Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Land Power (Who Has It, Who Doesn’t, and How that Determines the Fate of Societies)
Author: Michael Albertus
Narrated By: Braden Wright
Michael Albertus (Author, professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Political Science.)
Michael Albertus develops a powerful argument for “Land Power”. Much of history and current events in relatively undeveloped countries are identified as proof of Albertus’s belief that “Land Power” is key not only to economic growth but to social improvement. He reflects on the history of Great Britain, France, and the United States while noting current affairs in developing countries like Peru, Columbia, and Bolivia support his argument.
The unfortunate truth of history is that indigenous populations, particularly in America and Great Britain, were displaced in order for “Land Power” to be the engine for economic prosperity and social change. In the case of America of course, it is the displacement of North American natives by English settlers who became Americans. In contrast Great Britain’s “Land Power” comes from a landed aristocracy and their subjugation of foreign cultures with autocratic control and rule of Asian and European countries. In France, Kings and an aristocratic government’s rejection by commoners in 1789 seem the motive force behind “Land Power” ascension.
For Peru, Columbia, and Bolivia Albertus infers examples of Britain, America, and France set a table for “Land Power” change by their governments. In my opinion, the age of technology has diminished “Land Power” importance in America, Great Britain, and France.
“Land Power” still carries weight in America, Great Britain, and France but in the tech age it seems the power of accumulated wealth has become more powerful than land. However, Albertus’s “Land Power” argument in regard to South American countries like Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia are compelling in regard to their economic and social improvement. Albertus notes private land ownership and recognition of women’s rights to own property, show that “Land Power” is a source of economic and social improvement in South America. He suggests countries like Mexico are being challenged by their failure to reform land ownership policies but today’s leaders in Peru, Columbia, and Bolivia have made significant land reform changes.
Albertus explains the major reform movement between 1969-1980 made by General Alvarado in Peru.
General Alvarado ordered nearly half of all private agricultural land be redistributed among Peruvian citizens. He dismantled large estates to empower peasant cooperatives. It has not been a perfect solution because it created an insurgent group called the Shining Path that pressed for a Maoist collective land reform for the redistributed Peruvian estates. Just as collective farms failed in China, they failed in Peru because common gains in collectives did not fairly reward performance. Collective farms distort the needs and results when a collective rather than a singular leader is responsible for performance of the collective. Nevertheless, the steps taken to dismantle half of private agricultural land, is considered by Albertus a step in the right direction because it incentivized many Peruvians who were living in poverty.
In Colombia, in 1966 through 1970 President Restrepo redistributed agricultural land to former agricultural laborers.
FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) is organized in 1964 to offer peasant self-defense for actions soon to be taken by President Restrepo to reduce land ownership inequality. Between 2010 and 2018, President Santos negotiated with FARC to settle disputes between former landowners, and new farmers that benefited from land redistribution. There is still conflict because of FARC’s false belief in collective farming which has been proven a failure in other countries, but President Santos and his successors have created a path, though no solution, for reform through the hope for understanding and compromise. Albertus infers land reform is a work in progress, not a perfect solution.
Land reform in Bolivia spans 1953 and the early 2000s.
Presidents Estenssoro (1952-1956) and Evo Morales (2006-2019) worked on land reform along the same lines as Peru and Colombia. Large estates were broken up in 1953 and redistributed to peasants. Morales clarifies indigenous land rights but formalized communal ownership of redistributed land. This is another example of a work in progress because collectivization may be a step in redistributed land, but it has not proven to be a long-range benefit to a country’s citizens. It becomes too divisive and unrewarding for optimum performance and fair rewards for those who excel.
One who read/listens to Albertus’s insight to land reform believes his story has merit but his history is too optimistic when a little additional research shows land reform is a losing proposition when not fully supported by institutions that had implemented change.
History shows land collectivization when large landowners lose their land is a fool’s errand because it fails to reward those who excel as part owners of redistributed land. Human nature gets in the way. Those who work harder than others expect to have proportionate reward. Collective farming disincentivizes personal high performance. Historically, collectivization of land has failed even when those who are part of the collective are better off than they were when they had no land.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 