|
Panama Land Tenure and Agrarian Reform
Before the 1950s, land was readily available to anyone who was
willing to clear and plant a plot. The cutting and clearing of
forests greatly accelerated as the population increased. By the
1960s, subsistence farmers sometimes reduced the rest period of
cleared plots from ten years of fallow to as few as five years
because of the inavailablity of farm land. The reduced fallow
period diminished soil fertility and harvests. Consequently,
cropped acreage peaked during the 1960s. The hard life and low
income farmers accelerated the exodus of workers from the
countryside to the cities
(see Rural Society and
Migration
, ch. 2).
The long period when new land was easily obtainable contributed
to a casual attitude toward land titles. In 1980, only 32.9 percent
of the 151,283 farms had such titles. The decline in available
agricultural land has made land titling more necessary. Moreover,
insecure tenure has been a particularly severe constraint to
improved techniques and to commercial crop production. The cost of
titling a piece of land, however, has been too high for most
subsistence farmers.
Between 1969 and 1977, the government attempted to redistribute
land. In the late 1980s, however, the distribution of land and farm
incomes remained very unequal. In 1980, 58.9 percent of farms had
an annual income below US$200. The issue of unequal land
distribution, however, has not been as explosive in Panama as in
many other Latin American countries. This was because of the
service-oriented nature of the economy and because about half of
the population lived in or near Panama City. Also, about 95 percent
of all farm land was owner-operated, and virtually all rural
families owned or occupied a plot.
In an effort to redistribute land, the government acquired
500,000 hectares of land and expropriated an additional 20 percent
of the land. About three-quarters of the land acquired was in the
provinces of Veraguas and Panamá. By 1978 over 18,000 families
(about 12 percent of rural families in the 1970 census) had access
to either individual plots or collectively held land as a result of
the redistribution. The land acquisition created uncertainty,
however, and adversely affected private investment in agriculture,
slowing production in the 1970s.
As part of its agrarian reform, the government placed heavy
emphasis on organizing farmers into collectives for agricultural
development. Several organizational forms were available, the two
most important being asentamientos (settlements) and
juntas agrarias de producción (agrarian production
associations). The distinctions between the two were minor and
became even more blurred with time. Both encouraged pooling of land
and cooperative activity. In some instances, land was worked
collectively. Other organizational forms included marketing
cooperatives, state farms, and specialized producers' cooperatives
for milk, chickens, or pigs. Growth of these agricultural
organizations slowed by the mid-1970s, and some disbanded, as
emphasis shifted to consolidation.
The cost of agrarian reform was high. The government channeled
large amounts of economic aid to organized farmers. Rural credit
was greatly increased; farm machinery was made available; improved
seeds and other inputs were supplied; and technical assistance was
provided. Cooperative farm yields increased, but these higher
yields were not impressive, considering the level of investment.
Despite the high costs of the government programs, incomes of
cooperative farmers remained low. After the mid-1970s, the
government changed its policy toward cooperatives and stressed
efficiency and productivity instead of equity.
Although the economic results of agrarian reform were
disappointing, the social conditions of most farmers improved. The
number of rural residents with access to safe water increased by 50
percent between 1970 and 1978. Improved sewerage facilities,
community health programs, and rural clinics reduced mortality
rates considerably. Major expansion of educational facilities,
including education programs for rural residents, helped rural
Panamanians become better educated and more mobile.
Data as of December 1987
|
