Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:24:36.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cana, café, cacau: agrarian structure and educational inequalities in Brazil*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2010

Tim Wegenast
Tim Wegenast
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and Management. University of Konstanz, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Box D86, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper explores the relationship between agrarian structure and human capital formation between and within Brazil’s federal units. It is argued that whether states’ agriculture is in plantation style, based on cheap coerced labor, or organized around family farming matters for the formulation of educational policies. According to the main claim, landlords were not interested in paying higher taxes to educate the masses and curtailed the expansion of schooling in order to keep a cheap workforce and maintain their monopoly over the decision-making process. Describing several episodes in Brazil’s history of public instruction, the paper stresses the distributional conflicts over education as well as the rural aristocracy’s resistance towards broadly-targeted, citizenship-enhancing educational policies. The descriptive evidence is complemented by statistical analyses employing historical as well as more recent data. It is shown that states characterized by a more egalitarian land distribution, which are not under the dominance of powerful landlords, exhibit better educational coverage and enhanced instruction quality. They also spend more on schooling.

Resumen

El presente artículo estudia la relación entre la estructura agraria y la formación de capital humano, tanto dentro como entre las unidades federales de Brasil. Se argumenta que la agricultura de los Estados es de estilo plantación — basado en mano de obra forzada barata, o por el contrario organizada alrededor de la granja familiar — es crucial para la formulación de las políticas educativas. De acuerdo a esta hipótesis, los propietarios de la tierra no estaban interesados en pagar impuestos más altos para educar a las masas y restringieron la expansión escolar con la intención de mantener una mano de obra barata y el monopolio del proceso de toma de decisiones. A través de la descripción de distintos episodios de la historia de la instrucción pública en Brasil, el artículo muestra los conflictos distributivos sobre la educación y la resistencia de la aristocracia rural en relación con los más amplios objetivos ciudadanos para intensificar las políticas educativas. La evidencia descriptiva se complementa con el análisis estadístico de datos históricos y recientes. Se muestra que los Estados con una distribución más igualitaria de la tierra, que no están bajo el dominio de poderosos propietarios de la tierra, tuvieron una mejor cobertura y calidad educativa. Asimismo, demostramos que invirtieron más en escolarización.

Keywords

land inequalityeducationlandlordsBrazilN00O13015054desigualdad de tierra, latifundistas, educación, Brasil
Type
Articles/Artículos
Information
Revista de Historia Economica - Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 103 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Instituto Figuerola de Historia y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 2010

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

Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. A. (2006): Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. A. (2000): «Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Growth, Inequality and Democracy in Historical Perspective». Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (4), pp. 1167-1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almada, V. P. F. (1993): Estudos sobre Estrutura Agrária e Cafeicultura no Espírito Santo. Vitória: SPDC/UFES.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A.Iyer, L. (2005): «History, Insitutions, and Economic Performance: The Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure Systems in India». The American Economic Review, 95 (4), pp. 1190-1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barraclough, S. (ed) (1973): Agrarian Structure in Latin America. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
Barro, R., Becker, G. (1989): «Fertility Choice in a Model of Economic Growth». Econometrica, 57, pp. 481-501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barslund, M. (2007): «CHECKROB: Stata Module to Perform Robustness Check of Alternative Specifications». Statistical Software Components S456837. Boston College Department of Economics.Google Scholar
Baum, M., Lake, D. (2003): «The Political Economy of Growth: Democracy and Human Capital». American Journal of Political Science, 47 (2), pp. 333-347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1964): Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
de Beisiegel, C. R. (1974): Estado e Educacao Popular: Um Estudo sobre a Educacao de Adultos. Sao Paulo: Livraria Pioneira Editora.Google Scholar
Boix, C. (2003): Democracy and Redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, H.; Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L. (1995): «Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation». American Political Science Review, 89 (2), pp. 271-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabral, O. (1968): História de Santa Catarina. Florianópolis: Plano Nacional de Educacao e Secretaria de Educacao e Cultura.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, S.; Hadi, A. S., Price, B. (2000): Regression Analysis by Example. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Chilcote, R. H. (1990): Power and the Ruling Classes in Northeast Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, W. (1971): «Latifundia and Land Policy in Nineteenth-Century Brazil». The Hispanic American Historical Review, 51 (4), pp. 606-625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessy, S. (2000): «A Defense of Compulsory Measures Against Child Labor». Journal of Development Economic, 62 (1), pp. 469-476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1957): An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Duverger, M. (1954): Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Engerman, S., Sokoloff, K. (1997): «Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth Among New World Economies: A View from Economic Historians of the United States», in S. Haber (ed.), How Latin America Fell Behind. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Engerman, S., Sokoloff, K. (2001): «The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World». NBER Working Paper Series no. 8512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engerman, S., Sokoloff, K. (2005): «Colonialism, Inequality, and Long-Run Paths of Development». NBER Working Paper Series no. 9259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, L., Vollrath, D. (2004): «Dimensions of Land Inequality and Economic Development». IMF Working Paper 04/158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, F. (1966): Educacao e Sociedade no Brasil. Sao Paulo: Dominus Editora.Google Scholar
de Faria Filho, L. M. (1999): «Estado, cultura e escolarizacao em Minas Gerais no século XIX», in D. G. Vidal, and M. C. C. C. de Souza (eds), A Memória e a Sombra. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, pp. 117-135.Google Scholar
Field, E., Torero, M. (2006): «Do Property Titles Increase Credit Access Among the Urban Poor? Evidence from a Nationwide Titling Program». Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fiori, N. A. (1991): Aspectos da Evolucao do Ensino Público: Ensino Público e Política de Assimilacao Cultural no Estado de Santa Catarina nos Períodos Imperial e Republicano. Florianópolis: Editora da UFSC.Google Scholar
Foster, A. D., Rosenzweig, M. R. (2004): «Technological Change and the Distribution of Schooling: Evidence from the Green-revolution India». Journal of Development Economics, 74, pp. 87-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, A. D., Rosenzweig, M. R. (1996): «Technical Change and Human Capital Returns and Investments: Evidence from the Green Revolution». American Economic Review, 86 (4), pp. 931-953.Google Scholar
Frieden, J. (1991): Debt, Development and Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Galiani, S., Schargrodsky, E. (2006). «Property Rights for the Poor: Effects of Land Titling». Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, unpublished manuscript, http://ideas.repec.org/p/udt/wpbsdt/proprightspoor.htmlGoogle Scholar
Galor, O.; Moav, O., Vollrath, D. (2009): «Inequality in Land Ownership, the Emergence of Human Capital Promoting Institutions and the Great Divergence». Review of Economic Studies, 76 (1), pp. 143-179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galor, O., Zeira, J. (1993): «Income Distribution and Macroeconomics». Review of Economic Studies, 60 (1), pp. 35-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guimaraes, A. P. (1968): Quatro Séculos de Latifúndio. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
Hagopian, F. (1996): Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havighurst, R. J., Moreira, J. R. (1965): Society and Education in Brazil. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Hecock, D. (2006): «Electoral Competition, Globalization, and Subnational Education Spending in Mexico, 1999–2004». American Journal of Political Science, 50 (4), pp. 950-961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, R. (1998): «A Estrutura Fundiária no Brasil de Acordo com o Cadastro do INCRA: 1967 a 1998». UNICAMP Working Paper.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, R. (1980): «Desiguladade entre os imóveis rurais no Brasil, conforme sua área, número de módulos e valor da producao». Revista de Economia Rural, 18 (4), pp. 711-731.Google Scholar
IBGE (1946): Unidades Agrárias Nao Decimais em Uso no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.Google Scholar
IBGE (1953): A Alfabetizacao no Estado do Espírito Santo. Vitória: Departamento Estadual de Estatística.Google Scholar
Krishna, A. (2002): «Enhancing Political Participation in Democracies». Comparative Political Studies, 35 (4), pp. 437-460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuenzi, M. T. (2006): «Nonformal Education, Political Participation, and Democracy: Findings from Senegal». Political Behavior, 28 (1), pp. 1-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, M., Teegapera, R. (1979): «Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Applications to West Europe». Comparative Political Studies, 12 (1), pp. 3-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lima, L. O. (1974): A Escola no Futuro. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio.Google Scholar
Lindert, P. (2004a): Growing Public. Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindert, P. (2004b): Growing Public. Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manfredi, S. M. (1978): Política: Educacao Popular. Sao Paulo: Edicoes Símbolo.Google Scholar
Mariscal, E., Sokoloff, K. L. (2000): «Schooling, Suffrage, and Inequality in the Americas, 1800–1945», in S. Haber (ed.), Political Institutions and Economic Growth in Latin America. Essays in Policy, History, and Political Economy. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
MEC (2000): Parecer CNE/CEB 11/2000.Google Scholar
Moore, B. (1966): Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Naritomi, J.; Soares, R., Assuncao, J. (2007): «Rent Seeking and the Unveiling of “De Facto” Institions: Development and Colonial Heritage Within Brazil». NBER Working Paper 13545.Google Scholar
North, D. C. (1959): «Agriculture in Regional Economic Growth». Journal of Farm Economics, 41 (5), pp. 943-951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, M. T. (2006): Sergipe Provincial II (1840/1889). Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.Google Scholar
Regis, L. (1917): O perigo allemao e o problema do ensino em Santa Catharina. Rio de Janeiro: Typ. do Jornal do Commercio.Google Scholar
Romanelli, O. (1978): História da Educacao no Brasil (1930/1973). Petrópolis: Vozes.Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, D.; Huber, E., Stephens, J. (1992): Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Santos, W. G. (1997): «Da Oligarquia à Poliarquia — Competição Eleitoral e Processos “Não-Encarceráveis”». Série Estudos no. 95. Rio de Janeiro: IUPERJ/SBI.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1976): Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saviani, D. (1987): Política e Educacao no Brasil. Sao Paulo: Cortez Editora.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1917): «Das preussische Wahlrecht», in H. Baier, M. R. Lepsius and W. J. Mommsen (eds), Max Weber Gesamtausgabe, vol. 15. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (1984).Google Scholar
Wegenast, T. (2009): «The Legacy of Landlords: Educational Distribution and Development in a Comparative Perspective». Comparative Governance and Politics, 3 (1), pp. 81-107.Google Scholar