© T. M. Whitmore

TODAY•Post-colonial or neo-colonial (mostly

19th C) economic geographies of Spanish Latin America – continuedSugar in CubaIndustrial minerals

•Agriculture and rural developmentCharacteristics of small holdersLand (or agrarian) reform

© T. M. Whitmore

LAST TIME- Questions?

•Post-colonial or neo-colonial (mostly 19th C) economic geographies of Spanish Latin America Temperate zone agricultureArgentine pampasBananas in C AmericaCoffee in Brazil & C America

© T. M. Whitmore

Sugar in Cuba

• Ideal local agroecological conditions

•Near huge USA market

•Sugar present but not well developed under Spanish

•USA acquired Cuba in 1898 as result of Spanish American war

•USA corporations (agribusiness) set up huge sugar plantations, mills, railroads

© T. M. Whitmore

Sugar in Cuba•Results

•Vast increase in output50% of all land in sugar by 1930Labor demand => increase in

immigrationInvestment in early yellow fever

and malaria eradicationUSA control of Cuban economy set

stage for Castro in 1959

•Ongoing reliance on sugar diminished

© T. M. Whitmore

Industrial Minerals

•Chilean nitrates & phosphates

•Bolivian Tin

•Copper, lead, zinc in Peru

•Oil in Mexico and Venezuela

nitrates

Tin

copper

Oil & gas

© T. M. Whitmore

Generalizations about 19th C neo-colonial development

•Few jobs except for small-holder coffee•Profit to few (mostly foreign or local

elites)•Foreign control of development,

infrastructure, capital investment, and expertise

•Development geographically isolated•Few economic multipliers•At the mercy of international prices•Foreign control •Nationalization

© T. M. Whitmore

Geographic Impact of the colonial and neo-colonial

extractive economy

•Geographic isolation of some development

•Much development focused on the main, often primate, usually old colonial center city — often called the core

•“Rachet-effect” of development in the core city

•Patterns persist, albiet changed

© T. M. Whitmore

Contemporary agricultural & rural development: 5

important Issues•Today:

Characteristics of small holders Land reform

•TuesdayRole of TechnologyProductivity paradoxInternal colonization

© T. M. Whitmore

Agricultural and Rural Development I: Small Holder

Agriculture

•Poverty

•Field fragmentation

•Risk averse

•Polyculture

• Intraspecies diversity

•Role of off-farm income

© T. M. Whitmore

Agricultural and Rural Development II: Land reform•Goals of land reform

Improved social equityProductivity increasesPolitical goals

•Types of land reform Re-distributive type Collectivist typeMixed typeContemporary “grass roots” types

© T. M. Whitmore

Re-distributive land reform:

Bolivia example•Pre-reform agriculture in 1950

•Revolution in 1952/3 =>

•Results of Bolivian land reform

•New impetus for land reform by current govt.

© T. M. Whitmore

Collectivist land reform: Cuba example 1959 and

after•pre-reform 1959

•1959 revolution =>

•Results of Cuban land reform

© T. M. Whitmore

Mixed land reform: Mexico example 1910-21 revolution•Pre-reform in 1910•Post-revolution: 1921 — 1980s

Ejido systemMost haciendas expropriated and

all or parts redistributedWealthy hacienda owner got to

keep some lands Some ex-hacienda lands were set

up as undivided collective farms•Results of Mexican land reform

Río Fuerte

© T. M. Whitmore

Contemporary land reform

•O Movimento dos Sem Terra (The Movement of Rural Landless workers) or the MST in Brazil

© Wendy Woford

Mid 1990s

Soy in S America

A New Society:Egalitarian and Socialist

© Wendy Woford

MST Activists

© Wendy Woford

Marcelo and Iara

© Wendy Woford

© Wendy Woford

© Wendy Woford

© Wendy Woford

© Wendy Woford

Campos Settlement, Campos Settlement, SCSC

© Wendy Woford

A settler’s land, Campos, SC

© Wendy Woford

Ourives Settlement

© Wendy Woford

© Wendy Woford

© Wendy Woford

Without Running Water: Ourives

© Wendy Woford

© Wendy Woford

© T. M. Whitmore

Effective Methods:MST from 1985 to 2000

•2 million members

•On 4,000 settlements

•In 22 states

•230,000 occupations