mexicos land certification program: rollout and impact on voting behavior marco gonzalez-navarro,...
TRANSCRIPT
Mexico’s Land Certification Program: Rollout and Impact
on Voting BehaviorMarco Gonzalez-Navarro, Alain de Janvry, and
Elisabeth SadouletApril 2010
Mexico’s First Land Reform
• Large land redistribution program (1917-1992)• Distributed over 100 million ha to 3.5 million
families (>50% of Mexican territory)• Strong restrictions to sales and rentals• Within an ejido 3 types of land: Individual
plots, communal lands and residential plots• Over time restrictions became onerous: Illegal
rental and sales markets, informal settlements, presence of posesionarios (non-ejidatarios who use land)
• Designed as a vote control mechanism by PRI?
Mexico’s Second Land Reform (1992)
• Allowed rental, sales and sharecropping• Established a national land certification
program Procede (1992-2006)• Before certificates rolled out:
– Agrarian tribunals (to solve land disputes)– Rural attorney’s office – National rural land registry office– Established the figure of “Assembly of Ejidatarios”
as a legally competent body to accept or reject Procede program, to determine land allocation inside the ejido, and to vote on transformation into fully private property
Procede Land Certification Program (1992-2006)• Had an office in every state• Objective: Maximize number of ejidos certified and area
certified• Procedure:
1. Agent visits ejido authorities and offers program2. Assembly of Initiation is summoned and vote is held to authorize
Procede to begin (simple majority)3. Procede goes to ejido to obtain contour of ejido, and interior
partition (individual plots, common lands, residential plots) (Comparison to ejido creation documents)
4. Proposed division is presented and exhibited5. All land disputes must be solved before proceeding: by agreement
or in agrarian tribunals6. Finalization assembly is held to authorize partition of ejido
(supermajority)7. Land Registry office produces certificates for all ejido: Individual
certificates, common area shares, residential plot titles
Land Certified by 1993
Land Certified by 1994
Land Certified by 1995
Land Certified by 1996
Land Certified by 1997
Land Certified by 1998
Land Certified by 1999
Land Certified by 2000
Land Certified by 2001
Land Certified by 2002
Land Certified by 2003
Land Certified by 2004
Land Certified by 2005
Land Certified by 2006
Starting Date of ProcedeCH
IAPA
S
OAX
ACA
GU
ERRE
RO
MIC
HOAC
AN
SIN
ALO
A
SON
ORA
YUCA
TAN
VERA
CRU
Z
GU
ANAJ
UAT
O
TOTA
L
SAN
LU
IS P
OTO
SI
QU
ERET
ARO
NAY
ARIT
COAH
UIL
A
TABA
SCO
TAM
AULI
PAS
JALI
SCO
HIDA
LGO
CHIH
UAH
UA
DURA
NG
O
QU
INTA
NA
ROO
ZACA
TECA
S
MEX
ICO
NU
EVO
LEO
N
BAJA
CAL
IF. S
UR
BAJA
CAL
IFO
RNIA
PUEB
LA
CAM
PECH
E
MO
RELO
S
AGU
ASCA
LIEN
TES
TLAX
CALA
COLI
MA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
1996
1993
2006
Number of ejidosPercent of ejidos
29%
61%
Number of ejidos
Correlates of Start Date(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Ejido size and endowmentMembers 0.0068 0.0196 0.032 0.0287 0.0291 0.0294 0.021 0.0258
(3.77)** (11.40)** (16.34)** (15.07)** (15.27)** (14.92)** (9.74)** (12.86)**Total area (ha) 0.0001
(5.39)**Total area/member (ha) 0.0039 0.0056 0.0024 0.0023 0.0033 0.0034 0.0004
(2.04)* (3.23)** (1.33) (1.27) (1.76) (1.85) (0.20)Share in common 0.095 0.1134 0.0791 0.0734 0.0802 0.0773 0.0466
(1.40) (1.86) (1.38) (1.29) (1.40) (1.36) (0.79)Share in parcels -0.1657 -0.1771 -0.16 -0.1452 -0.2795 -0.2565 -0.2359
(3.22)** (3.69)** (3.31)** (3.01)** (4.03)** (3.68)** (3.30)**Ratio posesionarios/members 1.3816 2.4876 2.185 2.2454 2.1302 1.8964 2.005
(4.93)** (9.75)** (8.92)** (9.18)** (8.52)** (7.55)** (8.06)**Ratio avecindados/members -0.7104 -0.1476 -0.1285 -0.0637 -0.0686 -0.1269 0.1602
(4.24)** (0.98) (0.90) (0.45) (0.48) (0.89) (1.09)Year of first dotation 0.2682 0.2566 0.243 0.2127 0.2075 0.2224
(23.45)** (23.12)** (21.41)** (17.62)** (16.95)** (18.65)**Number of members at creation 0.0138 0.0116 0.0124 0.0135 0.0083 0.0148
(5.58)** (4.85)** (5.18)** (5.25)** (3.08)** (5.58)**Opportunities, characterized by the localities associated to ejidos
Distance to nearest city (pop > 25,000) 0.0023 0.0021 0.0017 0.0019 -0.0013(4.20)** (3.94)** (2.93)** (3.26)** (2.49)*
Share active in labor force -0.3778 -1.7667 -2.7045 -7.677(0.21) (0.89) (1.34) (4.02)**
Share non ag. in occupied population -2.2976 -0.912 -1.4392 -6.1902(2.39)* (0.84) (1.32) (5.97)**
Share of population with more than high school 11.145 18.1751 12.7724 27.5742(1.59) (2.02)* (1.41) (2.98)**
Share of pop. with high school -20.5442 -8.7086 -13.9341 -2.5456(4.03)** (1.40) (2.22)* (0.42)
PovertyLocality marginality index 2.2146 2.1029 3.3106
(5.91)** (5.57)** (9.11)**Average number of inhabitants per room 0.7734 0.6653 1.472
(2.24)* -1.92 (4.57)**Observations 27,553 26,219 24,803 23,422 23,365 21,911 21,225 21,911State FE 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 No
Other controls
Conflicts and
politics
Date of the Information Assembly (in months since Jan 1, 1992)
Date Certificates AwardedCH
IAPA
S
OAX
ACA
GU
ERRE
RO
MIC
HOAC
AN
SIN
ALO
A
SON
ORA
YUCA
TAN
VERA
CRU
Z
GU
ANAJ
UAT
O
TOTA
L
SAN
LU
IS P
OTO
SI
QU
ERET
ARO
NAY
ARIT
COAH
UIL
A
TABA
SCO
TAM
AULI
PAS
JALI
SCO
HIDA
LGO
CHIH
UAH
UA
DURA
NG
O
QU
INTA
NA
ROO
ZACA
TECA
S
MEX
ICO
NU
EVO
LEO
N
BAJA
CAL
IFO
RNIA
BAJA
CAL
IFO
RNIA
SU
R
PUEB
LA
CAM
PECH
E
MO
RELO
S
AGU
ASCA
LIEN
TES
TLAX
CALA
COLI
MA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1996
1993
2006
Percent of ejidos
5.2%
42%
90%
Length of Certificate Procedure
MedianMean
05
1015
Per
cent
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96Length of Procede procedure in months
Ejido and Non-Ejido Votes.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6
1995 2000 2005 2010year
PRI Non-Ejidos PAN Non-EjidosPRD Non-Ejidos PRI EjidosPAN Ejidos PRD Ejidos
PRI Vote Share 1994.2
.4.6
.8P
RI S
har
e
-156 -120 -84 -48 -12 24 60 96 132 168Months Certified
Other years 1994
PRI Vote Share 1997.2
.4.6
.8P
RI S
har
e
-156 -120 -84 -48 -12 24 60 96 132 168Months Certified
Other years 1997
PRI Vote Share 2000.2
.4.6
.8P
RI S
har
e
-156 -120 -84 -48 -12 24 60 96 132 168Months Certified
Other years 2000
PRI Vote Share 2003.2
.4.6
.8P
RI S
har
e
-156 -120 -84 -48 -12 24 60 96 132 168Months Certified
Other years 2003
PRI Vote Share 2006.2
.4.6
.8P
RI S
har
e
-156 -120 -84 -48 -12 24 60 96 132 168Months Certified
Other years 2006
No Evidence for Vote Control.6
.61
.62
.63
Pa
rty
in P
ow
er
Sh
are
Certified by election dayNot Certified by election day Certified by election day
1994
.52
.53
.54
.55
Pa
rty
in P
ow
er
Sh
are
Not Certified by election day Certified by election day
1997
.19
.2.2
1.2
2P
art
y in
Po
we
r S
har
e
Not Certified by election day Certified by election day
2003
.1.1
5.2
.25
Pa
rty
in P
ow
er
Sh
are
Not Certified by election day Certified by election day
2006
2 Year Window Around Election Year
No Evidence for Reciprocity
.21
.22
.23
.24
PA
N S
har
e
.46
.48
.5P
RI S
har
e
Certified by PRI Certified by PAN
PRI PAN
2003
.276
.278
.28
.282
PA
N S
har
e
.365
.37
.375
.38
PR
I Sh
are
Certified by PRI Certified by PAN
PRI PAN
2006
.26
.28
.3P
AN
Sh
are
.405
.41
.415
PR
I Sh
are
Certified by PRI Certified by PAN
PRI PAN
2009
Ejidos Certified in (1999-2001)
No Evidence for Moving to the Right 0
.2.4
.6P
AN
Sha
re
-24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 24Months Certified
Other years 1994
No Evidence for Moving to the Right0
.2.4
.6P
AN
Sha
re
-24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 24Months Certified
Other years 1997
No Evidence for Moving to the Right0
.2.4
.6P
AN
Sha
re
-24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 24Months Certified
Other years 2000
No Evidence for Moving to the Right0
.2.4
.6P
AN
Sha
re
-24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 24Months Certified
Other years 2003
No Evidence for Moving to the Right0
.2.4
.6P
AN
Sha
re
-24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 24Months Certified
Other years 2006
Conclusions• Mexico’s second land reform was successful in providing land
certificates to 91% of ejidos and comunidades• Program was voluntary and accompanied by the creation of
agrarian tribunals, agrarian attorneys, and a rural land registry• Rollout was guided by efficiency concerns and in response to
demand from beneficiaries• Although poorer ejidos certified later, the program reached the
vast majority of target population • Opposed to what political scientists predicted: we do not find
changes in voting behavior correlated to land certificates• Procede shows that large scale land reform can be efficiently
implemented without political backslash• Future research questions:
– Did titles improve production and productivity? How?– Did titles impact migration towards urban areas?