Land Ownership Inequality and Rural Unrest: Evidence from the Latifundia Regions of Spain

LAND OWNERSHIP INEQUALITY AND RURAL UNREST: EVIDENCE FROM THE LATIFUNDIA REGIONS OF SPAIN BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR

Jordi Domènech Department of Economic History Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Calle Madrid 126 28903 GETAFE (Madrid) SPAIN

Email: [email protected] Tel: (+34) 91 624 9809

***very preliminary draft, not for quotation****

INTRODUCTION The Second Republic in Spain (1931-1936) witnessed one of the fastest and deepest processes of popular mobilization in interwar Europe. The General Workers’ Union (UGT) jumped from around 230’000 members in 1929 to more than a million members in 1932. Similarly, despite losing a large share of peasant workers to the socialists, the anarcho-syndicalist National Confederation of Labour (CNT) managed to unite about another million workers in the second half of 1931. As a result, union density jumped from its previous peak of 15 per cent of the gainfully employed in 1920 to almost 30 per cent in 1932, below the levels of mobilization of the Scandinavian countries but above the union density levels of Britain, France or Belgium in the 1920s (at a lower level of development) (union densities in Mann, 1995). In addition, strike activity also jumped to unprecedented levels, reaching in 1933 or in 1936 levels of strike intensity only comparable to Italy during the biennio rosso of 1919-1920 or in Britain in 1926.

Being still a predominantly agrarian country, by 1930 about half of the population worked in agriculture, this fast process of mobilization involved the mobilization of the agricultural workers. Although by no means a general phenomenon, large parts of Spain, especially in the centre and the south where dry-farming was predominant, were characterized by a distribution of property dominated by large estates, employing labourers or renting parts of the estate to sharecroppers. Anarcho-syndicalists had traditionally had a strong presence in some large agricultural towns in the cereal-growing plains of Córdoba, although

1 the Socialists were capable of recruiting a growing share of landless labourers or sharecroppers. In the early 1930s, the National Federation of Peasants (Federación Nacional de Trabajadores de la Tierra) reached out to more than 400,000 members. Furthermore, peasants represented a 34 per cent of strikers in 1932 and 29 per cent in 1933.

There is no doubt this unprecedented mobilization of peasants had enormous and tragic political consequences. In European history, peasant rebellion has been linked to revolution and civil war, especially when the mobilization of the peasanty revolves around the issue of land ownership. Democratic and popular threats to the landowning elites has been the core issue of the hegemonic accounts of transitions to authoritarian regimes and the collapse of democracies in interwar Europe. Some examples of this literature are Alexander Gerschenkron’s Bread and democracy in Germany (1943), Barrington Moore’s Social origins of dictatorship and democracy (1966), Gregory Luebbert’s Liberalism, Fascism or Social Democracy (1991) or Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s Economic origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (2005).

The most eloquent statement on the effect of peasant mobilization and agrarian reform on the collapse of the Second Republic and the beginning of the civil war (1936-1939) is no doubt Edward Malefakis’ classic Agrarian reform and peasant revolution in 20th Century Spain: origins of the Spanish civil war (1970). In the book, Malefakis argues reactionary forces were united by the Republican programme of land confiscation. In addition, peasant workers mobilized and radicalized because bureaucratic and fiscal problems coupled with landowners’ natural opposition to agrarian reform slowed down, almost to halt, the programme of land re-distribution. These polarizing forces exploded in 1936, when a new centre-left government was elected after two years with conservative governments. In July 1936, the Civil War broke out. In Malefakis view, the conservative reaction to land confiscation and to social revolution in the country side caused the collapse of Spanish democracy.

2 AIMS OF THIS PAPER This paper for obvious reasons does not intend to settle the enormous literature on the origins of the Spanish civil war, but shed some light on the characteristics and the causes of social conflict in the dry-farming regions of Spain, characterized by the important, but by no means homogenously predominant, presence of large estates or latifundia. To do so I focus on rural strikes and land invasions in the provinces of Córdoba, Jaén and Sevilla (see graph below).

My unit of analysis is the town and my approach is simply counting the number of events related to rural conflict associated with a given town. This is far from ideal for obvious reasons. Although the number of events is probably correlated with conflict intensity, this correlation is certainly less than one. Strikes vary in duration, extension and support. However, duration is in many instances endogenous to the probability of success (in most exercises with strike data, the duration of the strike is negatively correlated with the probability of success, Card and Olson, 1995; Young and Huberman, 2001; Friedman, 1988). The extension of strike does not seem to be a problem because most strikes were organized at the municipal level, rather than aimed at a particular employer. Support is more problematic, because several strikes were not followed by all the agricultural workers of a given town. Support however was also endogenous to the success of

3 the strike, since violence and social penalties against strikebreakers and abstentionists were part of the same process of striking.

In addition, in a context in which detailed historical evidence is sparse, counting events has traditionally been used as a second-best substitute. Examples abound, although perhaps the most famous example is Eric Hobsbawm and George Rude’s 1969 book Captain Swing. Other examples are John Markoff’s work on revolts in the French Revolution (Markoff, 1985, 1986) or recent work on land conflicts and invasions in Brazil (Alston, Libecap, Mueller, 2000; Hidalgo, Naidu, Nichter, Richardson, 2010). For rural conflicts in Republican Spain, as far as I know, only Bernal (1974) followed this method. It is clear as well that a quantitative approach needs to be balanced with a more qualitative approach to understand the issues, the dynamics of mobilization and the probabilities of success or failure.

Data for this paper were collected from the secondary literature (Pérez Yruela, 1979; Pascual Cevallos, 1983; Cobo Romero, 1992) and newspapers like el Sol (published in Madrid), La Vanguardia (published in Barcelona), or ABC (both the Madrid and Sevilla editions) which had very detailed sections on events in the provinces which are quite consistent across all the newspapers. In table 1, I provide the correlations and rank-order-correlation of the number of hits in boolean searches in the digital archives of those newspapers between 1931 and 1934.

Table 1. Correlations of newspaper hits. . correlate LAVANGUARDIA ELSOL ABCMADRID ABCSEVILLA

. spearman LAVANGUARDIA ELSOL ABCMADRID ABCSEVILLA

| LAVANG~A ELSOL ABCMAD~D ABCSEV~A

4 ------+------LAVANGUARDIA | 1.0000 ELSOL | 0.8532 1.0000 ABCMADRID | 0.8476 0.8736 1.0000 ABCSEVILLA | 0.7629 0.7940 0.7546 1.0000

Information on strikes and land invasions has relied mostly on newspapers in the case of the province of Sevilla. The classic reference for Sevilla, Pérez Cevallos (1983), although it gives the total number of conflicts, does not give the full break down of conflicts at the provincial level. The number of strikes and land invasions identified with the newspapers is close enough to the total number of conflicts uncovered by Pascual Cevallos to justify relying exclusively on the national press. Pérez Yruela (1979) and Cobo Romero (1932) give very detailed information on towns in Córdoba and Jaén and his information is superior in coverage to the information provided by the newspapers, with the exception of general strikes, in which I have relied on the summaries of prefect report of published in the newspapers to identify the towns participating in the general strikes. Table 2 gives the breakdown of rural strikes in the provinces according to Francisco Cobo Romero (1992), which has to be read as a a relatively “generous” quantification of the total number of strikes (because it also uses in some cases the socialist press). With the data set I have assembled I am able to track down about 75 per cent of the strikes reported for the period 1931 to 1934.

Table 2. Number of rural strikes in Córdoba, Jaén and Sevilla Córdoba Jaén Sevilla Totals 1931 69 72 48 189 1932 32 110 75 217 1933 100 195 60 355 1934 53 135 32 220 1935 0 1 1 2 1936 29 19 22 70 Source: Cobo Romero, Revolución campesina y contrarrevolución franquista, p. 85.

Once this information was processed, the objective was linking the strike and land invasion data to the characteristics of towns in order to uncover: a. which workers in which towns protested more often, the distribution of strikes.

5 b. A first attempt to answer why? I exploit in this paper certain institutional characteristics of labour markets in the 1930s to isolate some of the factors explaining protest in the 1930s.

EXPLANATIONS OF CONFLICTS AND RESEARCH DESIGN Historians of Andalusian protest have focussed on two main sources of discontent, which are in fact related. The most important one is harvest failure in a context in which most landless workers did not have alternative sources of income. The second one is the failure of the Republic to re-distribute land. In this setting, harvest failure would obviously increase the pressure to re-distribute land to the hungry peasants.

In his classic book on the history of conflicts in Córdoba, Juan Díaz del Moral (the notary of Bujalance, in Córdoba) in 1928 dismissed the view that harvest failures were a trigger of conflict and instead posited that in years of good harvests typically raised protest. Moreover, in his view Córdoba and Andalucía was not the agricultural and traditional backwater that several foreign journalists had depicted when describing the events of the Mano Negra in the early 1880s or the Jerez revolt of 1892, but rather a rapidly changing agricultural economy (Díaz del moral, 1973: 20). In his view, moreover, access to land was changing and the reliance of large estates on labourers was changing as parts of latifundia in relatively well functioning land markets or were rented to sharecroppers.

Following this line of reasoning, James Simpson and Juan Carmona shifted the focus of attention from traditional accounts based on the backwardness of Andalucía to the analysis of a well-functioning labour market with particular characteristics (Carmona and Simpson, 2003: chapter 3). In their view, the chief characteristic of Andalusian labour markets were the large changes in labour demand. Demand peaked in harvest times for cereals and olives, and was generally low outside harvest (with some exceptions). Therefore, Andalusian landless labourers only were employed for about 180-200 days a year. In this context, large employers also relied on temporary workers and in fact there was a very active pattern of temporary labour migrations looking for work in the main harvests of

6 cereals, olives and vines. In Simpson and Carmona’s view (and in Díaz del Moral’s), the main conflict was between local and temporary workers (forasteros) and between the temporary workers and the workers permanently employed in the large farms. The area sown grew constantly in the first three decades of the 20th century and mechanization of harvest work in cereals was only modest, therefore there was no surplus of workers in the Andalusian provinces. Rather, as unions wanted to stabilize and negotiate working conditions, it was necessary to restrict the presence of temporary workers, who undercut wages and working conditions and broke strikes. Collective bargaining in this case basically had a re-distributive effect away from the atomised temporary migrants to the local, organized workers. In their view, it was the ‘exogenous’ arrival of working class ideologies that disrrupted the normal functioning of relatively efficient and well-functioning labour market for agricultural labourers.

The 1930s saw a further twist to the evolution of labour markets in Andalucía. Until 1919, local workers, generally repressed by the police, had been unable to prevent the movement of temporary migrants. It was only in the wave of strikes of 1918 and especially 1919 that workers, especially in Córdoba, had been able to restrict the employment of temporary migrants. The arrival of the Spanish Socialist party to power in 1931 (in a coalition with the Centre-Left Republicans), however, meant a very substantial increase in the regulation of labour markets, and especially of rural labour markets. Firstly, the law of municipal boundaries (ley de términos municipales), finally derogated in May 1934, forbade the recruitment of transient migrants and workers from other towns if there were local workers unemployed. Second, the worker employment law of October 1931 (ley de ocupación obrera) meant that the local conciliation board -dominated by the unions and the mayor- organized the list of employable workers and established who was going to get the next available job (the “turno”). Although both laws certainly were not fully enforced, the qualitative evidence suggests strongly that enforcement was high enough to guarantee a virtual closed shop in the main rural labour markets. This was also the case in anarcho-syndicalist holds, where the unions did not support collective bargaining but were staunch defenders of the municipal boundaries law and the turno. No doubt, membership

7 exploded. I can think of better “selective incentives” to join (a death threat), but a closed shop seems to be enough of an incentive (Lichbach, 1994).

This distributional impact can also be coupled with other triggers of collective action. Recently, economists and political scientists have explicitly formulated testable hypothesis on the origins of conflict. Just to mention a recent one, Hidalgo, Naidu, Nichter and Richardson (2010) tried to explain land invasions in Brazil as a response to harvest failure or income declines. In their study, they capture “exogenous” variations in living standards by instrumenting income with rainfall, assuming that agricultural incomes will be subject to substantial variation caused by weather conditions. In their study, they also see that the probability of invading is also higher, the bigger the inequality in the distribution of land holdings. Unexpected declines in living standards and land ownership inequality brought about higher levels of rural conflict. In Spain, as dry-farming agricultural output was quite volatile and land ownership distribution was apparently very unequal, it is probably worthwhile to test these two hypotheses.

The new institutional economics also offers an alternative view of rural conflict which will be relevant to the historical context of 1930s Spain. Alston, Libecap, and Mueller (2000) for example argue that legal inconsistencies in land reform policies in Brazil led to an increase in violent conflict between landowners and squatters and to the deforestation of the Amazon forest. Posing a threat to established property rights, in this view, the land reform pushed by the Republican authorities potentially had dramatic effects in areas with a highly skewed land ownership distribution.

My approximation to the determinants of strikes and land invasions therefore takes into account the insights from the historical and social science literature on the origins of conflicts. To do so I exploit first the relatively exogenous variation in the land ownership distribution (determined to a great extent in a period before the explosion of rural conflict in the 1930s), which one the one hand captures the effect of inequality on conflict and also could be related to the ability

8 of strikers to detect strikebreakers in large estates as opposed to the same ability in scattered landholdings.

Secondly, I exploit variation in population densities, which give an approximation to the land to labour ratio, in turn giving a further approximation to the local labour demand that the labourers faced after the passing of the law of municipal boundaries in 1931. In this context, the situation is closed to a quasi experiment, since area and population (the ingredients of population density) were determined well before the passing of the law of municipal boundaries. Wages were determined by provincial collective contracts, negotiated every year (Anuario Español de Política Social, 1935). To the point that wages reflected the local labour supply and demand equilibrium of the towns with an average land to labour ratio, adjustments in the local labour markets of towns with low land to labour ratios will take the form of unemployment (via quantities rather than prices). On the other hand, in the long run, population decisions are endogenous, therefore landless workers will tend to concentrate in large towns with relatively thick labour markets (develop).

HARVEST FAILURE Jaén, Córdoba and Sevilla especialised in a combination of wheat and olives. In Córdoba in 1932, 35 per cent of the agricultural land was used to grow wheat, 37 per cent olive trees, and 16 per cent was left fallow. Only 12 per cent of the land had alternative uses. In Jaén, in the same year, 26 per cent of the agricultural land was left fallow, 27 per cent was used to grow cereals and 42 per cent to grow olive trees. Only 5 per cent of the land was left for alternative crops. In Sevilla, 43 per cent was cereal, 35 per cent was olive trees and 8 per cent was fallow. 14 per cent of the land was left for alternative uses (all data from the Anuario Estadístico, 1932-1933). The vulnerability of these provinces to crop failure is obvious.

I first look at aggregate trends in production of cereals and olives (Carreras and Tafunell, 2005). In both cases, output trends up with substantial fluctuations, which are especially acute in the olive crops (in this case proxied by the production

9 of olive oil). Graph 1 gives the trends in total production since 1890 (Jaén and Córdoba were the main producers of olive oil by a large margin).

Graph 2. Olive oil and wheat production (index numbers, 1890=100)

100 0 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910year1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 indexwheat indexoliveoil

In this case, aggregate olive output is basically tracking the output produced by Córdoba and Jaén, and to a lesser extent Sevilla. 1926, 1928 and 1930 were cases of substantial crop failure, whereas the 1933 crop was poor but not dramatically poor. There were two spectacular spikes in 1927 and 1928. When I look at the average production of olives per province between 1922 and 1934 (when the Spanish statistical yearbooks gave information on production at the provincial level), only two years in each province appear to be one standard deviation below the mean (the calculation takes into account the greater amount of land used to grow olives). For both Sevilla and Córdoba, between 1922 and 1934, 1928 and 1930 were the only two years in which the harvest of olives was one standard deviation below the mean (again, calculation takes into account that more land was available to grow olives), for Jaén, 1930 and 1933 were one standard deviation below the mean.

Similar inspection of data on cereal harvests shows that for our three provinces, 1931 and 1933 were particularly bad years, while 1932 and 1934 were delivered extraordinary harvests. The reason seems to be largely exogenous. The

10 spring temperatures in Andalucía in 1931 and 1933 were particularly high, compared to the relatively cold spring temperatures of 1932 and 1934, and high temperatures in Spring have a negative impact on cereal output (temperatures from Anuario Estadístico 1931, 1932-1933, 1934; Rodríguez,-Puebla, Encinas, Frías, 2004a,2004b on effects of winter rain and spring temperatures on output). Also taking into account the amount of land put into production, the harvest of 1931 in Sevilla was well above the mean, while the 1933 harvest was about one standard deviation below the mean (one could expect a harvest as bad as that one once in every six years). In Jaén, the 1931 and the 1933 harvests were less than one standard deviation below the mean. Only in Córdoba was the 1933 harvest catastrophic, less than 2 standard deviations below the mean, while the 1931 harvest was one standard deviation above the mean. In all three cases, the 1932 harvest was more than 2 standard deviations above the mean.

To what extent do we see largely exogenous crop failures affecting patterns of conflict? There is no doubt that crop failures must have had serious effects on the living standards of the workers dependent on paid employment by causing a collapse in the demand for labour. However, it is far more difficult to link periods of crop failure to the explosion of rural unrest of the 1930s. For cereals, harvests in the 1920s were pretty stable and only 1931 and 1933 seem to have been particularly poor years. In 1933, Córdoba had certainly a very poor harvest, but strikes and conflict increased also in both Jaén and Sevilla in the same year. On the other hand, 1932 was an exceptional year, and yet the number of strikes grew from the previous 1931 level. In 1934, a year of an exceptionally good cereal harvest, the National Federation of Peasants organized the most serious general strike of its history. In Jaén, more dependent on olives than the other two provinces, experienced increases in strikes both in 1932 (a year of a relatively good harvest) and in 1933 (a year of poor harvest).

LAND INEQUALITY AND POPULATION DENSITIES, Despite the homogeneous image of being characterized as a latifundia region, the truth was that the distributions of land ownership varied widely in the three provinces studied here. Andalucía in this sense was no different than other

11 Southern European regions characterized by dry farming. For example, Julian Pitt Rivers noted “The agricultural land of Andalucía has been held in latifundia, ever since the Roman times. The complex of dry-farming, with its uncertain yearly returns and fluctuating demand for manpower, may be seen through the history of the Mediterranean to have tended to encourage the agglomeration of property, and also of habitations, into large units. The vast expanse cultivated by short-term, town-dwelling labour for a single master is common not only in Betica, la Mancha and Castile, but to much of Italy as well. This type of landholding is typical only of the plains, and it is rarely found today among the mountains. The soil of the sierra tends to be poorer than that of the plain and is more labourious to cultivate and more subject to erosion. In any case, its unevenness makes it unsuitable for large scale exploitation. (Pitt Rivers, 1954: 39; see as well Braudel, La Méditerranée, vol. I: 82).”

Data on the distribution of land ownership at the municipal level are taken from Pascual Carrión’s classic Los latifundios en España (first published in 1932), which provides information at the municipal level on the fraction of total area owned by estates of more than 250 hectares (2,5 million square meters or about 330 football pitches). In graph 3 I show the histogram of the distribution of land ownership for 198 towns (of a total of 272 towns in the three provinces excluding the cities over 40000 and the capitals of the province). In many towns, the level of land ownership concentration was actually low.

Graph 3. Historigram, proportion of town are owned by estate of more than 250 hectares (N=198 towns in Jaén, Córdoba, Sevilla).

.01 Density

0 0 10 20 30 landinequality40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12 Landinequality was higher in the fertile plains than in the hills. Indeed, our crude measure capturing the presence of large estates is negatively correlated with altitude. Moreover, altitude is also negatively correlated with the presence of landless labourers in the total population (data from the Censo de Campesinos, which are clustered at the judicial district level rather than given for each town). Finally, land ownership inequality is mildly negatively correlated with population. Table 3 gives the correlations and graph 4 the relationship between ownership inequality and population.

Table 3. Correlation matrix of of inequality and geographical and demographic variables.

. correlate landinequality pop1930 altitude labourerspop (obs=198)

landin~y pop1930 altitude labourers~p

landinequa~y 1.0000 pop1930 -0.1111 1.0000 altitude -0.2213 -0.0085 1.0000 labourers/pop -0.0747 0.0523 -0.1867 1.0000

Graph 4. Land ownership inequality and population. Lowess smoothing.

Lowess smoother 100

40 landinequality 20

0 0 5000 10000 pop193015000 20000 25000 30000 bandwidth = .8

Moreover, I look at the distribution of labourers, small owners and sharecroppers among the Andalucia pueblos, using the Peasant Census (Censo de

13 Campesinos) of 1933. The data are aggregated at the level of judicial district and it is unclear what was the level at which a landowner was considered a “small proprietor”. Graphs 5, 6 and 7 give the histograms. Again the picture is one of more heterogeneity than traditionally assumed, everywhere labourers were far more prevalent than either small proprietors or sharecroppers, but Córdoba and Jaén had a higher share of small landowners.

Graph 5. Histogram with the fraction of labourers (fraction of all “poor” peasants, not of total population in each district).

0 .5 .6 fraction.7 labourers.8 .9

Graph 6. Histogram of fraction of sharecroppers

0 0 fraction.1 sharecroppers.2 .3

14 Graph 7. Histogram fraction of small owners.

0 0 .1 fraction small.2 owners .3 .4

. correlate perlabourers percentsmallowners percentsharecrop (obs=40)

| perlab~s percen~s percen~p ------+------perlabourers | 1.0000 percentsma~s | -0.8962 1.0000 percentsha~p | -0.7969 0.4463 1.0000

DETERMINANTS OF STRIKES When I look at strikes between April 1931 and June 1934, the picture that emerges is that for a large fraction of towns in some of the most strike-prone provinces of Spain mobilization and collective action were remote episodes happening in other parts of the province. Towns in the hills, as already noted by the Juan Díaz del Moral about the strike wave of 1918-1919, were barely touched by the new ideologies. 50 per cent of towns in the three provinces did not witness a single strike or just one strike (in a period that involved at least two large general strikes). Social relations were considered explosive, but about 50 per cent of towns can be excluded from this. Graph 8 gives the histogram of the number of times rural workers in each town struck:

15 Graph 8. Histogram of rural strikes.

.2 Density

0 0 1 2 3 4 strikes5 6 7 8 9 10 11

What were the main demands of strikes? Two large groups of strikes emerge. One the one hand there were several summer and autumn strikes to negotiate the collective harvest contracts for wheat and olives. In my data set about 30 per cent of strikes negotiated collective contracts. Second, there was a large proportion of strikes of unemployed workers or of workers demanding work (23 per cent). The general strike of June 1934 concentrated 26 per cent of all strikes. Finally, there were several general strikes organized by the National Confederation of Labour, which centred mostly in some towns in Córdoba. For 16 per cent of strikes, I have not been able to trace the main demand of the strike.

In order to analyse the number of strikes in each town I use a zero inflated poisson model (although a negative binomial model does not deliver different results). Because of the idiosyncatic nature of my data set, it is fair to argue that I might ge more zeroes than expected, especially in isolated, small towns. Therefore the model first estimates a logit regression to analyse the determinants of observing at least one event and then models the count. In this case, the obvious candidate for the inflation effect on zeroes is population (taken from the census). Therefore I estimate the following regressions for a group of 201 towns in Jaén, Córdoba and Sevilla (dataset excludes the capitals and Linares):

16 Strikes = a + b*ln (population in 1930) + c*ln(landinequality) + d*ln(popdensity) + e*(dummy for a town between 250 and 500 meters above sea level) + f*dummy over 500 metres above sea level + g*dummy Jaén + h*dummy Sevilla

The regression model to a large extent is based on the historical and theoretical discussion. Since labourers tended to concentrate in large towns, the coefficient of population would capture among other things the insider power of “local” labourers in the plains. The coefficient on land inequality is the response of workers to the inequality effect. Finally, population density would capture the shock to local labour demand caused by the prohibition to recruit temporary migrants. Dummies for altitude above sea level capture the “hills effect” mentioned by Díaz del Moral and the dummies in each province variations in the policies of prefects (the main authority at the provincial level).

Because population, land inequality and population density are highly collinear, I also play with variations in the basic specification to evaluate the robustness of my estimates. Table 4 gives the correlations and the descriptive statistics of the main regressors: Table 4. Correlation matrix population, land ownership inequality and population density.

. summarize lpop1930 llandinequality lpopdensity

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max ------+------lpop1930 | 272 8.408768 .8579315 5.181784 10.30508 llandinequ~y | 208 3.415684 .8202427 .7030975 4.60517 lpopdensity | 265 -.5521035 .8904659 -2.980696 2.818398

. correlate lpop1930 llandinequality lpopdensity (obs=208)

| lpop1930 llandi~y lpopde~y ------+------lpop1930 | 1.0000 llandinequ~y | -0.1603 1.0000 lpopdensity | 0.3252 -0.4031 1.0000

17 In table 5 I present the results from the estimation: Table 5. the determinants of strikes, 1931-1934 variables Zero inflated Zero inflated Zero inflated Zero inflated poisson poisson, poisson, poisson, small All towns Pop1930 Towns below towns only excluded 400 metres (below sample mean) Constant -2.23*** 1.39*** -2.03*** 1.66*** (0.645) (0.25) (0.97) (0.39) Ln (land in) 0.03 0.008 0.09 -0.07 (0.07) (0.065) (0.12) (0.101) Ln (popden) 0.09 0.22** 0.1 0.13 (0.07) (0.07) (0.1) (0.11) Ln (pop 1930) 0.39*** 0.39*** (0.06) (0.09) Alt250500 -0.112 -0.18 -0.09 -0.63*** (0.13) (0.133) (0.16) (0.21) Altover500 -0.47*** -0.47*** -0.84*** (0.134) (0.14) (0.21) Jaen 0.044 -0.03 0.07 0.07 (0.12) (0.114) (0.21) (0.17) Sevilla -0.73*** -0.8*** -0.86*** -1.04*** (0.134) (0.134) (0.16) (0.2) N 201 201 88 125 LR chi2 90.59 52.97 48.76 38.46 Prob>chi2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

The results show how land inequality was irrelevant in the explanation of strikes. The main predictor of strikes are the population of the town (remember we are also correcting for the potential effect of population on the reporting of strikes in newspapers), the altitude and the province (with Sevilla towns organizing significantly less strikes). The negative coefficients on altitude and Sevilla remain when I exclude the population variable or look only at sub-samples of towns in my original data set. There are several potential reasons why population might matter to explain the higher incidence of strikes. However, since

18 labourers tended to concentrate in large towns, the population effect, among other potential causes, also reflects the insider power of the local labourers. On the other hand, because large towns also had higher population densities part of this size effect also is channelled through the shocks to local demand caused by the municipal boundaries law.

In order to teasa out the various effects it is useful to consider only those strikes that were organized demanding work. In this second exercise therefore I only concentrate on the strikes organized by unemployed workers. Table 6 reports the results from the regressions: Table 6. Determinants of regressions demanding work. Variables Zero inflated Zero inflated Zero inflated Poisson regression Poisson regression Poisson Lpop1930 regression, towns excluded below population average Constant -3.03*** -1.13*** -1.24 (1.84) (0.65) (1.04) Ln (land in) 0.028 0.08 0.21 (0.15) (0.144) (0.24) Ln (pop density) 0.36 0.46** 0.6** (0.25) (0.23) (0.36) Ln (pop1930) 0.214 (0.193) Alt250500 -0.203 -0.32 -0.04 (0.4) (0.39) (0.7) Altover 500 -1.46*** -0.9 -0.8 (0.68) (0.39) (0.7) Jaén 2.35*** 2.34*** 1.79*** (0.37) (0.38) (0.56) Sevilla -1.46*** -1.54*** -1.7*** (0.678) (0.68) (0.86) N 201 201 125 LR chi2 77.14 75.89 30.24 Prob >chi2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

19 In this case, the effect of population and altitutde still persist and Sevilla still organizes far less strikes than the other two provinces. Jaén on the other hand organized far more strikes of unemployed workers than any of the provinces. The reason probably has to do with the harvest failure of olives in 1933. In this regressions, the effect of population densities and local demand shocks is now an important determinant of this type of strikes (although the predominance of Jaén dwarfs any kind of other effect).

LAND INVASIONS My second approximation to the levels of conflict uses cases of land invasions. When looking at the qualititative evidence, it is clear land invasions in Andalucía did not represent a threat to established property rights. Rather than squatting, most invasions of property reflected the fact that workers started working in the fields of some landowner or entered a large estate to pick up olives after harvest (the so called “rebusca” done by old people and children) or to pick up acorns. To a great extent, illegally entering the fields of a landowner to work responded to the widespread use of the law of compulsory cultivation, a law passed by the republican government forcing landowners to employ unemployed workers under certain circumstances (when a commission could prove the property was not being worked at the highest level of efficiency, but in fact there were surely many cases of arbitrarily decided compulsory cultivation). Landowners and employers bitterly complained about the workings of this law, which in fact left in the hands of mayors (in many rural towns, socialist and pro-workers) and the so-called “comisión de policía rural” (also controlled by mayors) the final decisions on the decrees of compulsory cultivation. My data on land invasions still need substantial revisions, however I do not think the picture is going to vary systematically. Graph 9 gives the histogram of land invasions, which gives about 80 per cent of towns not reporting a single event of workers trespassing a property. Indeed, several contemporary observers argued that in fact the issue of land invasions was indeed an exageration of the right-wing press. But even the moderate El Sol often ran a section called “Invasiones de fincas” in which some cases of true workers’ trespassing were recorded along robberies and other crimes.

20 Graph 9. Histogram of land invasions.

.4 Fraction

0 0 1 land2 invasions3 4 5

Again, I perform the same count model to understand the determinants of invasions. Neither inequality or population density explain the results and as in the other exercises population and the provincial dummies swallow all the explanatory power. Quite surprisingly, land invasions did not decline in the hilly areas, something not altogether surprising considering the type of property trespassing and its reasons that we are considering. Results are presented in table 7:

Table 7. Determinants of land invasions. Variables Zero inflated Zero inflated Poisson Poisson Constant -5,93*** 0,0145 (2,13) (0,86) Ln (land in) -0,11 0,011 (0,22) (0,235) Ln (popdensity) -0,33 -0,361 (0,27) (0,29)

21 Ln(pop1930) 0,612*** (0,21) Alt250500 -0,552 -0,42 (0,367) (0,39) Altover500 0,006 -0,028 (0,382) (0,4) Jaen -0,605 -0,804* (0,44) (0,454) Sevilla 0,98*** 0,72** (0,37) (0,4) N 201 201 Chi2 29,66 20,01 Prob>chi2 0,0000 0,000

As in the case of strikes, and although I have to do some more work in my data set of land invasions, the main determinants of invasions was again the population of town. In this case, most probably most cases of property trespassing were caused by workers anticipating a favourable concession from the mayor forcing some landowner to employ unemployed workers. Provincial dummies again seem to be crucial in determining land invasions, as workers in Sevilla were clearly more prone to invade properties than in other provinces. Probably, one will need to take a look at local politics to understand this effect.

CONCLUSIONS The picture that emerges from my study of rural conflict in Andalucía challenges the view we have of the determinants of conflict. Firstly, conflict was more concentrated than otherwise thought into few localities that concentrated a large number of labourers. Conflict in this sense favoured local insider power at the expense of workers in other towns, and therefore could not be generated by widespread harvest failure. When I look at the determinants of strikes demanding work, I show how probably shocks to the local demand of labour caused by the law of municipal boundaries were important, although harvest failure in olives in Jaén also increased the strikes of unemployed workers in winter. My first preliminary results on land invasions suggests this was a phenomenon that also required local,

22 union power and favoured the local, permanent labourers in the large towns of the plains.

Bibliography: Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson, Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy (Cambridge, 2005).

Alston, Lee J., Gary D. Libecap and Bernardo Mueller, “Land reform policies, the sources of violent conflict, and implications for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39 (2000), pp. 162-188.

André, Catherine and Jean Philippe Plateau, “Land relations under unbearable stress: Rwanda caught in the Malthusian trap,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 34 (1998), pp. 1-47.

Angrist, Joshua D. and Adriana D. Kluger, “Rural windfall or a new resource curse? Coca, income, and civil conflict in Colombia,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XC, 2 (2008), pp. 192-214.

Beck, E. M. and Stewart E. Tolnay, “Analyzing historical count data: Poisson and negative binomial regression models,” Historical Methods, 28, 3 (1995), pp. 125-131.

Berman, Eli, Joseph Felter and Jacob N. Shapiro, “Do working men rebel? Insurgency and unemployment in Iraq and the Philippines,” NBER working paper 15547 (November 2009).

Bernal, Antonio Miguel, La propiedad de la tierra y las luchas agrarias andaluzas (Barcelona, 1974).

Bernaldo de Quirós, Constancio, “Informe acerca del paro de los jornaleros del campo de Andalucía durante el otoño de 1930,” in Estudios y documentos: la crisis agraria andaluza de 1930-31 (Madrid, 1931 [1973]).

Béteille, André, Studies in agrarian social structure (Oxford, 1974).

Braudel, Fernand, La Méditerranée, volume I.

Brenan, Gerald, The Spanish labyrinth: the social and political background of the Spanish civil war (Cambridge, 2008 [1943]).

Carmona, Juan and James Simpson, El laberinto de la agricultura española: instituciones, contratos y organización entre 1850 y 1936 (Zaragoza, 2003).

Carrión, Pascual, Los latifundios en España. Su importancia, origen, consecuencia y solución (Barcelona, 1975 [1932]).

23 Creamer, Cristopher, “Inequality and conflict. A review of an age-old concern,” United Nations Institute for Social Development. Identitities, Conflict and Cohesion working paper number 11 (October 2005).

Díaz del Moral, Juan, Historia de las agitaciones campesinas andaluzas (Madrid, 1973 [1929]).

Espinoza, Luis E., Ricardo Robledo, María Pilar Brel and Julio Villar, “Estructura social del campo: el Censo de Campesinos (1932-1936): primeros resultados,” in Ricardo Robledo and Santiago López (eds.), ¿Interés particular, bienestar público? Grandes patrimonios y reformas agrarias (Zaragoza, 2007), pp. 307-342.

Florencio Puntas, Antonio y Antonio López Martínez, “El trabajo asalariado en la agricultura de la Baja Andalucía. Siglos XVIII y XIX,” Historia Agraria, 21 (2000), pp. 99- 126.

Florencio Puntas, Antonio y Antonio López Martínez, “Las migraciones estacionales agrarias en Andalucía anteriores al siglo XIX,” Boletín de la Asociación de Demografía Histórica, 18 (2000), pp. 71-100.

Garrido González, Luis, Colectividades agrarias en Andalucía: Jaén (1931-1939) (Madrid, 1979).

Garrido González, Luis, Historia del olivar y del aceite en Andalucía (Málaga, 2000).

Gerschenkron, Alexander, Income and democracy in Germany (New York, 1966).

Hart, Peter, “The geography of revolution in Ireland, 1917-1923,” Past and Present, 115 (1997), pp. 142-176.

Hidalgo, Daniel F., Suresh Naidu, Simeon Nichter, and Neal Richardson, “Economic determinants of land invasions,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 3 (2010), pp. 505- 523.

Hobsbawm, E. J. and George Rudé, Captain Swing (London, 1973).

Humphries, Jane, “Enclosures, common rights and women: the proletarianization of families in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries,” Journal of Economic History, L, 1 (1990), pp. 17-42.

King, Gary, “Statistical models for political science event counts: bias in conventional procedures and evidence for the exponential Poisson regression model,” American Journal of Political Science, 32 (1988), pp. 338-363.

Lichbach, Mark I., “What makes rational peasants revolutionary? Dilemma, paradox, and irony in peasant collective action,” World Politics, 46, 3 (1994), pp. 383-418.

Luebbert, Gregory, Liberalism, fascism or social democracy: social classes and the political origins of regimes in interwar Europe (Oxford, 1991).

24 Malefakis, Edward, Agrarian reform and peasant revolution in Spain. Origins of the Civil War (New Haven, 1970).

Markoff, John, “Context and forms of rural revolt: France in 1789,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 2 (1986), pp. 253-289.

Markoff, John, “The social geography of rural revolt at the beginning of the French Revolution,” American Sociological Review, 50, 6 (1985), pp. 761-781.

Martinez Alier, Juan, Labourers and landowners in Southern Spain (London, 1971).

Montañés, Enrique, “Crisis agrícola y reformismo republicano: la instauración de la negociación colectiva en la campiña andaluza, 1931-1933,” Estudios Regionales, 49 (1997), pp. 133-160.

Moore, Barrington Jr., The social origins of dictatorship and democracy: lord and peasant in the making of the modern world (Boston, 1966).

Pascual Cevallos, Fernando, Luchas agrarias en Sevilla durante la Segunda República (Sevilla, 1983).

Pérez Yruela, Manuel, La conflictividad campesina en la provincia de Córdoba (1931-1936) (Barcelona, 1979).

Pitt-Rivers, J. A., The people of the Sierra (London, 1954).

Pulido Matos, Manuel, Historia de un pueblo andaluz: Lebrija, de la Revolución Gloriosa a la Democracia, 1868-1979 (Lebrija, ?).

Scott, James C., The art of not being governed: an anarchist history of upland southeast Asia (New Haven, 2009).

Sevilla Guzmán, Eduardo, La evolución del campesinado en España. Elementos para una sociología política del campesinado (Barcelona, ?).

Sindicato Vertical del Olivo, Estudios sobre la economía del aceite (Madrid, 1944).

Sindicato Vertical del Olivo, El paro estacional campesino (Madrid, 1946).

Skocpol, Theda, States and social revolutions. A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China (Cambridge, 1979).

Villarreal, Andrés, “The social ecology of rural violence: land scarcity, the organization of agricultural production, and the presence of the state,” American Journal of Sociology, 110, 2 (2004), pp. 313-48.