Complete Thesis_double spaced abstract.pdf

Hamilton and Chinchilla (1991) acknowledge that within the study of economic
development, violence and migration it is at time difficult to establish causal relationships due to
the influence of multiple variables. Nevertheless, they establish a framework that begins with
capital penetration, or as it has been previously referred to, economic modernization, agricultural
modernization, or economic development. Capital penetration in Central America involved the
introduction of cash crops for export, the slow or rapid destruction of subsistence agriculture, and
the growth of wage labor. In Hamilton and Chinchilla’s (1991) framework the state plays a
significant role as it responds to capital penetration. In theory, the state has many options in
response to capital penetration. The state may choose to actively alleviate disruptions to the
subsistence farmers by encouraging land reform, providing education and training in other
sectors, instituting guarantees for minimum wages and labor organizing, or engaging in resource
redistribution. The state may also choose not to act, allowing a free market to determine wages,
to determine who is able to purchase land, have access to credit, and to determine which
businesses fail or succeed. Finally, the state may choose an aggravating or intensifying action,
passing legislation or decrees allowing for the concentration of land ownership, granting
concessions to investors, artificially keeping wages low, restricting organizing, or engaging in
violent behavior toward the domestic population. Regardless of the state’s response, the state
directly and indirectly effects migration. If the state response is violence then migration is a
direct outcome. The state may also influence migration indirectly, if the state’s response is to
allow for the accumulation of land and an unequal distribution of resources then over time those
factors can lead to rebellion or revolt, which can lead to state repression and violence, and then
migration. The influence of foreign intervention is similar to the role of the state in Hamilton and
Chinchilla’s framework. At any point in the framework foreign intervention can alleviate,
37