Maldistribution of land associated with large traditional estates

Feudalistic land tenure
Latifundia

Nature

The term 'large traditional estates' is often used to describe the tenure systems (prevailing in many Latin American countries) which are dominated by large estates having many, though not all, of the characteristics of feudalistic tenures. Under the impact of industrialization, some large estates have undergone changes towards commercialized agriculture; many feudalistic characteristics, however, continue to prevail. Unlike the case of peasant proprietorship or other individualized tenure structures, the tenure, production and supporting services structures are all fused into one highly centralized hierarchical system practically controlled by the owners of the large traditional estates. It is this particular characteristic that distinguishes it from customary tenure on the one hand and the private land ownership tenure (peasant proprietorship) on the other. Land is concentrated into the hands of a few owners of latifundia, a sizeable proportion of which are of a traditional type. Most of the farm population in the rural areas who work on these latifundia are tied to the numerous minifundia or sub-family scale farms which are often too small to provide enough full-time employment for the family labourers.

Minifundistas and landless labourers are completely dependent on the owners of large traditional estates not only for employment but also for credit, marketing, roads and other services normally included in the category of physical or institutional infrastructure. In many customary tenure areas with their subsistence agriculture, as for instance in many countries of Africa, the supporting services structure is either relatively underdeveloped or practically absent. In the individualized tenure areas, as, for example, in countries of Asia, the Near East and North Africa, the separation between the tenure and production structure on the one hand and the supporting services on the other is virtually complete, resulting in distinction between non-cultivating land owner, landless tenant and money-lender-cum-trader, each representing the three different structures. Though in many Latin American countries which have not undertaken land reforms there is growing evidence of incipient separation between the three structures, the supporting services structure is often dominated by owners of large traditional estates ; the credit agencies, which are distinct, are invariably dominated by the estate owners.

Background

The maldistribution of land linked to large traditional estates emerged as a global concern during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when land reform movements in Latin America, Asia, and Africa highlighted entrenched inequalities. International attention intensified after World War II, as decolonization and rural poverty underscored the persistence of concentrated land ownership. Scholarly and policy debates have since recognized this pattern as a barrier to equitable development and social stability worldwide.

Incidence

The maldistribution of land associated with large traditional estates remains a significant issue in many regions, particularly in parts of Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. In these areas, a small elite controls vast tracts of arable land, while the majority of rural populations have little or no access to land for subsistence or economic advancement. This concentration of land ownership perpetuates rural poverty, social inequality, and often fuels conflict over resources.
In 2022, South Africa continued to grapple with the legacy of colonial and apartheid-era land concentration, where approximately 72% of farmland remained in the hands of white commercial farmers, despite ongoing land reform efforts.

Claim

In many underdeveloped regions there are large or even extensive rural estates which are only slightly cultivated or lie completely idle for the sake of profit, while the majority of the people either are without land or have only very small fields, and, on the other hand, it is evidently urgent to increase the productivity of the fields. Not infrequently those who are hired to work for the landowners or who till a portion of the land as tenants receive a wage or income unworthy of a human being, lack decent housing and are exploited by middlemen. Deprived of all security, they live under such personal servitude that almost every opportunity of acting on their own initiative and responsibility is denied to them and all advancement in human culture and all sharing in social and political life is forbidden to them. According to the different cases, therefore, reforms are necessary: that income may grow, working conditions should be improved, security in employment increased, and an incentive to working on one's own initiative given. Indeed, insufficiently cultivated estates should be distributed to those who can make these lands fruitful; in this case, the necessary things and means, especially educational aids and the right facilities for cooperative organization, must be supplied. Whenever, nevertheless, the common good requires expropriation, compensation must be reckoned in equity after all the circumstances have been weighed. (Second Vatican Council. Gaudium et Spes, 1965).

Counter-claim

The so-called "maldistribution of land" linked to large traditional estates is an overblown concern. These estates often preserve heritage, provide stable employment, and maintain productive land use. Calls for redistribution ignore the efficiency and stewardship that come with experienced ownership. Focusing on this issue distracts from real economic challenges. In truth, the existence of large estates is not a pressing problem and does not warrant the attention it receives.