lombia but tend to be concentrated in sorne areas has ldt heavy concentrations the eoffee regions, the tobacco areas, and of minifundia whose occupants are clase- in the margin around the large cities Iy tied to tradition. Other minifundia where truck garden farms are cornrnon. 6 famiHes have clase contact 1vith urban In a few cases, especially with regard to centers, adopt change rapidly, and are truck gardens, íneome from farm proless tied tú their land. There is also a duction on these units may be relatively wide range of tenUTe arrangements high. among these small farm operarors. Sorne The third type 01 minifundia is the de· Qwn the land in fee simple, others have pendent-aod ir is generaIl)' the most mixed tenuTe systems, others have a complexo These unirs are distinguished group title, aI no title, and 5till others by the fact that a substantial part of the operate the land as tenants. There is, family's ineome is derived from off-unit therefore, not a single minifundia prob- employment; examples of these can be lem but rather a complex of problems found throughout Colombia. The dewhich vary wiueIy froro case to case. pendent minifundia is of spedal interest In Colombia it i5 useful to identify beca use of its complex characteristics and three general types of rninifundia on the the difficuIties of applying remedial albasis of the follo·wing criteria: (1) the ternatives through agrarían reform probasic rnotivation involved in the opera- grams. It is oiten useful to sub-divide the lÍan 01 the unÍ!, (2) the relation 01 pro- dependent minifundia ioto at least three duetion deeisions to the market, and (3) the over-aIl oecupational structure of the family ,vhieh oceupies the unit:' Using these erheria the first type of small unit whieh ean be identified is the independ~ For another three-way classification oí minient minifundia. On these units most of fundia see, Thomas F. CarroIl. "Reflexiones sobre la Distribución del Ingeso y la Inversión Agrícola," the lamily's labor supply is devoted to Temas del BID, August 1964, p . .3.3. His dassificathe direet exploitation of the small farm; tion is briefl}': (1) those small units which could be viable with sorne additional land; (2) those production decisions are prindpalIy unit~ which couId be made viable with sorne other oriented by direet consumption needs key input; and (3) those small units which cannot be made viable -.;dth their prcs.ent re\Qun:e base. rather than market condítions. Large o For descriptions of several independent minilandholdings seldom affect !he labor pat- fundía arcas sec, L. E. Montero and D. ,"v. AJarns, Algunas Consideraciones sobre Reforma Agraria tems associated with this type of mini- en Regiones de Minifundio: Un EjemPlo Colomfundia, and off-farro employrnent is not biano (Bogotá, Colombia: Centro Interamericano de Reforma Agraria, 1965); and A. Pearse and S. an important factor. In Colombia these Rivera, Tenza, Boyacd: Un Estudio de un Area de small farm units tend to be eoncentrated Minifundio, Estudio Tecnico No. 4 (Bogotá, ColomFacultad de Sociología. Universidad Nacional, in parts of the Departments of Nariño. bia: 1967). e For examples of commercial minifundia see, A. Boyacá and Cundinamarca. ¡¡ E- Havens, Támesis: Estructura y Cambio (Bogotá, The second type is the commercial Colombia: Tercer Mundo, 1966); D. W. Adams and E. Montero, "Land Parcelization in Agrarian minifundia. These units also absorb LReforrn: A Colombian F..xample," Inter-Americun much 01 !he lamily's labor supply bu' Economic Aftairs, Winter 1965; and D. W. Adams, et al., Supervised Credit in Colombia's Agrarian most produetion decisions are c10sely Reform: An Evaluative Study (Bogotá, Colombia: tied to market conditions and not to Centro Interamericano de Reforma Agraria. 1966)..

(4) 276. LAND ECONOMICS. distinct sub-types. The first sub-type is made up oE residence clusters around urban centers and of people living in urban centers who operate smaIl agricultural plots outside of tOWll. These holdings are generically ffiinifundia since they are smal1 and located in rural areas. Functionally. however, the plots are principally places 01 residenee lor people employed in the urban eenter OY they serve as garden plots for those living in town. Tbe income generated froro these parcels is generally only a small part 01. resent both a form of residence and "making-a-living" in transition: displacing rural characteristics by those more nearIy urban ar mixing the two in an often unhappy combination. The various sub-types of dependent minifundia also present difficulties far any orthadox plan 01 resolving problems through an agyarian reform progyam. Although sorne areas contain mostly one sub-type of dependen t minifundia i t is not uncommon to find aH three sub·types in one area. Such an area is found around the village the operator's total earnings. 01 Sopó, located in tbe valley 01 the TeuA second sub-type 01 the dependent sacá River about 25 miles northeast of minifundia is the small exploitations Bogotá, Colombia. The minifundia located either nearby or on a large land- found in this area illustrate the comholding. Typically, these units are some- plexity of the problems laced and also what removed tram the large urban eeu- indicate the limitations associated with terso The small units are usually farros sorne of the mast often discussed remeand occupants derive sorne of the family's dial approaches for minifundia. necessities froro the farm. The operators cannot, however, exist without ineome Background on Sopó derived from work on nearby large farrus. The occupant mayar may not Many 01 the problems which presently own the unit and he is essentially a farm exist in the community of Sopó are deeplaborer on someone eIse's exploitation. 7 ly rooted in eVents which have taken The third sub- type is a mixed form of place over the past four hundred years. dependent minifundia_ It embraces When the Spanish under Gonzalo Jimésorne of the characteristics of the two sub- nez de Quesada conquered the Chibcha types mentioned aboye. It is not adja- Indians in 1538 there were three small cent to but may be relatively near an lndian villages located in the Sopó Valurban eenter. It often ineludes definable ley.9 In short arder the Sopó Indians were areas of minifllndia concentratian where production for horne consumption plus 1 For an example of this type al dependent mini· sorne commercial craps are grown. A fundia see, A. E. Havens, et al., Cereté Un Arca de majority of the ineome for the occupants, Latifundio; E~tudio Económico y Social, Informe Técnico No. 3 (Bogotá, ColOmbia: Facultad de nevertheless, comes from day labor on Sociología, L'niversidad Nacional, 1965). B For two studies done in areas with ffiixed de· large holdings, froro work in the urban minifundia see, Orlando Fals Barda, centers, or artisanal activities in the vil· pendent Peasant Society in the Colombian Ande~: A So· 8 ciological Study of Sauclo (GainesviUe, Florida: 1age ar in the horne itself. Uni\'ersity of Florida Press, 1955); and A. Pearse, From a socio-economic point-of-view Factores Sociales que Inciden en el Desarrollo the dependent minifundia are probably ECQnómico de La Hoya del Rio Subachoque (Bogo· tá, Colombia: Facultad de SOciologia, Universidatl the most provocative far study. In many "Nacional, 1963). ~ Enrique Ortega Ricanrte, San Salvador de Sopó cases they are numerically superior to (Bogotá, Colombia: Imprenta Nacional, 1935), p. the other two types. Also, they olten rep- 32..

(5) AGRARIAN REFORM IN COLOMBIA. 277. organized into an encomienda and Qne increased from 2,700 in 1938 lo 4,200 in of ,he soldiers of ]iménez de Quesada 1964. Abau' 85 per cent oí this populawas placed in charge. 10 Fragmentary tion growth has taken place since 1951evidence suggests that about 400 Indians There has been an addition of about inhabited the area at this time. Most of 300 residents in the small village and an the land in the fla' par< of ,he valley was increase of about 1,200 rural residents soon given to the conqueroTs in the form during ,he 1938 to 1964 period." Many of land grants and the lndians were of the latter have settled down as tenantsqueezed to ,he sides of the Valley. With "lvorkers on the large haciendas in the the Indian labor furnished through the Valley. The development of sorne light encomiendas these large land grants- "\VeTe industry in the town such as a milk proexploited and gradually expanded. Sorne- cessing plant partially explains the urban time before 1600 the areas on which the growth. The increase in the rural popuIndians settled were recognized as re~ lation has been due to sorne immigration serves whose lands belonged to the In- beca use of violence in other areas and dians. to intensification in the utilizatÍon of By the ,ime of Independence in 1819 the agriculturallands l"hich has required much oí Ihe good land in Sopó was mOTe hand laboTo About one·third of the flat agricul· owned by a Spanish prieS! who Hed aher tural land in Sopó has been placed into the Spaniards 1;-\Tere defeated. His large mechanized production of 'wheat and barfarm (hacienda) was given intac' lo General Francisco de Paula Santander, ley. Over 60 tractors were being used Ín a lateT president oí the country, fOI serv~ 1960 on ,his land. Muc.h of Ihe remainices rendered during ,he figh, for In· ing Ha' land supported more than 6,000 dependence,l1 From the period of In- head of cattle, many14 of ,vhich were im· dependence 'o 19.18 the population oí proved dairy breeds. The proximity of Sopó was stable a' abou' 2,500 inhabi· Bogotá, plus the nearby milk processing tants. There was. however, a substantial plant, provide a grm'áng market fOT Soamount of sub-division of the large land- pó's dairy products. Other conditions in Sop6 have changed holdings during ,his period. In 1935 or not at aH. As noted in Table l. less there were sorne 34 major haciendas 10cated in the Valley and most of these oí Ihe 34 haciendas found in the Valley were owned hy people living at least pan in 1935, twenty·nine of these s'iU had oí the lime in Bogotá." Most of ,he 438 nnal families enumerated in the 1938 Population Census were working on ,hese large landholdings and/or worked Iheir small holdings along Ihe edge of Ihe Valley. Cereals. corn, and livestock were the principal enterprises on the large units; wheat. potatoes, corn, and broadbeans (habas) were the major crops on the small units_ In several respects, sharp changes have taken place in Sopó over the past thirty years. The population, íor example, has. .0 Guillermo Hernández Rodriguez, De Los Chibchas a la Colonia y a la República (Bogotá. Colom·. bia: Sección de Extensión Cultural, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1949), p. 184. The encomienda was a method of granting the right to the use of Indian labor to privileged individuals. 11 Ortega Ricarte, op. cit., p. 65. 111 ¡bid .• pp_ 14_17. 13The populatíon data cited in this section carne from the 19~8, Hl51 and 1%4 Populatlon Censuses of Colombia. 14 Censo Agropauario, op. cit..

(6) 278. ,. LAND ECONOMICS 'v. TABLE 1 - S[ZE OF. AmOllot of total landholding. .. .'. :,. . ,,. ~. ". ~A-:>ID~~L~IN~; ~:;'R~~;DiiTl1~D. RURAL OF SOPO, CUNDINAMARCA: 1964-. NON·RE8lDENTS. I. Owners living in Owners 1i~'ing Total 1____S_o-'p_ó_ _ _ _ _o_u_t_';_d,~s_oP,-ó,-_I _ _ _ _.--_ _ _~_-c-_. _ _ _(_h",_ta_'_"_)_ _ _ I __N_o_,_+_H_",_,_: __N,_O_,. _1 __H_a_,_,-1--N3'-02~'. Less than l.I-. 3.15.1 10.1 50.1 100.1 500.1 1,000.1. -. _. !--H-c'9'CC':--1--%:c'¡:--6. No Information l.l 3,0 5,0 10.0 50.0 100.0 500.0 I 000.0 ar more. 170. Totals. 511. ¡50 56 56 65 8 6. 76 266 221 461 1,259. 42. 20. 212. 96. 1. 29. 56. 9. 34. 179 65. 322 255. 3 2. 1,042 1,137 3,889. 71 107 24 28. 571 2,301 1,744 4,626. 5 21 16 41. 15 42 16. 607 737. 22. 3.627. 176. no. 1,173 7,461. ----'----. ,1~ __-_~1_....:':--_17_3_1_,:: 719. 11,184. '-fU. "These data were adapted from the 1964 property tax records for the Afunicipio 01 Sopó. Entries by parcels of land in the tax record were filOt combined intn landholding units; sorne owners had more than ten parcels listed 00 rhe tax records. Next, several Jocal inEormanes helped determine which of these owocrs were local residents ami which livcd outside of the local area.. more than 100 hectares oE land in 1964. The remaining five had been substantial1y hactionated during this periodo Although there has been sorne shrinking in the size of the other large units over the past 30 years, about one-half of rhe farm land in the val1ey and along rhe sides of rhe hills was held in units of 100 hectares or more. It can also be noted in Table 1. that 176 of the 719 rural property. own~. ers in Sopó livcd outside oE the valle)', mostly in Bogotá. These absentee mvners hold title to over two-thirds of the land in the Valley and to about 75 per cent of the fIat fertile parto Concrete historical information is lacking but one gets the impression that, in spite of a substantial reduction in the size dimension oE che holdings in Sopó, there has becn relatively liule change in the proportien of land owned by absentee O"wners over the years. Large landholdings '~'hich have been divided thTOUgh inheri tance or cornmercial sale have gone into hands of relatives or individuals who live outside the Valley.. The Dependent Minifundia in Sopó. As noted in Table 1 there VI'Tere abont 450 rural landholdings in Sopó which totaled five hectares OI less. About 80 of the owners of these lived outside of tIte VaHey and a few of the remaining rented their lands to larger operators. There were, then, approximately three hundred owner·operators of minifundía units in Sopó. In addition, hmvever, there 1-\'cre about ISO families who lived and ""\vorked on the larger units and who had use-rights to small parcels oE land 'within the haciendas. Counting these, a total oE about 450 minifundia units couId be identified in Sopó. As mentioned earlier, for a general classification we have called these minifundía in Sopó the dependent type because oE the importance oE off-unit occupations among the operators. Only a handful of small fann operators in the area had in tensi ve truck garden farms that could be identified as commercial minifundia. Almost none of the independent type minifundia units were.

(7) AGRARIAN REFORM IN COLOMBIA. present in the area. A series of detailed studies iu the Valley showed that all three sub-types of dependent minifundia discussed aboye can be identífied in Sopó. The Mixed Dependent 1Hinifundia. The most easily ídentifíed group of small farm units in Sopó is the approximately 200 units with houses which are located on the sides of the Valley, maínly in tWQ zones, which once made up the lodian reservations. About one-haH of the families living in these two areas depend on agricultural production and/or work on other farros fOI their principal meallS of livelihood. Another one-quarter of the families are dependent on sorne sort of eraft work fOI their main saurce oE income. The remaining one-quarter are employed in the local village or other urban centers. In a few cases elderIy paTents live in these rninifundia areas but reI}' upon incorne furnished by theiT grown children to maintain themselves. As could be expected from first impressions. about 80 per cent oí the familíes living in these areas were operating less than three hectares of land. :rvfost of these had only one parcelo Of the remaining 20 per cent, however, several had over 20 hectares of land which ineluded up to four parcels. Only about 15 per cent of the small farm units included nonowner operated Iands. Share rentals and special family arrangements made up most of these relationships. Except for the few residents in these minifundia areas who operated relativeIy large units, the minifundia only provided a sma11 portian of the family's income. Only six of these small units produced sales of more than 50 dollars worth of produets during 1964. Wheat .nd corn were the pTincipal commodities soldo !víost of the producers of wheat were using commercial fertilizers and. 279. improved varieties of wheat. A handful of these small uni ts had eattle and only about one-third had several head of sheep. Fe,,\' of these families could borIOW the equivalent of one hundred dollars peI year fOI production credit and less than 20 per cent, mostly the larger farm operator, made regular use of any kind of production credit. Over 40 per cent of the operators of these srnall units 'vere over 50 years of age. It appears thar the out-migration process has been age, education, and health selective; many of the young, healthy, and fairIy welleducatcd people have left the area for Bogotá.. The Afinifundia Associated with the Urban Areas. There are about 100 fam~ ilies that live in the village of Sopó ar on the outskirts of town who own small plots of land in the rural area. This is about one-third of the families living in the village. A few addítional operators of large units also live in the village. Most of the holders of small plots own less than two hectares oí land rnade up of one or two parcels. A wide diversiry of principal occupations 'Ivas found among these owners. Almost a11 of the small landovmers who lived in the tm~rn had majo-r sourc.es of income outside of their exploitation. Many ran srnall shops, worked io public office or acted as middlemao for agricultural comrnoditieso Still others had srnall horne industries and a Íew depended 00 employrnent in the rural area for supplemental income. In sorne respects the urban residents in Sopó who operate small farms resernble the large absentee landowners who owo land in Sopó but live in Bogotá. That is, they only spend a small portion of their time making decisions about the farm exploitation and their principal interests are focused 00 other economic.

(8) 280. LAND ECONOMICS. activlues. A number of these farm O1\.'ners had inhcrited their small parcels af-. areas. \Vith few exceptíons the occupants of mese small units had spent their en~ ter they '''''ere well estab1ished in other tire adult Uves as agricultural laborers. occupatíons. Still others purchased the Beeause a]most all ol the production Oil small plots ,,,,ith savings in arder to have their small parccls of land was for horne a more secure investment. consumption they had littIe 01' no experiltlinifundia- Associated with Large cnef with makiug decisions abolit com· Units. As mcntloned carlicr, there are mercial agricultura! proouction. Furabout 150 families who live and work 011 thermore, the occupants of these small the large commercial farms in the flat units seldom owned any kind ol farm· part of the Valley. As pan of their wages ing tools; they were completely dependmany of these families are gíven a smal1 ent upon the large landm"ners for these pIot with about one hectare of land {OY implements. In many respects Colombia has a rathsubsistence o'ops, and a hame. Sorne oE the largest haciendas in the Valley have er complete labor code "... hich is aimed up to 15 Eamilies living on the farm. at reg-ulating the \vorking cünditions for Oue of the ,\'orkers is usually the mayor- these fann laborers. This ineludes a domo tvho makes the day-to-day deci- minirnurn \·vage, serverance pay based on sions. Gn the units which have tractors length of service, annual vacatüm and and trucks, several of the workers are bonuses, extra pay for work done on Sunoccupied as drivers. The rest of the days and holidays and medical benefits. 'Norkers are used as unskillcd labor in In most cases the permanent lvorkers OIl planting, harvestíng, milking, and gener- the large commercial farms in Sopó would be eligible lor these benefits. al upkeep 01 the farm. Aside {rom occasional gratuities given to Except for the drivers and the mayor- these 'workers in Sopó by the large landdomo the salaries faI these ,,\'orkers aver- owners, however, fe"... of the elements oE aged abont oue do llar per day in 1964. the labor law '·. . ere being fulfilled. There In sorne cases "!vhere a dairy herd occu- was an almost total ignorante OH the part pied the-fann the lv-orken ",oere a1so given oE the -workers in the Sopó area of their a few dairy products regulady. The rights under the law. :Moreover, those mayordomo and drivers -were generally who knew a bon t sorne element~ of tile paid about twice the amount given to law '·...ere afraid to dernaud their rights the common laboren. In a few cases the because dismissal might follow. mayordomos were abo allmved to have a cauple of cattle on their small pareel Pos.sibilities lor Remedial Techniques but in general the cornmon workers had As we have pointed out. there are a no more than severa1 chickens. number of important differences among Very few of the wOTkers had mOre than the minifundia units in Sopó. These iutwo years of formal education. A number elude variations in mouvatioll for operof them had moved iuto Sopó from other atiug the sroall unit, SOUTces of income, areas in order to obtain employrnent. leve! of education and age of the operA fe"v of thero \ven~ landless families or ators, breadth oE farming experienee and small farm opera ton who lived along the anteeedents through which the small sides of the Valley but who could llot units were formed. Low levels of ineome find employment opportunities in urban and lack of vertical mobi1ity. however,.

(9) AGRARIAN REFORM IN COLOMBIA. are characteristics common among the operators oI these units. As might be expected. the heterogeneous nature oE these smal! farms and Ihe difference among their operators seriously affects the scope and applicability of ,he vaTÍ· ous remedial techniques which might be applied. With respect lO the use of parcel consolidation in Sopó, i, is doub,ful ,ha' more than a handful of farm units in me area couId benefit through combining several scattered parceIs. 1S Al though a few of the units in the areas of mixed· dependent minifundia do inelude multípIe parcel" the overwhelming problem 15 that the total amount of land incIuded in the minífundia does not add up to viable units and there is little that pareel consolídation can do to remedy this situation. Other agrarian reform alternatives such as supervised credit and the formation of cooperatives, which have had sorne success among commercial minifundia, also appear to have only limÍted applícability to rhe minífundia problems in Sopó_ Supervised credit, for example, is mast effective among operators who have underutilized labor and land resaurces. lB The fact that many oE the small farro operators in Sopó "mrk offunit suggests the presence of excess labor far on-farm work. Few of these small units, however, have sufficíent land to make a viable fann unit even with addi· tional doses of credit and supervision. Moreover, few oI the operators of these units have had managerial experience with farms organized to rcaet to market conditions. This i8 especially true of tenant workers on the large units. An ílliterate, fifty·year-old individual who has been a fam1 worker a11 his working life is not a good bet to become a success-. 281. fuI operator of a commercial farm, even with supervision and credit. Likewise, marketing cooperatives have limited possibilities because the operatOtS of these dependent minifundia, un~ like operators of commercial minifundia, seU only a ,maU portion of their prod· ucts. Under the circumstances there would be little opportunity for a cooper· ative to help producer, bendít from bulk sales, grading or lower transporta!ion costs. The opportunities ate even less promising for a consumer cooperative to compete with the low margins charged by the large number of local merchants in the area. There appear to be few marketing functions which the cooperative eould improve upon for this group of people. Another alternative solutíon proposed by the Colombian Agrarian Reform Law of 1961 is to place a minimum size of six hectares on the parcels of land whích can be sub·divided. If fol1owed, this may help prevent the formation of new minifundia units, especially in areas of independent minifundia, but cannot treat the problems at hand in Sopó. This type of approach treats the results rather than lhe causes of the problem. Still another solution fúr the minifundia has been widely discussed in Colombia. That i5, the acceleration of the migration process so [hat occupants of [he so-called marginal or minifundia. Ui A similar conc]usion fOf most oí Colombia was reached in another study: Carlos de Soma y Plana, Estudio del MinijundiQ en Colombia Desde el Punto de Vista de: Las Posibilidades de Realización de La "Concentracidn Parce/aria" (Bogotá, Colom· bia: Department oí Technical Studies, INeORA, }964). p. 37. 1.6 For a further exposition of the aims of super· vised ,redit see, D. W. Adams, et al., op. cit., pp.. 7-8..

(10) 282. LAND. ~s.;ONOMICS·. units can be moved out of the rural areas,17 In sorne parts oE Colombia this out-rnigration process 1S well advanced. Sorne of this shifting population, hmvever, is moving iuta other rural areas. The continuing colonization thrusts and the settlement in vilIages near large eities are important aspects of this process. Sopó falls luto the Iatter case lNith respect to migration. That is, farm labareIs continue to move into Sopó [rom more remate areas 'while many of the young, healthy, aggressive, better educated individuals frcm the area move luto Bogotá. In large measure the remaining occupants of the small farms in Sopó would be unable, within reasonable limits, to make the transition iuto the large city. Many of the operators of these small units who live in rhe rural area are llOr functionally literate, are oE an age where new skills are almost impossible to learn or have poor health. If these people moved to the cities they would only add to the social problems present there and it is likely that their economic productivity ·would be lower than in their present activities. A number oE the minifundia operators in Sopó are alrcady dosely identified ·"úth the urban environment through their oceupations in the local village. It is doubtfuI if many of these 'í,,"QuId consider leaving the area. Taking a longer range vie'ív, hawever, it is likely that a substantial improvement in the rural educatian in Sopó would result in increased aut-migratian of the children and thus sorne long-term reduction in the number of sroall farro units if the iromigration "¡.vas also stanched. Another majar alternative far solution of the minifundia problems in Sopó lies in obtaining access to more land faI the occupants of the small units identified as mixed OI tied to large haciendas.. This could indude direct measures such as expropriation-parcelization, coromercial parcelization or inducing large landowners to rent more land to these indíviduals. Indirect measures ,vhich increase land taxes and labor costs may also be a means of encouraging the landowners to seH their lands or rent them out. Although a number of these minifundia operatoTS could profitably utilize more land, there are also a nmnber ,vho couId not because of their age, Iack of experience, or present occupations. Approximately 100 of the operators of minifundía in Sopó might be candidates for utilizing more land under sorne special program. 18 Substantial quantities of credit and technical assistance ,,,ould be necessary, along ,vith the land, to assure sorne measure of success to the ue'v land operators. Summary. Although ,-ve have far from exhausted the dcscription of the small farro units in Latin America and the remedial alternatives ,vhich might be applied, the foregoing discussion should suggest the complexity of the problems faccd in trying to treat minifundia. It should also indicate why agratian reformers have had difficulty in applying the European experiente with minifundia to Latin America. 'Ve argue that minifundia in Latin. 11 This alternati\'e is strongJy argued by Lauchlin Currie in, Accelerating Developmenl: The Necessity and the Means (New York, New York: McGrawHm Dook Company, 1966). 1JI It should be nOled that the ability of the Colombian Institute fOr Agrarian Reform (INeORA) to obtain land for parcelization in an area likc Sopó is sharply limited. Dnder present law it is doubtful if any oE the large units in Sopó could be expropriated. Some sort of commerciaI purchase would probably be necessary in this case before laud couId be obtained for parcelitation..

(11) AGRARIAN REFORM IN COLOMBIA. America are seldom a homogenous category which can be simply treated and that sorne sub-c1assification can be usefuI in evaluating remedial alternatives. At least in the Colombian case we feel that grouping minifundia into the independent! varíaus forros oí dependent and cornmercial types can help in estab· lishing guidelines for problem solution. We attempted to show through OUT discussion of the various forms oE dependent minifundia in Sop6 how the diHerent kinds of minifundia were formed, how the basic characteristics of these small units vary wide1y and how a few of the cornmonly suggested remedial techniques relate to these units. Given the type of minifundia present in Sopó and the diversity found among these units, it is apparent that a bundle of techniques must be applied to treat the problems at hand. It i, doubtful, for example, that many of the small rural landowners who live in the local village, or who live outside but work in the village, can be drav..'11 into full-time farming positions. They would probably ben· efit more from p-rograms which developed local industries, artisanal activities, or marketing services. A few of the tenant workers on the large farms could probably be helped to achieve landownership statuS through parcelization prograrns backed up by supervision and credit. Sorne of the other small farrn operators in tbe area couId al50 profit by. 283. sucb measures. It migbt also be possibIe for sorne of the tenant workers to exploit several 01 the large units in the valley tbrough cooperative action. 19 The remainder of the tenant workers couId be assi5ted through enforcement of the nationallabor code which would Taise their overall earnings. Still other operators of ,maU farm, in Sopó could be helped by the further development of horne industries and off-farrn opportunities for work. FinaUy, it should be recognized that sorne of the operators of these small units cannot be substantially helped with any of tbe techniques presentIy being used by agrarian reformers. In tbese cases programs must be developed to provide their children with better health and education so that their socio-economic opportunities can be extended beyond that of the parents. This ties in closeIy with the need for long term planning for minifundia. Not only do ,,,,Te need to correct existing problems, but we also need to project plans in thi5 regard so that the undesirable conditions which occur in minifundia can be eliminated over time.. '" For a discussion of this system of exploitation see, Peter Dorner and J. c. Collarte, "Latld Reform in Chile: Proposal for an Institutional Innovation," ¡nter·American Economic Affairs, Summer 1965, pp. 3--22..

(12)