An exploration of the political factors which conditioned the performance of the three government bureaucracies charged with the implementation of Chile's first agrarian reform law. Although the political environment in 1962 was certainly favorable to some dynamic action, the record is quite clear that little was accomplished, particularly in regard to land redistribution. With the transfer of party control in 1964, the entire orientation and spirit of the bureaucracies changed, supporting the view that not only did they work half-seriously to implement agrarian reform, but also, on occasion, directly benefited large landowners at the expense of reform. In the period 1962-1964, the landless peasant organizations could not compete in strength or numbers with those representing the landowners. The experience of Chilean politics leads to a view of the need for such groups as a means of forcing an inert or ineffective State apparatus to respond to the needs of the citizenry. 37 pp.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Paper series. The paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.