Thank you for your attention! You can find the complete paper on my webpage: sites.google.com/site/nichola...
I want to express my gratitude to my references/letter writers:
@nunopgpalma.bsky.social , @guillaumeblanc.bsky.social , Rachel Griffith, and Samuel Pienknagura

The key message is that the outcomes of some agrarian reform policies differed from expectations. The PLT played a crucial role and yielded positive results. Agrarian reforms in Latam were far from being uniform, and their impact depended on the specific policies implemented.

Although other mechanisms could exist, it is worth considering this informal credit mechanism as a counterpart to the common narrative that property rights lead to higher credit (De Soto, 2000). The rice-producing regions in Ecuador tend to remain impoverished.

The expropriated areas show higher rice production yields even without any restrictions in place by 2000. Why is this? I find that these areas have better access to informal credit ("shark loans").
High r+rapid repayment->overspecialization on annual crops such as rice

-PLT areas have higher yields and devote more land to perennial crops
-The effects comes from non-traditional perennial crops
-Positive spillovers:Using different data sets I document that PLT areas have rapid structural transformation,⬆️ econ growth(night light),better land use

I use a spatial regression discontinuity design to compare similar areas affected by the PLT legislation with those that experienced expropriation, using data from the 2000 agricultural census. I find that:

In the coastal region,President Velasco Ibarra mandated that beneficiaries of expropriations must retain their rice production and avoid switching crops. This policy aimed at ensuring food security, albeit at the cost of restricting farmers' property rights for crop selection.

What were the differences for a farmer between receiving land via PLT versus expropriation in this context? PLT allowed farmers to grow any crop, as its primary objective was to expand the agricultural frontier. With expropriation, the situation was different.

An interesting experiment occurred on the coast of Ecuador, where abandoned haciendas from before the reform were treated as public land, while others were viewed as needing expropriation. This resulted in varying policies being implemented. Green=PLT, red=Expropriation

Comparing both policies could be problematic. PLT aimed to expand the agricultural frontier and enhance productivity, while expropriation sought to address land inequality and social injustice. Therefore, areas where each policy was implemented may have been inherently different

Given that the Colombian case experienced almost exclusively PLTs, Ecuador presents an attractive scenario as both policies were implemented in that country, affecting local neighboring regions. What was the impact of PLT compared to expropriation?

Classical literature on the 1960-70s Latam agrarian reforms generally finds that it did not accomplish its objectives. However, some recent literature, specifically from Colombia, indicates that there are positive and mixed results from its reforms(Faguet et al,2020;Galan,2020)

PLTs, or land colonization, are not widely studied. While many associate agrarian reform with expropriations, data from the great
Michael Albertus
book shows that several Latin American countries experienced PLTs on a larger scale.