The expropriated areas show higher rice production yields even without any restrictions in place by 2000. Why is this? I find that these areas have better access to informal credit ("shark loans").
High r+rapid repayment->overspecialization on annual crops such as rice

-PLT areas have higher yields and devote more land to perennial crops
-The effects comes from non-traditional perennial crops
-Positive spillovers:Using different data sets I document that PLT areas have rapid structural transformation,⬆️ econ growth(night light),better land use

In the coastal region,President Velasco Ibarra mandated that beneficiaries of expropriations must retain their rice production and avoid switching crops. This policy aimed at ensuring food security, albeit at the cost of restricting farmers' property rights for crop selection.

An interesting experiment occurred on the coast of Ecuador, where abandoned haciendas from before the reform were treated as public land, while others were viewed as needing expropriation. This resulted in varying policies being implemented. Green=PLT, red=Expropriation

Given that the Colombian case experienced almost exclusively PLTs, Ecuador presents an attractive scenario as both policies were implemented in that country, affecting local neighboring regions. What was the impact of PLT compared to expropriation?

PLTs, or land colonization, are not widely studied. While many associate agrarian reform with expropriations, data from the great
Michael Albertus
book shows that several Latin American countries experienced PLTs on a larger scale.

🚨Job Market Paper Here!
NOW ON BLUESKY!!

Are we fully examining every aspect of contemporary agrarian reforms to understand their true impacts?
In my JMP I analyze the effects of public land transfers (PLT) versus expropriations, the primary land allocation methods used in Latin America reforms

😀