Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:02:08.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Dualism in Central America's Agricultural Development*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Peter Dorner  and
Rodolfo Quiros
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The five nations of the Central American Common Market (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) have all the characteristics generally associated with less developed countries—largely agrarian economies, great dependence on agricultural exports for foreign exchange earnings, rapid population growth, widespread illiteracy, and low per capita incomes.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , November 1973 , pp. 217 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For an interesting account of this evolution, see Quiros, , ‘Agricultural Development and Economic Integration in Central America’, op. cit., chaps.Google Scholar I and II; and Carlos, M. Castillo, Growth and integration in Central America (New York, Praeger, 1966).Google Scholar

2 CIDA/CAIS, ‘Características Generales de Ia Utilización y Distribución de Ia Tierra en Centroamérica’, Preliminary Report (México, 1969); and Agricultural Census for individual Countries for the 1950S and 1960S.Google Scholar

3 This dichotomy is not, of course, absolute. In Nicaragua, farmers with less than 10 manzanas in cotton account for 38.2 per cent of all cotton producers but only for 4.1 per cent of total area planted. In Costa Rica, coffee producers on family and sub-family farms constitute 84.9 per cent of all coffee growers and prodbce 41.2 per cent of total coffee output. In long established production areas, some very small farms are totally specialized in the production of an export crop. Comisión Nacional del Algodón, La Economia Nacional y el Aigodón (Managua, Nicaragua, 1968).Google Scholar Table VI-6; and Oficina, del Café, Informe de Labores: 1969 (San José, Costa Rica, 1970), pp. 40, 42.Google Scholar

4 In 1969, almost half of the beef produced in the region was exported; 97 per cent of these exports went to the United States.

5 From Agricultural Census Reports for the individual countries.

6 Sergio, Marurana, Las Relaciones entre la tendncia de la Tierra y el Usa de los Recursos Agricolas de Centroamérica (Projecto de Tenencia de Ia Tierra y los Condiciorses dcl Trabajo Agricola en Ccntroamérica. Unpublished report, San José, Costa Rica, 1962), pp. 204, 215.Google Scholar

7 Schmid, Lester J., ‘The Role of Migratory Labor in the Economic Development of Guatemala’, Land Tenure Ctnter Research Paper No. 22, University of Wisconsin, 1967.Google Scholar

8 Maturana, , op. cit. p. 148.Google Scholar

9 Banco, Hipotecario de El Salvador, El Crédito Agricola en El Salvador, vol. I (San Salvador, 1966), p. 18.Google Scholar

10 Peak labor seasons and agricultural cycles are as follows: Percentage of total Crop Operation Season annual labor input Coffee Harvest Oct.–Dec. 50 Cotton Harvest Dec.–Feb. 78 Sugar Cane Harvest Feb.–Apr. 60 Corn (1st crop) Cycle Apr./May–Jul./Aug. 100 Beans (1st crop) Cycle May/Aug. 100 Corn (2nd crop) Cycle Aug./Sept.–Nov./Dec. 500 Beans (2nd crop) Cycle Sept./Dec. 100 United Nations, Coflee in Latin America: Productivity Problems and Future Prospects Colombia and El Salvador (58.II.G.S., 1968), p. III. Data for other crops are from unpublished farm management studies designed to provide coefficients to be used in farm planning.

11 The movement of large-scale enterprises into the production of corn and rice will be discussed later. Respective annual percentage growth rate, in yields for corn, rice, beans and sorghum (19607–1967) were 2.7, 5.7, –02 and II yields for coffee, cotton and sugar cane during this period increased at annual rates of 4.0, 1.3 and ai respectively. Growth rates in output and yields were computed from unpublished SIECA and GAFICA series compiled from official statistics of the Central American countries.

12 It has been estimated that more than 20 per cent of the 19697–1970 coffee crop in the Central Plateau of Costa Rica was lost because of labor shortages, despite government efforts to recruit labor from other areas and to close schools early so that students could participate in the harvesting.

13 Dirección General de Estadística, Censo Cafetalcro 1950 (Guatemala, C.A., Agosto-Octubre 1953); and Banco de Guatemala, Official Statistics (unpublished).Google Scholar

14 Justin, Gutknecht, ‘El Proceso de Demote del Algodón en Nicaragua’ (Managua, 1960) cited in La Economia Nacionai y el Algodón, op. cit.Google Scholar

15 Calculated from statistics in Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Anuario de Estadls:ica.c Agropecuarias Continuas, 1967–1968 (San Salvador, El Salvador, Octubre de 1968).Google Scholar

16 Based on information in Charles Wilson, M., Empire in Green and Gold (New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1947)Google Scholar and SIECA, Informe sobre ci banana en Centroamérica, Guatemala, unpublished preliminary report, 1969.Google Scholar

17 From SIECA's report on banana production, op. cit.

18 The CNP owns and operates the only local grain drying and storage plant and handles most of the grain produced in this humid tropical area. A comparison of its purchases and the production data reported by the 5963 agricultural census shows that the CNP handled over 70 per cent of the total corn marketed and 60 per cent of the total crop harvested in this area in 1963.

19 Several correlations gave the following results: (1) Acreage in basic grains =89.27−1.05 cotton0.36 (.019) (.009) other crops (R2 998) (2) Acreage in all other crops=128.01—0.61 cotton (R2=091) (.535) Regression and correlation coefficients in (i) were statistically significant at the oor level; in (2) they were nor statistically significant at the 05 level.

20 Aggregate figures for the periods mentioned computed from: Ministeri de Economía, Memoria de Recandación General de Aduanas (Yearbooks 1953–1955);Google ScholarDirección General de Estadcstica, Anuario de Comercio Exterior (Yearbooks 1956–1963);Google Scholar and SIECA, Anuario Estadistica Centroanicricano de Comercio Exterior (Yearbooks 1964–1967).Google Scholar

21 For an interesting study of changes in use patterns of ex-banana lands, see Stouse, Pierre A. Jr, Cambios en ci uso de Ia Tierra en Regiones Ex-banancros de Costa Rica, Instituto Geográfico de Costa Rica (San José, 1967).Google Scholar

22 The rapid rise in costs was mainly due to expenditures to combat the ‘white fly’ (Bermisia tabaci), a pest of the cotton plant (see Ministerio de Agricultura, Estudio Económico dcl Cultivo dcl Algodón, Ciclo 1966/67, San Salvador, 1968). This pest multiplied largely as a result of the ecological imbalance caused by the rather indiscriminate use of chemical insecticides. Various institutional factors contributed to the occurrence of this phenomenon. On the one hand, research on pest control lagged far behind production; there were no scientifically determined recommended practices, only those of insecticide importers and agents whose main concern was to maximize sales. These interests coincided with those of agricultural pilots who are normally remunerated according to the number of times the crop is sprayed, which sometimes exceeded 30 applications during the crop year. On the other hand, planters, being largely renters and annual investors, were unconcerned with the long-run ecological effects of insecticides so long as production remained profitable. The ecological imbalances thus created affected not only wildlife and humans, but is also reported to have exterminated the honeybee industry from these areas and significantly hampered the fish and shrimp industry in the coastal areas of El Salvador.Google Scholar

23 Ministerio de Agricultura, Dirección General de Economiá Agropecuaria, Estudio Ecóndmico Agricola dcl Cultivo dc Algodóa, 1966–1967 (San Salvador, 04 1968), Table I.Google Scholar