Complete Thesis_double spaced abstract.pdf

The economic development policies with the ability to most significantly impact the
Mayan populations were the reforms most resisted by the landed oligarchy and the foreign
corporations; agrarian reform. Since the revolution in 1944 land reform had been researched and
discussed, in 1952 agrarian reforms were proposed, approved by the Congress, and instituted by
Arbenz in late 1952 and into 1953. Agrarian reform was a result of several reports and
investigations into the distribution of land resources in Guatemala, perhaps one of the most
compelling arguments in favor came from the 1950 census which found that “2 percent of the
population “controlled slightly over 74% of arable land whereas 76% of the nation’s farms had
access to only 9 percent of the land” (Handy, 1984, 127). Furthermore according to the census,
40% of all farms were owned by just 23 families and there were a reported 250,000 landless
peasants (REMHI, 1999, 185). The push for agrarian reform was meant to stimulate the
Guatemalan economy, by encouraging small farmers to produce for domestic markets and for
export markets. Agrarian reform was supposed to increase efficiency and increase the growth of
small independent and privately owned farms, furthering economic development in Guatemala.
The agrarian reforms meant that (1) expropriated land could be taken from landholders who held
more than 233 acres, and those landholders holding more than 488 acres would lose a portion of
their land (2) land would be expropriated only if it was not being currently used, (3) land was to
be paid for by government bonds, (4) land was to be valued by the amount claimed by the owners
for the 1952 taxes, and (5) land was to be given to peasants who would own it or use it for life
(Jonas, 1991, 27; Handy, 1984, 128). During the few years of the agrarian reform program
approximately 100,000 landless peasants were given title to land, or were working within
cooperatives on land that had been expropriated. Successful agrarian reform had the ability to
transform the Guatemalan economic structure, decreasing labor supply in the rural areas and
increasing rural agricultural wages as well as decreasing domestic food supply issues;
128