Advertisement

Economic Integration and the Construction of the Efficient Peasant

Chapter
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

The Mexican constitution of 1917 established that rights of ownership of land belong to the nation, and that the nation has the right to impose restrictions on private property in cases assessed to be in the interest of the public. The state emerging from the Revolution (1910–21) was established constitutionally in the form of a presidential regime. Accordingly, the executive power became responsible for distributing and redistributing land (Gordillo, De Janvry and Sadoulet, 1997).

Keywords

Social Property Economic Integration Client Group Basic Crop Structural Adjustment Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Appendini, K. (1996) ‘Changing Agrarian Institutions: Interpreting the Contradictions’. Cerlac Working Paper Series no. 4, York University.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. and Waquant, L.J.D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  3. Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds) (1991) The Foucault Effect Studies in Governmentality (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf).Google Scholar
  4. Cambell, M. and Manicom, A. (eds) (1995) Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).Google Scholar
  5. Carton de Grammont, H. (1995) ‘Nuevos actores y formas de representación social en el campo’, in Jean-François Prud’homme (ed.), El impacto social de las políticas de ajuste en el campo mexicano (Mexico, DF: Py V Editores).Google Scholar
  6. CAP (Congreso Agrario Permanente), document, 32 pp. (1992).Google Scholar
  7. Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development. The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  8. Gordillo, G., De Janvry, A. and Sadoulet, E. (1997) ‘Between Political Control and Efficiency Gains: The Evolution of Agrarian Property Rights in Mexico’. Paper for presentation at the 23rd International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Sacramento, California, August 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Hansen, H.K. (1998), ‘Governmental Mismanagement and Symbolic Violence: Discourses on Corruption in the Yucatàn of the 1990s’ Bulletin of Latin American Research, vol. 17, no. 3.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey, N. (1996) ‘The Reshaping of Agrarian Policy in Mexico’, in L. Randall (ed.), Changing Structure of Mexico. Political, Social and Economic Prospects (New York: M.E. Sharpe).Google Scholar
  11. Kearney, M. (1996) Reconceptualizing the Peasantry: Anthropology in Global Perspective (Boulder: Westview Press).Google Scholar
  12. PEAT-97 (Programa Elemental de Asistencia Tecnica) (1997), ‘Cesion de Derechos al Cobro del Apoyo de PROCAMPO. Adquisicion de Fertilizantes, Semillas, Agroquimicos y/o Servicios’ (Mexico: Alianca para el Campo, SAGAR, ASERCA, INCA, Rural).Google Scholar
  13. Pisa, R.A. (1994) ‘Popular Response to the Reform of Article 27: State Intervention and Community of Resistance in Oaxaca’, Urban Anthropology, vol. 23 no. 2–3.Google Scholar
  14. PROCAMPO (Vamos al grano para progresar): Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos (SAHR), 1993.Google Scholar
  15. PROCEDE (Programa de Certificación de Derechos Ejidales y Titulación de Solares Urbanos): Procuraduría Agraria, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. PROMOCAM (Programa de Modernización del Campo 1990–1994): Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos (SAHR), March 1990.Google Scholar
  17. Rojas Gutiérrez, C. (1992) ‘El programa Nacional de Solidaridad: hechos e ideas en torno a un esfuerzo’, Comercio Exterior, vol. 42 (5).Google Scholar
  18. Salinas de Gortari, C. (1990) ‘Reformando al Estado’, Nexos, no. 148.Google Scholar
  19. Siembieda, W. (1996) ‘Looking for a Place to Live: Transforming the Urban Ejido’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, vol. 15, no. 3.Google Scholar
  20. SRA (Secretaría de la Reforma Agraria) (1992) ‘Ley Agraria’, Diario Oficial, 26 February.Google Scholar
  21. Stanford, L. (1994) ‘The Privatization of Mexico’s Ejidal Sector: Examining Local Impacts, Strategies, and Ideologies’, Urban Anthropology, vol. 23, no. 2–3.Google Scholar
  22. Stavenhagen, R. (1986) ‘Collective Agriculture and Capitalism in Mexico: A Way Out or a Dead End?’, in N. Hamilton and T.F. Harding (eds) Modern Mexico. State, Economy and Social Conflict (Beverly Hills: Sage).Google Scholar
  23. Stephen, L. (1994) ‘Accommodation and Resistance: Ejidatario, Ejidataria, and Official Views of Ejido Reform’, Urban Anthropology, vol. 23, no. 2–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations