Internal inequalities and external asymmetries (colonialism for some) did not go unnoticed by Latin American social thought. Present in the thinking of Latin American authors of the first half of the 20th century, such as José Carlos Mariátegui (1928), Caio Prado Jr. (1942), and Sérgio Bagú (1949), the concentration of land ownership, restrictions on access to natural resources, mechanisms of exploitation in rural areas, and the availability of inputs and credit—all contributing factors to contemporary inequality—were inescapably influenced by the impact of the Mexican Revolution of the 1910s, although they gained greater relevance on the region's academic agenda after the Second World War, which was itself characterized by the decolonization process in Asia and Africa (FAO, 1969) (Secreto, 2021). It was from that moment that debates, research, and developments on the Latin American agrarian system were revived and took new directions in the aftermath of World War II, in a context characterized by the initiatives of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the impact of the Bolivian Revolution (1952), the measures implemented in Guatemala by Arbenz (1952-1954), and the Cuban Revolution (1959). In the heat of these processes, the problem of agrarian reform was reintroduced into public debate, and even the reformist governments that spread throughout Latin America during this period promoted legislative initiatives aimed at regulating, to varying degrees, access to land (Delgado, 1965; Le Coz, 1976).

In this context, the US government—within the framework of the Cold War—undertook a series of initiatives, such as the Alliance for Progress (1961–1969), which aimed to counter these proposals without altering the fundamental pillars of the capitalist system of production. Thus, a marked contrast emerged between those positions that advocated for the expropriation of large estates and their distribution among the peasantry and those who understood that the solution to the agrarian problem lay in incorporating new technology and providing credit lines to modernize practices and regularize land tenure in order to guarantee increased productivity. Most of the proposals fell within this second perspective (Feder, 1965).

It was precisely during the 1960s and 1970s that issues related to the various facets of the agrarian question took center stage in the research agendas of economists, historians, anthropologists, and sociologists interested in explaining underdevelopment, dependency, class and race relations, and the links between agriculture and capitalism from a historical perspective. In these fields of study, the objective was to decipher the characteristics of Latin American agrarianism. While a Marxist bias predominated in the approaches, this perspective coexisted and interacted with other interpretations. Empirical research and fieldwork revealed a gradient of variations and nuances in the socioeconomic landscape. While external forces could homogenize the situation, internal contexts proved diverse. Original and specific categories emerged in the forms of land "leasing" and the organization of productive units and, based on different conceptual tools, the mosaic of the Latin American agrarian world was constructed (Assadourian et al., 1973).

In 1970, the Economic History Commission of CLACSO met in Lima. It was considered that economic history studies were novel in Latin America and should be promoted. At that Symposium session, it was agreed that at the next one, to be held in Rome in 1972, researchers would concentrate on three themes: 1) haciendas, large estates, ranches, and plantations; 2) historical demography; and 3) the impact of the external sector on the Latin American economy (Florescano, 1975). This is what happened at that meeting, and the results of that fruitful exchange were published in a classic volume that proved to be a fundamental contribution to understanding these issues.

It was in the 1970s and 1980s that the paths diverged in Latin America. While Cuba, Peru, Nicaragua, and El Salvador embarked—with mixed results—on a path of deeper transformation, the rest of the Latin American countries embraced the second path, characterized by the "Green Revolution," which was later reinforced by the wave of dictatorships that swept across the subcontinent (O'Donnell, 1997). Thus, from the 1970s onward, successive agrarian policies, far from improving land distribution, resulted in the displacement of producers, the dismantling of peasant economies, and the strengthening of the latifundist nature of the agrarian structure (Juncal and Cardeillac, 2025; Oberlin, 2021; Bellisario, 2013). These processes paved the way for neoliberalism, which implemented regressive processes of agrarian counter-reforms, primarily through the liberalization of the land market (Vasconcelos, 2020; Remy, 2017).

While it seemed that this offensive had practically shut down debates surrounding agrarian reform, in the heat of this process, various organizations formed that resisted evictions, sought to make their demands heard, and undertook diverse actions to advance their rights to access land. Thus, Indigenous populations, peasant organizations, and heterogeneous groups of capitalized direct producers implemented strategies of confrontation and negotiation that unfolded simultaneously. In this process, more radical proposals for land redistribution crystallized alongside less intensive ones that involved indirect mechanisms—such as taxes—to encourage the fragmentation of large, unproductive estates. Occupation processes also began, governed by new organizational logics, in various Latin American countries (Mota, Secreto, and Christillino, 2023).

As a result of these processes, a heterogeneity of experiences emerged in Latin America, most of which failed to alter the latifundio pattern of land tenure. This unresolved issue constitutes a kaleidoscope of demands, projects, and alternatives for considering the distribution of this fundamental means of production in Latin America (Lerrer, 2023). Furthermore, resolving current rural problems necessarily requires addressing other issues such as the concentration of production, the environmental situation, and technological dependence.

Research on this issue has focused on national cases and, in recent decades, has even concentrated on some regional particularities. Comparative or transnational studies that would allow for the identification of specificities, but above all, the regularities of this topic in our subcontinent, have been more limited. Based on this observation, this working group proposes not only to reconstruct the land tenure structure and the heterogeneous agrarian social makeup of Latin American countries, but also to investigate and systematize the legislation regulating access to rural assets and the conflicts that have arisen around them in each of the member countries. Furthermore, it proposes to analyze transnational circulations (Weinstein, 2013). The new dimensions of the agrarian question, the role of the peasant subject, and the reconfiguration of rural organizations now oriented toward the defense of territory will be central themes that run through the collective research.

Agricultural production for export maintains a marked centrality in the economic structure of Latin American countries, given that these goods represent a high proportion of sales to the world market and generate one of the main sources of genuine foreign exchange. The continued leading role of primary activities and the dynamics and social impact generated by technological changes are closely linked to the land tenure structure that crystallized in Latin America as a result of a complex process that unfolded throughout the 20th century. Transformations in property rights, concentration, and conflicts surrounding this fundamental means of production constitute one of the main matrices that characterize the agrarian structure of the subcontinent (Vazelesk and Secreto, 2017; Vazelesk and Secreto, 2021).

The historical analysis of the socio-economic problems linked to land access and forms of labor exploitation in various Latin American countries allows us to identify the transformations in land tenure structures in order to specify their particularities and, at the same time, recognize their regularities (Ansaldi and Giordano, 2012; Mota, Secreto, and Christillino, 2023). This involves not only reconstructing the structure of land ownership but also the impact of policies implemented by various governments, among which two main approaches can be identified: those that conceived of land as a social good and sought—with varying degrees of flexibility—to guarantee access to land, and those that, on the contrary, considered that the key to policy toward the sector lay in guaranteeing increased productivity as the solution to all problems. At the same time, among those who held a more critical perspective, it is possible to identify opposing viewpoints: the "peasantist" and "de-peasantist" currents. (Concheiro, 2022). Within the social sciences, particularly in rural sociology, the second current was gaining ground in a context of regional integration, rural development approaches and new rurality processes that decouple the "agrarian" from the "rural" (Pérez, 2001).

With the turn of the century, the land issue once again became a prominent topic in social and political debate. This was primarily due to what, since the mid-2000s, has been discussed as processes of land grabbing, which in Latin America have occurred in cycles, with periods of acceleration and deceleration (Borrás Jr, Kay, Gómez, and Wilkinson, 2013; Edelman and León, 2014). In seeking to contribute elements that allow us to move beyond these opposing viewpoints, we understand that the problems associated with characterizing the agrarian social actors in rural Latin America require us to rethink and clarify who the main direct producers were, what central problems they faced, and what complex relationships they forged with other sectors. Thus, it is necessary to specify the aspects that distinguish the category of peasantry, comprised of a heterogeneity of situations and realities that include Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and Creole populations in the various countries of Latin America (Julião, 1962; Welch et al., 2009; Palencia, 2014; Robles, 2020). This also requires identifying their differences from other types of direct producers, who, depending on the country, may be "chacareros," "familiales," "farmers," "family-based," or "capitalized," more closely linked to internal and external markets where they acquire inputs, obtain credit, and even hire temporary wage laborers. It is also necessary to revisit the contrasting perspectives with large landowners and agricultural capital to characterize these actors and their multiple influences on the agricultural world (Cardeillac and Krapovickas, 2023).

In this regard, numerous historical investigations into various national and local agrarian issues have been conducted in recent decades, contributing valuable insights. This Working Group aims to connect these realities in order to identify changes and continuities in the Latin American rural world, as well as specificities and, fundamentally, regularities across the subcontinent. The challenge is to provide a comparative or transnational histories perspective as a way to integrate the space-time of the realities of Latin American agriculture (Weinstein, 2013; Secreto, 2012).

In this sense, it is imperative to prioritize content that contributes to understanding what is happening in rural areas, and this requires establishing the genetic relationship between past and present (Burke, 1987; Ansaldi, 2023). Thus, we believe that historical research and reflection should not be understood as a function of lessons from the past, but rather as guided by the pressing demands of the reality in which we live. This implies learning history as a narrative, not a linear one, which prioritizes ruptures over continuities, conflicts over integration processes, and changes over evolutions. It is a history that reveals contradictions and diverse perspectives. Whether legitimizing or critical, history implies a projection into the future: a social project expressed in a political proposal. We also understand that it is essential to draw upon the research, perspectives, and conceptualizations that are unfolding and developing globally, and especially in the Global South, in order to then identify and clarify how these phenomena and concepts inform local research. We seek to move beyond mechanical translations and strive to investigate the particular and specific ways in which multiple factors are articulated and synthesized in Latin America.

Within the group, we also propose creating working sessions on agrarian history in Indigenous territories of Latin America. This involves adopting a perspective that encompasses different historical periods and various countries (Gordillo, 2004; Gould, 1990; Palencia, 2020; Womack, 1969). Through this dialogue, we propose establishing common criteria for dialogue, study, and understanding of the different regions and Indigenous peoples. This study will explore how the introduction of agro-export plantations for products such as sugar, coffee, soybeans, African palm, henequen, and cotton (Albert, 1983; Bourgois, 1989; Knox, 1977; McCreery, 1995; Portillo Villeda, 2021; Rappaport, 1982) not only impacted regional agrarian, economic, and political dynamics but, more profoundly, how various Latin American nation-states constructed differentiated power relations with Indigenous peoples. To this end, we will integrate the tools of history, anthropology, and sociology with ethnographic, cartographic, and archival methods (Chapin & Threlkeld, 2001; Sletto, 2014).

Finally, this research project also arises from the need of rural organizations and groups in which various project members maintain multiple links and points of contact. These groups demand and need to recover their history, understand the transformations that occurred throughout the 20th century, and draw on experiences that allow them to collaborate with social movements and contribute to the design and implementation of public policies that prioritize access to land for historically oppressed sectors of rural Latin America, including Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, youth, and women (Hill Collins, Bilge, 2021).