The Legacy of Landlords: Educational Distribution and Development in a Comparative Perspective

Das Vermächtnis der Plantagenwirtschaft: Bildungsungleichheiten und Entwicklung in einer vergleichenden Perspektive

Abstract

This paper shows that differences in educational outcomes within and between Asia and Latin America are caused in part by the type of agricultural production system. It is argued that, in contrast to states organized around family farming, countries exhibiting plantation-style agriculture tend to neglect broadly based educational policies. Plantation owners may have curtailed educational expansion to impede political mobilization of rural workers in order to secure a cheap supply of hired labour and monopolize the political arena. Results of panel data analysis as well as OLS cross-sectional regressions show that the export of crops grown on large landholdings substantially decreases secondary education attainment levels and governments’ investments in secondary schooling. Simultaneously, these same exports are associated with higher tertiary education levels. The quantitative analysis is complemented by historical evidence of agrarian elites attempting to hinder the development of mass schooling in many countries.

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Beitrag zeigt, dass Bildungsunterschiede zwischen und innerhalb Asien und Lateinamerikas zum Teil auf unterschiedliche landwirtschaftliche Produktionssysteme zurückzuführen sind. Im Gegensatz zu Ländern, deren Agrarproduktion hauptsächlich auf landwirtschaftlichen Kleinbetrieben beruht, tendieren Plantagenwirtschaften dazu, eine umfassende Bildung ihrer Bevölkerung zu vernachlässigen. Großgrundbesitzer haben sich gegen eine breite Bildungsexpansion gewehrt, um die politische Mobilisierung von Agrararbeitern zu verhindern und somit die Bereitstellung billiger Arbeitskräfte und das Monopol über den politischen Entscheidungsfindungsprozess sicher zu stellen. Ergebnisse einer gepoolten Zeitreihen- und Querschnittsanalyse deuten darauf hin, dass der Export von Plantagenprodukten sowohl die Sekundarbildungsabschlüsse als auch die Sekundarbildungsausgaben eines Landes verringert. Gleichzeitig wird diese Exportkategorie mit mehr Hochschulausbildung in Verbindung gebracht. Die quantitative Analyse wird um historische Evidenz für den Widerstand der Agrareliten gegen die Entwicklung einer umfangreichen Schulausbildung ergänzt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the data reflects the percentage of the population having completed primary or secondary education but nothing higher. Thus, the categories are exclusive.

  2. 2.

    Data compiled by Engerman et al. (2000) show a very similar picture.

  3. 3.

    Note that this paper refers to the export structure rather than looking at production figures. This choice was primarily a matter of data availability. Production data is only available for a shorter time span and less detailed than export data, and is rather unreliable for some of the reported countries. However, a high correlation between production and export output can be assumed.

  4. 4.

    Statistics Canada revised the United Nations trade data to fit the Canadian trade classification.

  5. 5.

    Data for the year 1962 was used as proxy for the year 1960. The data is available at http://cid.econ.ucdavis.edu/ (January 20th, 2009).

  6. 6.

    The category plantation crops (also called “cash crops”) represents agricultural labour-intensive goods usually gained from cultivation on large plantations: bananas, oranges, orange juice, sugar, coffee, cocoa, tobacco, palm nuts, palm kennels, rubber, palm oil, coconut oil.

  7. 7.

    These figures are confirmed by new land inequality data recently compiled by Frankema (2006).

  8. 8.

    Besides diverging factor endowments, one has to look at the timing of land reform when trying to assess the landownership structure of both regions. Following World War II, several Asian countries implemented successful agrarian reforms, due largely to the prodding of the United States or to other external factors such as the North Korean invasion of the South. In countries such as South Korea, Taiwan or Bangladesh, for example, agrarian reform came before significant industrialization had taken place.

  9. 9.

    The assumption laid down above has already been subject to empirical tests in the literature. Focusing on the characteristics of interest groups themselves, Bates (1981) for example shows that a few large African farmers managed to overcome their collective action problem, receiving input subsidies from governments, in contrast to a mass of small farmers that stayed unorganized. The author concludes that in the African countries he examined, all special interests (large farmers, urban residents) were satisfied at the expense of unorganized groups (small farmers).

  10. 10.

    Works analyzing landlords’ political resilience are Hagopian (1996) for Brazil, Stone (1990) for Central America, Abente (1995) for Paraguay, Hartlyn (1998) for the Dominican Republic or Smith (1979) for Mexico.

  11. 11.

    Works analyzing the importance of clientelist practices in rural as well as urban settings are Cornelius (1977) and Grindle (1977) for Mexico, Schmidt (1977) for Colombia, Stokes (1995) for Peru and Powell (1977) for Venezuela.

  12. 12.

    The so called Australian ballot (a system of state-provided ballots with provisions to ensure secrecy) was not introduced in Brazil until 1955, 1958 in Chile and 1988 in Colombia.

  13. 13.

    Frieden (1991) argues that sectors like agriculture, in which assets are specific and cannot be easily transferred for other uses, have the most to gain from influencing governments.

  14. 14.

    For a description of working conditions throughout rural Latin America see Duncan and Routledge (1977).

  15. 15.

    Political participation includes “not only voting and other forms of electoral activity (e.g., working in campaigns, making financial contributions) but also contacting public officials, attending protests, and getting involved either formally or informally on local issues” (Brady et al. 1995, p. 272–3).

  16. 16.

    This paper concentrates on landlords’ resistance towards secondary (rather than primary) education for several reasons related to the causal mechanisms outlined above. First, it can be assumed that children who are younger than eleven years of age do not constitute an important workforce for landowners, as their potential contribution to farms’ productivity is only marginal. Landlords may therefore have been less reluctant to accept primary school visits. Furthermore, since especially secondary schooling is believed to qualify workers to take up jobs in the industrial sector, this kind of education constituted a considerable threat to the supply of rural laborers. Finally, cross-sectional variance of secondary education is larger than of primary schooling for the period under analysis (most of the countries in the sample exhibit high primary school coverage after 1960).

  17. 17.

    This period of Brazilian history is known as República das Oligarquias (Republic of the Oligarchies). The leading politicians of this period came from two major political parties: Partido Republicano Paulista (PRP) and Partido Republicano Mineiro (PRM). Both parties represented the interests of the agrarian elite, especially the coffee producers from Sao Paulo and cattle owners from Minas Gerais.

  18. 18.

    The decrees 13.175, 13.390 and 13.460 were issued between 1918 and 1919.

  19. 19.

    See e.g. O Estado de Sao Paulo 01/17/1925, 01/19/1925, 01/21/1925 or 04/08/1931.

  20. 20.

    See e.g. O Estado de Sao Paulo 04/25/1931 or 04/26/1931.

  21. 21.

    Economically powerful actors do not necessarily have to be political influential. However, the historical evidence from Latin America and Asia tells us that in almost every country with plantation-style, extensive agriculture and a concentrated landownership structure, landlords form a cohesive, resilient and politically influential group. As argued, this might be explained by lower collective actions costs compared to the numerous small family farmers in Asia.

  22. 22.

    See footnote 23.

  23. 23.

    24 countries have sufficient data available: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Korea Republic, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Venezuela.

  24. 24.

    See Sachs and Warner (1995, 2001), Gylfason (2001), Sala-i-Martin and Subramanian (2003) or Isham et al. (2005).

  25. 25.

    Papers considering all or part of these control variables are Kaufman and Segura-Ubiergo (2001), Brown and Hunter (2004), Stasavage (2005) or Avelino et al. (2005).

  26. 26.

    The data is available at: http://esa.un.org/unup/ (April 5th, 2008).

  27. 27.

    The two authors suggest applying OLS estimators with panel-corrected standard errors, unit and period fixed effects as well as including the lagged dependent variable when analyzing pooled cross-sectional time-series data.

  28. 28.

    Note, however, that the export of plantation crops is only significant on the 10%-level. This might be a consequence of the many variables and the few cases considered by the analysis.

  29. 29.

    A stepwise inclusion of the independent variables in the four different models showed that the reported statistical significance of the independent variables is not simply a result of multicollinearity.

  30. 30.

    All these results are available upon request.

  31. 31.

    Data were retrieved from the World Development Indicators 2003.

  32. 32.

    This operationalization would be problematic in case public secondary education would be biased towards higher income classes (e.g. children of the landowning class). It can be said, however, that in most of the analyzed countries rich parents send their children to private schools.

  33. 33.

    The 17 countries for which data was available are: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Korea Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Venezuela, India, Philippines, Singapore, Venezuela.

  34. 34.

    Coatsworth (1984), for example, shows how an expansion of opportunities of agricultural exports in Mexico led to a systematic expropriation of Indian lands during the government of General Porfirio Díaz at the beginning of the 20th century.

References

  1. Abente, Diego. 1995. A Party System in Transition: The Case of Paraguay. In Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, eds. Scott Mainwaring and Timothy R. Scully, 298–320. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson. 2006a. Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective. American Political Science Review 100: 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson. 2006b. Persistence of Power, Elites and Institutions. NBER Working Paper Series No. 12108. Cambridge, MA: NBER

    Google Scholar 

  4. Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson. 2000. Political Losers as a Barrier to Economic Development. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 90: 126–130.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson. 2001. The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation. The American Economic Review 91: 1369–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arellano, Manuel and Stephen Bond. 1991. Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. Review of Economic Studies 58(2): 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Avelino, George, David S. Brown and Wendy Hunter. 2005. The Effects of Capital Mobility, Trade Openness, and Democracy on Social Spending in Latin America, 1980–1999. American Journal of Political Science 49(3): 625–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baland, Jean-Marie and James A. Robinson. 2006. Land and Power: Theory and Evidence from Chile. NBER Working Paper Series No. 12517. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Banerjee, Abhijit and Lakshmi Iyer. 2005. History, Insitutions, and Economic Performance: The Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure Systems in India. The American Economic Review 95: 1190–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barraclough, S. 1973. Agrarian Structure in Latin America. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barro, Robert J. und Jong-Wha Lee. 2001. International data on educational attainment updates and implications. Oxford Economic Papers 3: 541–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bates, Robert H. 1981. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bauer, Arnold J. 1995. Landlord and Campesino in the Chilean Road to Democracy. In Agrarian Structure & Political Power. Landlord & Peasant in the Making of Latin America, eds. Evelyne Huber and Frank Safford, 39–66. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Beck, Nathaniel and Jonathan Katz. 1995. What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review 89: 634–647.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Beck, Nathaniel. 2001. Time-Series-Cross-Section Data: What have we learned in the past few years. Annual Review of Political Science 4: 271–293.

  16. Binswanger, Hans P. and Mark R. Rosenzweig. 1986. Behavioural and Material Determinants of Production Relations in Agriculture. The Journal of Development Studies 22 (3): 503–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boix, Carles. 2003. Democracy and Redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bourguignon, François and Thiery Verdier. 2000. Oligarchy, democracy, inequality and growth. Journal of Development Economics 62: 285–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bowles, Samuel. 1978. Capitalist Development and Educational Structure. World Development 6: 783–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba and Key L. Schlozman. 1995. Beyond SES: a resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review 89: 271–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brown, David S. and Wendy Hunter. 2004. Democracy and Human Capital Formation. Education Spending in Latin America, 1980–1997. Comparative Political Studies 37: 842–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Alastair Smith. 2009. Political Survival and Endogenous Institutional Change. Comparative Political Studies 42: 167–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cleary, Mark and Peter Eaton. 1996. Land Tenure and Rural Development in South-East Asia. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Coatsworth, John H. 1984. Growth Against Development: The Economic Impact of Railroads in Porfirian Mexico. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cornelius, Wayne A. 1977. Leaders, Followers, and Official Patrons in Urban Mexico. In Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism, eds. Steffen W. Schmidt, James C. Scott, Carl Landé and Laura Guasti, 337–354. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Duncan, K. and I. Rutledge (eds). 1977. Land and Labour in Latin America: Essays on the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Engerman, Stanley and Kenneth Sokoloff. 2005a. Colonialism, Inequality, and Long-Run Paths of Development. NBER Working Paper Series, No.9259. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Engerman, Stanley and Kenneth Sokoloff. 2005b. The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World. The Journal of Economic History 65(4): 891–921.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Engerman, Stanley and Kenneth Sokoloff. 1997. Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth Among New World Economies: A View from Economic Historians of the United States. In How Latin America Fell Behind, ed. Stephen Haber, 260–304. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Engerman, Stanley, Stephen Haber and Kenneth Sokoloff. 2000. Inequality, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth Among New World Economies. In Institutions, Contracts, and Organization, ed. Claude Menard, 108-135. Cheltenham: E. Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Erickson, Lennart and Dietrich Vollrath. 2004. Dimensions of Land Inequality and Economic Development. IMF Working Paper WP/04 / 158. Washington D.C.: IMF.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Feenstra, Robert C, Robert E. Lipsey, Haiyan Deng, Alison C. Ma, and Hengyong Mo. 2005. World Trade Flows: 1962-2000. NBER Working Paper Series No. 11040. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Frankema, Ewout. 2006. The Colonial Origins of Inequality: Exploring the Causes and Consequences of Land Distribution. Research Momorandum GD-81. Groningen: University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Frieden, Jeffry. 1991. Debt, Development and Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Galor, Oded, Omer Moav and Dietrich Vollrath. 2006. Inequality in Land Ownership, the Emergence of Human Capital Promoting Institutions, and the Great Divergence. Mimeo.

  37. Grindle, Merilee S. 1977. Bureaucrats, Politicians, and Peasants in Mexico: A Case Study in Public Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gylfason, Thorvaldur. 2001. Natural resources, education, and economic development. European Economic Review 45: 847–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hagopian, Frances. 1996. Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Handelman, Howard. 1980. Introduction. In The Politics of Agrarian Change in Asia and Latin America, ed. Howard Handelman, 2–15. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hartlyn, Jonathan. 1998. The Struggle for Democratic Politics in the Dominican Republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hausmann, Ricardo, Jason Hwang and Dani Rodrik. 2005. What You Export Matters. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 11905. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hayami, Yujiro and Vernon W. Ruttan. 1985. Agricultural Development. An International Perspective. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hazen, Dan. 1978. The Politics of Schooling in the Nonliterate Third World: The Case of Highland Peru. History of Education Quarterly 18(4): 419–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Heston, Alan, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten. 2001. “Penn World Table Version 6.1”. Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (CICUP).

  46. Huber, Evelyne and Frank Safford (eds.). 1995. Agrarian Structure & Political Power. Landlord & Peasant in the Making of Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Isham, Jonathan, Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock and Gwen Busby. 2005. The Varieties of Resource Experience: How Natural Resource Export Structures Affect the Political Economy of Economic Growth. The World Bank Economic Review 19(2): 141–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kaufman, Robert and Alex Segura-Ubiergo. 2001. Globalization, Domestic Politics, and Social Spending in Latin America. World Politics 53: 553–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Krishna, Anirudh. 2002. Enhancing Political Participation in Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 35(4): 437–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kuenzi, Michelle T. 2006. Nonformal Education, Political Participation, and Democracy: Findings from Senegal. Political Behavior 28(1): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Leamer, Edward E. 1984. Sources of International Comparative Advantage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Liang, Kung-Yee and Scott L. Zeger. 1986. Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models. Biometrika 73(1): 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lindert, Peter. 2004a. Growing Public. Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. I.

  54. Lindert, Peter. 2004b. Growing Public. Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. II.

  55. Londregan, John B. and Keith T. Poole. 1996. Does High Income Promote Democracy. World Politics 49(2): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Loy, Jane M. 1971. Primary Education during the Columbian Federation: The School Reform of 1870. Hispanic American History Review 51: 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Moore, Barrington. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nuñez, Javier. 2005. Signed with an X: Methodology and Data Sources for Analyzing the Evolution of Literacy in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1900–1950. Latin American Research Review 40(2): 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. O Estado de Sao Paulo. 1925. O Papel das Escolas. 11 / 13 / 1925, p. 4.

  60. O Estado de Sao Paulo. 1919.”Instruccao. 02 / 08 / 1919, p. 4.

  61. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Powell, John Duncan. 1977. Peasant Society and Clientelist Politics. In Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism, ed. Steffen W. Schmidt, James C. Scott, Carl Landé and Laura Guasti, 147–161. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Prada, Manuel González. 1941. Prosa Menuda. Buenos Aires: Imán.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Sachs, Jeffrey and Andrew Warner. 2001. The curse of natural resources. European Economic Review 45: 827–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sachs, Jeffrey and Andrew Warner. 1995. Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 5398. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Safford, Frank. 1995. Agrarian Systems and the State: The Case of Colombia. In Agrarian Structure & Political Power. Landlord & Peasant in the Making of Latin America, eds. Evelyne Huber and Frank Safford, 111–150. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sala-i-Martin, Xavier and Arvind Subramanian. 2003. Addressing the Natural Resource Curse: An Illustration from Nigeria. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 9804. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Schmidt, Steffen W. 1977. The Transformation of Clientelism in Rural Colombia. In: Friends, Followers, and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism, eds. Steffen W. Schmidt, James C. Scott, Carl Landé and Laura Guasti, 305–323. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Smith, Peter H. 1979. Labyrinths of Power: Political Recruitment in Twentieth-Century Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Stasavage, David. 2005. Democracy and Education Spending in Africa. American Journal of Political Science 49(2): 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Stokes, Susan C. 1995. Cultures in Conflict: Social Movements and the State in Peru. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Stone, Samuel. 1990. The heritage of the conquistadors: ruling classes in Central America from the Conquest to the Sandinistas. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Vanhanen, Tatu. 1990. The Process of Democratization: A Comparative Study of 147 States, 1980–88. New York: Taylor & Francis New York Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Weeks, John. 1986. An Interpretation of Central American Crisis. Latin American Research Review 21(3): 31–53.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Yashar, Deborah J. 1997. Demanding Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dr. Tim Wegenast.

Additional information

Comments from Carles Boix, Francisco Ferreira, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Jacint Jordana, Lakshmi Iyer, Ricardo Hausmann, Stanley Engerman, Sunnee Billingsley as well as two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. I also want to thank the Catalan Government for providing generous funding.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wegenast, T. The Legacy of Landlords: Educational Distribution and Development in a Comparative Perspective. Z Vgl Polit Wiss 3, 81–107 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-009-0023-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Education
  • Plantation economies
  • Agrarian elites
  • Inequality

Schlüsselwörter

  • Bildung
  • Plantagenwirtschaft
  • Agrareliten
  • Ungleichheit