Land tenure inequality, harvests, and rural conflict ... - e-Archivo

province of Córdoba in June 1932 increased the baseline probability by 31 per cent.
Moreover, the log of the distance to the capital of the province displayed negative and
statistically significant coefficients in almost all specifications with strikes as the
dependent variable (and insignificant coefficients in the case of the regressions taking
into account invasions). Capturing the proximity to markets and large urban centres, a
one standard deviation decline in the distance to the largest urban center in the
province increased the probability of strikes in the representative town in June 1932
by 66 per cent.
In order to test the hypothesis that autonomous organization and the previous
history of collective action matter, I evaluate the impact of previous union
organization using the records of existing peasant unions in 1916, some years before
the repression of peasant unions intensified in 1920. A comparison of my
representative town in Córdoba in June 1932 with a union in 1916 with the same town
not reporting union presence in 1916 yields an increase of the baseline probability of
a strike of 50 per cent. The existence of a union in 1916, however, is not relevant for
the probability of trespassing by groups of rural workers. That said, the presence of a
union in 1916 could be endogenously relateed to the persistence of exploitative
agrarian institutions. However, union presence in 1916 is neither explained by
landownership inequality, nor by the proportion of landless laborers. As in the case of
conflict, distance to large urban centers, access to markets and being an administrative
center are the strongest predictors of union presence in 1916.
Finally, I look at the serial correlation of sequential conflicts. It is important to
note that the dummy variables conflict in the last 3 and 6 months did not dispel
35