IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/veagro/316883.html

La cuestión agraria, la producción agroalimentaria y la apropiación de la tierra y del trabajo en Venezuela: una revisión histórica

Author

Listed:
  • Delahaye, Olivier

Abstract

This article relates the Venezuelan crises of the 19th, part of the 20th, and 21st centuries with the obsolescence of the form of appropriation of land and labor in the face of technological and economic transformations, the most outstanding feature during the Venezuelan crises registered in both periods. The essential sources used in the research were the compilations of historical documents made during the 1960s and 1970s by the Council of Scientific and Humanistic Development (CDCH) of the Universidad Central de Venezuela (UCV), as well as by the Congress of the Republic in 1980. After the synthesis of the historical forms of production, the essential features of the exploitation, appropriation, and transmission of land ownership are analyzed, highlighting the expropriations by the opposing sides in the successive wars, the importance of looting in the appropriation of goods, racism as an ideological justification and the decline of slavery as a form of appropriation of labor in the 19th century. The study also showed that the forms of illegal appropriation of land (such as the illegal/informal market, occupations of all kinds, including the deviant application of legal texts) became the norm. Likewise, the will to prevent the realization of a reliable cadastre by successive governments in these centuries favored such de facto situations. Paradoxically, the most recent agrarian policies (in particular, the laws of 1960 and 2001) have not significantly influenced the evolution of land appropriation or the de-concentration of land ownership, but they have allowed the play of factors such as the informal market and local pacts. In terms of the appropriation of labor, at the beginning of the period studied, slavery and the coercive appropriation of manumiso’s labor predominated, and although there have been many subsequent regulations to regulate it, in practice it continues to be very complex and fluctuating. Therefore, the evolution of both the appropriation of labor and land has been obsolete in the face of the economic and technological evolution registered during the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.

Suggested Citation

  • Delahaye, Olivier, 2020. "La cuestión agraria, la producción agroalimentaria y la apropiación de la tierra y del trabajo en Venezuela: una revisión histórica," Agroalimentaria Journal - Revista Agroalimentaria, Centro de Investigaciones Agroalimentarias, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Universidad de los Andes, vol. 26(50).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:veagro:316883
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.316883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/316883/files/Articulo_9_Delahaye_R50.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.316883?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cornia, Giovanni Andrea, 1985. "Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: An analysis for fifteen developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 513-534, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Temel, T. & Lucas, A., 2005. "Deepening the Measuring of Technical Inefficiency in Private Farming in Georgia: Locally Parametric Regression," International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 2(1), pages 115-138.
    2. Heath, John Richard, 1990. "Enhancing the contribution of land reform to Mexican agricultural development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 285, The World Bank.
    3. Sarthak Gaurav & Srijit Mishra, 2011. "Size-class and returns to cultivation in India: A Cold case reopened," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2011-027, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    4. Looga, J. & Jürgenson, E. & Sikk, K. & Matveev, E. & Maasikamäe, S., 2018. "Land fragmentation and other determinants of agricultural farm productivity: The case of Estonia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 285-292.
    5. Bojnec, Stefan & Latruffe, Laure, 2007. "Farm Size and Efficiency: The Case of Slovenia," 100th Seminar, June 21-23, 2007, Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro 162391, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Zeynep K. Hansen & Gary D. Libecap, 2004. "Small Farms, Externalities, and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(3), pages 665-694, June.
    7. M. Ghaffar Chaudhry & Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry, 1997. "Pakistan’s Agricultural Development since Independence: Intertemporal Trends and Explanations," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 36(4), pages 593-612.
    8. Majiwa, Eucabeth Bosibori Opande & Lee, Boon & Wilson, Clevo, 2015. "Multi-lateral multi-output measurement of productivity: the case of African agriculture," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212769, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Benjamin Tetteh Anang, 2017. "Effect of non-farm work on agricultural productivity: Empirical evidence from northern Ghana," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-38, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Gergő Gyalog & Judit Oláh & Emese Békefi & Mónika Lukácsik & József Popp, 2017. "Constraining Factors in Hungarian Carp Farming: An Econometric Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Jia, Lili, 2012. "Land fragmentation and off-farm labor supply in China," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 66, number 66.
    12. Barrett, Christopher B., 1996. "On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, December.
    13. Daniele Guidi, 2011. "Sustainable Agriculture Enterprise: Framing Strategies to Support Smallholder Inclusive Value Chains for Rural Poverty Alleviation," CID Working Papers 53, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    14. Larson,Donald F. & Muraoka,Rie & Otsuka,Keijiro, 2016. "On the central role of small farms in African rural development strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7710, The World Bank.
    15. Bahta, Sirak & Baker, Derek, . "Determinants of Profit Efficiency Among Smallholder Beef Producers in Botswana," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-24.
    16. Munir Ahmad & Sarfraz Khan Qureshi, 1999. "Recent Evidence on Farm Size and Land Productivity: Implications for Public Policy," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 38(4), pages 1135-1153.
    17. Stefanes, Mauricio & Roque, Fabio de Oliveira & Lourival, Reinaldo & Melo, Isabel & Renaud, Pierre Cyril & Quintero, Jose Manuel Ochoa, 2018. "Property size drives differences in forest code compliance in the Brazilian Cerrado," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 43-49.
    18. Tafesse W. Gezahegn & Steven Passel & Tekeste Berhanu & Marijke D’Haese & Miet Maertens, 2025. "Enhancing land productivity through a better organization of irrigation cooperatives: evidence from Tigray, Ethiopia," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 68(6), pages 2705-2727, June.
    19. Ajuruchukwu Obi & Balogun Taofeek Ayodeji, 2020. "Determinants of Economic Farm-Size–Efficiency Relationship in Smallholder Maize Farms in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    20. Bino Paul & Unmesh Patnaik & Subash Sasidharan & Kamal Kumar Murari & Chandra Sekhar Bahinipati, 2022. "Fertilizer Use, Value, and Knowledge Capital: A Case of Indian Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:veagro:316883. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciulave.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.