I“ e-..-—---- AGRICULTURAL LAND USE III URUGUAY Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ERNST CLARK GRIFFIN 1972 LIBRA; Y L Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN URUGUAY presented by Ernst Clark Griffin has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in Jemima! W Major professor DEM-‘iW—M—{77Z | 0-7539 ( ABSTRACT AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN URUGUAY By Ernst Clark Griffin This research provides a detailed analysis of Uruguay's agri- cultural land use pattern and the major causal factors responsible for the spatial arrangement of agricultural activities. In addition, it analyzes the general economic rationality of the land use pattern and outlines past and present land use trends. Suggestions are made concerning the major obstacles facing modernization of the nation's agricultural sector and the means of surmounting them. Also, the von Thfinen theory of agricultural land use distributions is empirically compared with Uruguay's existing land use pattern. The research design employed in this study was fashioned to meet the needs of a field research program. Prior to the field work, efforts were made to develOp a basic foundation of knowledge on Uruguay through a thorough review of the literature. In Uruguay, an affilia- tion with the Program for the Study and Improvement of Soils, of the Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture, allowed access to official data sources not normally open to foreign investigators. The statistical material gathered, the Spanish-language literature reviewed and evalu- ated, and interviews made during the course of one year spent in the Ernst Clark Griffin nation, along with personal impressions of the people and country, form the core of this research. Upon return from Uruguay, the data were processed and evaluated, much of the cartographic work completed, and the dissertation written. Two broad categories of data are employed in this study: quan- titative and qualitative. The first group includes the purely statis- tical material from various sources in Uruguay and forms the basis for the determination of crop and livestock distributions and, subsequently, agricultural land use regions. Agricultural census data from the Bureau of Statistics, of the Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture, provide the primary statistical base of the research. The qualitative information collected made possible a meaningful interpretation of a wide variety of non-quantified variables influencing agricultural land use and general socio-economic conditions. Review of Spanish-language literature, interviews, and careful observation provided qualitative information. The agricultural land use pattern of Uruguay was determined through a three-step process. The original statistical data were gathered, processed and mapped by minor political divisions (police sections) at a scale of l:500,000. These completed crop and livestock maps were combined to form the basis for the division of Uruguay into land use regions. Boundaries were delimited for geographic areas with similar land use patterns, and field observations and aerial photo interpretation were made to further delimit regional boundaries. Analysis of the pertinent causal factors related to the distributional pattern was undertaken. Ernst Clark Griffin A number of conclusions are drawn from the data employed in the study. Among the more important are the following: 1. 0n the basis of crOp combinations, livestock densities, and intensity of management systems, Uruguay presents seven distinct agricultural land use regions. 2. A variety of physical and cultural factors are causally related to the spatial patterns of land use. Of these, soils and p0pulation distributions are most significant. 3. Given the physical characteristics of the country and the basic cultural preferences of Uruguayan land owners, the pattern of agricultural land use is rational in a general economic sense. A. Agricultural land use in Uruguay will continue to be dominated by livestock ranching in the foreseeable future. Cattle will increase in relative importance, and an intensifi— cation of production methods will result through government sponsored pasture and livestock improvement programs. 5. Government will need to take a more active role in encour- aging producers to adopt modern technical inputs in their farming and ranching systems. 6. Removing the institutional obstructions to increased agri- cultural production will be a difficult and lengthy process. 7. Structural changes will be difficult to implement in Uruguay's economic, political, or social systems because the established structures reflect certain perceived values of Uruguayan society. Changes can probably be achieved more readily through the modi- fication of existing institutional structures than through the creation of new ones. 8. Increased agricultural productivity can lead Uruguay from its present economic crisis. 9. At a generalized level, the von Thfinen hypothesis of agri- cultural land use distribution is applicable to Uruguay's land use pattern. The theory's utility decreases as greater detail is sought. AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN URUGUAY By Ernst Clark Griffin A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1972 To Christy for the love, encouragement, and understanding so unselfishly given. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of individuals and institutions have contributed greatly during the course of this research. I wish to acknowledge their help and offer my sincere thanks. Through a combined effort, the experience of researching and writing this dissertation has been stimulating and, believe it or not, enjoyable. The Foreign Area Fellowship Program, a Joint committee of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, provided a grant which supported a year of field research in Uruguay as well as a six-month write-up period in the United States. Without this grant, the research would have been much more difficult to complete. The Technical Secretariat of the Organization of American States furnished a supplemental research grant and provided in—country assistance which proved extremely useful. In Uruguay an affiliation with the Programa de Estudio y Levantamiento de Suelos, of the Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, greatly facilitated data collection and analysis. To the Programa's director, Ing. Oscar L6pez Taborda, and staff, I owe deep appreciation and humble thanks. In particular I wish to thank Tne. Col. Héctor Villaverde, Jefe del Sector de Cartografia y Imprenta, my dear friend and office partner, who went far beyond the limits of friendship to help me with many aspects of the research. Ing. Julio Cesar Galli, of the Comisi6n National de Estudios Agropecuarios de la Tierra, and iii Ing. Oscar Abarrac6n, of the Direccion Forestal, contributed much time and effort to the successful completion of the study. Ing. Jaime Fernandez, Direcci6n de Economia Agraria, Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, provided access to a great amount of unpublished statis— tical data vital to this research. To the members of my thesis committee, Drs. Robert N. Thomas, and Ian Matley of the Department of Geography, and Drs. Raleigh Barlowe and Milton Steinmueller of the Department of Resource Development, I owe a debt of gratitude. Each member shared his time and professional knowledge unstintingly. Working with them has been a pleasant and rewarding experience. Last, I would like to thank Dr. C. W. Minkel, my major advisor, for the time, patience, and friendship he has shared with me during the past several years. His dedication to his students is complete. I hOpe that my future students will respect me as much as I respect him. iv I I \I ‘3 I \I \l I TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . Related Literature . . . . . . . . Significance of the Research . . . Theoretical Considerations . . . . . Von Thfinen's Hypothesis . . . . . Testing the von Thfinen Hypothesis Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . Land Use Patterns . . . . . Regionalization of Land Use Types I I O MODERN URUGUAY O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Physical Features . . . . . . . . Geomorphology and Hydrology . . . Climate and Weather . . . . . . . 9 Soils and Vegetation . . . . . . Other Natural Resources . . . . . Cultural Characteristics . . . . . . Historical Review . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . . . The Economy . . . . . . . .j. . . . Major Economic Activities . . . . Some Economic Indicators . . . . . Socio-Economic Divisions . . . . . Transportation Network . . . . . . Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government Structure and Politics Government's Role in Uruguayan Life PAGE viii ix 10 16 17 18 21 25 27 32 33 3h 36 36 A2 Ah h8 AB 55 6h 71 73 77 80 81 83 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE III. AGRICULTURAL LAND USE REGIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Crop Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Orchard-Vineyard Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Intensive Crop Production Region . . . . . . . . . 93 Cereals Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Crop-Livestock Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Dairy Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Cereals-Livestock Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Livestock Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Extensive Sheep Grazing Region . . . . . . . . . . 113 Cattle Grazing Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 IV. DISTRIBUTION FACTORS AND TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Factors Influencing Agricultural Land Use . . . . . . 122 Physical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Cultural Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Institutional Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Trends in Agricultural Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . 1h6 Past Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1h6 Probable Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1514 v. TOWARD A MORE PRODUCTIVE LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Present Pattern and National Needs . . . . . . . . . 158 Actual vs. Potential Productivity Levels . . . . . 160 Physical Possibilities for Increased Output . . . . 163 Obstacles to Increased Productivity . . . . . . . . . 166 Tax Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Agricultural Price Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Agricultural Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Alternate Opportunity Competition . . . . . . . . . 179 Encouraging Beneficial Land Use Changes . . . . . . . 183 Revision of Tax Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18h Changes in Price Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Increased Research and Extension . . . . . . . . 189 Greater Balance Among Investment Opportunities . . 191 Incentive Responsiveness of Producers . . . . . . . . 193 VI. TESTING THE VON THUNEN HYPOTHESIS . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Uruguay as the "Isolated State" . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Major Tenets of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Relaxing the Simplifying Conditions . . . . . . . . 20h vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE VI. A Von Thfinen Model for Uruguay . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Present Land Use and the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Similarities Between the Model and Reality . . . . . 212 Deviations from the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21h Causes for the Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Comments on Theory and Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 vii 10. ll. 12. 13. 1h. 15. LIST OF TABLES uruguay: P0pulation Growth Rates, 1910-1963 . . . . . Uruguay: Gross Domestic Product for Major Sectors Of the Econom, 1955-1968 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Uruguay: Economically Active Population, 1963 . . . . Uruguay: Major Exports, 1955-1968 . . . . . . . . Uruguay: Gross Domestic Product Per Capita, 19h5-l968 . Uruguay: Balance of Payments, 1955-1968 . . . . . . . Uruguay: Land Ownership by Size of Holdings, 1966 . . Uruguay: Retentions on Exports . . . . . . . . . . Uruguay: Agricultural Land Use Divisions, 1951-1966 . Uruguay: Land Ownership by Size Classes, 1951-1966 . Uruguay: Value of Agricultural Production, 1935—1968 Uruguay: Volume of Production of Principal Agricultural Products, 1955-1968 . . . . . . . . . . Uruguay: Present and Potential Land Use Levels . . . Average Prices Received by Producers for Greasy WOol in Selected Countries, l950-l96h . . . . . Wholesale Beef Prices in Selected Countries, l950-l96h . viii PAGE 58 65 66 68 72 73 13h lho 1A8 lh9 151 152 161 172 173 FIGURE 1. Uruguay: 2. 3. h. Uruguay: 5. Uruguay: 6. Uruguay: 7. Uruguay: 8. Uruguay: 9. Uruguay: 10. Uruguay: 11. Uruguay: 12. Uruguay: 13. Uruguay: 1h. Uruguay: 15. Uruguay: 16. Uruguay: 17. Uruguay: 18. Uruguay: 19. Uruguay: Land-Rent Triangles and Concentric Ring Derivation . Zonal Pattern Variations in the von Thfinen Hypothesis LIST OF FIGURES Location Map . . . . . . . Geomorphic Regions . . . . Hydrology and Surface Elevation Soils . . . . . . . . . . . Population Growth, 1796-1980 . Age-Sex Pyramids, 1908, 1963 . . Population Distribution . Transportation, 196A . . . . . Agricultural Land Use Regions Orchards and Vineyards, 1966 . Horticultural Crops, 1966 Average Farm Size, 1966 . . . Corn, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . Wheat, 1966 . . . . . . . . . Dairy Cattle, 1966 . . . . . . . Sheep, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . Cattle, 1966 . . . . . . . . . ix PAGE 20 22 37 hl AS 57 60 62 79 87 89 9O 91 95 99 105 109 110 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 20. Uruguay: Sheep-Cattle Ratios, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 21. Uruguay: Highway Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 22. Uruguay: Agricultural land Use Classification - von Thunen Model vs. Actual Classes . . . . . . . . . . . 211 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The smallest country in South America, Uruguay is an agricul- tural land of about three million people. Roughly the size of North Dakota, the nation is dwarfed by its giant neighbors Brazil, to the north, and Argentina, to the south and west (Figure l). Uruguay's strategic situation as a buffer between Latin America's two largest and most powerful republics has proved to be both a blessing and a curse over the years. Mild climatic conditions, prompted by its maritime location, and fertile, undulating plains combine to make Uruguay a nation of great potential agricultural productivity. Throughout the country's history agriculture has been the primary source of national wealth. Even today over 95 per cent of the nation's total area is dedicated to agricultural uses.l As Uruguay is essentially devoid of mineral wealth and the industrial sector of the national economy is relatively small, agricultural production supplies the great bulk of foreign exchange revenue and, thus, acts as the engine which prOpels the country's economy. More specifically, lDirecci6n de Economia Agraria, Censoggeneral agropecuariq, 1266, (Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Departa- mento de Estadistica, Divisi6n de Censos y Encuesta, 1968): p. 78. 2 "\g PARAGUAY \., URUGUAY LOCATION MAP as. NJ \ o m \. ’94 ’0’ Allan/”,- MIMI" \ 3/ Ocean ' ( Q A R T I GA 5 \I Z ‘\ ~ we \ 1 X k y\ ,---’/ \r\ 3, le . s V , \- \ I ‘ I“ § Soho I \‘\ K'1\ o 5“”0 / \ RIVERA \"“ a“ , \ & \_\ - ( . \ -~\ \ Tatum-Ibo { mun < \ A . \___ . ‘-~—’—‘\ “4/ \| \\\~\\ \. \ 'xl‘. .° PAYSANDU ’1 \\ \' i ,’ TA 0 u A R E M a o ‘ \ / = . , G Puma“ 3.5.1: / I3 .Ilclo \ ....-.,/ “-\ I I \ J/ 7 ! CERRO LARGO I \’_’f . I ( RIO BroncoNI 'Voung Pole 70;: I - II 2 /”“V/‘\‘-‘~~ RIO NEGRO , ‘ ' ’ “33.57. I ” p9 K/ m, ' ‘2 TRIENTA Y TRES noun: D u R A z N O / laced" ,/ \T"\ ’r’ ‘5 .TIIIMII y f . . “I“ .Oumzno ,,/ (,- ' Sodom ‘\\ Waldo! \_f‘\_1 '- 1' \ |\ I” . SORIANO Z FLORES \I Sovwfmm - m.’:\‘“ / -I I LAVALLEJA ’- MM"I\\’/’\V-t“‘/ \ FLORI DA I “m" ' ‘ SAN ,Flovido '/' ¥- u COLONIA )JOSE 2 ’54] ,I W'sflfls. ( ”from“ I I » cob-Io «I am- an'ym- (r1 "‘°\ .""'°' I . WI'WY. _ . __ 5., m... CANELONES .5... f,/ /‘ . . ‘9’. ' V “w.” / wanna-”43°" \ z/ a ~ . ° - , Unflqm .m. MALOONADOI -..-, . o. , . , . Pu . _ I I manure: . Buonoo Airs: ’o - - -I' 0W0“ XII/antic '. ”10,0 HOMOVIM V v ‘ man em '* Ocean 0 go 1 I00 III" In FIGURE 1 although the agricultural sector contribues only slightly more than lb per cent of the annual Gross Domestic Product and employs less than 20 per cent of the labor force, agricultural products annually provide from 90 to 99 per cent of the nation's export revenue.2 In addition, much of Uruguayan industry is directly involved in processing agri- cultural raw materials and most jobs in trade and commerce are related to agricultural commodities. Not surprisingly, a very large percentage of Uruguayan tax revenue is derived from agricultural land, production, and exports. It would seem, then, that great interest should be directed to the study and understanding of agriculture and agricultural problems in Uruguay. But this has not been the case. Agricultural production in the nation has been stagnant during the past two decades. This stagnation has affected the total economy during the past several years and has led to a number of social and economic problems, including incessant strikes, severe inflation, and public disorder. A With these factors in mind, the Uruguayan government has been attempting to stimulate economic growth through an intensification of agricultural production. Changes have been suggested for the agri- cultural sector which would greatly alter its current nature. The implementation of specific measures, however, has not yet achieved the desired results. 2Banco Central del Uruguay, Cuentas nacionales, 1969, (Monte- video: Departamento de Investigaciones Econémicas, 19697I_ 2B2. Although detailed agricultural census data are available in Uruguay, no comprehensive analysis has been undertaken to distinguish between the several agricultural land use regions of the country or to evaluate the general economic rationality of the existing geographic pattern. Several reports sponsored by the Uruguayan government have dealt with agricultural land use superficially, but not as a primary emphasis. Likewise, other studies of agriculture in Uruguay mention the locational patterns of crop and livestock production but fail to explain the regional variation of agricultural activities. Despite the strong interest shown in agricultural tOpics in Latin America generally, Uruguay has been virtually ignored by United States geographers. Two American geographic researchers have made substantive field investigations in the country during the past two decades.3 Only one has published his research efforts, and his major interests were other than agricultural geography. As a result of this lack of attention, our geographic understanding of Uruguay is indeed minimal. This is particularly true in relation to areal patterns of agricultural production and their probable causes. A number’of causal factors undoubtedly have influenced our general lack of interest in Uruguay. First, Uruguay is a great 3Robert D. Loring, in 1957—1958, and David E. Snyder, in 1958. distance from the United States and has been only of marginal signifi- cance in the more important events affecting South America in recent years. Second, the country has few of the exotic attractions of its sister Andean or trOpical republics. Uruguay's long tradition of political and economic stability, homogeneous European population, general lack of major crises, and relatively uniform natural environ- ment have tended to make it a less interesting research ground. Areas of closer geographic proximity, with greater physical and cultural contrasts or with more political importance and unrest have been more thoroughly studied. And last, the initial inertia of apparent disin— terest, once established, perpetuated itself over the years. In other words, Uruguay has been atypical in Latin America and therefore has not been particularly useful as a model when searching for meaningful generalizations applicable to Latin American nations. Problem The purpose of this research is to examine agricultural land use in Uruguay. Four distinctive yet integrally related factors comprise the problem analyzed in this study: (1) determination of the actual geographic pattern of agricultural land use in Uruguay and division of the nation into agricultural land use regions; (2) evaluatiOn of the general economic rationality of the distributional pattern, given the physical setting and cultural preferences of the population; (3) analysis of probable future trends in the agricultural land use pattern and the means of initiating beneficial change; and (A) the empirical testing of the von Thfinen hypothesis of agricultural land use distributions. The initial task of this research, then, is a determination of the present land use pattern of Uruguay and division of the country into descriptive land use regions. However humble or antiquated such efforts may appear in light of our present emphasis on theoretical and abstract studies in geography, a firm foundation must be laid for more sophisticated types of future analyses. This study hereby attempts to fill a void in the basic geographic understanding of the Latin American region. Agricultural census data needed to determine the land use pattern are available for Uruguay and serve as the primary information source for determining crop and livestock distributions in the country. Although these data are published only for the nineteen departments of Uruguay, roughly comparable to states, unpublished data are collected for political subdivisions known as police sections. The more than 230 police sections of Uruguay provide a more acceptable data base for this study than do the nineteen departments, as a more accurate geographical interpretation of agricultural patterns can be made from the statistical information. After careful cross checking and extensive field work, it is felt that the census data employed are quite accurate and that the geographic pattern attained employing this statistical information is representative of the actual condi- tions apparent in Uruguay. The several agricultural land use regions defined in this research are also identified on the basis of the census data and careful field verification. Once the actual agricultural land use pattern is determined and the land use regions identified, the problem of determining the general economic rationality of the pattern is investigated. Major physical, cultural, and institutional factors are analyzed with respect to their causal relationship to the areal distributions involved. The basic criteria for determining rationality in this study is framed by the physical environment found within the nation and the cultural preferences of its peOple. With a basic grasp of the present areal pattern and the general economic rationality of these distributions, it should be possible to indicate changes most likely to occur in the near future. These changes are largely dependent upon the adOption of new techniques of produc- tion, modifications in institutional structures such as taxation, subsidization and agricultural price policies pursued by the govern- ment, world market prospects for various crop and livestock commodities, and the responsiveness of producers within the country. Consideration is given to these and other important variables in an attempt to indicate beneficial changes in the land use pattern which Could increase the nation's agricultural productivity, as well as the most probable future trends in agricultural land use, given certain perti- nent socio-economic conditions. It should be mentioned that in the past geographers have been somewhat reticent to predict. A notable exception to this general hesistance has been among political geographers, particularly during the 1920's and 1930's. But some aspects of spatial patterns lend themselves more susceptible to prediction than others. Future trends in agricultural land use would seem to be relatively easy to ascertain, within reasonable limits, in that: (1) physical capabilities for producing certain commodities can be determined; (2) present levels of production can be compared to attainable yields under given physical conditions; (3) market demands, both internal and external, can be gauged and can serve as useful guidelines in computing acreages needed to meet predicted demand; and (A) the cultural preferences and incentive responsiveness of producers, which in reality determine how agricultural land will be used, can be determined to a large degree through observation and analysis. These factors, analyzed jointly with governmental policies toward agriculture and commodity price trends, can be combined to present a realistic prediction of future trends and patterns for agricultural land use in a given country. The last phase of the research problem is to empirically test the von Thfinen hypothesis of agricultural location. The major tenets of the von Thfinen theory are examined and modified when necessary to more closely approximate the geographic realities of Uruguay. A von Thfinen model is determined for the country and compared with the current agricultural land use pattern. Variations between the actual agricultural land use pattern and the theoretical model are also scrutinized. The empirical testing of the von Thfinen hypothesis stems logi- cally from.the need to critically evaluate major theories of location. Such testing has been relatively rare in the past, due to the lack of comparable data and suitable physical characteristics of study areas. It is hoped that this effort will partially bridge the gap between theory and reality, thus laying the groundwork for more comprehensive and useful theoretical constructs. Objectives The basic objectives of this research are three-fold: (l) to provide a general descriptive analysis of modern Uruguay, (2) to analyze the causal factors responsible for the present agricultural land use distributions, and (3) to combine applied and theoretical geographic research methods in an effort to maximize the utility of the data collected and the time spent in the field. It attempts to provide basic information concerning a portion of Latin America which has not previously been readily available to geographers, while simul- taneously endeavoring to show the symbiotic relationship between applied and theoretical research. To accomplish these goals the scope of the study is necessarily broad, but nonetheless well focused. Because of the dearth of geo- graphic literature on Uruguay, it isthlt that a descriptive analysis of the nation's physical and cultural landscape will prove useful to those interested in the Latin American region and form a foundation for understanding the causal factors influencing the agricultural land use pattern. 10 Due to its overwhelming importance and impact upon other sectors of national life, agricultural land use characteristics provide a key for analyzing Uruguay's present social and economic conditions. Any attempt to describe and explain this country's development or future potential which does not deal specifically with agricultural conditions will be sorely deficient. All too often applied and theoretical research are considered mutually exclusive among geographers. But, realistically speaking, to make the greatest use of data collected and time spent in field inves- tigation, it should be advantageous to combine such efforts. It seems evident that in problem-plagued developing nations such as Uruguay, theoretically oriented research alone is a luxury the country can ill afford. Applied research is needed to provide understanding and solutions for pressing national problems, Little manpower or financial resources can be used in esoteric pursuits without great loss to the country. Thus, combining theoretical investigations with applied studies allows for a beneficial merging of goals while at the same time preserving the prOper structure of priorities. Related Literature A review of literature related to agricultural land use in Uruguay immediately reveals the scarcity of such material. In fact, no work has been written on that specific topic in either Spanish or English. The closest thing to an agricultural land use study on 11 Uruguay was Klove's 1937 study of agricultural occupance.)4 Two studies sponsored by the Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture devote some attention to the t0pic, but both only parenthetically.S Farnworth's 1952 investigation of Uruguayan agriculture contains a series of crop distribution maps, as does the United States Department of Agriculture's recent appraisal of the nation's agricultural sector. However, neither study attempts to make more than passing reference to land use patterns. Several studies of the general conditions within Uruguayan agri- culture provide essential background information and valuable insights into the problems facing that sector. Undoubtedly the most important of these is the Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture's five volume analysis of agricultural reform and develOpment. Covering several basic segments of agriculture, the report is a critical examination of 1‘Robert C. Klove, "Pastoral and Agricultural Occupance in Uruguay," (Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of Chicago, 1937). SCIN’AMI-Centro Latinoamericano de Economia Humana, Situacién econémica y social del Uruguay rural, (Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 196A) and Luis de Le6n y Oscar L6pez Taborda, Los suelos del Uruguay, (Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agri- cultura, Oficina de Programaci6n y Politica Agropecuaria, 1967). 6Constance H. Farnworth, The Agriculture of Uruguay, (washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Bulletin No. 3, 1952) and United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture in Uruguay, (washington, D. C.: Economic Research Service Report 299, 19707} 12 7 the historical development and current state of the primary sector. MOntafies' 19A8 study of agricultural growth in Uruguay is quite useful.8 Brannon's research into the country's agricultural develop- ment is by far the most comprehensive English-language handling of that subject.9 An appraisal of government priorities and policies towards agriculture, recently written by Fletcher and Merrill, provides short-term historical analysis of economic conditions in Uruguayan agriculture as well as recommendations for future agriculturally oriented expenditures.10 The classical treatise on the role of agriculture in the Uruguayan economic setting is Martinez Lamas' Riqueza probreza del 11 Uruguuy. Although most of his arguments were rejected when the book first appeared in 1930, a great deal of interest and discussion 7Comisic’m de Inversiones y Desarrollo Econ6mico, Prgyectos de leyes de promoci6n agropecuaria;_Reestructuraci6n y reorganizaci6n administrative del Ministerio de Ganaderia_y Agricultura, 2 volumes; and Estfidio econ6mico_y social de la agriculture en el Uruguay, 2 volumes, (Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Oficina de Programaci5n y Politics AgrOpecuaria, 1967). 8Maria Teresa Montafies, Desarrollo de la agricultura en el Uguguuy, (Montevideo: Talleres Gréficos Rural, 19A8). 9Russell H. Brannon, The Agricultural DeveImeent of Uruguuy, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968). 10Lehman B. Fletcher and William C. Merrill, The Uruguayan Aggicultural Sector: Priorities for Government Policies,ulnvestment Programs and Projects, (Washington, D. C.: Inter-American Development Bank, Papers on Agricultural Development No. 9, 1970). 11Julio Martinez Lamas, Rigueza y pobreza del Ugugugy, (Monte- video: Editorial América, 1930. 13 currently centers on Martinez' work. Others, such as G6mez and more recently Vasquez Varini, have dealt ably with Uruguay's general economic development and problems.12 A number of articles have appeared in American academic journals during the last several years which tend to throw light on the country's agricultural situation, if not on agricultural land use specifically. In two separate papers, Daly traced the growth of the current Uruguayan 13 The tradi- economic crisis and recent attempts at trade controls. tional conflict between agriculture and industry in the country was outlined by Baklanoff, while Uruguay's present economic decline was . 1A traced by Reddlng. Three well-known general studies of Uruguay in English are worthy of mention. Hanson's Utopia in Uruguay documents a once pros- perous and tranquil condition which no longer exists.15 Pendle 12Eugenio Gomez, Los grandes problemas de la economia nacional, OMontevideo: Editorial AmErica, l9A57fiand Felipe S. Vasquez Varini, Formaci6n econémica del Uruguay, (Montevideo: Escuela-Imprenta Don Orione, 1971). l3Herman E. Daly, "The Uruguayan Economy: Its Basic Nature and Current Problems," Journal of Inter-American Studies, Vol. 7 (July, 1965), pp. 316-330 and "A Brief Analysis of Recent Uruguayan Trade Control Systems," Economic Development and Cultural Changa, Vol. 15 (April, 1967), pp. 286-296. 1hEric N. Baklanoff, "Notes on the Pathology of Uruguay's Welfare State," Mississippi Vallengournal of Business and Economics, Vol. A (Spring, 1967), pp. 63-69 and David C. Bedding, "The Economic Decline of Uruguay," Inter-American Economic Affairs, Vol. 20 (Spring, 1967), PP- 55-72- 15Simon G. Hanson, Utopia in Uruguay, (New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1938). 1A provides an interesting glimpse of the nation at the beginning of the long descent into its present economic crisis, while Fitzgibbon's readable survey of Uruguay emphasizes its political structure during the post-World War II years.16 Although hopelessly outdated and quite general, these works form the cornerstones of English literature on Uruguay. The recent survey of Uruguay by Alisky is too superficial to be considered useful.17 A veritable wealth of information is available covering specific aspects of agriculture or agriculturally related topics in Uruguay. These are generally government publications or articles by government officials, but periodic works appear by academicians and politicians as well. Quite often these books and reports provide useful insights into specific problem areas, such as agrarian reform. But just as often these efforts are clouded by the curious Latin blending of statistics, personal prejudices and political dogma in the guise of objective investigation. Among the more interesting and useful of this class of information are an appraisal of the type of agrarian refbrm suited to Uruguay by Frick Davie, a former Minister of Livestock l6George Pendle, UruguainSouth America's First Welfare State, (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1952) and Russell H. Fitzgibbon, Uruguay, Portrait of a Democragy, (London: George Allen 8 Unwin Ltd., 1956). 17Marvin Alisky, Uruguay: A Contempgrapy Survey, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969). 15 and Agriculture, and Bernhard's study of the meat packing industry.18 A leftist interpretation of Uruguay's agricultural structure was recently written by Fierro Vignoli, while Suérez presented the position of the dominant political party, the Colorados, in respect to general economic policy.19 The great contrasts in living conditions between the city and the country are vividly outlined by Gonzalez Penelas.2O Of more than passing interest is a short, biting review of present social and economic difficulties experienced by the nation entitled Uruguay, Un pais sin problemas en crisis.21 The only published geographic research on Uruguay written by a United States geographer in the post-WOrld War II years is that by Snyder. His theoretical analysis of urban place hierarchies is inter- esting but insignificant in relation to agricultural land use.22 Much l8Carlos Frick Davie, tCual reforms agraria? (Montevideo: Barreiro y Ramos, S. A., 196A) and Guillermo Bernhard, Los monopoliost 1a industria frigorifics, (Montevideo: Ediciones de la Bands Oriental, 1970). l9Pablo Fierro Vignoli, Uruguay: Agroestructurss, (Montevideo: E1 Siglo Illustrado, 1969) and Juan Carlos Suarez, Contra todos pars bien de todos: Aspectos de la reslidad econémica del Uruguay, (MOnte- video: Imprenta El Dfs, 19667. zocarlos Gonzalez Penelas, E1 Uruguuy,y,su sombra: Tierragy miseria, (Montevideo: Ediciones Ciudadela, 1969). 21Instituto de Estudios Politicos para América Latina, Uruguaya UnIpais sin problemas en crisis, (Montevideo: IEPAL-Editorial Estels, S. A., 1967). 22David E. Snyder, "Urban Places in Uruguay and the Concept of a Hierarchy," Northwestern Uhiversity_Studies in Geography, No. 6 (1962). 16 the same can be said of his study of commercial passenger linkages within the country.23 Significance of the Research From the review of related literature it can be concluded that geographic research on Uruguay is extremely limited. This study, then, will appreciably increase current geographic understanding of spatial patterns within that country. Hopefully, those persons interested in the Latin American region will find it useful. A detailed analysis of the agricultural land use pattern and the causal factors responsible for it should provide a partial explanation for the present level of economic develOpment within Uruguay. In its endeavor to bring together as much pertinent information as possible which bears on the present spatial characteristics of land use and probable future land use trends, the study should serve as a take-off point for further discussion of agricultural land use in Uruguay. As such, this investigation may have a certain degree of utility for development planners working with the Uruguayan government. It is hoped that portions of the methodology employed in this research, particularly that part involved with attempting to predict fUture agricultural land use trends for Uruguay, might encourage other geographers to suggest changes which may occur in spatial patterns. 23 ., "Commercial Passenger Linkages and the MetrOpolitan Nodality of Montevideo," Economic Geography, Vol. 38 (April, 1962): pp 0 95-1.1.2 o 17 Lastly, the empirical testing of the von Thfinen hypothesis of agricultural location should provide insights into the validity of the concepts tested. Although a single empirical test cannot prove or disprove the validity of a theory, it is nevertheless felt that such testing is one of the best ways of attempting to correlate theory with reality. Since the empirical testing of locational theories has been relatively rare in the past, this phase of the research should also prove of interest to those working in the area of location theory. Theoretical Considerations Geography is distinctive from other academic disciplines primarily because of its concern for areal differentiation over space. From the earliest geographic writing, spatial variation has been the unifying theme of geographic studies. Geographers have shared this common concern for variations through space with others, however. During the 19th century, for example, economists became involved in analyzing the relationship between differences in geographic location and land use patterns in an attempt to determine those factors which affected economic characteristics, such as the intensity of land use, competi- tion between land uses and the location of enterprises.2h From these early studies the basis of much of modern location theory has arisen. Today, a large amount of the research relating to the location of economic activities, including agricultural land use studies, is 2hRaleigh Barlowe,Land Resource Economics, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19587} pp. 32-33. l8 undertaken by "locational analysts," "regional scientists," and others wishing to indicate their distinctiveness from traditional geographers. Economists, in particular, long biased in favor of time sequence analysis rather than spatial analysis, have taken a fresh, hard look at the role and importance of location in the economic process. The result has been a spate of new or revised interest in locational theories, or spatial theories, originating outside of their logical mother discipline, geography. To a degree, geographers have abrogated their responsibilities to their siSter disciplines by their failure to work more constructively within this area. Von Thfinen's Hypothesis A pioneer in the theoretical analysis of the relationship between agricultural land use and geographic location was Johann Heinrich von Thfinen. In his Der Isolierte staat, which appeared in 1826, the first land use theory was expounded.25 The data for his model were furnished from the records of his baronal estate on the North German Plain. As the first agricultural land use theory, most subsequent theories on the topic were variations of von Thfinen's original hypotheses. In simplified terms, von Thfinen envisioned a flat, uniformly fertile plain isolated from similar areas by an impassable wilderness. A single centrally located city was the marketing center for all agri- cultural commodities produced on the plain, as well as the source for 2 .0 5Peter Hall (ed.), Von Thunen's Isolated State, (Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd., 1966). 19 all non-farm inputs used by farmers. The city was connected to the various villages of the state by a primitive but uniform transporta- tion network. The land uses which developed around the central city formed concentric rings of decreasing productive intensity, each ring delimited by the land rents provided through the various cropping patterns and its distance from the city. Obviously, land rents decreased for any given crop or crop-livestock combination as one moved farther from the market, due to increased transportation costs (Figure 2). Ideally, the resultant pattern in the time Of von Thfinen was an inner ring of horticulture and dairying followed by a zone of silvicul— ture, a ring of intensive arable rotation crOps, then a series of rings in which crop and grazing rotations were practiced, ending in an extensive ranching zone. Given the agricultural technology and economic demand characteristics of that time, von Thfinen's ordering of concentric rings was totally logical.26 Realizing the limitations of the theoretical constructs imposed by his simplifying assumptions, von Thfinen later relaxed these assump- tions to explain variations deriving from differences in transportation efficiency, soil fertility, and competition from other cities. As a result, a wide variety of zonal configurations is possible in addition to that of uniform concentric rings. In all instances, however, a 26 Michael Chisholm, Rural Settlement and Land Use, (London: HUtchinson University Library, 1962): pp. 28-30. 2O DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL MARKET T $IO.OO .— Z In K 9 7.00 2 O z o 4.50 0 III I9.0m 40.0m LAND- RENT TRIANGLES and CONCENTRIC RING DERIVATIOII Use IV AI , IO {20 so I40 -’ 3 ll DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL MARKET : ,/ I’ I -/’ I I ’ / / / I C / I / / x/ / / / / / /// / // / '/’ D / ”"' / / / / / / / / // / / / / // / // L—‘f’fi/ After Bar/awe FIGURE 2 (III III 21 gradation of intensity of land use will be evident with the most intensive, highest rent-yielding land use being located closest to the central city and more extensive uses situated farther away (Fugue 3). Testingrthe von Thfinen Hypothesis The empirical testing of locational theories is often quite difficult. A primary reason for this situation is the problem of finding a portion of the earth's surface with the physical and cultural characteristics approximating those envisioned in the theory to be tested. When a theory calls for an essentially isotropic plain, as is the case with the von Thfinen theory, the difficulty is greatly magnified. Furthermore, von Thfinen envisioned an isolated state in which the single central city so completely dominated the plain that it was for all intents and purposes devoid of contact with other urban centers, manifestly complicating the search for a suitable area for testing his theory. Despite these reservations, Uruguay's physical features, climate, soils, and transportation network are similar enough to von Thfinen's ideal so as to provide a logical empirical test ground for the theory. It is a homogeneous country in many ways. Physically, landforms change only slightly from one part of the nation to another. They consist mainly of low, rolling, grass covered hills. Climatically, Uruguay is temperate: average monthly temperatures range from around 50°F in winter to roughly 73°F in summer, while precipitation averages 22 ZONAL PATTE RN VARIATIONS IN THE VON THUNEN HYPOTHE$S After.- Bar/ouo ( A ) CWHde('B } \ \\\“§\§< \\~ \\\\k\ A Small Cit § \ \ x \ y \\\\\\\ \\\Q \ With its Own Production Zones . -._s . = STOCK ngIEISUAA-AJRIEN: -"“"“’"‘"3 zit-:k‘ CEREALS RAISING A A: Could be the result of differences in soil fertility or topo- graphy. B: Represents the influence of a transportation artery and a small urban center. FIGURE 3 23 approximately forty inches annually and is fairly uniformly distributed during the year.27 Uruguay's soils are considered to be relatively fertile, and although they vary considerably in fertility from one portion of the country to another, these differences can easily be explained within the framework of the theory. This combination of favorable physical attributes has allowed the Uruguayans to exploit nearly the entire national territory for agriculture. Less than 1 per cent of the country's h3.3 million acres is considered unusable because of environmental limitations such as erosion, rockiness, or excessive wetness or dryness.28 Culturally the p0pulation of Uruguay is strongly European in character. Mbre than 90 per cent of the peOple are of unmixed European ancestry, largely the result of Spanish and Italian immigration between 1830 and 1930.29 Nearly one-half of the nation's peOple live in Mbntevideo, a city of more than 1.3 million. The great bulk of the remaining population is clustered in the southern and southwestern portions of the nation, extending in a narrow band from Just east of Mbntevideo to Paysandfi on the Rio Uruguay (see Figure 9, p. 62). 27Direccién General de Meteorologia, Revista meteorolégica, (Montevideo: Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Repfiblica Oriental del Uruguay. 1965). 28Direcci6n de Economia Agraria, op. cit., p. 78. 29J. A. Oddone, La emigracién europeo a1 rio de la Plata, (Monte- video: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 19667} pp. 22;h7. 2h It should be pointed out that Montevideo is not truly a central city in the sense of its geographic location. But its coastal position does not unduly alter the basic central city attributes of Montevideo outlined by von Thunen. To a large degree, its location can be explained within the context of differences in transportation efficiency for purposes of the theory. Furthermore, Montevideo's preeminence over all other Uruguayan towns, the capital being more than twenty times larger in population than Uruguay's second city, Paysandfi, also compli- "30 The ments "the essential characteristics of the isolated state. population clusters of rural Uruguay are linked to Mbntevideo by an adequate road system. An outmoded railway network provides slow but lowbcost transportation for most parts of the country, while additional freight moves by barge between coastal sites on the nation's surrounding rivers and ocean. The fact that Uruguay has the basic physical attributes necessary for a critical evaluation of the von Thfinen theory of agricultural land use invites its empirical testing in a real world situation. Rather than search out those areas where the agricultural land use pattern might seem to reinforce the general concepts of the von Thunen model, a careful appraisal of the theory's applicability in a physical setting suitable for its develOpment might prove useful. This is not to say that the validity of the von Thunen theory is documented or voided by the conclusions reached through such an evaluation. But this kind of 0 3 Chisholm, op. cit., pp. 39-h0. 25 analysis should supply additional evidence needed to critically Judge the theory's strengths and weakensses, as well as insights to other theoretical considerations as yet untested. Methodology The methodology employed in this research is aimed at answering several basic questions: 1) What is the present agricultural land use pattern of Uruguay? 2) What are the major causal factors responsible for this distri- butional pattern? 3) Is this pattern rational in a general economic sense, given the physical characteristics of the country and the basic cultural preferences of Uruguayan land owners? h) Are there changes or trends in the agricultural land use pattern which are probable in the future, and which can be predicted with some degree of confidence? 5) How does the present land use pattern compare with that hypothetically anticipated on the basis of the von Thunen model? 6) What are the reasons for the differences between the actual agricultural land use pattern and the theoretical model? With these questions in mind, the research design was fashioned to meet the needs of a field research program. As such, the investigation was divided into a period of background research prior to entering the field, the field research and data collection itself, and a concluding period of data processing, analysis, and writing. Prior to the field work, efforts were made to develop a basic foundation of background knowledge on Uruguay. An attempt was made to read and evaluate as much of the English-language literature concerning 26 the country as possible. As there is surprisingly little written material to be found in English dealing with Uruguay, and considerably less referring to agriculture and its problems, this proved to be a relatively straight-forward task. Simultaneously, contacts were developed with persons familiar with Uruguayan agriculture and economic problems or with the methods and techniques to be employed in the research. A number of individuals, both in Uruguay and elsewhere, supplied useful information and suggestions which proved invaluable when conducting the investigation. The field research lasted approximately one year, commencing on July 1, 1970 and terminating June 15, 1971. During this time, the research effort was greatly facilitated by an affiliation with the Program for the Study and Improvement of Soils, of the Uruguayan Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture. This affiliation allowed access to official data sources not normally available to foreign academic investigators, as well as essential contacts with those govern- ment officials and others involved in agricultural planning research. The importance of such contacts cannot be overemphasized when conducting research in a foreign country, particularly one with a large bureaucratic organization such as Uruguay's. Without the initial introductions to key individuals, data collection would be extremely arduous, if not impossible. The statistical material gathered, Spanish-language literature reviewed and evaluated, and interviews made during the course of the year spent in Uruguay, along with the personal impressions 27 developed of the people and country, form the core of this research. The data gathered were subsequently processed and evaluated. Data Collection Two broad categories of data are employed in this study: quan- titative and qualitative. The first group includes the purely statis- tical data gathered from various sources in Uruguay and forms the basis for the determination of crOp and livestock distributions and, subse- quently, agricultural land use regions within the nation. Many of the major causal factors influencing the land use pattern in the country were evaluated on the basis of statistical material as well. The qualitative information collected made possible a meaningful inter- pretation of a wide variety of non-quantified variables influencing agricultural land use and the general socio-economic conditions within the nation. Without a proper evaluation and understanding of these variables, little sense could be made of any portion of the cultural landscape. The primary source of statistical information used in the study was the Bureau of Statistics, of the Ministry of Livestock and Agri- culture. Agricultural censuses are taken by the Bureau every five years. Published census bulletins usually appear from two to three years after the administration and collection of census questionnaires. Because the data in these bulletins are given only for the nation as a whole and the nineteen departments of the republic, they are of limited use from a geographic point of view. 28 Of immense geographic usefulness, however, are the data collected for the 2h0 police sections of the country. Data at this level of aggregation permit greater accuracy and sophistication in the location of variables than is possible using data at the department level. These data are contained in the original census workbooks used by the Bureau of Statistics and can be obtained only through the laborious process of hand copying. For the purposes of this study it was necessary to extract data for the last three census years: 1966, 1961, and 1956. This was prompted by the need to determine not only the present agricultural land use pattern, but also to ascertain if any significant changes in this pattern had occurred in recent years. One hundred and ten categories of data were extracted for each of the 2h0 police sections for each of the three census years analyzed.31 In addition to the agricultural census data collected, other sources of statistical information were tapped. Most economic statis— tics were obtained from the Department of Economic Investigations, of the Central Bank of Uruguay. Export-import figures, industrial production, income levels, transportation costs, input prices for agri- culture, tariff figures, tax rates, and other important economic indi- cators relevant to the investigation were obtained from this source. Climatological statistics were derived from the General Bureau of Meteorology, of the Ministry of National Defense, while all statistical 31The police sections of Montevideo are not included in this analysis. 29 data concerning population were gathered from the General Bureau of Statistics and Censuses, of the Ministry of the Interior. Statistical data were also extracted from a wide variety of publications when applicable to the study. Perhaps the most critical problem involved when working with statistical information is to determine its accuracy or reliablity. In regard to the agricultural census data gathered it was concluded, after consultation with persons knowledgable of census procedures and agriculture in Uruguay, that the data are quite accurate and give a realistic assessment of the agricultural situation. Certain problems are apparent, such as the use of estimates rather than actual head counts for livestock, but do not critically impair the reliability of the data. Very little evidence is available to suggest that any tampering takes place with agricultural census data in Uruguay. Statistical data from other sources are somewhat less reliable than agricultural census data. A tendency seems to exist in the Central Bank of Uruguay, for example, to try to paint a more optimistic picture of economic conditions than the real situation merits. This manipulation of data is accomplished through the altering of supposedly unfavorable figures or their simple exclusion from analysis. When attempting to use data from Uruguayan literature on agriculture, or anything else for that matter, extreme caution must be employed. Individual authors all too frequently present statistical material of doubtful validity in order to support their particular opinions. 3O A.maJor source of qualitative data was Spanish-language writings on Uruguayan agriculture and other segments of national life. Many books and articles are available in Uruguay which deal in one way or another with areas of concern relevant to this study. A thorough review of pertinent literature was conducted in Uruguay which provided interesting and valuable insights into the problem being investigated. As with the use of statistical data, one must use caution when attempting to analyze individual works, as objectivity is not a particular strength of most Uruguayan writers. A combination of subjective analysis, political dogma and personal opinion is usually thoroughly mixed and difficult for the novice to distinguish. Two other techniques, interviewing and observation, were used to collect qualitative information. During the course of the field stay a large number of personal interviews were conducted in an attempt to solicit the opinions of Uruguayans and foreigners working in the country who were well versed in various aspects of agriculture, land use, economics, and other facets of the nation's problems relevant to the research. Their views as to the causes of Uruguay's present circumstances as well as its future potential were sought. A much greater understanding of the nation's past, present, and probable future direction was gained through these personal interactions than by any other means. Careful observation brought many seemingly unrelated factors into perspective. Inefficiencies in the economy, bureaucratic red-tape, social and political unrest, and many other conditions need to be felt 31 and suffered through if one is to be truly aware of their basic nature and able to understand their full meaning and impact upon a society. A certain empathy develops between the researcher and the people of the country in which he is working when common experiences are shared. By far the most valuable and rewarding part of the field research was developing this kind of "sixth sense" needed by field researchers. A.major concern of all geographical investigators is obtaining reliable base maps. As maps are the primary tools of geographers, the importance of such base maps cannot be stressed too strongly. The base maps used in this study were obtained from a number of sources, but primarily from the Military Geographic Service, of the Uruguayan Ministry of National Defense. The national aeronautical chart of 1960 uses a Lambert projection which limits lateral distortion to a minimum, It was developed using ground triangulation techniques and is considered to be very accurate. Soil and geologic maps were supplied by the Program for the Study and Improvement of Soils. Both of these maps are considered to be preliminary estimates of the areal patterns existing in the country, but are the only maps of their kind available for the nation. Maps depicting the boundaries of the police sections for the various census years were obtained from the Bureau of Economics, of the Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture, but had to be rectified greatly on the basis of written boundary descriptions supplied from the same source. 32 Land Use Patterns The initial and most critical phase of this study was the deter- mination of the actual agricultural land use pattern of Uruguay. Its importance stems from the fact that determination of the pattern of agricultural land use in the country was a major goal of the research effort, but just as important, all subsequent interpretations attempted in the research were made in relation to the presumed pattern. Obviously, then, special care had to be taken to insure that the actual land use pattern incorporated the greatest degree of accuracy. To bring about this degree of reliability, the agricultural land use pattern was determined through a three-stage process of checks and counterchecks. Once the original statistical data were gathered and processed, the results were mapped by police sections at a scale of l:SO0,000. Careful consideration was given to physical factors influencing agricultural distributions, particularly areal variations in soil fertility, and transportation efficiency. The fruit of these efforts was a series of crop and livestock distribution maps based on acreages or livestock numbers and densities per unit area. Significant statistical differences between police sections were sought in order to verify the land use intensity classes delimited. The resultant crop and livestock maps, based on 1966 agricultural census data, were checked against aerial photo mosaics at a scale of 1:50,000 taken during the same year. In addition, spot checks were made on stereo pairs of aerial photos at 1:20,000. In most cases an 33 acceptable degree of correlation was found between the crop distri- bution maps and the aerial photographs. During the initial period of the research, field trips to various agricultural areas were undertaken to provide a fundamental grasp of the physical and cultural landscape. In broad terms, these first field reconnaissances provided glimpses of differences in agricultural land use in the various geomorphic and soil regions of Uruguay. MOre comprehensive field analysis was undertaken as the research progressed and was essential in the delimitation of the agricultural land use regions. Regionalization of Land Use Typg§_ From the completed crop and livestock maps, a series of map overlays were developed which formed the basis for the division of Uruguay into land use regions. These overlays were used to visually determine the degree of coincidence between various crop and livestock types. Boundaries were then plotted which delimited geographic areas with similar land use patterns. By this time a fairly concrete idea as to the number and general location of agricultural land use regions had emerged. To determine their actual composition, field trips were made to the presumed core areas of the regions. These excursions supplied a clear impression as to the crop and livestock combinations, as well as a better understanding of the physical and cultural conditions which contributed to the regional variations. In each region further attempts were made to limit, as precisely as possible, the boundaries of the land use regions. CHAPTER II MODERN URUGUAY The agricultural land use pattern of Uruguay is basically a reflection of spatial variations in the physical and cultural land- scape of the nation. Physical factors exert a primary control over land use characteristics in Uruguay because of the relatively low level of agricultural technology employed in the country. Cultural phenomena, such as population distributions, institutional factors, and the trans- portation network, strongly influence the spatial intensity of land utilization and crop or livestock combinations employed. Institutional considerations are particularly important because of the government's role in determining agricultural commodity prices and subsidies. An understanding of the areal differentation of these variables is essential, therefore, if the pattern of agricultural land use in Uruguay is to be fully understood. In countries with low levels of agricultural technology, the pattern of land use is strongly influenced by the spatial variation of a variety of physical elements. Of particular significance are the geomorphological, edaphic and climatological characteristics of the country. The greater the areal heterogeneity of these phenomena, singly or in combination, the greater their importance becomes. Conversely, greater homogeneity of the physical environment tends to 3h 35 reduce the relative importance of these factors upon the agricultural land use pattern. The physical characteristics of a portion of the earth's surface do not determine the uses man can make of the land, but they do set the broad parameters within which he is free to choose. The level of cultural development is another important variable which must be considered in the land use equation. In general, the more primitive the level of cultural and technical development of a society, the greater is the influence exerted by the natural landscape. Using the degree of agricultural technology as an example, the wide- spread use of fertilizers tends to reduce differences in soil fertility, but maximizes the importance of location with respect to supply sources of the needed inputs and markets. Uruguay, with its relatively homo- geneous physical characteristics and low levels of agricultural tech- nology, presents a situation in which the physical environment and cultural influences should theoretically be of essentially equal impor- tance. This chapter attempts to lay the foundation for a meaningful interpretation of spatial variations in agricultural land use by briefly outlining the most salient aspects of the physical and cultural land- scape of Uruguay. This general geographic description should famil- iarize the reader with the physical features of the country, its major cultural characteristics, the general status of the economy, and the role of government in Uruguayan life. From this foundation, an under- standing of the agricultural land use pattern of the country can be built. 36 Physical Features Three aspects of the physical environment exert the greatest influence over the location of agricultural land use in Uruguay. Of these, spatial variations in soil fertility have by far the most signif- icant influence. Climatic and geomorphic considerations, though of less importance because of their greater relative uniformity throughout the country, are nonetheless of vital concern when analyzing Uruguay's agricultural land use pattern. The distributional characteristics of each of these factors is described in this chapter, while an analysis of their influence on agricultural land use is undertaken in Chapter A. Geomorphology and flydrology Geomorphologically, Uruguay is by far the most uniform country in Latin America. Although the primary landforms are low, rolling grass covered hills divided by broad fluvial valleys, two other landscape types are common. Flat, almost featureless littoral plains extend as a narrow fringe along the Rio Uruguay, the Rio de la Plata, and the eastern lagoon area of the nation, while the eastern provinces of Uruguay are dominated by a series of low mountains called serraniasl (Figure h). Many authors convey the notion that Uruguay is essentially an eastward extension of the Argentine Pampa. Although some justification of this idea can be made climatically, from the point of view of 1Jorge Chebataroff, Tierra uruguaya, (Montevideo: Liberia Talleres Don Bosco, 1960): pp. 51-78. 37 URUGUAY GEOIOIPIIIC REGIONS 1. Undulaling Plains Province A. CUESTA DE HAEDO 8. CRYSTALLINE AREA C. SEDIMENTARY AREA ----- {I-Z-sia-fljffi31:32:, 2- Fluvial Plains Province __:::';I;Z:i;I:Ij?;-j-;~51:355. A. WESTERN LITTORAL Zr-‘T-‘T;2;1;£;I;i;l;I;l;3;l;£:.;-;-:;:;: ..... a. RIO as LA PLATA PLAINS I;34-35-333:gag:i;i:1:i:2;.;.:.;.;.;. CEASTERN PLAINS ‘:;;3.'::::::::::::Z:Z:li:3:;:E:E:E::::::::::::::ij: ---- fJ_ .... 3- SERRANIAS 7713:5355:3:3:3I3L3I;1;1;3;3:3:?:?:i:3:3:3:?:3l1'i'¥‘itTi:i;i:?:~. PROV'NCE : ::::::::::::::::Eif:Stiffif;:::7:E'\:::“; ........ :1;'3;i:?:i1::3:31;i;1:I;I;i;C;I;L;?j;3j3j3;:("5713;l'ji;l;i;£j:7?:3j3i a _ After 2:531:333::L3iii-Z-i-Z:Z:f:133g51:35;3;?‘41Q1-_:igjggtf 71311,. Onward/off :_:_, .................................... fi' Mlle: fa FIGURE h 38 landforms the concept is completely erroneous. The most widespread landscape type in Uruguay, the broadly rounded hills and valleys with up to hOO feet of local relief, is the undulating plain. Unlike the flat, uniform Pampa surface, the undulating plain is dotted with out- crops of crystalline rocks, particularly along ridge crests. These crystalline outcrops form long ridge-lines, called cuchillas, and act as watershed divides between neighboring valleys. Occupying roughly two-thirds of the total area of Uruguay, the undulating plain is commonly divided into three distinct sub-regions. In southwestern Uruguay the undulating plain is underlain by crystalline rocks, in the northwest by volcanic material, and in the northeast by sedimentary strata overlying portions of the ancient Brazilian shield complex. Despite differences in its underlying rock structure, the undulating plain region has nearly uniform surface landform features throughout. The general physical landscape of this region, with its natural grass vegetation and planted fence rows, is reminescent of western Kansas. Within this physiographic province is found an area in which angular landforms dominate. In northwest Uruguay an extension of the massive volcanic plateau of southern Brazil penetrates the country. This area, though possessing most of the characteristics found elsewhere in the undulating plain region, is delimited by an angular scarp which rises abruptly approximately hOO feet above the surrounding surface and is known as the Cuesta de Haedo.2 Easily 2 I o o o ., "Rasgos geomorfologicos del territorio uruguayo," Revista Uruguaya de Geografia, No. 5 (1951)- 39 discernible in the field, the Cuesta de Haedo surface presents a much greater degree of angularity of landform features than is found any— where else in Uruguay. The only parts of Uruguay which are geomorphologically similar to the great Argentine Pampas are the fluvial lowlands along the shores of the Rio Uruguay in western Uruguay, the Rio de la Plata in the south, and bordering the lagoons of eastern Uruguay.‘ Occupying perhaps 15 per cent of the nation's surface area, these plains possess much less relief than the undulating plains found inland. Ranging from less than a mile to perhaps fifty miles in width, the coastal plains generally have less than sixty feet of local relief. The eastern plains bordering the Laguna Merin are almost perfectly level with a gradient of less than five inches per mile. The fertile sedimentary soils and low relief of the coastal plains combine to give this region an extremely high agricultural potential. Uruguay's third major geomorphic region, the serranias, is formed of a series of low mountains stretching in a gentle are from NNE to SSW in the eastern third of the country. For the most part nothing more than large hills, the serranias form the most rugged portion of the country. Local relief here often exceeds 800 feet and a number of prominent riverine valleys add to its dissected appearance. The highest point in the nation, the Sierra de 1as Animas reaching an elevation of 1,6h1l feet, is located in the southern tip of this region. Rockiness and relatively steep slopes combine to present a generally unfavorable agricultural potential for this area. ho Fluvial processes are primarily responsible for the geomorpho— logical conditions of Uruguay. A well developed dendritic drainage pattern is apparent in the country, formed of relatively shallow rivers and streams. Two major watersheds, the Atlantic and the Rio de la Plata, drain the country, with the Rio de la Plata watershed containing by far the greater number of tributaries (Figure 5). The nation is bordered on three sides by rivers. In the north the Rio Cuareim forms the border with Brazil for over 175 miles. The Rio Uruguay, from which the country took its name, forms the entire western boundary of the nation. By far the largest and most pictur- esque of the country's rivers, the Uruguay is navigable as far north as Salto, over hOO miles from its union with the Rio Parana. On the southern margin of Uruguay is the Rio de la Plata, the large brown estuary formed by the union of the Rios Uruguay and Parana. Several major river systems flow through Uruguay, but the largest in length and volume of flow is the Rio Negro. With its headwaters in the southernmost part of Brazil, the Rio Negro crosses the entire width of Uruguay from northeast to southwest, accepting the tributary flow of other systems, such as the Rio Yi, before finally disgorging its waters into the Rio Uruguay near Fray Bentos. Nearly the entire northeastern and central portions of Uruguay are drained by the Rio Negro and its tributaries. Also, the Rio Negro provides the only source of hydroelectric energy in the nation at a generating plant near Paso de los Toros. A large artificial lake, the Rinc6n del Bonete, hl URUGUAY “BIOLOGY mo SURFACE ELEVATION ELEVATION (FEET) m Iooo and over . .. 650-999 .:::::‘_:‘_.'I: 300-649 [2:] 0-300 IN FEET SPOT E LEV. Af/an/fc Ocean Miles {5 FIGURE D A2 has inundated a vast area behind the dam and is Uruguay's sole large standing body of water. Flooding is a frequent and sometimes severe prOblem in all of rural Uruguay. Climate andeeather Uruguay's location on the eastern side of the South American continent, from 30°S to 35°S latitude, places the country squarely in the climatic zone known as Humid Subtropical in nearly all classifi— cation systems. Its maritime location and nearly 500 miles of coast- line ameliorates extreme temperature conditions in both summer and winter, thus producing fairly uniform, moderate temperatures throughout the year. The average annual temperature for Montevideo is 61.3°F, with a winter monthly low averaging 51°F in June and a monthly summer high averaging 72.5°F in January. Temperature ranges are slightly greater in the interior of the country, and warmer conditions prevail in the northwest. The thirty-seven inches of average annual precipi- tation received in the capital are uniformly distributed throughout the year, and in no month was an average of less than 1.8 inches recorded during a sixty-year recording period. Precipitation increases to approximately forty-seven inches annually north and west from Montevideo.3 The apparent uniformity of climatic conditions presented by the statistics is somewhat deceiving, as Uruguay is subject to extremes in 3Direcci6n General de Meteorologia, op. cit., n.p. 1:3 its weather patterns due to the interaction of a number of different air masses during any given year. Tr0pical Maritime, Tropical Conti— nental, Polar Maritime, Equatorial and Antarctic air masses all invade the country periodically. The dominant maritime air masses are frequently displaced by hot, dry continental air masses during the S'ummer months which result in high temperatures or Equatorial air masses which bring about high temperatures and heavy thundershowers. Abnormally cold temperatures are often abruptly introduced into the nation as the result of polar outbreaks. A high degree of day-to-day variability also occurs in Uruguayan weather due to its location on the southern polar cyclonic track. What climatic averages fail to show is the high incidence of Years with severe summer drought or, conversely, extremely heavy spring and early summer rainfall leading to flooding. A period of both major floods and droughts has occurred in Uruguay during each decade since 1880.1' It is not uncommon for a year of extended drought to be followed by one of severe flooding, multiplying the damaging effects of both, especially in rural areas where the impact on agriculture can be disastrous. For anyone who has lived in Uruguay, the hot summer days and cold Winter nights make a mockery of the country's statistical uniformity. Temperatures of lOO°F and above are common during the summer months, while freezing temperatures occur frequently during the winter. thid. All Consistently high humidity also makes the cold seem more chilling and the heat more oppressive than statistics indicate. Strong winds are another common characteristic of Uruguayan weather, blowing consistently except during autumn months. So :118 and Vegetation Uruguay can be divided into five major soil groups on the basis of depth, drainage characteristics and fertility.5 The five soils regions have a strong correlation with the geomorphic regions described above, due to the predominant role of parent material and topography in the soil formation processes in Uruguay.6 In broad terms, most of Uruguay's SOils are prairie soils of one type or another, but a broad range of other soil types also exists. The predominant soils region of Uruguay, covering approximately One-third of the country, is occupied by superficial soils, particularly Litosoles and Regosoles. They cover the Cuesta de Haedo in northwest Uruguay's undulating plains geomorphic region and the .Serranias region of eastern Uruguay. These soils tend to be shallow, low in fertility, and have a high degree of rockiness. Agriculturally, they are poor (Figure 6). 5 Luis de Le6n y Oscar Lopez Taborda, Los suelos del UruguayL su .‘uso y manejo, (Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 6Frederick R. Troeh, "Noteworthy features of Uruguayan Soils," §9$l Science of America Proceedings, Vol. 33, No. l (Jam-Feb. 1969): p. 125. URUGUAY SOILS PO 5.0 1&5 IOO _ # Mules FIGURE 6 -SUPERFICIAL TO VERY SUPERFICIAL DEEP, POOR DRAINAGE, LOW FERTILITY MEDIUM TO DEEP, LOW TO MEDIUM FERTILITY, LIGHT DEEP, HIGH TO MEDIUM DEEP, MEDI FERTILITY, TEXTURE FERTILITY, After: d6 Lea’n and UM T0 LOW MED. TEXTURE HEAVY TEXTURE Lo’pez Tabarda .- nun-o: fr. A6 Deep, medium textured soils with slow permeability and low to medium fertility are found in the portions of the undulating plains geomorphic region where crystalline and sedimentary parent materials dominate. Grumosoles, Black Prairie Soils, and Humic Gleys are most common. Their heavy B—horizons limit their absorptive capacity and harden during droughts, thus limiting their agricultural potential.7 These soils are found over slightly less than one-third of the national territory. A third major category of soils is the deep, light textured soils with low fertility. These soils occupy about 15 per cent of the nation and consist mainly of red and yellow podzolics, formerly known as sandy prairie soils. These soils have a relatively high agricul- tural value, particularly when fertilized. The eastern portion of the plains geomorphic region is covered by Planosoles. These poorly drained soils, covering 5 per cent of the Country, are localized in the area surrounding the Laguna Merin. Though fertile and deep, their poor drainage characteristics have until recently limited their productivity. The fifth soils region corresponds to the littorals of the Rio Uruguay and the Rio de la Plata. The soils are deep and heavy textured, ‘with medium to high fertility. This region includes the finest agri- nths of occupation, British rule had sparked the independence move- Incents of criollos against Spanish domination. Buenos Aires revolted against Spanish rule in 1810 and quickly dtisposed of the Spanish viceroy, establishing in his place a ruling {lunta of criollos. Montevideo, however, remained a stronghold of Iroyalist support until José Gervasio Artigas rallied the Orientales against the Spanish in Montevideo. Artigas, Uruguay's unrivaled Iiational hero, caudillo without peer, gathered a gaucho army in 1811, attacked.the Spanish at Las Piedras, and with the aid of newly inde- Ipendent Buenos Aires laid siege to Montevideo. His early success was foiled.by the entry of Portuguese troops into the Banda Oriental in licaciones, (1966): p. 11. lsIbido , pp. 10-110 56 Italian and Spanish immigration continued unabated throughout the first century of independence and was augmented by French, Polish, and Jewish immigrants from the late 1880's to 1930. After record years from 1925 to 1929, when the population reached 1.7 million, immigration slowed to a relative trickle. At this time, the nation's population growth rate leveled-off into an extended period of slow growth which has lasted to the present (Figure 7). Following a rapid population increase during the first eighty years of independence, Uruguay experienced a steady decline in its population growth rate. Since 1915 the average annual growth rate has decreased from 2.h per cent to its present 1.3 per cent, the lowest in Latin America. Unlike conditions in most of its Latin American neigh- bors, Uruguay's birth rates as well as death rates have declined during the past fifty years. By 1935 the average annual birth rate had declined to 22.5 per thousand, where it remained until the early 1960's. Since then, the rate has decreased to 20.5 per thousand. Mortality rates in the country, always relatively low, declined from lh.5 per thousand in 1915-1919 to 8.5 per thousand in 1950-195h. They have remained steady at around 8.7 per thousand since that time. The third variable in analyzing population growth rates, immigration, has not been a significant influencing factor since the 1920's (Table 1).16 16Centro de Estudiantes de Ciencias Econ6micas y Administraci6n, Illaun nacional de desarrollo econ6mico_y social, 1965-197h, (Montevideo: Escuela - Imprenta Don Orione, 1966): pp. 30-32. 57 URUGUAY POPULATION GROWTH mownsa " " " " ' ' ' ' ‘Uo'y {BREE}? 3.0" 855135 “6707;333:776; """"" 4 a--- o—o—o- -——-------O--—---------J uongndod w snsuoo puql WDIHOA ompv :o momusa ............ .1 snsueg lmeuag puooos “"4 uouomdod ,0 snsuao unnuos $31k! --. 0 g oouopuodopul ,o uoumoloao ‘awmusa uouolndod .1 I (9 . C) F . ! omzv xngg p momma o o o o o o o o o 8 / o. 0,. Q. 0 8. O 8 8 8 6 8 0" o_ m. 0. 8 0 8 m N N _" —" 086! 016! £96! 096! 076! 026! 026! 806! 91.8! 098! 298! 638! 961. I FIGURE 7 58 TABLE 1 URUGUAY: POPULATION GROWTH RATES, 1910-1963 National Total Period Births Deaths Increase Migration Increase 1910/191h 36.8 13.6 23.2 1.3 2h.5 1915/1919 31.9 1h.1 17.8 0.2 18.0 1920/192h 30.0 12.5 17.5 2.h 19.9 1925/1929 28.6 11.9 16.7 3.7 20.h 1930/193h 25.9 11.6 1h.3 1.1 15.h 1935/1939 22.5 11.1 11.h 0.5 11.9 19h0/19hh 21.6 10.3 11.3 -0.1 11.2 19h5/19h9 21.1 9.1 12.0 0.5 12.5 1950/195h 22.3 8.5 13.8 1.3 15.1 1955/1959 22.2 8.8 13.h 0.h 13.8 1960 22.0 8.8 13.2 0.h 13.6 1961 21.8 8.6 13.2 0.h 13.6 1962 21.7 8.7 13.0 0.h 13.h 1963 21.5 8.6 12.9 0.3 13.2 The low population growth rate is an indirect indicator of several important characteristics of Uruguayan society. First, low birth rates suggest the widespread use of contraception in Uruguay, as well as the limited influence of the Roman Catholic church in the daily lives of most Uruguayans. Low mortality figures are a reflection of the nation's well developed and relatively efficient free government lheaflth.services program, perhaps the best in Latin America. Third, the Slow growth of population has allowed Uruguay to develop one of the highest standards of living among the world's developing nations. The famct that the country's per capita income is decreasing despite its low IPOEDHlation growth rate is indicative of the complete stagnation of the enn>naomy. 59 The age-sex structure of present-day Uruguay resembles that of the United States or European countries more than that of a developing nation. Only 28 per cent of the population was under fifteen years of age, while 8 per cent were sixty-five or older at the time of the 1963 general census. Uruguay's age-sex pyramid (Figure 8) is that of a mature population: narrow based and bulging in the middle age groups. The average age of the country's pOpulation has risen from twenty—three years in 1908 to thirty-two years in 1963. This general aging of population to a large degree reflects Uruguay's low natural growth rate but may in some ways be indicative of the nation's urban nature as well. Because of their extremely belligerent nature, the Charrfia Indians were literally exterminated by the Spanish and Portuguese prior to Uruguay's independence, leaving the Banda Oriental devoid of an indi- genous population. The result has been that Uruguay is the only South American republic without a significant racial minority. The early colonists occupied the strategic coastal locations at Montevideo and Colonia, as well as the river crossings at Fray Bentos, Paysandfi, and Salto on the Rio Uruguay. The interior of the country remained nearly empty. The early Spanish and Italian immigrants, coming from similar social systems and areas with common agricultural production systems, where quickly assimilated in the new society blooming on the shores of the Rio de la Plata. Other non-Latin migrants were also accepted reaadily. As a consequence Uruguay has a surprisingly homogeneous 1P0E>ulation, lacking in either strong ethnic or racial groupings. 6O 136%. its. 000. D mom. a nmm_.moo_ wo_2n_ xmmlmwd. 5‘30an ¢\ FIGURE 8 61 From the earliest period of settlement, Uruguay's economy has been dominated by extensive grazing activities. Thus, employment opportunities in rural areas have always been limited. The fact that the nation's soils and climate are marginal for cereals production further restricted potential expansion of agricultural opportunities. Largely from rural settings in their homelands, many immigrants found economic opportunities greatest in Montevideo and smaller urban centers. Even the majority of those who found agricultural jobs concentrated close to the burgeoning Montevideo market. As a result, Montevideo has seldom had less than one-fourth of the nation's total population and is now home for nearly half of all the country's inhabitants. More than 72 per cent of Uruguayans live in urban centers of 5,000 or more.17 With nearly 1.5 million people, Montevideo's predominance over other cities in the nation (the second largest city has just over 50,000 residents) makes it the world's outstanding example of a primate city. Due primarily to the presence of Montevideo, the bulk of the country's population is concentrated in the southern part of the nation. While the Department of Montevideo has a population density approaching 3,500 per square mile, and growing twice as fast as the rest of Uruguay, the countryside remains largely unpOpulated. Broad areas of the republic have less than two persons per square mile (Figure 9). This l . . . . . . . 7Luis V1cario, El crec1m1ento urbano de Montev1deo, (Montev1deo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1968): p. 9. .000: 9.88823 880 69.3» 62 2‘— 33: season... on 3:00 2 1838 no . 4 .100. 300.33 a 323:8! .... ......" .. C . 1.11 u-..- 1. to. p . o o o I o c . . u . a .. O .‘I o . o n n I ........ 0 god. 8 85.8... I. 3-8 8%. O 08.8 .....-o. a ..1 a-» a . O 80.9 z2 us... .8 3285.1 gun. to zwuiaz 0 000m :05 0.0:. 32:22.».- 22.52:: >325: FIGURE 9 63 uneven distribution has profoundly affected the pattern of agricultural land use through the strong market demand exerted by Montevideo and its environs. Concurrently, deep—seated differences between urban and rural interests exist which are extremely difficult to compromise. There can be no doubt that the growth and wealth of Montevideo has come through the exploitation of the rural areas. Or as Martinez Lamas once wrote "...the palaces and factories of the City have been paid for with meat, wool, and hides."18 The Economy Uruguay's economy has traditionally been one of the most stable in Latin America. Boasting an annual per capita income of slightly more than U.S. $575 in 1955 and low levels of inflation, the nation reflected the beneficial influence of record international wool prices reached during the Korean War years. Since 1955, however, the Uruguayan economy has been essentially stagnant.) Growth of the Gross Domestic Product has failed even to keep pace with the country's 1.3 per cent annual population growth rate. The result has been a decreasing per capita income and a declining standard of living. How could this have happened in Uruguay, a country apparently well along the road to economic development? The answer lies in the total stagnation of agricultural production. The fundamental reality which must be grasped when dealing with the Uruguayan economy is that 18Martinez Lamas, op. cit., p. 2h. 6h the agricultural sector supports the entire economic structure of the country. Agricultural export taxes provide most of the revenue needed to finance the incredibly large governmental bureaucracy and to supply the foreign exchange earnings used to purchase industrial raw materials and fuels for the high-cost, low-efficiency industrial sector. Agri- cultural products are the basic raw materials for much of the country's industry, and.many jobs in the service sector are related to the mer- chandising, storage, processing, financing, or export of agricultural commodities. When the agricultural sector of the economy stagnates, the total economy must rapidly feel the consequences. ngor Economic Activities The primary sector of Uruguay's economy is dominated by agricul- ture. For all intents and purposes other primary activities are insignificant, as they provide barely .l per cent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. Agriculture has not represented as much as 17 per cent of the GDP during the past two decades, presently supplying roughly 1h per cent of the country's GDP (Table 2). Agriculture provides jobs for only about 20 per cent of the economically active pOpulation (Table 3), but it does represent from 87 to 95 per cent of the total 19 annual exports . 1 9Banco Central del Uruguay, Cuentas nacionales, 1969, (Monte- video: Departamento de Investigaciones Econ6micas, 1969): pp. 2B2, 2B26, and hA3. 65 .mmm .m .mwma .moaosowooz mnpcoso "monsom .m00fl>hmm 90:90 was .mmow>hmm psmacp0>ow Hmamsmm .wswoswswm zhwwomshmvsw hmzpo one moswhdmcw .mxswp moosaosH \M .mmsfia and mowhhwsw moosaosH \w 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H o.ooa 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H mmowhm honowm Hmma psdpmsoo pm posoOAm owpmmsom mmOho 0.00H 0.00H w.mm o.mm o.mm w.mm :.mm w.mm m.mm m.:m H.mm :.mm w.mm m.:m m.:m m.:m \M mmow>hom umnpo H.m H.m ~.m m.m m.m o.m m.m m.m m.m ~.m :.m H.m o.m m.: msfimsom m.m m.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m w.H ~.H m.a ».H m.H :.H m.H mmow>hmm Edison was .8me .mwm .hpwowhpooam H.H H.H H.H o.H o.H o.H 0.0 w.o 0.0 m.o w.o m.o m.o v.0 msprwofisdsEoo m.» m.> w.» r.» m.» m.» m.» m.~ o.m m.» :.> >.> a.» w.» mmohopm can phommsdhe ~.:H w.:a >.ma m.:a H.mH m.:a H.>H :.wa m.ma b.ma 0.:H m.ma :.ma :.mH oonmaaoo m.: m.: m.: m.m H.: m.: ~.s s.m H.m H.m o.m m.m m.m H.w |.eowposnpmcoo 2.:m m.mm m.mm m.mm m.mm :.mm :.mm m.am H.mm m.mm m.mm m.mm ~.mm o.mm \H mownpmsccH w2HH5powmscwz H.o H.o H.o H.o H.o - - H.o H.o H.o - H.o - - mcwemaa use wetness m.:a :.:H >.mH m.mH H.mH m.mH 0.:H o.mH «.2H b.:H w.ma m.:a o.mH m.ma whopadowhw< wmma emma mmma mmma :mma mmma mmma Hmma owma mmma wmma amma mmma mmma myopomm Aaspoa no a aHv mmmalmmma .Mzozoom mmB ho mmoeomm m0h<2 mom Bobnomm OHBmmzom mmomu uwwpowhpxm 0.H 0.0 v.0 ~.0 0.0 0.H H.H 0.0 0.0 0.0 H.0 0.0 v.0 0.H mawfifis< m>wq 0.m 0.0 m.0 e.m 0.m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.» 0.0 0.0 0.0a aposwonm Haaspaaaaama UmnwflaflnpmsucH 0.0 0.H 0.> :.: 0.H >.m 0.: >.H 0.0 ~.m 0.0a 0.0 0.0a :.:H mposcoum Hunspado -aam< Haaspaz 0.~H 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.00 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.00 0.00 0.0a 0.00 0.00 0.0a mownnum can and» 0.0 H.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a m.HH 0.0 0.0a 0.0 0.0 H.0 :.~ 0.0 mmowm 0.00 0.00 0.:0 0.Hm 0.H: 0.00 0.00 >.0H 0.00 H.0H :.0 0.00 0.0H 0.0 mm>wpo>wamo 00.0 mpnmz 0.00 :.mm 0.00 0.00 F.0H 0.0m 0.0m 0.0: 0.:0 0.0m v.0: 0.00 0.0: :.0: H003 000a ~00H 000a 000a :00H 000a 000a HO0H 000a 000H 000a PO0H 000a 000a mposoohm proa mo 0 sH Amposbohm mo m050h0 hmo ammH-mmmH .memoaxm mesa: : mamas uw NH mqmda 7 HN¢DUDmD 153 continued to increase, reaching 23 million in the latter year, while wool production jumped by over 50 per cent. During this growth period, however, Uruguay's share of world wool exports slipped from 5 per cent in the 1930's to less than 2.5 per cent during the past decade. This was primarily the result of greatly increased production by other major exporters, especially Australia and New Zealand, brought about by tech- nical advances in their ranching systems and unmatched by Uruguayan producers. Due to unfavorable world wool prices, as well as discrimi- natory price policies, Uruguayan wool output stagnated during the late 1950's and has begun to decline in the past several years. The second past trend in agricultural production, reflected in land use patterns as well as intensity of production, was the push for self-sufficiency in agricultural foodstuffs. After World War II, government planners introduced subsidy programs for a number of crops, the most important of which were wheat, sugar cane, sugar beets, potatoes, and milk products. Through the 1950's a surge of production took place which achieved the essential goal of agricultural self-sufficiency.15 Acreages increased and some improvements in farm technology were introduced, but as with wool, stagnation also characterized crOp production for domestic consumption. 15 Major agricultural imports now are tropical products, such as yerba maté (the national drink), coffee, bananas and other fruits, cotton, tobacco, sugar, tea, and at times potatoes. 15A Probable Future Trends Major readjustments are needed in the Uruguayan agricultural sector to increase total production and to bring the land use pattern more into focus with present world demand perspectives. Uruguayan producers have been extremely slow to adopt new technology and to change traditional livestock ratios. As a result, the nation has been slipping deeper and deeper into the morass of economic stagnation, instability, inflation and resultant social repercussions. Signs are present which, hopefully, point to changes in the sector which could greatly benefit the nation as a whole. Perhaps the most significant of the new trends in Uruguayan agriculture, and one which will probably accelerate in the near future, is the increased importance of beef cattle in ranching systems. Since the 1930's sheep have been relatively more important than cattle. Greasy wool has been the largest single export commodity nearly every year, often supplying more than one-half of total exports. When semi— processed wool tops are included, the value of wool exports seldom amounted to less than U.S. $60 million annually, and through the past two decades averaged well over U.S. $80 million. As world wool prices declined sharply after the Korean War, producer profits decreased considerably, as well. During this same period, world beef prices began a steady rise, but Uruguayan producers, slow to react to the market stimulus, did not greatly increase their output of beef until the mid—1960's. By 1968, however, the value of beef exports exceeded 155 that of greasy wool, and beef has since remained the nation's leading export commodity by value. Landowners, well aware of the declining profitability of sheep ranching, have begun to convert their stock composition more strongly toward beef cattle. Preliminary estimates from the 1971 agricultural census document this general trend, reporting a decrease of more than 3.2 million sheep from 1966 levels. This shift toward higher value beef exports should continue and will probably affect land use patterns in a number of ways. The general intensity of ranching systems should increase significantly. Artificial pastures and natural pasture improvement programs will be required to provide supplemental feed during critical periods, as the relative value of beef animal losses is significantly greater than for sheep, both in terms of replacement time and animal costs. Such programs will necessitate a number of technological improvements, including more extensive use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, better disease control measures, and more intensive management practices. Further, there should be an expansion of the Cattle Grazing Region into the present sheep grazing areas, at least in those parts suitable for cattle. Such changes will occur, however, only if the government provides enough encouragement, both of a positive and negative nature, to assure producers of its importance and success. The trend toward pasture improvements needed to support increased numbers of cattle appears to have been initiated. A program of pasture improvement, jointly sponsored by the Uruguayan government and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, emphasizing the 156 creation of permanent artificial pastures and improving natural ones through top-seeding and fertilization, has been in Operation since 1957. Known as the Plan Agropecuario, the programfls technicians, mainly ingenierosagrénomos and veterinarians, formulate ranch improvement plans in cooperation with landowners, who are then provided with low-interest loans with which to make the agreed upon changes.l6 Although the Plan. has been relatively successful in increasing-the extent of improved natural and artificial pastures (from about 125,000 acres in 1956 to 1.25 million acres in 1966 and perhaps 2 million acres presently), its continued expansion must be predicated upon continued financial assis- tance to ranchers. Without it a large proportion of participating owners would abandon their fertilization and top-seeding efforts. This negative evaluation is prompted by the fact that low-interest loans, in this case with less than 10 per cent annual interest, actually haye negative interest rates due to recurrent devaluations and high rates of inflation. They are therefore a gift which no producer, regardless of level of incentive responsiveness, could refuse. 6RD ingeniero agrénomo has roughly the equivalent of the Bachelor of Science degree in agronomy from a United States university. The corres- ponding training program constitutes five years of theoretical and practi- cal study over a wide range of agricultural topics. Little specializa- tion is provided in any particular area, although a general understanding of agricultural techniques and problems results. CHAPTER V TOWARD A MORE PRODUCTIVE LAND USE Uruguay is currently facing one of the most severe crises in its history. The country's economy has been stagnant for the past decade, leading to decreasing per capita income, severe inflation, and declining living standards for a large part of the pOpulation. Economic problems, in turn, have brought about social and political unrest unparalleled in this century, including incessant strikes, urban guerrilla terrorism, loss of faith in government's ability to handle national problems, flight of capital, and emigration of the better educated and more able. Few Uruguayans profess to see even short—run solutions for the nation's ills: only major changes in its economic, political, and social struc- ture will suffice to bring about substantial improvements. Because agriculture serves as the engine which drives the entire economy, its stagnation is largely responsible for Uruguay's current state of being. If the country is to recover from its present position, the agricultural sector must become much more productive. Greater productivity in agriculture will permit increased exportation, which will reduce balance-of-payment deficits and enhance the nation's import capacity. It will also allow increased domestic consumption of agri— cultural goods, which will reduce inflationary pressures and provide raw materials for industry. Expanded agricultural production will 157 158 result, however, only through modification of the land use pattern, both in terms of area dedicated to specific farming systems and in intensity of use. Bringing about changes in agricultural productivity will not be a simple task and will be related to a variety of factors. Current productivity levels must first be measured in relation to the physical potential for increasing production. The strictly physical possibili- ties for increasing agricultural output, through the use of modern technical inputs, appears to be enormous when compared to actual levels of production. A number of social and institutional restrictions exist which have precluded such changes from occurring previously. ' and how they can be eliminated, therefore Defining these "bottlenecks,' becomes the critical problem which must be solved before one can speculate on the real possibilities fOr increasing the nation's agri- cultural output. Present Pattern and National Needs Agriculture plays a key role in the economic structure of Uruguay. Although it provides only about 15 per cent of the annual Gross Domestic Product, agricultural exports provide more than 90 per cent of total export value. These earnings, which have averaged around U.S. $180 million for the past several years, provide a large share of the capital inputs invested in the industrial and commercial sectors.1 In addition, lBanco Central del Uruguay, Cuentas nacionales, (Montevideo: Departamento de Investigaciones EcOHOmicas, 1969): AA2. 159 the revenue generated through export taxes on agricultural goods provides approximately one-fourth of the government's annual tax earnings, an enormous part of which goes to supporting the A0 per cent or more of the active labor force employed by the national government or to providing subsidies to keep domestic manufacturing concerns in business. The primary sector, therefore, in a very real sense supports the entire economy. Difficulties in this sector are quickly and forcefully felt throughout the total economic structure. During the first half of this century, agriculture was able to act as the impetus for Uruguayan economic growth as production expanded and farm technology was modernized. It was able to meet the demands placed upon it, and the country prospered. This has not been the case in the past twenty years, however, as agriculture has lost nearly all of its dynamism. Total production has remained essentially unchanged since the early 1950's, while population has increased slowly but steadily from year to year. The agricultural sector can no longer supply the levels of production needed to satisfy the demands for domestic consumption and exports. As a result, Uruguay has fallen upon hard times both economically and politically. Whether or not Uruguay is able to deal successfully with its current crisis will depend primarily upon changing the existing nature of agricultural production. Changes must take place in the land use pattern to significantly expand agricultural output. These modifi- cations will intensify many aspects of Uruguay's farming and ranching systems, altering the general characteristics of agriculture. 160 Actual vs. Potential Productivity Levels By comparing the present land use pattern with what is physically possible on the basis of edaphic and climatic conditions, an idea can be gained of the general degree of intensification feasible in Uruguayan agriculture. Such an estimate should provide clues as to whether or not significant improvement in total agricultural output is possible and to what the basic nature of the agricultural sector will be. Both of these considerations are important to understanding how changes in land use can influence the country's economic recovery. Present land use levels can be determined by grouping agricultural lands according to their overall use characteristics. For this purpose, three major classes of land use can be identified: permanent crOp cultivation, pasture lands, and forest lands. Crop production can be divided into three categories, winter cereals, oil crops, and rice, while pasture land can be classified into four groups, artificial pastures, top—seeded pastures, fertilized natural pastures, and unimproved natural grasslands. Acreages dedicated to each category of use can be found in the General Agricultural Census, while the area potentially suitable for each of these subdivisions has been estimated in a recent government study, thus permitting a comparison of the actual and perceived potential land uses.2> Table 13 compares existing and potential land uses for Uruguay. 2de Le6n y L6pez Taborda, op. cit., p. 53. 161 TABLE 13 URUGUAY: PRESENT AND POTENTIAL LAND USE LEVELS Actual Use Potential Use Land Uses 1966 000's of acres Permanent Crops A,A65 8,38A Winter cereals 3,161 A,532 Oil crops 1,230 3,518 Rice 7A 23A Pasture Lands 33,887 31,66A Artificial 775 5,928 Top-seeded 163 16,153 Fertilized natural 395 9,583 Natural 32,55h ‘ Forest Land l,AOO l,A82 TOTAL A1,A63 A1,A63 Source: Censo Agropecuario, 1966, and Los suelos del Uruguay. From the data ayailabkgit can be concluded that Uruguay's agri- cultural land is not being used to capacity. Only about one-half of the area suitable for permanent crop cultivation is actually farmed, while the potential of pasture land has barely been exploited. Over 32 million acres, or roughly 80 per cent of the total agricultural acreage, remains as unimproved natural pasture. Virtually all of this land could be improved to some degree, either through fertilization, top-seeding or conversion to artificial pastures, thus greatly increasing livestock carrying capacities. Barely A per cent of Uruguay's total pasture acreage had been improved in any way in 1966, a figure which has perhaps doubled since that time, but still represents only a small fraction of what could be accomplished. 162 Although no scientific testing has yet been completed, carrying capacities could be increased significantly, perhaps by 50 to 100 per cent, through fertilization and top-seeding of natural pastures and doubled or tripled by the use of artificial pastures.3 Assuming these estimates to be greatly exaggerated, even a 25 per cent increase in total carrying capacity on grazing lands through the pasture improve- ment programs would allow 2 million more cattle to be grazed. This represents approximately 250,000 more cattle which would be available for slaughter annually, a number which would allow greatly increased exports and reduce domestic shortages of beef products. The government hopes to substantially increase the production of cereals, oilseeds, and industrial fibers by expanding acreages and 5 improving technical inputs. However, improvements in the crOp subsector will not have as significant an impact upon the total economy as increases in the livestock sector. Considerable foreign exchange earnings might be made and some domestic subsidies could be reduced 3Based on estimates by agricultural researchers at the Alberto Boerger Center for Agricultural Research (La Estanzuela). hAlthough Uruguay has one of the highest rates of per capita beef consumption in the world, averaging approximately 176 lbs per year, beef rationing is common. Vedas, or restricted periods, have been imposed upon the slaughter and sale of beef animals for domestic consumption for as long as a month at a time. The idea behind a veda is to release beef for export, thus improving trade balances and reducing balance-of-payments deficits. Needless to say, Uruguayan consumers are less than enthusi- astic in their support of such programs. 5Comisi5n de Inversiones y Desarrollo Econ6mico, Proyectos de leyes degpromocién agropecuaria (Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Oficina de Programacién y Politica Agropecuaria, 1967). 163 as a result of greater output of crOps, but export prospects according to most estimates are not particularly good for either cereals or oil- seeds.6 Nonetheless, because of the gap between actual and potential production levels, efforts will be made to augment crop output. Physical Possibilities for Increased Output From a strictly physical point of view, Uruguay has a tremendous potential for increasing its agricultural production. Edaphic and climatic conditions are favorable for a broad range of crop and live- stock combinations. The nation's tOpographic characteristics lend them- selves to mechanized agriculture, and there is very little pOpulation pressure on agricultural land. Because of the low levels of technical inputs and low yields from cattle, sheep, and nearly all crOps, large gains in per acre and per animal output can be anticipated through the introduction of new pasture grasses, legumes, seed, fertilizer, and management techniques. An appraisal of the magnitude of increases which might take place in crop production can be made by comparing present yields for major crops against potential yields obtained during experimental field trials at the Alberto Boerger Center for Agriculture Research, more commonly known as La Estanzuela. According to the most recent information for the country as a whole, wheat yields average slightly more than 13 bushels per acre (roughly 900 kilograms per hectare), corn only about 6For projections of world demand for agricultural commodities see, FAO, Agricultural Commodities, Projections for 1975 and 1985 (Rome, FAO, UN , 1977? 16A 10 bushels per acre (650 kgs/hec), and sunflower approximately 630 pounds per acre (680 kgs/hec).7 Potential average yields for wheat range between 22 and 30 bushels per acre (1,000 to 1,500 kgs/hec), for corn between 30 and A5 bushels per acre (2,000 to 3,000 kgs/hec), and 1,500 pounds per acre for sunflower.8 Such yield increases would more than double total output from the crOp subsector, producing large surpluses of wheat and oilseed for export as well as supplying adequate quantities of corn for livestock feeding systems and rations. Such improvements would also result in expanded employment opportunities in agriculture, as well as in the industrial and service sectors. The effect of these changes would be profound in terms of land use charac— teristics and in aiding national economic recovery. In the livestock sector, pasture improvement, disease control, and supplemental feeding could be combined with relatively simple manage- ment changes, such as rotational grazing of sheep and cattle, earlier weaning of calves, and the culling of barren cows to provide signifi— cantly increased levels of animal production. The Uruguayan government (through the Bank of the Republic) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development have jointly sponsored a livestock improvement program during the past twelve years. Through the Plan 7Figures cited are unofficial preliminary estimates provided by Ing. Jaime Fernandez, DirecciOn de Economia Agraria, Departmento de Estadisticas, Divisién de Censos y Encuestas, Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura. 8Based on research at La Estanzuela. 165 Agropecuario, credit has been made available to ranchers for converting natural grazing land to artificial pastures, tOp-seeding and fertiliza- tion of natural pastures, fencing, and disease control. Since its inception, the plan has financed improvements on about 7 per cent of the country's grazing area. Although the results are not reflected signifi- cantly in national output averages, due to the limited area involved, ranchers participating in the program produce three and one—half times as much beef per acre as the national average, twice as much wool, and two and one-half times as much mutton.9 Similar increases in production could be anticipated throughout the country's grazing regions if the use of modern inputs were more widespread. The increased value of beef and wool production generated by such improvements would go a long way toward alleviating the nation's crisis situation. Not only would foreign exchange earnings and tax revenue be greatly increased, but employment Opportunities in rural areas, in meat packing, processing and shipping, in wool processing and textiles, in agro-business, and in services would rise sharply, as well. Domestic consumption of beef and wool products could be permitted to rise, thus somewhat dampening inflationary trends. These changes would reduce many of the current pressures buffeting the economy while removing at least a part of the social stress. 9David J. Pryor, "Livestock: The Road to Market," Finance and Development, Vol. 7, No. A (December, 1970): 26. .166 Unfortunately for the nation, a number of cultural and institu- tional factors act as restraints to the realization of agriculture's production potential. An error commonly committed by individuals interested in promoting agricultural develOpment is to look at only the physical capabilities of a country to produce certain types of crops or livestock species. The role of tax structure, agricultural price policy, market prospects, alternative opportunity competition for investment funds, and incentive responsiveness of producers must be analyzed to determine why a larger portion of the productive potential of agriculture has not been exploited. Obstacles to Increased Productivity Although Uruguay's physical conditions and potential productivity would permit a significant expansion of production, the nation's agri- cultural technology and total output have remained basically unchanged over the past two decades. The blame for the limited use of modern farm technology cannot be placed on farmer ignorance, for the country has almost no subsistence peasant agriculture and the Uruguayan educa- tional system is one of the best in Latin America. Literacy is nearly universal and general information concerning new farming and ranching methods :is widely disseminated via newspapers, radio, and television. The fewer than A,OOO large landowners who control well over half of the agricultural land are among the wealthiest and best educated citizens in the country. 167 The causes underlying the unchanging pattern of land use and technology are cultural and institutional "bottlenecks" which reduce the acceptability of new agricultural technology capable of greatly expanding total output. Three factors form the primary impediments to increased productivity: agricultural tax structure, agricultural price policy, and alternate opportunity competition from other sectors of the economy. These factors combine to reduce producer investment incentive, which in turn, has led to low levels of technical inputs and the retention of antiquated production methods in farming and ranching. Tax Structure Uruguay's tax structure has been, and remains, a major barrier to productive modifications of the agricultural land use pattern. Regressive taxation policies on exports have reduced the economic incentive of investing in modern farm technology land taxes have not penalized or forced those who do not use the land efficiently to intensify production, and taxes on imported technical inputs have increased the costs and decreased profitability for those who use them.10 The combined impact of these taxes has been to stifle the positive incentives for augmenting farm output and to eliminate the negative incentives for not doing so. As previously noted, Uruguay relies heavily upon indirect export- import taxes for generating government revenue and as a means of 10Taxes on imported goods, such as fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, fencing, and farm.machinery, are actually relatively low. Indirect taxes, such as customs charges, consular fees, and port costs greatly increase the cost of using such inputs. 168 controlling foreign trade. Through detracciones (retentions) on agri- cultural exports, producer profits are reduced, often markedly. For example, the retention on greasy wool has been as high as 50 per cent for the past several years, as much as halving the net profits of wool ranchers. A.major defect of this type of tax is that its incidence is prOportional to the volume of a commodity exported. Therefore, if production is increased, taxes rise prOportionally, thus reducing a farmer's or rancher's incentive to expand output.ll On the import side, technical inputs for agriculture are taxed as well. Uruguay has no natural phosphate or nitrate reserves to supply raw materials for domestic fertilizer manufacture. It lacks petroleum or chemical industries capable of producing herbicides or pesticides, and has no agricultural machinery manufacturers. All of the key technical inputs vital to increased output must therefore be imported either as manufactured goods, as in the case of farm equipment, or as raw materials, as with fertilizers. But, the costs of imports are increased through a series of direct, indirect, and service taxes, thereby reducing the profitability of using such productive inputs. In an informative footnote, Brannon states that the price of mixed fertilizer rises by 60 per cent after arriving in Montevideo because of llLehman B. Fletcher and William C. Merrill, Uruguay' 3 Agricultural Sector._£rioriti§slfor Policies, Investment Programs and Projects (Washington: Inter-American Development Bank, Papers on AgricuItfiral Development, No. 9, 1970): 206. .169 port handling fees, custom duties, taxes, and other charges.12 Pesti- cides, herbicides, fencing materials, breeding stock, tractors, combines, and other inputs undergo similar cost build-ups which reduce the net return on investments. Mainly as a result of its relatively high cost, the use of fertilizer is limited, being applied to only 3 per cent of the total corn acreage, l per cent of the sunflower area, and 16 per cent of the wheat acreage.l3 The use of imported hybridized or certi- fied seed, pesticides, and herbicides is similarly limited. Likewise, farm.machinery is relatively scarce, over-aged, and underpowered, markedly decreasing its efficiency. In addition to indirect export retentions and import surcharges, direct taxes are applied to agricultural land and income. At present, land taxes are based on officially assessed values (aforos). Aforos are universally underestimated, more nearly reflecting 19A0's land values than those of the 1970's. Sizable deductions can be made for improvements, excessive rockiness, and a variety of other items, which shrink levies and cause the land tax to be a nuisance rather than a meaningful tool for generating revenue or influencing land use decisions. Agricultural income taxes can be classified in similar terms, in that the level of such taxation is so low as to render them impotent. In combination, the export-import, land and income taxes on agricultural production siphen-off a sizable portion of a producer's 12Russell H. Brannon, "Low Investment Levels in Uruguayan Agricul- ture: Some Tentative Explanations," Land Economics, Vol. XLV, No. 3 (August, 1969): 307. 13Russell H. Brannon, op. cit:, Agricultural Development, p. 109. 170 total earnings. A mission of the International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelOpment estimated that the tax incidence of the agricultural sector was nearly 30 per cent in 1968, indicating both the magnitude and impact of taxation upon the sector. Little doubt can exist but that modifications in tax structure are necessary if the productive intensity of agriculture is to be improved in the future. Agricultural Price Policy The national government has pursued a policy of intervention in the pricing of agricultural commodities of all kinds.1h Wholesale prices paid to producers have been controlled and product prices to 15 consumers have been regulated for a number of years. For the crop sector, price policy programs have been generally favorable, but for the livestock sector they have been highly detrimental to increased investment. The major tools used to influence prices have been price fixing, taxes, and subsidies, Often working against one another and seldom resulting in satisfactory solutions. Prices paid to ranchers in the livestock sector have been very low in comparison to prices received by producers in competing countries. lhA concise account of price policy programs is given in Chapter 10 of Brannon's book on Uruguayan agricultural develOpment. 15Since 1968 the Uruguayan government has controlled the prices of essentially all items sold in the national economy. A commission on prices and incomes (COPRIN) supervises all wage and price increases, from.matches to soccer game tickets, but seldom to anyone's satisfaction. 'fid 171 Through the use of export retentions, unfavorable exchanges rates, and artificially determined wholesale prices, the earnings of cattle and sheep ranchers have been significantly reduced. In the case of wool, for example, Uruguayan producers have received only 50 to 80 per cent as much for their product as major competitors over the past decade (Table 1A). Similarly, beef producers receive only a fraction of the wholesale price that ranchers elsewhere in the world receive (Table 15). These reduced profits have undoubtedly decreased the economic incentives for producers to modernize their ranching activities. Government price policy with regard to wool has been prompted by the need to generate tax revenues to support government operations. Since wool has traditionally been the primary export commodity, it has carried a large part of the nation's tax burden. Producers, through their extensive ranching systems, are still able to realize acceptable profits because of their low investment levels and the limited managerial effort extended in the production process. In their other economic endeavors, such as commercial and industrial enterprises, ranchers receive certain benefits. These are in the form of subsidies and public services, which are supported by their own tax payments on wool, somewhat reducing the sting of the original taxation. Low domestic wholesale prices paid for beef are primarily the result of government efforts to suppress meat prices in Montevideo. Until very recently, meat prices in the capital were rigidly controlled at artificially low levels and not allowed to fluctuate with respect AVERAGE PRICES RECEIVED BY PRODUCERS FOR GREASY WOOL IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1950-196A 1] 172 TABLE 1A Republic of Year Australia New Zealand South Africa Uruguay 1950 297 266 2A6 102 1951 1A9 103 12A 233 1952 168 119 1A6 7A 1953 168 129 1A8 80 195A 1A6 128 125 70 1955 126 119 110 58 1956 16A 1A1 1A8 55 1957 128 106 113 8A 1958 100 93 85 A8 1959 119 115 105 5A 1960 107 10A 9A 63 1961 111 100 97 73 1962 121 109 107 79 1963 1A3 1A1 - - 196A - 108 - 8A Source: Brannon, p. 2A0 l] U. S. cents per kilogram. 173 TABLE 15 WHOLESALE BEEF PRICES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1950-196A if United United Period Argentina Canada Kingdom States Uruguay 193A-38 7.8 12.5 20.5 20.9 8.2 1950 19.A 50.2 29.0 65.A 16.7 1951 2A.2 68.3 31.A 79.3 18.2 1952 32.A 56.8 3A.7 73.2 19.5 1953 39.1 A5.A 36.6 53.2 19.9 195A 39.9 A3.6 37.9 5A.A 29.7 1955 33.A A3.7 A3.A 51.1 2A.7 1956 12.9 A3.6 A0.9 A9.3 25.3 1957 n.d. A3.8 AA.6 52.5 28.A 1958 n.d. 52.1 A3.8 60.5 23.6 1959 16.9 57.7 A3.9 61.A n.d. 1960 17.9 51.A A3.1 57.8 18.6 1961 17.3 A9.A AA.8 5A.3 15.9 1962 15.A 53.1 A5.7 61.0 15.7 1963 17.8 A8.2 A5.8 52.8 13.1 196A 29.6 A6.3 A8.A 51.0 18.7 Brannon, p. 251. l/ U. S. cents per kilogram live weight. 17A to supply and demand characteristics of the urban market. Such a policy was bound to depress investment incentives in beef cattle production. This program of maintaining low meat prices was achieved by granting a monopoly go the government-owned packing plant, Frigorifico Nacional, for supply of the Montevideo market. Unfortunately, the Frigorifico Nacional is a prototype of poor administration and inefficiency.l It has a history of making late payments to sellers, which prompts ranchers not to sell to the Frigorifico unless forced to do so. In periods of livestock shortages, however, the government packing plant is given priority on all cattle purchases in order to meet the market demands of the capital. Since 1968 the Frigorifico's monopoly on the Montevideo market has been broken, and the government has legalized the sale of meat products in the capital from other slaughterhouses and permitted greater flexibility in pricing. During the period from July, 1970, to June, 1971, prices of some cuts of beef rose by as much as 30 per cent, enhancing beef producers' profits while incensing consumers. Attempts at maintaining low domestic beef prices and simultaneously trying to encourage increased output by ranchers obviously had not succeeded. 16It is estimated by reliable sources that perhaps A0 per cent of the Frigorifico Nacional's employees are either administrators or super- visors. All employees were given a daily gift of A.A pounds of meat until 1969, when this policy was revised. A four-month strike ensued, protesting the reduction of meat grants, which closed the plant and further crippled the national economy. Britain banned beef imports from Uruguay in that same year because of unsanitary conditions in the slaughtering process. 175 Again, price policies will have to be made more favorable for beef cattle producers if investment in more productive technologies is desired. In relation to cereals, sugar, and milk products, subsidy programs aimed at assuring minimum prices for producers have been a stimulus to production. Direct subsidy payments on acreage planted and credit for fertilizer, seed, pesticides, and machinery have been used to encourage increased output in an effort to achieve self-sufficiency in production. To keep domestic prices low, indirect subsidies were also provided through fixed flour prices for bakers and fixed bread prices for consumers.17 Even in the crOp sector, the government has had diffi— culties in achieving price policy goals, mainly because the national administration has been unable to comply with its stated commitments. For example, minimum prices guaranteed for certain commodities, such as wheat, have at times not been met because of the government's lack of funds. A general lack of confidence and a certain degree of mistrust, therefore, exists between farmers and the government which reduces the effectiveness of such programs. The high cost of subsidies paid to agriculturalists and consumers also causes a major strain on the national budget. Summarizing agricultural price policy reveals another institu- tional "bottleneck" to modifying land use intensities and patterns. Price changes occurring over the past ten years, as a result of inflation l7Maintaining low food prices in Montevideo is an important polit- ical consideration for any Uruguayan administration. The public has come to expect low prices and reacts vehemently to attempts at raising prices. 176 and government tax and price policies, have negatively influenced input/ output price relationships in agriculture to the point that Fletcher and Merrill have stated "...producers may have less incentive [July,l970] than in 1962 to adOpt new methods and to use new inputs to increase output."18 Thus, it appears that government price policy toward agri- culture is moving producer motivation in a direction Opposite from the one desired. Agricultural Research In all countries where modern agricultural technology has been successfully adOpted on a large scale, intensive research has been conducted to determine Optimum fertilization rates for crops, to develop improved pasture grass-legume combinations and rotation, to find better breeding stock and production animals, to improve seed hybridization and certification, and to provide information on other production improvements. Either through government—sponsored or agro-business research, the indispensible knowledge needed to rationally and economically expand agricultural output has been provided. Without this type of information, there is little hope of transforming agri- culture.l9 18Fletcher and Merrill, Op. cit., p. 52. l98ee A. T. Mosher, Getting Agriculture Moving (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1966), or Earl 0. Heady, "Public Purpose in Agri— cultural Research and Education," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. A3 (August, 1961): 566-581. 177 The lack of agricultural research in Uruguay has stymied invest- ment in and adoption of new, more productive ranching and farming tech— niques. The government has done little, until recently, to promote research on the basic needs of agriculture, while agro-business is almost non-existent and therefore incapable of providing any kind of useful information to producers. An honorary commission was established in 1935 to discover and introduce new sheep raising techniques, but results have been largely through the efforts of influential private individuals. Even these attempts have been only moderately successful, particularly when compared with production increases elsewhere. Brannon estimated the growth of Uruguayan wool production to be 15 per cent between 19AA—19A6 and 1962—196A, while Australia's output grew by over 87 per cent and New Zealand's by more than 69 per cent during roughly the same period.20 Without knowing the best seed varieties for cereals, Optimum fertilization levels, the most profitable live- stock rotation and pasture conditions, or the returns on the use of such inputs as hydridized seed, pesticides, or artificial pastures, farmers and ranchers will be hesitant to abandon proven systems of production to invest in new, untested ones. Since 1961 the well equipped and competently staffed agricultural research center at La Estanzuela, in the Department of Colonia, has been conducting research on crOp and livestock problems. The research 2OBrannon, Op. cit., Agricultural Development, p. 2A3. 178 facility is reputedly one of the government's favorite programs, but periodic clashes between the center directors and Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture officials have damaged its effectiveness.21 Prelimi— nary investigations at La Estanzuela have yielded mixed results in regard to the feasibility and profitability of modern inputs at current price levels. Fertilization of existing wheat strains, for example, appears to be economically impractical if the necessarily increased levels of managerial skills are included as a cost consid- eration.22 The use of certified or hybridized seed in combination with fertilizers may be economically feasible, but it certainly does not provide the increased rate of return envisioned as necessary by many agricultural economists for inducing producer acceptance of new techniques.23 Concerning livestock, recent experiments have shown that intensive rotational grazing systems for cattle on artificial pastureS‘ can produce yields of over 500 pounds of meat per acre, as contrasted with the present national average of about 50 pounds.2h The economics 21Professionals at the Alberto Boerger Center for Agricultural Research (La Estanzuela) are the highest paid of all Ministry of Live- stock and Agriculture officials, even though their degrees and training are similar to persons working elsewhere within the Ministry. 22Centro de Investigaciones Agricolas "Alberto Boerger," Trigo (La Estanzuela, Uruguay: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1969). 23T. W. Schultz and others estimate minimal returns of from 2:1 or 3:1 as necessary before producers will adopt new farming techniques. 2hRaul R. Vera y Dereck T. Chambers, "500 kilos de carne per hectarea," La Estanzuela, No. 5 (April, 1970): 25-28. 179 of such production, however, were not discussed in sufficient detail to permit a judgment on the practicality of such efforts. Despite the research findings, several more years will be needed to compile the data necessary to verify practical and economical means of intensifying production. During this interval a viable extension system must be organized as well, because agricultural extension is poorly develOped. The lack of agricultural research and extension is a further constraint to the intensification of agriculture. If producers with the full array of information needed to make intelligent land use decisions are often hesitant to invest in new farming or ranching methods, producers who lack such knowledge cannot be expected to make changes in their production systems. Alternate Opportunity Competition Alternate opportunity costs are a very important factor in the 25 Unlike their investment decisions of Uruguayan agriculturalists. North American counterparts, most farmers and ranchers in Uruguay do not view agriculture as their sole, or often even their primary, economic pursuit. Without question, agricultural land provides a major source of income for most latifundistas, but their investment panoramas are not limited to the primary sector. Most large land- owners are also influential businessmen, industrialists, urban prop- erty owners or bankers in Montevideo as well as agricultural producers. 25The comments in this section pertain primarily to the 3,800 large landowners whose investment decisions affect almost 60 per cent of Uruguay's total agricultural area. 180 They therefore analyze their investment Opportunities over a broad spectrum of endeavors. A producer's seemingly perverse economic behavior in the agri— cultural sector may be quite rational when viewed in terms of his alternate investment opportunities. Ignoring for the moment changes in management intensity and other factors necessary when making modifi- cations in agricultural production systems, let us say that a 25 to 50 per cent return can be expected on some type of agricultural investment, such as converting unimproved natural grassland to artificial pasture. The same amount of investment elsewhere in the economy may yield even greater returns. For example, money is currently loaned in Montevideo through private sources at from A to 5 per cent monthly interest. It is alledged, although difficult to verify statistically, that gross profits in commerce range from between 50 and 200 per cent or more, depending upon the type of commercial activity considered. Investment in urban real estate has proven very lucrative, particularly in the recent period of hyperinflation. Speculation in foreign currencies, especially the buying and selling of United States dollars, has been profitable during the past several years, as well. Purchases of agri- cultural land have provided added income as well as a hedge against 26Although illegal, large sums of money are loaned through escribanos, the equivalent of Certified Public Accountants. Legal maximum interest rates in state-owned banks are 11 per cent per annum, but even these banks actually charge from 32 to 36 per cent annual interest when carrying charges are included. Private banks receive from A0 to 50 per cent annual interest on short-term loans. 181 inflation.27 Finally, investment;h1foreign countries considered to be economically and politically more stable than Uruguay has become increasingly attractive, prompting strong government efforts to stOp the flight of capital from the country.28 Although few Uruguayan farmers or ranchers seek optimal economic solutions for their agricultural investments, this does not mean that their behavior is irrational. In their broader economic actions most agriculturalists are attempting to maximize the returns on their investment by transferring resources from a sector of relatively low returns (agriculture) to ones of relatively higher return (commerce, industry, or services). Thus, producers appear rational from an economic viewpoint. But as in all countries, and perhaps more so in Uruguay than in most, investors are working with highly imperfect knowledge, particularly in regard to the returns feasible through investment in modern farming inputs, because the needed input/output price relationships for most agricultural improvements have not yet been analyzed.29 27For a detailed account of the economics of additional land purchases see Brannon's "Low Investment Levels in Uruguayan Agriculture,’ op. cit. 28Uruguay's deteriorating economic position is vividly underlined by the present flight of capital. The country was once a haven for Argentines, Brazilians, and others seeking to protect their earnings against possible losses at home from political chaos or who were anxious to invest abroad. Since 1966 more than 100 banks have closed in Monte- video alone, indicating the changes taking place. 29Brannon, op. cit., "Low Investment Levels," p. 307. 182 It is quite possible that the nation's agriculturalists are making fairly rational investment decisions by not modernizing their farming and ranching systems. If this is the case, a thorny and extremely difficult situation to resolve arises in that the best interests of individual producers (at least over the short-run) are not the best interests of Uruguay as a nation. Or, to paraphrase an Old cliché, what's best for ranchers isn't what's best for the country. A satis- factory Solution to this apparent conflict of interests, if it does exist, is hard to envision. What is certain is that a structural imbalance exists between returns on investments in the various sectors of the economy which tends to divert capital investment from agriculture to other activities. This disequilibrium, or unfavorable alternate opportunity competition, forms yet another obstacle to meaningful change in the agricultural land use pattern.30 In summary, when the several institutional and cultural "bottle- necks"oonstraining investment in modern agricultural production tech- nology are viewed in combination, a rather negative picture develops. Ways must be found to bring about significant changes in tax structure and agricultural price policy, to improve agricultural research and extension, and to reduce the imbalance in investment Opportunities 30A number of authorities believe the government's import substi- tution program is primarily responsible for such imbalances. For example, see Herman F. Daly "The Uruguay Economy: Its Basic Nature and Current Problems," Journal of Inter-American Studies, Vol. 7 (July, 1965): 316-330, or David C. Redding, "The Economic Decline of Uruguay," ‘Inter-American Economic Affairs, Vol. 20, No. A (Spring, 1967). 183 between agriculture and other sectors of the economy if agriculture is to make the contribution it must make to lift the nation from its current economic, social, and political agony. Encouraging Beneficial Land Use Changes Uruguayan agriculturalists must increase the intensity of pro- duction if the nation is to regain its once prominent social and economic stability. The long period of government neglect of agriculture and the underestimation of its importance to the country must be replaced by active support and encouragement. Basic changes must be made to eliminate the cultural and institutional obstacles restraining invest- ment in new agricultural production methods and inputs. The task is not an easy one, nor one which can be resolved in a short period of time. But many beneficial changes can be made in agriculture over the next several years, if a concentrated effort is made to do so. A number of reasons exist for guarded optimism regarding the success of such efforts. Perhaps most significant is the long delayed recognition, during the past two administrations, of agriculture's importance to the total economy and designation of the primary sector to receive special emphasis in develOpment planning.31 The simple fact that agriculture's importance has finally been identified is a step in the prOper direction, but its elevation to the leading sector in Uruguay's develOpment process is even more significant. Since 1967 31Centro de Estudiantes de Ciencias EconOmicas y AdministraciOn, Plan nacional de desarrollo econ6mico y social, 1965—197A, (Montevideo: Escuela-Imprenta, Don Orione, 1966). 18A efforts have been made to modify the tax structure, to revise price policies toward agriculture, to increase research and extension programs, to improve the availability of credit for modern technical inputs, and to stablize the economy. Unfortunately, a large percentage of govern- ment manpower and revenue has recently been channeled toward stabili— zation programs in both the social and economic spheres, shifting scarce resources from important development priorities. As soon as circum- stances permit, attention must be refocused toward stimulating agri- cultural investment and production. Revision of Tax Structure The Uruguayan legislature passed a law in 1968 aimed at dras- tically altering the existing agricultural tax structure.32 Agricul- tural land was to be taxed according to its productive potential, and all other taxes affecting producers (133:, export retentions and import surcharges, agricultural income taxes) were to be gradually abandoned over a period of years. Theoretically, such a tax would provide incentives for farmers and ranchers to invest in improved production techniques or sell their land to individuals who would do so. Unlike present taxes, the land productivity tax would allow innovative producers to significantly increase their profit levels by introducing new inputs and management practices which would expand production per unit area well above the minimum necessary to meet tax levies. As the 32Law 13.695, October 2A, 1968, authorized the assessment of taxes on agricultural land based upon potential productivity. 185 productivity tax is fixed, all surpluses accumulated would belong to the producer. Conversely, those farmers and ranchers choosing not to modernize their agricultural techniques would barely be able to meet their tax assessments by employing traditional practices, thereby reducing their profits to intolerable levels and forcing unproductive land holders to improve or get out of agriculture. The land productivity tax was to have taken effect in June, 1971. A series of difficulties were encountered, however, which precluded its implementation. First, the national soil survey, from which produc- tivity levels were to have been determined, has not yet been completed. Next, the technical advisor to the Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture responsible for aiding in the determination of soil productivity classes was kidnapped, greatly complicating the situation. Resistance was encountered from agriculturalists uncertain of the effect of the new tax and from officials of the Ministry of Finance who were not convinced of the wisdom of abandoning the easily administered and predictable export-import tax system in favor of a difficult to administer and highly uncertain productivity tax. All of these compli- cations have delayed, if not postponed indefinitely, initiation of the new tax. It may be possible to achieve essentially the same goals of providing positive and negative tax incentives to increase investment by strengthening present land and income tax structures. By adjusting assessment valuations, aforos, to reflect present land values and by 186 including a progressive rate increase according to size-of—holding, agriculturists would be faced with basically the same choices as under 33 Land values do, after all, reflect the productive a productivity tax. potential of land to a large degree. Improvement of the existing tax structure would save the expense and time involved in carrying out the research needed to determine productivity classes and may well avoid some of the resistence normally felt toward a "new" tax. If a series of reductions in export retentions and import surcharges are programmed to coincide with increased §£239_rates, many of the undesirable effects of export-import taxation could be eliminated and the fears and objections of Ministry of Finance Officials allayed. Another alternative may be to place greater emphasis upon the agricultural income tax by tightening deduction loopholes, improving collection methods, and adding a grad- uated payment scale. There is no evidence to indicate that a new bureaucratic system administering a productivity tax would be more efficient than existing ones. It is important to note that changes in governmental or social structures are not easily accomplished in any country. Much of economic develOpment theory is based upon structuralist arguments which suggest that changes are needed in political, economic, and social structures if 33Fletcher and Merrill, op. cit., p. 210-211. 187 basic improvements are to be made.3)4 It may be that structural changes are extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, to make. Under the best of circumstances even relatively minor changes in structure are 35 Social, political, and economic often accompanied by prOblems. structures reflect many of the fundamental cultural characteristics of a nation, with the result that changing them requires a basic change in cultural perception. The possibilities of effecting such structural changes should be weighed carefully or such attempts may prove counter- productive. Modifications of existing structures may be more practical and efficient than introducing new structures and completely by-passing old ones. Changes in Price Policy Modification of agricultural price policy could have a positive influence by increasing producer responsiveness to investment in modern farm inputs.36 Although crop producers have enjoyed a relatively favorable price policy, mainly involving guaranteed minimum prices and subsidy programs, livestock ranchers have been disadvantaged. Replacing 31‘For a sample of structuralist thought see Joseph Grunwald, "The Structuralist School of Price Stabilization and Economic Development: The Chilean Case," in Albert 0. Hirschman (ed.), Latin American Issues: Essays and Comments (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1961). 35In the United States, with its high degree of political stability, economic development, and high educational levels, the task of integra- ting schools through busing (a comparatively minor change in soGial structure) has met tremendous resistence. 36See R. M. Stern "The Price Responsiveness of Primary Producers," figview of Economics and Statistics, XLIV, No. 2 (May, 1962): 202-208, or John W. Mellor, The Economics of Agricultural Development (Ithaca, New hark: Cornell University Press, 1969): 1964213. 188 export retentions on wool and beef and import surcharges on agricultural inputs with more direct forms of taxation, while removing or relaxing artificial pricing mechanisms for domestically consumed livestock products, would appreciably alter the most unfavorable aspects of existing price policy. Allowing wool and beef producers to retain higher percentages of the value of their exports could bring about added investment in yield- increasing technology, particularly if existing export retentions are replaced by some type of land tax. Likewise, removal of import sur- charges on technical inputs, such as fertilizers, pesticides, or farm machinery, would reduce the cost of modern inputs and should bene- ficially alter input/output price ratios. The combined effect of these two modifications would be to augment producer profit and reduce the cost of improving ranching techniques. Assuming that producers respond to investment incentives, the likelihood of their adOpting new tech- niques should be significantly improved. If care is taken to minimize the windfall characteristics of such changes and to actively encourage investment, their impact should be highly beneficial. Relaxation of artificial price controls on domestically consumed livestock products, especially beef, would further increase the profit- ability of ranching and, theoretically, should further encourage pro- ductive capital investment in farming. More than A0 per cent of the beef slaughtered in Uruguay is consumed within the country (versus less than 25 per cent prior to World War II), and this figure is 189 increasing annually despite government efforts to reduce domestic 37 consumption. Attempts at holding down internal beef prices have thus had an increasing impact upon producer incomes and incentives to invest in agriculture. Complete elimination of price controls is politically impractical, but permitting somewhat greater price flexibility in response to supply-demand characteristics should prove helpful. Again, caution must be exercised to induce simultaneous changes in production techniques, using all of the tools available, so that producers are not simply granted increased profits at the consumers' expense. Finding this delicate balance is, indeed, one of the keys to successfully transforming agriculture in Uruguay. Increased Research and Extension According to almost any standard, Uruguay has grossly under- invested in agricultural research. As a result, there is only limited information available concerning high-yield hybrid seeds suitable for the country, optimal fertilization rates for various crOps, pastures, or soil types, prOper grass-legume mixes, or animal performance data. No usefu1 research has been conducted on the economics of fertilizing natural pastures, of converting from natural grassland to artificial pastures, of changing a variety of management practices, of introducing new livestock types, or any of a number of other critical matters which 37CECEA, op. cit., p. 237. Various administrations since the mid- 1950's have attempted to get Uruguayans to eat less beef and more lamb, fish, chicken, or pork. Bans on the sale of beef, meatless days and weeks, subsidized fish prices and other ploys have been used, but none with measureable success. 190 must be considered before producers can intelligently accept or reject new inputs or practices. At least a part of the blame for the extensive, unimproved character of Uruguayan agriculture must be related to inade— quate research. Although a great deal of modern ranching and farming technology can be "borrowed" from advanced nations with similar physical conditions, an abundance of investigative research must still be conducted within the country before a modernization of land use can be contemplated. Before meaningful, large-scale increases in production technology can be envisioned, a great deal of economic research must be performed, as well, to provide at least the rough economic parameters of new inputs. Once this information is available, producers can be induced, enticed, encouraged, badgered, bribed, or compelled to change their production methods to more suitable practices. A number of simple management techniques requiring little if any capital investment could be introduced to appreciably increase production output and value in the livestock sector. Ranchers universally graze sheep and cattle simultaneously in the same fields, whereas the rota- tional grazing of cattle prior to sheep would result in better grazing conditions for both sheep and cattle. It would also reduce disease and parasite levels, permitting more rapid weight gains for cattle and improving wool yields from sheep. Calves are presently allowed to stay with cows for as long as eighteen months after birth, reducing herd fertility levels and lengthening the time needed to bring animals to market. Removing calves from cows between the sixth or eighth month after birth would increase herd fertility and allow a more rapid 191 expansion of herd size. No selection methods are practiced to determine fertile cows or to cull barren ones from the herd. Culling of barren cows would increase herd fertility levels significantly. Wool shearing methods are generally outmoded, as fleece is removed in several pieces rather than a single piece, reducing quality and value.38 Other examples of poor management practices could be cited, such as over-grazing pastures and failure to properly trim sheeps hooves, which can be improved with little more than concerted extension efforts. Yet, such changes in management practices would pay—off handsomely in terms of increased livestock output. Eliminating the constraint of limited research and extension may prove to be time consuming and frustrating, but it is essential if producers are to invest heavily in modernizing their agricultural Operations. Improved tax structure and more favorable price policy may increase the profitability of present farming systems, but the comparative rates of return between new inputs or practices and existing ones are the crucial consideration in the long-run intensification of the agricultural sector. Greater Balance Among Investment Opportunities Future investment levels in Uruguay's agricultural sector will depend, to a large degree, upon the relative rates of return available on investments in agriculture and other sectors of the economy. If an 38United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture in Uruguay_ (Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, Report 299, 1970): 30. 192 investment imbalance is maintained between the various sectors, the economic incentives to modernize agricultural production may not be sufficiently great to attract inputs. Therefore, a major problem facing economic planners, and one which will require drastic changes, is the development of a better balance between the profitability of invest- ment within the several sectors of the economy. It is difficult to envision how an equilibrium can be re-established without strong government involvement. Price and profit guidelines will be needed to curb excess profits, and a greater degree of competition may be necessary. These can be introduced by reducing protective tariffs, which would increase the efficiency and reduce the complacency of domestic manufacturers. The implementation of such controls are sure to meet vociferous opposition from special interest groups which have considerable political influence. Whether or not such changes are politically acceptable becomes the critical question. In summary, the elimination of cultural and institutional obstacles to increased agricultural productivity is an absolute necessity if Uruguay is to modernize the sector and resolve its current economic and social dilemmas. Modifying tax structures and price policies, increasing research and extension programs, and developing a greater equilibrium among investment Opportunities may sound quite plausible and possible in theory. But, such modifications can be brought about only through long-term, concentrated effort. Some changes are obviously much easier to effect than others, and some will have a stronger impact upon producer incentives than others. A 193 combination of changes must be effected, however, if agriculture is to make its potential contribution to the economic growth of the nation. Incentive Responsiveness of Producers Whether or not Uruguay's agricultural producers invest in new technical inputs and improved managerial practices depends, in the final analysis, upon the degree to which farmers and ranchers respond to economic incentives. Basically, if producers do not respond to increased profit potentials in agriculture, no modification of existing social and economic structures will bring about investments leading to modernized, intensified agricultural land use. If producers do respond favorably to changes in input/output price ratios, the primary sector can be transformed in the coming years. Two fundamental hypotheses concerning the incentive responsive- ness of Latin American latifundistas are prevalent. The older of these suggests that the land use decisions of large landowners are unrelated to increased economic incentives. Each producer has consciously or unconsciously set a predetermined income level which is is trying to reach and which permits him to live a certain life-style with a mini- mum of effort. The level of income needed can be earned through exten- sive production methods requiring little on-the-spot management by the latifundista himself, leaving him free to enjoy the good life. He is, in other words, following an income-sufficing behavioral pattern. Only by exprOpriating his land and redistributing it in smaller, more productive units can output be increased. An opposing hypothesis holds 19A that producers do respond to economic incentives, but that uncertainty precludes their adOpting new agricultural technologies. Physical uncertainty induced by flooding or drought, economic uncertainty caused by inflation and political instability, lack of research and extension information, and other factors induce added uncertainty. If such uncertainty could be reduced or eliminated, profitable inno- vations in farming and ranching would be quickly adopted. As a corrollary to this second thesis, it is argued that agriculturalists consider alternatives elsewhere in the economy before making investment decisions. Therefore, if incentives are strong enough latifundistas 39 will invest in new agricultural inputs. There is probably little real difference between the two hypotheses. Individual latifundistas quite likely do have certain predetermined income levels which they strive to generate on their agricultural holdings, and in most cases minor adjustments can be made in their extensive production methods to compensate for added taxes or natural calamities. It is also quite likely, however, that these large land- owners use a substantial percentage of their agricultural income for investment in other economic activities. The concept of a ruling oligarchy does not pertain solely to a landed aristocracy, but also to industrialists, bankers, and businessmen. In Uruguay, large landowners are commonly also influential industrialists, bankers, and businessmen who use resources generated in the primary sector to support their 39Fletcher and Merrill, Op. cit., 90-91 195 other enterprises. There is probably no need to assume that latifun- distas are unresponsive to economic incentives. They may very well respond, but the incentives outside of agriculture may be significantly greater than thoseldthin the sector. What is abundantly evident, despite a lack of clear-cut data, is that investment incentives in other areas of the economy have been greater than in agriculture. As early as 1930 Uruguayan economists were bemoaning this fact.240 Although the potential profitability of investment in agriculture has since increased greatly, it is still unlikely that the return on agricultural investments will match returns in industry, commerce, or services. This merely indicates that a Uruguayan agriculturalist may be perverse in his economic behavior within the primary sector but is economically rational with reference to the total economy. Assuming this to be the case, the nation's economic planners must seek to properly balance the profitability of various investment Opportunities in order to spur capital inputs in agriculture. liOJulioMartinez Lamas, Riqueza y probreza del Uruguay (Monte- video: Palacio del Libro, 1930). i ‘ ‘ ' CHAPTER VI TESTING THE VON THUNEN HYPOTHESIS Theories form the cornerstones of scientific knowledge. They synthesize the complexity of reality into a comprehensible explanation of how and why phenomena occur as they do. Through the development, testing, and evaluation of theories, new concepts are proved or disproved and old laws reinforced, revised, or rejected. In this way, we move closer to our elusive goal of truth. A number of theories have been developed during the past 150 years to explain the distributional patterns of agricultural land use. The first of these, and the basic model from which nearly all subsequent land use theories have derived, was presented by Johann Heinrich von Thfinen in an 1826 publication, Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und National'Okonomie.l The primary objective of this work was to determine the intensities and forms of agricultural pro- duction in relation to market. Because of the tremendous physical and cultural complexity of such a problem, von Thfinen found it convenient to generalize a large number of environmental and social conditions. In so doing, however, he made it difficult to find a portion of the lFreely translated, The Isolated State, Rostock, 1826 and 1863. 196 197 earth's surface approximating the theoretical model. As a result, empirical testing of the theory in settings similar to those described in the theory has been sorely limited. What have occurred instead are attempts to identify areas where land use patterns are similar to those which might be expected under the theory (concentric rings) and to explain the causes of such distributions according to precepts of the model.2 Therefore, an attempt to empirically test the hypothesis in a physical and cultural setting similar to that envisioned by von Thfinen can provide some of the information needed to ultimately evaluate its merit. Uruguay possesses a physical and cultural landscape sufficiently similar to that projected in the theory to make an empirical comparison of its actual agricultural land use pattern and a von Thfinen-type model worthwhile. Three basic steps are necessary to perform such a test. 2Some such comparative analyses of the von Thunen theory are: Ronald J. Horvath, "Von Thfinen's Isolated State and the Area Around Addis Abba, Ethiopia," Annals of the Association of American Geogra— hers, Vol. 59, No. 2 (June, 1969): 308-323: Joshua C. Dickinson, III, 'Variations on the von Thfinen Theme in a Semi-Traditional Society," Annals of the Association_pf American Geographers, Abstract, Vol. 57 (I967): 172; R. Gasson, "The Influence of Urbanization on Farm Owner— ship and Practice," Studies in Rural Land Use, No. 7, Department of Agricultural Economics, wye College (1966); Michael Chisholm, "Agri- cultural Production, Location, and Rent," Oxford Economic Papers, 13 (1959): 3A2-359; and O. Jonasson, "Agricultural Regions of Europe," Economic Geography, Vol. 1 (1925): 282-286. 198 First, the actual land use pattern must be determined and described. Second, a von Thfinen-type model of agricultural land use intensities must be develOped and compared with the actual pattern. And, third, an analysis of differences between the actual pattern and the model must be made to suggest reasons for variations between the two. In so doing, a general idea of the applicability of von Thfinen's concepts to Uruguay should be gained. Such a comparative analysis is not intended to suggest that the theory is either valid or invalid in this specific case, or in its overall applicability. It simply endeavours to compare theory and reality at a particular place in the hope of better understanding how the two are related. Uruguay as the "Isolated State" A major reason that the von Thfinen theory of agricultural land use has been so seldom subjected to empirical testing is the difficulty of finding a portion of earth-space having similar physical and cultural 3 characteristics to those hypothesized in the model. Several locations 3Some debate exists as to whether von Thfinen presented a theory of agricultural land use or a method for studying agricultural land use decisions. Although most sources refer to a von Thfinen "theory" of land use (see, for example, Martin Beckman Location Theory (New York: Random House, 1968): 60 or Edgar M. Hoover, The Location of Economic Activity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 19A8): 91), ChisHoIm insists that the Ideas developed and expounded by von Thfinen do 293 constitute a theory of location. They amount to a method of analysis which may be applied to any situation in any time or place..." (Michael Chisholm, Rural Settlement and Land Use: An Essay in Location (London: Hutchinson, 1962)} 2171 Although he doesfirefer to a von Thfinen theory, Barlowe may have found the most diplomatic solution to the problem, frequently referring to the von Thfinen "model" (Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1958): 33, 2A9). For the purposes of this paper, von Thfinen's work is considered to be a theory of agricultural land use. 199 could be used as test areas, however, as they possess the general con- ditions described by von Thfinen. Among these, the Argentine Pampa extending outward from either Buenos Aires or Rosario, the portion of the Brazilian Highlands surrounding Brasilia, the areas inland from Sidney or Darwin in Australia, and the hinterland of Montevideo have been suggested as worthwhile sites to empirically test the model. With specific reference to Uruguay, Chisholm has remarked "...that Uruguay is sufficiently near to the isotropic surface von Thunen envisaged to be a useful place of study."14 Major Tenets 9f the Model Stated in its simplest form, von Thfinen made seven basic assumptions in his model: (1) completely rational economic behavior, (2) an isolated state, (3) a single central city, (A) a village type of settlement away from the central city and an ethnically homogeneous population, (5) uniform tOpography, (6) uniform soil fertility and climatic conditions, and (7) a relatively primitive transportation system.5 Each of these concepts must be applied to the Uruguayan landscape to determine its degree of applicability. It should be mentioned, however, that several of these strictly defined limiting concepts were later modified by von Thfinen and others to permit a closer approximation of reality. "Michael Chisholm, personal correspondence, August A, 1969. 5Peter Hall (ed.), Von Thfinenlsfilsolated State (Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1966). 200 Therefore, complete harmony between the initial assumptions and reality is not necessary to permit a profitable testing of the model. It is unlikely that Uruguayan agricultural producers are totalLy rational economic beings. By the same token, it is doubtful that any group of agricultural producers anywhere could be classified as "economic men." Yet, within the limits of their information, and considering their alternate investment Opportunities in the economy, it can be argued that Uruguayan farmers and ranchers are reasonably rational in their economic behavior. They thereby comply with the minimum acceptable conditions which could realistically be anticipated in the von Thfinen hypothesis. Uruguay is a good example of an isolated economic unit. The nation is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the south by the Rio de la Plata, both acting as the "impassable wilderness" outlined in the theory. On the west, across the Rio Uruguay, is Entre Rios, one of the less developed and more isolated provinces of Argentina. No bridges span the Rio Uruguay to connect Uruguay with its western neighbor, and no major urban centers have develOped on the west bank of the river to attract agricultural goods away from the national market.6 Although Entre Rios has enjoyed a significant degree of economic devel- opment in the past ten years, it was formerly largely unoccupied and impassable in a very real sense. The northern border of Uruguay merges 6On December 17, 1970, a loan agreement was signed between Argen- tina, Uruguay, and the Inter-American Development Bank for funds to construct a three-mile bridge across the Rio Uruguay. The bridge is to connect Fray Bentos on the Uruguayan side with Unzué in Argentina. Construction was started in December, 1970, and completion of the first land link connecting the republics is expected by the end of 1972. 201 with the underpopulated grazing lands of southern Brazil, and only in the northeast is there an attraction from a competing market. In its overall characteristics, then, Uruguay is well suited economically as an isolated state. Among the world's cities there is no better example of primacy than Montevideo. The national capital, with over 1.3 million inhabi- tants, is more than twenty-one times larger than the second city Of the Republic, Paysandfi. Montevideo is not only Una political capital but also its social, cultural, and economic hub. It is the market for the vast majority of all surplus agricultural products destined either for domestic consumption or for export. Montevideo, however, is not cen- trally located. Its south coastal location can be explained within the context of transportation efficiency, though, and does not seriously impair the capital's acceptability as a "central city" in a theoretical sense. Rural Uruguay is very sparsely populated. Only about lh per cent of the nation's 2.8 million people reside in rural areas (defined as settlements of less than 2,500). The most common form of settlement in the countryside is the small town of 5,000 or less. Smaller villages, often consisting of no more than five or ten houses, are widespread, even in the extensive grazing areas. There is also a considerable degree of village settlement in the intensive crop pro- duction regions of southern Uruguay, although dispersed farmsteads are more common. As a generalization, it would be permissable to charac- terize the rural settlement pattern as a village type. For the 202 purposes of constructing a von Thunen model, the nation's population distribution is satisfactory. Furthermore, the ethnic composition is homogeneous, consisting of a mixture of European ethnic groups lacking significant racial minorities. Although not a featureless plain, Uruguay's topography is suffi— ciently uniform to meet the limitations imposed by the von Thunen hypothesis. The country is dominated by undulating plains of slight local relief, and only two landform regions vary from this general pattern. The country's coastal plains are flat, often completely level geomorphic features. If they were of greater extent, they would closely approximate the featureless surface envisioned in the theory. A small portion of eastern Uruguay is dominated by hilly crystalline outcrOps, but this does not alter the overall character of the country's surface features. Landforms are sufficiently similar throughout the nation to meet the basic criterion set forth by von Thunen. Von Thfinen's sixth assumption called for uniform climatic con- ditions and soil fertility within the isolated state. Because of Uruguay's small size and the similarity of landform features, the climate is essentially uniform. MOnthly average temperature and mean annual precipitation increase from southeast to northwest, but not sufficiently to induce major differences in climate. All of the nation's nineteen recording stations can be classified as Humid subtropical (K6ppen Cfa). Therefore, Uruguay can be said to have the uniform climatic conditions demanded by the model. Despite some basic simi- larities in edaphic conditions, Uruguayan soils do not have uniform 203 fertility characteristics. Most of the soils are superficial and of relatively low fertility, but large areas vary significantly from these conditions. In addition to these superficial soils, there are four soils regions that can be identified on the basis of texture, depth, and fertility traits: (1) deep, medium textured, and highly fertile soils; (2) deep, medium textured soils with low to medium fertility; (3) medium depth, light textured soils of low fertility, and (A) deep, heavy tex- tured soils of low fertility. It would be impossible to group these soils into a single fertility class, even for the purposes of testing the von Thfinen model. This does not pose an insurmountable obstruction to testing the model, however, as the assumption of uniform soil fertility can be relaxed within the context of the theory. The final simplifying condition is that of a relatively primitive and uniform transportation network. Although in some ways primitive, Uruguay's transportation network is not uniform in its density or efficiency. The southern portion of the country has a better integrated and more efficient transportation infrastructure than most other parts of the nation. Much of rural Uruguay, particularly in the north and east, has fairly uniform transportation linkages but greatly inferior to those in the south. By slightly relaxing the assumption of uniform transportation facilities to more closely reflect reality, Uruguay could easily serve as the isolated state. In general, then, it can be said that Uruguay possesses many of the essential characteristics of the "Isolated State." Its agricultural producers react in a fairly rational manner in their economic behavior, 20h the nation's agricultural output is almost entirely consumed or exported through domestic channels, and Montevideo acts as the marketing center for a large percentage of surplus farm production as well as the source for nearly all technical inputs used in agriculture. The settlement pattern and population composition are similar to those theorized by von Thunen, tOpographic and climatic conditions are quite uniform, and although soil fertility and transportation infrastructure show consid- erable spatial variation, it should be possible to explain them by minor relaxations of the theory's simplifying assumptions. Uruguay's physical and cultural landscape is, therefore, sufficiently isotropic to serve as a suitable test site for the von Thfinen theory of agricul- tural land use distributions. Relaxing the Simplifying Conditions If the rigid assumptions implied in the theory are adhered to, relating the model to reality becomes nearly impossible. Therefore, it is necessary to relax some of the simplifying conditions set forth by von Thfinen. Most frequently it is necessary to make allowances for differences in physical conditions, such as topography, climate or soil fertility, but adjustments can be made for the competition of other urban centers or variations in transportation efficiency. In the Uruguayan context, three modifications of the model must be anticipated, each of which can easily be accommodated within the general framework of the theory. 205 First, consideration must be given to the location of Montevideo. Von Thfinen envisioned a centrally located city, around which concentric rings of agricultural land uses would develOp, each decreasing in intensity as distance from the city increased. Although a primate city par excellence, Montevideo is not centrally located. The city developed around a fine natural harbor, strategically located between major Spanish and Portuguese colonial strongholds. At first a military bastion on the fringe of an unoccupied territory, Montevideo soon grew to become an important commercial port (specializing in contraband and slaves) and after independence the primary importing center of the country. Uruguay has always lacked natural resources, aside from its potential for cattle and sheep grazing, and has thus depended upon imported manufactured products to supply both the necessities and luxuries of the Republic. The nation has thereby had to export agricultural goods in order to import many of the things desired by its citizens. As the economy became more sophisticated, its dependence upon foreign trade became relatively more significant. In this sense, then, Montevideo's initial locational advantage, a good port, has become increasingly more important over the years. Commercial, financial, and industrial growth has concentrated in the capital, spurring its importance as Uruguay's central place even further. Rural Uruguay remained divided in large land holdings whose owners employed extensive grazing systems. The manpower needs in such pro- duction systems is very limited, resulting in a minimal population in the countryside and the absence of potential city growth to rival the 206 capital. A production pattern of beef and wool for export, or meat and farm produce for the capital, develOped. Nearly all surplus agricultural goods moved to Ehg_city for consumption or export. Despite its periph- erial location, then, Montevideo has the major attributes of von Thfinen's central city. Accepting Montevideo as a central city means that a concentric ring pattern of agricultural land use cannot develop. Rather, if all other physical and cultural distributions are homogeneous, agricultural land use should form arcs or semi-circles centering on Montevideo. This modification does not seriously impair the spirit of the theory. Principally as the result of the population concentration in and around Montevideo, the transportation network in south and southwestern Uruguay has received much more attention than elsewhere. With nearly 60 per cent of the total population residing in the four departments of Montevideo, Canelones, San Jose, and Colonia, a well integrated and well maintained road system has been constructed. To the north and east, particularly north of the Rio Negro, the road network is much more sparse and less well integrated, reducing efficiency and increasing transport costs. As a reflection of Montevideo's significance, all major highways begin or end in the capital, and nearly all roads extend in north-south directions. No major east-west route crosses the country, and few of the departmental capitals located east or west of one another are linked by improved roads. Although nearly the entire nation is served by rail routes, which likewise center on the 207 capital, the government-owned railway system is inefficient and dependent upon antiquated equipment and inadequately maintained trackage. Trans- port of agricultural goods via the Rio Uruguay is limited, mainLy because of the high costs and high loss risks involved when dealing with the port of Montevideo.7 The transportation network favors more intensive agricultural production in the southern departments, especially those in juxtaposition to Montevideo, due to higher efficiency and resultant lower transport costs. Other parts of the country are relatively disadvantaged on the basis of transportation costs, and this may be reflected in the intensity of land use in these areas. The third major assumption of the von Thunen model which must be modified when dealing with Uruguay is that of uniform soil fertility. Uruguay's soils vary considerably in fertility from one part of the country to another. The best land is found along the southern and western littoral where the deep, fertile soils extend in a narrow, discontinuous belt from just east of Montevideo to the northwestern border with Brazil. The poorest soils cover nearly the entire north- western quarter and a large part of east-central Uruguay. They are superficial, rocky, and low in fertility. Between these extremes, soil fertility characteristics are fairly similar. In relation to the von Thunen model, it should be anticipated that the more intensive forms of 7The lack of confidence most agricultural producers have in the operation of Montevideo's port was demonstrated by the owner of a large estancia who imported a prize breeding bull from Great Britain. Rather than risk bringing the animal through the national port, he had it shipped to Buenos Aires and then flown to Uruguay. 208 agricultural production will tend to be displaced toward the west, while land use intensity on the superficial soils should be relatively low. A von Thunen Model for Uruguay, Almost all previous empirical analyses of the von Thfinen theory have started with an agricultural land use pattern approximating concen- tric rings (effect) and have then attempted to explain such distributions according to the precepts of the theory (cause). In so doing, variations from the model have been interpreted by relaxing one or more of the simplifying conditions assumed by von Thfinen. Here an attempt is made to work in the Opposite direction: an area with landscape character- istics sufficiently similar to the conditions implied in the theory has been selected and a determination of the type of land use pattern which has actually developed is made. By using this approach, it should be possible to suggest the major areas of accord and the significant differences between an actual intensity pattern and the theoretical model. Assuming for the moment that Uruguay's physical and cultural land- scape forms the perfectly isotropic surface envisioned by von Thfinen and that the agricultural land use pattern conforms precisely to the theoretical model he suggested, Montevideo would be surrounded by four arcs of decreasing intensity. Initially the city would be surrounded by an arc of horticultural production and truck farming extending from southern Canelones on the east to San José on the west. Here labor and technical inputs would be higher than anywhere else in the 209 country and the crops produced bulky or highly perishable. The second zone would be occupied by dairying to supply the Montevideo market. Production of bulkier, more perishable liquid milk products would be located on the southern edge of this zone while cheese and other indus- trialized.milk products, which better withstand transportation, would be found on the northern fringe. This zone would extend from eastern Canelones and western Maldonado, through southern Lavalleja and Florida, into western San José and Colonia. Next would come a band of cereals, stretching from western Maldonado into Paysandfi, which would include an area of yearly cereal production nearest the market and cereals-livestock combinations along its outer margin. The final zone, occupying the northern and eastern half of the country, would be devoted to stock raising with the relatively more intensive management systems along the inner margin of the zone and the more extensive production types situated along the northern borders of the nation. Since two of the simplifying conditions posed by von Thfinen have been relaxed to meet realities of the Uruguayan landscape, a zonal pattern of arcs or semi-circles centering on Montevideo should not be anticipated. Rather, because the best soils in the nation and the most efficient transportation infrastructure are located in the southwest and west, the several theoretical agricultural zones should be skewed or weighted to the west. Therefore, ldbes of more intensive land uses should extend westward along the areas of better soils. To the east, relatively infertile soils and poor transport facilities should deter more intensive land uses, thus further supporting the westward shift of land use zones. 210 By incorporating the relaxed assumptions and using the actual acreage dedicated to horticulture and truck farming, dairying, cereals production, and stock raising, a model of general land use intensity can be constructed (Figure 22). In the zone closest to Montevideo, comprising roughly 5 per cent of the national territory, the most intensive agricultural land uses should occur. Ideally they will surround the capital in an arc slightly, but notoverly, skewed to the west, as a well develOped transport network and soils of high fertility extend both east and west of the city in the area needed for horticultural crops and market gardening. A dairy zone should occur next, extending in a narrow arc from Canelones to San José and Colonia. This zone should be elongated toward the west because of better soils. The third zone, of cereals, should occupy the more fertile soils in the western quarter of the country and extend northward into Paysandfi as well as eastward into portions of Lavalleja, Durazno, Florida, and Flores. This model groups Uruguayan agriculture into four intensity classes and provides a fairly logical generalization of land use. At this level of generalization, however, it is impossible to define the separate agricultural regions and difficult to envision details of location or actual variations in land use intensities. The model, therefore, must be compared with the actual land use pattern to determine what similarities and differences exist between them. 211 3.! . . . - 4 oo. oo o 82320: n. . r 4b . ... law: H43. .m .. _ -92.-.. 2 ....L 5% .....43. .3 a mum<40 mm: 02¢... J§O< $25.41 100.5 >~ m4¢.3fl 02.2.44... xgmh a mus-#432501 .— 82,28: ...... ........ ......... I. OIII000000- ....... 820 £2.25 3 as: I\|.| Juno: Zuzaxb 20> mmmmjo 44:54 .2 .599- tux—.2» 30> use—hgfifiafio m». =5 3.3.32.0: >§¢3 FIGURE 22 212 Present Land Use and the Model A comparison of the actual land use characteristics and the von Thfinen model for the country should provide useful insights into the theory's relevance to understanding agricultural land use distributions. It is possible, for example, that von Thfinen's hypothesis is applicable at one level of generalization but of only limited utility at another. To estimate the extent of agreement between the theory and reality in the Uruguayan case, it becomes necessary to analyze the similarities and differences between the theoretical model and present land use conditions. Such comparisons must be made for both the aggregated intensity classes and for the actual land use regions if an idea is to be gained of the theory's applicability at different levels of abstraction. Similarities Between the Model and Reality When Uruguay's seven agricultural regions are grouped into the four intensity classes defined in the model (horticulture and market gardening, dairying, cereals production, and stock raising), there is considerable accord between the model and the actual generalized distribution of land use intensity. From the model someone completely ignorant of agricultural land use distributions in Uruguay would receive a useful overall impression of how the intensity of land use varies spatially in the country. First, there is a zone of horticulture and market gardening surrounding the capital as suggested in the model. This zone is more or less uniformly distributed around Montevideo, 213 reflecting the rather homogeneous soil conditions apparent on either side of the city. Second, a zone of dairying occurs, although it is located only to the north and west of the capital. No dairying is found to the east as might be anticipated in the model, but this is a relatively minor detail. The cereals zone occupies nearly all of western Uruguay and extends northward into Salto, much as occurred in the model. Only a small part of south—central Uruguay is occupied by either cereals or a cereals-livestock combination, although the model suggests that considerably more of the area would give over to such activities. The model is fairly accurate in describing the sequence of land use intensity to the west, but falters somewhat in the east (Figure 22). At this level of generalization, however, only a simpli- fied idea of land use distributions is presented. Pedagogically, such a description might prove useful. For purposes of constructing the model, it was convenient to group the nation's land use regions into four intensity classes, whereas seven agricultural regions exist on the basis of crop-livestock combi- nations and intensity of production. In order of decreasing land use intensity these regions are (l) the Orchard-Vineyard Region, (2) the Intensive Crop Production Region, (3) the Dairy Region, (h) the Cereals Region, (5) the Cereals-Livestock Region, (6) the Cattle Grazing Region, and (7) the Extensive Sheep Grazing Region. When analyzing the location of these individual regions as compared with the model, some accord exists between intensity of land use and distance from Montevideo. The Orchard—Vineyard Region, for example, is directly north of the capital, 21h although not to the east or west of it. Surrounding the urban market is the Intensive Crop Production Region which extends east and west of the city about an equal distance. The Dairy Region is skewed to the west, being located north and west of the capital. The milkshed area of the Dairy Region is closer to Montevideo while the cheese producing area is somewhat more distant, much as the theory implies. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the latter region does not extend eastward around Montevideo, and other similar locational details, the general sequence of land use in these three regions corresponds rather well to what might be theoretically anticipated. Such variations as do exist probably cannot be explained in terms of differences in soil fertility, although transportation efficiency may provide an explanation for them. The locations of the remaining regions, however, do not appear to relate particularly well to the precepts of the theory. Deviations from the Model Despite the considerable agreement between actual land use intensities and the von Thunen model at a general level, there are significant deviations even here. Aside from the area of horticulture and market gardening, no other region of intensive production extends eastward from Montevideo. As one travels east from the capital, he passes from the zone of highest intensity directly into the zone of least intensity (stock raising). Rather than the elongated westerly lobes envisioned in the model, the actual land use pattern more closely corresponds to a band extending from Montevideo to the northwest, upon which intensities of land use decrease with increasing distance. 215 Although partially a response to more fertile soils, the magnitude of variation from the model is too great for meaningful explanation within the framework of the theory. Additionally, aggregating land use regions into intensity classes masks very real differences in the location of the various activities in relation to intensity and distance from market, thus somewhat distorting actual conditions. If the country's agricultural regions are viewed individually, their distributional pattern defies description in terms of Thfinenian logic. At this level of generalization, the Orchard-Vineyard and Inten- sive CrOp Production Regions conform fairly well to what should in theory occur, in that they essentially encircle the central city. The location of the Dairy Region, north and west of Montevideo, can probably be explained on the basis of differences in transport efficiency. But each of the remaining regions form roughly southeast—northeast bands, largely unrelated to distance from the capital. For example, the Cereals Region extends from the southwest corner of Colonia to southern Salto, while on its east the Cereals-Livestock Region stretches from northern Florida to northern Salto. The latter region is in turn bordered by the Extensive Sheep Grazing Region, which occupies almost all of west-central and much of southeastern Uruguay, whereas the more Intensive Cattle Grazing Region is situated in the extreme northern and eastern parts of the nation. As a result, sheep grazing is located less than seventy-five miles from Montevideo while cereals are grown as far as 300 miles from the capital. The Cereals—Livestock Region is much closer to market than the Cereals Region, and sheep production in the 216 east and central portions of the country is more advantageously located in terms of market than is beef production. Even if consideration is given to variations in soil fertility and transportation infrastructure, such a distribution of land uses cannot be easily explained within the context of the von Thfinen theory. Causes for the Variations Several factors may be responsible for variations between actual land use patterns and the von Thfinen model. Among these, differences in soil fertility have the greatest impact upon the location of agri- cultural land uses. Other factors, such as the limited use of modern technical inputs, traditional settlement patterns, and alternate market competition may also be relevant considerations. Differences in soil fertility appear to be causally related to deviations between actual land use intensities and what might be anticipated theoretically. This relationship can be seen in two ways. Within a radius of approximately forty miles from Montevideo, soils conditions are essentially uniform. In this area land use intensities conform fairly well to what is expected using a von Thfinen model. Elsewhere, the intensity of land use seems to vary according to edaphic conditions rather than with distance from market or other factors. Cereals production is found on the better soils of the western littoral and areas of extensive sheep ranching are associated with superficial soils, regardless of their location. This co-variance is by no means complete, but four of the nation's seven major land use regions form 217 northwest—southeast bands, roughly approximating the general distributions of major soils groups. The influence of soils distribution may strongly affect Uruguay's land use intensity pattern because of the limited use of technical inputs, particularly chemical fertilizers. Where a higher level of agricultural technology is practiced, inherent soil fertility should have less impact upon the intensity pattern of land use as chem- ical fertilizers can be used to compensate for natural differences in nutrient levels. It seems logical to expect that the distribution of various types of agricultural systems will respond more strongly to edaphic considerations in nations with low levels of farm technology than in countries employing modern technical inputs on a large scale. Therefore, it may be realistic to expect a more uniform ordering of land use intensities in the advanced agricultural nations than in Uruguay. In addition to having superior soil characteristics, western Uruguay may be characterized by more intensive agricultural land use than other parts of the country because of the historical settlement process. The majority of German, Swiss, and other western Europeans (imbued with the ethics of hardwork, sacrifice, and sobriety), who were probably better trained and better educated than most southern European immi- grants, settled in southwestern Uruguay. These settlers were perhaps more receptive to adOpting new crOps, farming methods, and other innovations suited to their environment. Although the original locational advantage of the area was fertile soils, resultant settlement by relatively progressive farmers further increased the comparative advantage of agricultural production in the 218 southwest. On the other hand, southern Europeans dominated the settlement of rural areas elsewhere and may have been less innovative. The original distribution of lands into large estancias, which occurred prior to independence, has also undoubtedly affected land use intensities. In the northeastern corner of Uruguay is an island of relatively intensive land use with respect to distance from the Montevideo market. This area of cattle production is a response to alternate market compe- tition provided by Brazilian beef buyers. A significant portion of this part of the Cattle Grazing Region is probably in the market area of Part0 Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul. Comments on Theory and Reality With renewed emphasis geographers are dedicating more of their time and effort to testing old theories and developing new ones. In general, these endeavors are worthwhile and can lead to important advances in the discipline. But the role of theory must be kept in perspective or a possibility exists that the construction of theoretical models can become an end in itself. Geography is in an unenviable position among the academic disci- plines in relation to theory. Few geographic theories have been developed over the years, particularly in the areas of cultural geo— graphy. As a result, geography as an academic field is frequently 8A common derisive term used to characterize ignorant rural bump— kins in Uruguay is gallego. Gallegos are settlers from the Spanish province of Galicia known for their general lack of intelligence and stodgy mannerisms. 219 accused of being "unscientific" or too descriptive, much as history is considered subjective and constantly subject to revision. The geogra- pher's prOblem stems from the goal of geography, understanding and inter- preting the spatial patterns of man and his environment. In essence, when geographers present theories, which by their very nature are absolute, they are attempting to synthesize total reality. Many geo- graphers seem intrigued and captivated by the challenge. Other than in the realm of physical geography, however, the discipline has produced few theories that have endured. Could it be that there is no way to synthesize the kinds of prOblems to which geographers address themselves? In the physical sciences certain reactions are elicited when specific variables interact. It is possible to control such reactions and to precisely measure their effect time after time, predicting their outcome and impact. Likewise, natural scientists can theoretically test and control Specific phenomena and, although somewhat less precisely than physical scientists, predict the results with a high degree of accuracy. Social scientists, on the other hand, attempt to study and predict what will occur when completely heterogeneous factors react upon each other. Statistical methods enable an analyst to estimate the probabilities of a specific outcome, given certain characteristics of a population. When working with a single variable, such as political behavior, such techniques are quite useful. But geographers attempt to understand the sum total of a prOblem, and generalization or prediction therefore becomes tenuous. 220 A basic problem facing geographers is that few phenomena co-vary sufficiently well through space to allow for meaningful generalization. Two tendencies have thus developed in the discipline. First, geogra- phers tend to state generalities as generalizations rather than as laws or theories. These generalizations have been formulated to serve as guideposts to understanding spatial distributions. The second trend followed by theoretical geographers, and the more popular of late, is to introduce limiting assumptions so that certain factors can be held constant. All physical and cultural characteristics of an area may, for example, be assumed to be homogeneous in a given theory. The major disadvantage of limiting assumptions is that they may simplify reality to such a degree that it is difficult to reconstruct real world con- ditions so that the theory can be empirically tested. The theory thus becomes an instrument which cannot be used to approximate reality. With specific reference to the von Thfinen model, it may be that a valid and useful generalization concerning the areal differentation of agricultural land use intensities is cloaked in the guise of theory. Von Thfinen's hypothesis of decreasing intensity of land use with increasing distance from a central place is almost a truism, and one that nearly everyone has observed personally when driving from any large city into the countryside. Few would dispute the validity or logic of such a statement. At a certain level of generalization, however, the theory breaks down. Differences in soil fertility, integration and efficiency of the transportation network, climatic conditions, 221 or any number of other factors, can introduce hopeless complexity into land use patterns which cannot be explained by the thesis. Perhaps von Thfinen presented a valid theory, but one extremely difficult to test empirically. Or, perhaps Chisholm is correct in his assertation that von Thfinen presented no theory at all, but a method for analyzing land use intensities over space. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Uruguay, smallest of the South American republics, is an agri- cultural nation with less than 3 million inhabitants. It is known throughout Latin America for its democratic traditions, high standard of living, and excellent soccer teams. More recently, however, economic turmoil and urban guerrilla activity have brought the nation to the attention of the world. This recent interest in Uruguay, induced by internal difficulties, has demonstrated the lack of useful information available concerning the country and its problems. Its small size, comparatively homogeneous physical characteristics, and previous lack of social or political friction have combined to make Uruguay largely "invisible" to researchers interested in the Latin American region. Although the unique political system has drawn some interest, other aspects of Uruguayan life have been essentially ignored by English- speaking social scientists. Agriculture, in particular, reflects this general lack of interest, as few definitive studies have been conducted either in Spanish or English on this crucial aspect of national life. Summagy Agricultural land use practices and the land use pattern have played a vital role in Uruguay's historical development. The present 222 223 social and economic crisis stems, to a large degree, from the stagnation of agricultural production which, in turn, has affected all other segments of the economy. Many of the nation's social ills can be traced directly to economic problems. Changes in the land use pattern and stimulation of agricultural productivity will, therefore, be necessary to surmount the social and economic difficulties presently challenging the nation's viability. The geographic characteristics of agricultural land use in Uruguay are examined in this study. Four distinctive yet integrally related factors comprise the problem analyzed: (1) determination of the existing pattern of agricultural land use and the division of the nation into agricultural land use regions; (2) evaluation of the general economic rationality of the distributional pattern given the physical setting and cultural preferences of the population; (3) analysis of probable future trends in the agricultural land use pattern and the means to bring about beneficial changes; and (h) empirical testing of the von Thfinen hypothesis of agricultural land use distributions. The objectives sought within the framework of the research are to provide a general descriptive analysis of modern Uruguay, to analyze the causal factors responsible for the present agricultural land use distributions, and to combine applied and theoretical geographic research. The research provides basic information which has not previously been readily avail- able to geographers, while showing the symbiotic relationship between applied and theoretical research. 22h On the basis of land use intensity, cr0p combinations, and live- stock densities, seven agricultural regions can be identified. There are three land use regions in which crop cultivation exceeds livestock in importance. In each region a distinctive set of crop combinations or agricultural systems dominates. The Orchard-Vineyard Region, located in juxtaposition with Montevideo, is the most intensively farmed region of the country. It is characterized by grape production in combination with horticultural and truck crops, intensively managed small farms, and relatively high levels of manual and technical inputs. The Intensive Crop Production Region provides the bulk of Uruguay's truck, horticultural, and corn production, plus a sizable proportion of its hog and avicultural products. It surrounds the capital and is best described as a region of intensively managed mixed farming. The Cereals Region is Uruguay's largest and most extensive cropping region, extending along the southwestern and western littoral for over 200 miles. More than three-fourths of the nation's grains and oilseeds are produced in the region on moderately large and extensively managed farms. Technical inputs are limited and yields low by international standards. Livestock, particularly cattle, are an integral part of the agricultural system in the Cereals Region, but their relative importance is considerably less than cereals production. Uruguay has two regions of crOp—livestock activities. The more intensive land use characteristics are associated with the Dairy Region of southern Uruguay. The predominant feature of this region is dairying, although substantial 225 acreages are dedicated to wheat, corn, and forage crop production as well. Most of the crops are used as fodder for dairy cattle, but sig-. nificant quantities of non—dairy produce, such as wheat, are also marketed. The Cereals-Livestock Region, along the eastern margin of the Cereals Region, has the densest livestock concentrations in the nation and is also an important cereals production area. Much more of this transitional region was once planted to wheat but has since been converted to artificial pastures, giving the region a significantly higher animal carrying capacity than other livestock areas. The tech- nical level of livestock production is also more intensive here than in the pure grazing regions. Uruguay's agricultural landscape is dominated by extensive stock grazing, which occupies over two-thirds of the national territory. Two distinct regions are identifiable on the basis of livestock ratios. The largest is the Extensive Sheep Grazing Region, which extends through central Uruguay from the north— west border to the Atlantic coast. Large, extensively managed estancias (averaging over 1,200 acres) dominate this, the least inten- sively utilized agricultural land use region of Uruguay. Most of eastern Uruguay is occupied by the Cattle Grazing Region. The ranches are significantly smaller than those of the sheep producing area and are somewhat more intensively managed. Intensification of production techniques is spreading within the region. Three major categories of factors are causally linked to the spatial pattern of agricultural land use. Of these, physical factors are of major importance. Differences in soil fertility have the 226 greatest impact on crop and livestock distributions, as the nation's agricultural land use regions (with the exception of the intensive crOpping regions surrounding Montevideo) form roughly north-south trending bands. These correspond, in broad outline, to the major soils groups. Climatic variations affect the location of some crops, such as sugar cane, as well as the general intensity of agricultural pro- duction. Periods of floods and droughts have been experienced in each decade since the 1880's. Producers have consequently sought to reduce the cost of such natural disasters through extensive land use practices. Of the cultural factors affecting land use, population distribution is most significant. The market attraction of Montevideo is primarily responsible for the location of the intensive production regions in the southern part of the nation, while the absence of population and market centers elsewhere has encouraged extensive grazing activities. The market influence of Brazil is demonstrated by the concentration of cattle along the northeastern border area. The general character of agriculture may be partially a response to cultural perception, or the way in which Uruguayans view various types of farming and ranching activities. Cattle and sheep ranching are considered gentlemanly pursuits of high social prestige, unsullied by the manual labor charac- teristic of other types of agricultural production, and are therefore favored agricultural activities. Differences in transportation infra- structure reinforce the existing intensity pattern of land use by I favoring those regions with better transportation facilities through 227 lower transport costs while disadvantaging regions with less efficient transport. The third category, institutional factors, also affect agricultural land use distributions. Regressive taxation policies, in the form of import-export taxes, tend to reduce producers' incentives to invest in modernization of agriculture by reducing profits while simultaneously increasing the costs of technical inputs. subsidies, on the other hand, have been responsible for the expansion of acreages in a number of crOps, including wheat, sugar cane, and sugar beets. Without such subsidies, acreages dedicated to many crops would decrease markedly. Agricultural price policies have generally tended to suppress investment incentives in the livestock sector, contributing to the maintenance of an extensive character of livestock production. Several trends, past and present, are discernible in Uruguay's agricultural land use characteristics. Agriculture is presently best characterized as stagnant in terms of land use distributions, value of total production, and crop composition. This stagnation can be viewed as a trend, although a negative one, as it has been in effect for the past two decades. Few significant changes have occurred in farming and ranching techniques during this period which would permit a greater intensity of production or bring about significant changes in the land use pattern. Total value of agricultural output has remained essen- tially unchanged, few new technical inputs have been adopted on a large scale, no new crops have been introduced, and there has been almost no variation in the proportion of area dedicated to crops and grazing activities. Prior to agriculture's stagnation, Uruguayan ranchers 228 were able to capture a significant share of the world wool market, roughly 5 per cent by the 1930's, but their relative share of interna- tional wool exports has since dropped to only half its previous level. Between l9h5 and 1955 a push was made to achieve self-sufficiency in foodstuffs. This goal was reached, but the crOp sector has also stag- nated since the late 1950's. Two trends are currently developing which will affect Uruguay's land use pattern in the future. First, the number of farm holdings of two and one-half acres or more is decreasing. The number of holdings has fallen from some 89,000 in 1956 to slightly more than 77,000 in 1971. Land holding classes between 2,500 and 12,500 acres are increasing while the number of smaller holdings is being reduced through consolidation. Second, and most significant, is the increasing importance of beef cattle in ranching systems. Landowners, well aware of the declining profitablility of sheep ranching, have begun to convert their stock composition more strongly toward beef cattle. The shift toward higher value beef products for export will probably continue and be accompanied by intensified production tech- niques. Because agriculture serves as the motor which drives the entire Uruguayan economy, its stagnation is largely responsible for the country's current state of being. The strictly physical possibilities for increasing agricultural output, through the use of modern technical inputs, appears to be enormous when compared with present levels of production. However, a number of social and institutional restrictions have precluded such changes. Elimination of these cultural and 229 institutional obstacles is an absolute necessity if Uruguay is to modernize the sector and resolve its current social and economic crisis. Modifications of tax structures and price policy, increased research and extension, and develOpment of a greater equilibrium among investment opportunities are needed if producers are to be encouraged to invest in agriculture. Such modifications, which seem relatively simple in theory, can be brought about only through long-term, concentrated govern- ment effort. Most previous empirical analyses of the von Thunen theory have started with an agricultural land use pattern approximating concentric rings and then attempted to explain such distributions according to the precepts of the theory. Here, an attempt is made to work in the Oppo- site direction. An area with landscape characteristics sufficiently similar to conditions implied in the theory has been selected and a determination is made of the type of land use pattern which has actually develOped. Uruguay possesses a physical and cultural landscape sufficiently similar to that projected in the von Thfinen theory to make an empirical comparison of its agricultural land use pattern and a von Thunen-type model worthwhile. Its agricultural producers react in a fairly rational manner in their economic behavior, agricultural output is almost entirely consumed or exported through domestic channels, and Montevideo acts as the marketing center for an enormous percentage of surplus farm pro- duction and as the source for nearly all technical inputs used in agriculture. The settlement pattern and population composition are 230 similar to those theorized by von Thunen, and tOpographic and climatic conditions are quite uniform. Although soil fertility and transpor- tation infrastructure show considerable spatial variation, it is possible to explain them by minor relaxations of the theory's simplifying assump— tions. Comparison of actual land use characteristics with a von Thunen model for the country shows considerable accord between the model and general intensity classes of agricultural land use, but if individual land use regions are considered separately their distribution deviates significantly from the model. When the agricultural regions are grouped into the four intensity classes defined in the model (horticulture and market gardening, dairying, cereals production, and stock raising) someone completely unfamiliar with agricultural land use distributions in Uruguay would receive a fairly useful impression of how the intensity of land use varies spatially by referring to the von Thunen model. At this level of generalization, however, only a simplified idea of land use regions conform to what is anticipated in the von Thfinen hypothesis. The remaining regions form roughly southeast-northwest bands, largely unrelated to distance from Montevideo. Even if consideration is given to variation in soil fertility and transportation infrastructure, such a distribution of land uses cannot be easily explained within the context of the von Thunen hypothesis. 231 Conclusions This research has presented a detailed analysis of Uruguay's agricultural land use pattern and the major causal factors responsible for the spatial arrangement of agricultural activities. In addition, it has analyzed the general economic rationality of the land use pattern and outlined past and present land use trends. Suggestions have been made concerning the major obstacles facing modernization of the agricultural sector and for means of surmounting them. Also, the von Thunen theory of agricultural land use distributions has been empirically compared with Uruguay's existing land use pattern. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the data employed in the study: 1) On the basis of crOp combinations, livestock densities, and intensity of management systems, Uruguay presents seven distinctive agricultural land use regions. These include three intensive crop production regions, two mixed crop-livestock regions, and two grazing regions. The core of each region is easily distinguishable in the field. 2) A variety of physical and cultural factors is causally related to the spatial pattern of land use. Of these, soils and popu- lation distributions play key roles in influencing land use distributions. 3) Given the physical characteristics of the country and the basic cultural preferences of Uruguayan landowners, the pattern of agricultural land use is rational in a general economic sense. Farming and ranching methods are extensive, with only a limited use of modern technical inputs, and a much higher level of produc— tivity is possible. Yet, the spatial distribution and intensity characteristics of land use appear rational when alternate invest— ment opportunities elsewhere in the economy are considered. A) Agricultural land use in Uruguay will continue to be dominated by livestock ranching in the foreseeable future. Cattle will increase in relative importance in livestock management systems and intensification of production methods will result through government sponsored pasture and livestock improvement programs. 232 5) Government will need to take an even more active role in encouraging producers to adopt modern technical inputs in their farming and ranching systems. This can be accomplished through positive incentives, such as replacement of import-export taxation with graduated taxes or subsidy and price policy changes, and negative incentives, particularly some form of productivity taxation on agricultural land. 6) Removing the institutional obstructions to increased agri— cultural productivity will be a difficult and lengthy process. Uruguayan agricultural production cannot be overhauled in a few months or even a few years. Patience and perseverance are needed and must be maintained. 7) Structural changes will be difficult to implement in the economic, political, or social systems because the established structures reflect certain perceived values of Uruguayan society. Change can probably be more readily achieved through the modi- fication of existing institutional structures than through the creation of new ones. 8) Increased agricultural productivity can lead Uruguay away from its present economic crisis. The nation's primary source of wealth is its agricultural potential. A more efficient use of agricultural resources can allow Uruguayans to regain the highest standards of living, the greatest prosperity, and the most stable social conditions in Latin America. If the agricultural potential is not more fully developed, Uruguay will continue to suffer from economic, social, and political unrest. 9) At a generalized level, the von Thfinen hypothesis of agri- cultural land use distribution is applicable to Uruguay's land use pattern. The theory's utility decreases as greater detail is sought. It is hoped that this research can serve as a take—off point for future discussions of the spatial aspects of agriculture in Uruguay. If the study has practical utility to development planners, the author will be highly gratified for being able to help, in some small way, a country which he has come to love. BIBLIOGRAPHY £9259. Alisky, Marvin, Uruguay: A Contemporary;Survey. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969. Ares Pons, Roberto, Uruguay en el siglo XIX. Montevideo: Rio de la Plata, 1965. Barlowe, Raleigh, Land Resource Economics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1958. l ’ - . Barran, José P., and Benjam1n Nahum, Bases economicas de la revoluc16n Artiguista. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 196A. . Historia rural del Uruguay moderno, 1851-1885. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1967. Beckmann, Martin, Location Theory. New York: Random House, 1968. Benvenuto, Luis Carlos, Breve historia del Uruguay. Montevideo: Area, 1967. Bernhard, Guillermo, Hacia una economia nacional de carnes. Monte- video: Editores Aguilar e Irazabal, 1959. . Uruguay en el mundo de la carne. Montevideo: Area, 1967. . La producci6n agropecuaria en Uruguay, Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1958. . Nuestra industria frigorifica, Ltiene futuro?. Montevideo: Nativa Libros, 1968. . Nuestro produccién agropecuaria a través de los censos. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1969. . Los monopolios y_1a industria frigorifica. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1970. Bossi, Jorge, Geologia del Uruguay. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica,Departamento de Publicaciones, 1966. 233 23h Brannon, Russell H., The Agricultural Development of Uruguay. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968. Brinkmann, Theodor, Theodor Brinkmann's Economics of the Farm Business. Translated by E. T. Benedict. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1935. Bruschera, O. H., Losgpartidos tradicionales. Montevideo: Rio de la Plata, 1967. Buchell, Mario, Reformas estructurales. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, 196A. Campal, Esteban, Hombres, tierras, y ganados. Montevideo: Area, 1967. Campiglia, Nestor, Los grupos de presi6n y elgprocesso politico. Montevideo: Arca, 1969. Chebataroff, Jorge, Tierra uruguaya. Montevideo: Libreria Tallares Don Bosco, 1960. . Geggrafia econ6mica y estructura economica nacional. Montevideo: Centro de Estudiantes de Ciencias Econ6micas y Administracién, 196A. Chisholm, Michael, Rural Settlement and Land Use. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1962. Dunn, E. S., The Location of Agricultural Production. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press, 195A. Eicher, Carl and Lawrence Witt, (Eds.), Agriculture in Economic Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 196A. Faraone, Roque, E1 Uruguay en que vivimos, 1900—1968. Montevideo: Arca, 1968. FarOppa, Luis, Desarrollo economico del Uruguay. Montevideo: Arca, 1965- . Israel Wonsewer, Roman Oxman, and Alberto Tisnes, Possi- bilidades y perspectivas de una programacion para el desarrollo econ6mico de la economia del Uruguay, Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas y Administra- ci6n, Instituto de Teoria y Politica Economica, 1960. Fierro Vignoli, Pablo, Uruguay: Agroestructuras. Montevideo: El Siglo Illustrado,—I967. 235 Fletcher, Lehman B., and William C. Merrill, Latin American Agri- cultural Development and Policies. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, Monograph 8, Department of Economics, 1968. Fitzgibbon, Russell H., Uruguay: Portrait of a Democracy. London: George Allen 8 Unwin, 1956. Frick Davie, Carlos, LCual reforma agraria?. Montevideo: Barreiro y Ramos, S. A., 1—8h. Gomez, Eugenio, Los grandes problemas de la economia nacional. Montevideo: Editorial America, l9h5. Gonzalez, Jesus, Obstéculos al desarrollo rural. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, 196A. Gonzalez Penelas, Walter, El Uruguayny su sombra: Tierra y miseria. Montevideo: Ediciones Ciudadela, 1969. Hall, Peter (Ed.), Von Thfinen's Isolated State. Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1968. Hanson, Simon G., Utopia in Uruguay. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. Hartshorne, Richard, Perspectives on the Nature of Geography. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1959. Heady, E. 0., Agricultural PolicypUnder Economic DevelOpment. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1962. Hirschman, Albert 0. (Ed.), Latin American Issues: Essays and Comments. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1961. Hoover, Edgar M., The Location of Economic Activity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19h8. Iglesias, Enrique V., Capitalizacién interna en_paises subdesarrollados: El caso del Uruguay. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Economia y Administracion, Instituto de Teoria y Politica Econ6mica, 1959. . El balance monetario del Uruguay, Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Economia y Administracién, Instituto de Teoria y Politica Economica, 1959. Instituto de Ciencias Sociales, Uruguay: Poder, ideologia y clases sociales. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, 1970. 236 Instituto de Economia, E1 proceso economico del Uruguay, Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas, 1969. . Uruguay: Estadisticas basicas. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Ciencias Econ6micas y Administracién, 1969. Instituto de Economia Agraria, La cuenca lechera de Montevideo. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Agronomia, 1968. Instituto de Estudios Politicos para América Latina, Uruguay; Un pais sin problemas en crisis. Montevideo: IEPAL-Editorial Estela, S. A., 1967. Isard, Walter, Location and Space Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1956. James, Preston E., Latin America, hth Edition. New York: Odyssey Press, 1969. Koebel, W. H., Urugu y. New York: Schribner's, 1911. Lewis, W. Arthur, The Theory of Economic Growth. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1955. . Development Planning: The Essentials of Economic Policy. New York: Harper and Row, 1986. Lfisch, A., The Economics of Location. Translated by W. H. Woglom. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, l95h. Martinez Lamas, Julio, Riqueza y pobreza del Uruguay, Montevideo: Palacio del Libro, 1930. . Economia uruguaya. Montevideo: Claudio Garcia y Cia, 19h3. Mellor, John W., Tue Economics of Agricultural Development. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1969. Montafies, Maria Teresa, Desarrollo de la agriculture en el Uruguay, Montevideo: Tallares Gréficos Rural, 19h8. Mosher, A. T., Gettiug Agriculture Moving, New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1986: Newman, P. C., The Development of Economic Thought. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1952. 237 Nourse, Hugh 0., Regional Economics. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1968. Oddone, J. A., La emigracién eur0peo a1 rio de la Plata. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1966. . La inmigracion en la formacion del Uruguay moderno. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 1968, Oxman, Ram6n, Transportes en el Uruguay, situacién actual y perspec- tivas. Montevideo: Universidad de la Republica, Facultad de Economia y Administracion, 1961. Pendle, George, Uruguay, South America's First Welfare State. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1952. Pérez Garcia, Armado, Producci6n lechera en el Uruguay, Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas, 1960. Porta, Eliseo, Uruguay: Realidadry reforma agraria. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1961. Quijano, Carlos, La reforma agraria en el Uruguay. Montevideo: Rio de la Plata, 196A. Rama, Carlos, Los problemas agrarios en el Uruguay contemporéneo. Montevideo: Centro Lationoamericano de Investigaciones en Ciencias Sociales, 1968. Reyes Abadie, Washington, Oscar H. Bruschera and Tabaré Melongo, La Banda Oriental, pradera,ifrontera, puerto. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1970. Sala de Tour6n, Lucia, Nelson de la Torre, y Julio Rodriguez, Evoluci6n econ6mica de la Banda Oriental. Montevideo: Pueblos Unidos, 1967. . J. della Torre, y Julio Rodriguez, Artigas: Tierra y revoluci6n. Montevideo: Arca, 1968. Schultz, Theodore W., Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 196A. Snyder, David, Regiones metropolitanas nodulares deupasajeros. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Arquitec- tura, 1962. Solari, Aldo, Sociologia rural nacional. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Derecho, 1958. 238 . E1 desarrollo social del Uruguay en la postguerra. Monte- video: Arca, 1967. . Nestor Campiglia, and German Wettstein, Uruguay en cifras. Montevideo: Universidad de la Republics, Departamento de Publicaciones, 1966. Sosa, Sonia, Samuel Iusim, and German Wettstein, Paso de 1as Flores. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Departamento de Publicaciones, 1968. Suarez, Juan Carlos, Contra todos para bien de todos: Aspectos de la realidad economica del Uruguay. Montevideo: Imprenta E1 Die, 1966 . Taylor, Phillip G., Gavernment and Politics in Uruguay. New Orleans: Tulane Studies in Political Science, Vol. VII, Tulane University Press, 1960. Trias, Vivian, E1 imperialismo en el rio de la Plata. Buenos Aires: Coyoacan, 1960. Vésquez Varini, Felipe S., Formaci6n economica del Uruguay. Monte- video: Escuela—Imprenta Don Orione, 1971. Vicario, Luis, El crecimiento urbano de Montevideo. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 1968. Von Thunen, Johann Heinrich, Der isolierte staat in beziehung auf landwirtschaft und nationalekonomies. Rostock, 1826. Wald, Haskell, Tributaci6n de tierras agricolas en economies sub— desarrolladas. México: Cia. General de Ediciones, S. A., 196A. Waterson, Albert, Development Planning, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 196A. Wonsewer, Israel, Enrique V. Iglesias, Mario Buchelli, and Luis A. Faroppa, Aspectos de la industrializacién en el Uruguay, Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Facultad de Ciencias Econ6micas y Administracién, 1959. Yudelman, Montague, Agricultural Development in Latin America: Current Status and Prospects. Washington, D. C.: Inter-American Development Bank, 1968. Zum Felde, Alberto, Pgoceso hist6rico del Uruguay. Montevideo: Universidad de la Repfiblica, Departamento de Publicaciones, 1963. 239 Articles Baklanoff, Eric N., "Notes on the Pathology of Uruguay's Welfare State." Mississippi Valley Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. A (String. 1967). Boulaine, J., "Les sols de 1'Uruguay." Cah. ORSTOM, VI (1968). Brannon, Russell H., "Low Investment Levels in Uruguayan Agriculture: Some Tentative Explanations." Land Economics, XLV (August, 1969). Brown, Lester R., "Discussion: Production Problems and Issues in Agricultural Development." Journal of Farm Economics, A8 (December, 1966). Browning, Harley L., "Recent Trends in Latin American Urbanization." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 3160(1958). Chebataroff, Jorge, "Rasgos geomorfologicos del territorio uruguayo." Revista Uruguaya de Geografia, 5 (1951). Chisholm, Michael, "Agricultural Production, Location and Rent." Oxford Economic Papers, 13 (1959). Daly, Herman E., "The Uruguayan Economy: Its Basic Nature and Current Problems." Journal of Inter-American Studies, 7 (July, 1965). . "A Brief Analysis of Recent Trade Control Systems." Economic Development and Cultural Change, 15 (April, 1967). . "An Historical Question and Three Hypotheses Concerning the Uruguayan Economy." Inter-American Economic Affairs, 20 (Spring, 1967). Dickinson, Joshua C., III, "Variations on the von Thunen Theme in a Semi—Traditional Society." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Abstract, 57 (1987). Durafiona, Elbio, "Analisis de los aspectos mas importantes de la industria pecuaria." Revista de Economia [Montevideo], 3 (19A7). Dyer, D. R., and R. E. Crist, "Uruguay." Focus, VII (April, 1957). Feder, Ernest, "The Latifundia Puzzle of Professor Schultz: Comment." Journal of Farm Economics, A9 (1967). 2A0 Felix, David, "An Alternative View of the 'Monetarist'—'Structuralist' Controversey." In Albert 0. Hirschman (Ed.), Latin American Issues: Essays and Comments. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1961. Fitzgibbon, Russell H., "Uruguay's Agricultural Problems." Economic Geography, ho (October, 195A). . "Uruguay: Model for Freedom and Reform?" In F. B. Pike (Ed.), Freedom and Reform in Latin America. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959. Friedmann, John R. P., "Locational Aspects of Economic DevelOpment." Land Economics, 32 (1956). Garrison, W. L., "Spatial Structure of the Economy." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, A9 (1959). Gasson, R., "The Influence of Urbanization on Farm Ownership and Practice." Studies in Rural Land Use, 7, Department of Agri- cultural Economics, wye College, 1966. ‘ Gonzalez Penelas, Walter, "E1 problema del rancheria." Boletin Uruguayo de Sociologia, 2 (1962). Grotewold, A., "Von Thfinen in Retrospect." Economic Geogpaphy, 35 (1959). Grunwald, Joseph, "The 'Structuralist' School of Price Stabilization and Economic Development: The Chilean Case." In Albert 0. Hirschman (Ed.), Latin American Issues: Essays and Comments. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1961. Heady, E. 0., "Public Purpose in Agricultural Research and Education. Journal of Farm Economics, A3 (August, 1961). Horvath, Ronald J., "Von Thfinen's Isolated State and the Area Around Addis Ababa, EthiOpia." Annals Of the Association of American Geographers, 59 (June, 1969). Iglesias, Enrique V., "Uruguay: Realidades y perspectivas." Revista Tamas [Montevideo], 7 (1966). Johnson, H. B., "A Note on Thfinen's Circles." Annals of the Associa- tion of American Gepgraphers, 52 (1962). Johnston, Bruce F., and John W. Mellor, "The Role Of Agriculture in Economic Development." American Economic Review, LI (September, 1961). 2A1 Jonasson, 0., "Agricultural Regions of Europe." Economic Geography, 1 (1925). Krzymowski, R., "Graphical Presentation of Thfinen's Theory of Intensity." Translated by P. G. Minneman. Journal of Farm Economics, 10 (1928). Leigh, A. H., "Von Thfinen's Theory of Distribution and the Advent of Marginal Analysis." Journal of Political Economy, 5A (19A9). Lotz, Jorgen R., and Elliott R. Morss, "'Tax Effort' in Developing Countries." Finance and Development, 6 (September, 1969). ’ Melamid, A., "Some Applications of Thfinen's Model in Regional Analysis of Economic Growth." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 1 (1955). Ohlin, B., "Some Aspects of the Theory of Rents: von Thunen vs. Ricardo." In N. E. Himes (Ed.), Economics, Sociology and the Modern WOrld: Essays in Honor of T. N. Carver. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Yale University Press, 1935. Oxman, Ram6n, "Aspectos estructurales basicos de la sociedad uruguaya." Boletin Uruguayo de Sociologia, 8—13 (1968). Predohl, A., "The Theory of Location in its Relation to General Economics." Journal of Political Economy, 36 (1928). Pryor, David J., "Livestock: The Road to Market." Finance and Develppment, 7 (December, 1970). Quijano, Carlos, "La economia uruguaya después de 1as dos guerras." Revista de Economia [Montevideo], AO-AA (1956). Ranis, Gustav and John C. H. Fei, "Innovation, Capital Accumulation and Economic Development." American Economic Review, LIII (June, 1963). Redding, David C., "The Economic Decline of Uruguay." Inter-American Economic Affairs, 20 (Spring, 1967). Rosenquett Gurvich, Bernardo, "La vegetacién del Uruguay." ChrOnica Botanica [Montevideo], 6 (19A1). Schneider, E., "Johann Heinrich von Thunen." Econometrica, 2 (193A). Sinclair, R., "Von Thunen and Urban Sprawl." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 57 (1967). 2A2 Solari, Aldo, "Partidos politicos y grupos de presi6n." Boletin Uruguayo de Sociologia [Montevideo], 6 (1966). Snyder, David E., "Commercial Passenger Linkages and the Metropolitan Nodality of Montevideo." Economic Geography, 38 (April, 1962). . "Urban Places in Uruguay and the Concept of a Hierarchy." Northwestern University Studies in Geography, 2 (1962). Stern, R. M., "The Price Responsiveness Of Primary Producers." Review of Economics and Statistics, XLIV (May, 1962). Troeh, Frederick R., "Noteworthy Features of Uruguayan Soils." Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, 33 (January-February, 1969) . Vera, Raul R., y Dereck T. Chambers, "500 kilos de carne per hectarea." La Estanzuela [La Estanzuela, Uruguay], 5 (April, 1970). . Von Boventer, E., "Towards a United Theory of Spatial Economic Struc— ture." Papers of the Regional Science Assocation, 10 (1963). Public Documents Banco Central del Uruguay, Cuentas nacionales, 1969. Montevideo: Departamento de Investigaciones Econ6micas, 1969. Banco de la Repfiblica Oriental del Uruguay, Aspectos del Uruguay actual. Montevideo: Departamento to Relaciones Pfiblicos, 1970. Beattie, W. A., Informe sobre 1as industrias laneres y lanas del Uruguay. Montevideo: Misi6n Australiana, Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1956. Centro de Estudiantes de Ciencias EconOmicas y Administracién, Plan nacional de desarrollo econ6mico y social, 1965-197A. Montevideo: Escuela—Imprenta Don Orione, 1966. Centro de Investigaciones Agricolas "Alberto Boerger," Trigo. La Estanzuela, Uruguay: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1969. ChristOpherson, R., Recopilacién de la estadistica agropecuaria del Uruguay. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, publicacién 102, 1950. CINAM-Centro Lationoamericano de Economia Humana, Situacién econ6mica y social del Uruguay rural. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 196A. 2143 ComisiOn de Inversiones y Desarrollo Econ6mico, Estudio econ6mico del Uruguay. Montevideo: Centro de Estudiantes de Ciencias Econ6micas, 1963. . Estudio econémico y social de la agricultura en el Uruguay, 2 tomos. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura. Oficina de Programaci6n y Politica Agropecuario, 1967. . Programa de producci6n pecuaria. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Oficina de Programaci6n y Politica AgrOpecuaria, 1966. . Proyectos de leyes deupromocién agropecuario. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Oficina de Programaci6n y Politica Agropecuaria, 1967. . ReestructuraciOn y reorganizaci6n administrativa del Ministerio de Ganaderiapy Agricultura. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Oficina de Programaci6n y Politica Agropecuaria, 1967. de Le6n, Luis, y Oscar L6pez Taborda, Los suelos del Uruguay, su uso y manejo. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Oficina de Programacién y Politica Agropecuaria, 1967. Direcci6n de Economia, Sintesis estadistica de la evoluuiOn agropecuaria del Uruguay en los filtimos aflos. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1962. Direcci6n de Economia Agraria, Censo general agropecuario, 1966. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Departamento de Estadistica, Divisi6n de Censos y Encuesta, 1968. . Censopgeneral agropecuario,196l. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Departamento de Estadistica, Divisi6n de Censos y Encuesta, 1963. . Censo general agropecuario,gl956. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Departamento de Estadistica, Divisi6n de Censos y Encuesta, 1956. Direcci6n de Economia Rural, Analisis estadistica de aspectos de la producci6n lechera. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1959- . Ganado lanar,ianalisis estadistico de lagproduccién y comercializaciOn. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1959. 2AA . Ganado vacuno, anélisis estadistico de lagproduccién y V‘“ comercializacién. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agri- cultura, 1959. DirecciOn General de Estadisticas y Censos, Estadistica retrospectiva del Uruguay. Montevideo: Ministerio de Hacienda, 1961. . Caracteristicas demograficas del Uruguay. Montevideo: Ministerio de Hacienda, 1962. . Uruguay: Anuario estadistico, 1961-1963. Montevideo: Ministerio de Hacienda, 1969. . IV Censo de poblaciOn y II de vivienda. Montevideo: Ministerio de Hacienda, 1969. . Anuario estadistico,afios 196A-1966. Montevideo: Ministerio de Hacienda, 1970. Direcci6n General de Meteorologia, Revista Meteorologia. Montevideo: Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1965. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock in Latin America: Status, Problema, and Prospects. Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Venezuela. New York: The UnitedINations, 1962. Farnworth, Constance H., The Agriculture of Uruguay. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agri- cultural Bulletin No. 3, 1952. Fletcher, Lehman B., and William C. Merrill, Uruguay's Agricultural Sector: Priorities for Policies, Investment Programs, and Projects. Washington, D. C.: Inter-American Development Bank, Papers on Agricultural DevelOpment No. 9, 1970. Food and Agricultural Organization, Agricultural Commodities, Projec- tions for 1975 and 1985. Rome: The United Nations, 1967. International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelOpment and the Food and Agricultural Organization, Agricultural Development of Uruguay. Rome: The United Nations, 1951. Oficina de Programacién y Politics AgrOpecuaria, Situacién y perapec- tivas de la producci6n y comercio de cereales en el Uruguay. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1969. . Algodén: SituaciOn y perspectivas del cultivo en el Uruguay. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1970. 2A5 . Arroz: E1 Uruguay ypla situaciOn actual del mercado mundial. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1970. . Estadisticas bésicas del sector agropecuario. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, 1970. Osaba, W. and N. Amaral, Plan general de inversiones para el desarrollo del sector agricola en el Uruguay. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Direccién de Agronomia, 1959. Pan American Union, Inventory of Information Basic to the Planniug_of Agricultural Development in Latin America: Uruguay, Washington, D. C.: Organization of American States, 196A. Plottier L., y D. Cal, Evolucién de la tenencia de la tierragyjcapi- talizaciOn de 1as exploitaciones agropecuarias. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, DirecciOn de Economia Rural, 1959. . y Jorge Notero, E1 arrendamiento rural en Uruguay, Montevideo: Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas, Zona Sur, 1966. Union Panamericana, Evaluacién de plan nacional de desarrollo econOmico yusocial de la Repfiblica Oriental del Uruguay. Washington, D. C.: OrganizaciOn de Estados Americanos, 1967. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture in Uruguay, Washington, D. C.: Economic Research Service Report 299, 1970. Weis, A., La economia pecuaria del Uruguay, perapectiva de desarrollo. Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia y Agricultura, Direccién de Economia Rural, 1969. Uupublished Materials Banco Central del Uruguay, "Exportaciones cumplidas." Montevideo, 1971. . "Importaciones cumplidas." Montevideo, 1971. Burton, Robert Henderson, "Uruguay: A Study of Arrested Economic Development." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1967. de Silva C., Barbato, "E1 crédito agricola, su situaci6n en la realidad nacional." MOntevideo: Instituto de Teoria y Politica Econ6mica, 1961. (Miemographed.) 2A6 Hiller, Larry K., "The Organization and Programs of the Agrarian Schools of the Universidad del Trabajo del Uruguay." USAID Report, Iowa State University, 1966. Klove, Robert C., "Pastoral and Agricultural Occupance in Uruguay." Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Chicago, 1937. Programa de Estudio y Levantamiento de Suelos, "Soils Study in Uruguay." Montevideo, 1969. (Mimeographed.) . "Uso real de la tierra: conceptos y metodologia de levantamiento." Montevideo, 1969. (Mimeographed.) nICHIan smTE UNIV. LIBRARIES II1llW"“HIWIIWIIW ll"IIWNWNW"W'I 31293103568006