Mexican Peonage: What Was It and Why Was It?

Abstract

Our knowledge of Mexican agrarian history has been greatly enhanced by hacienda studies, based on original hacienda archives. Inter alia, these have finished off for good the old notion of ‘feudal’ hacendados who spurned profit for prestige. But if – thanks to their reliance on hacienda accounts – these studies have shed light on hacienda marketing and profit-maximizing, they have told us less about the hacienda's internal workings. The hacienda's relations of exchange are, therefore, better understood than its relations of production. And, from some theoretical perspectives, it is the latter which are primary (which, in grand terms, determine whether the hacienda is to be termed ‘feudal’, ‘capitalist’ or something else again).

Utilising the Internet to Improve Peasant Artisan Incomes: Evidence from Mexico

“…Research indicates that in rural Haciendas of the 18 th Century, it was the peasant that deliberately assumed large debt to guarantee employment [31]. The societal institutions that created artificial land scarcity and labour surplus provided perverse incentives for individuals to become indentured.…”

From Prison to Home: Labor Relations and Social Control in Nineteenth-Century Mexico

“…Following the traditional model, described above, some historians argue that this system was oppressive and-worst-case scenario-turned the indigenous workforce into virtual slaves with a mountain of debt impossible to repay (Bracamonte y Sosa 1993; Brass 1990;Chevalier 1963;González Sánchez 1997;Meyers and Carlson 2002;Tutino 1986;Zavala 1944). Other historians, however, argue that debts were most often nowhere near as extensive as was traditionally argued and might even be beneficial to the peones (Alston, Mattiace, and Nonnenmacher 2009;Bauer 1979;Cross 1979;Gibson 1964;Knight 1986Knight , 2002Nickel 1997). Alan Knight writes, "Debts represented perks or incentives, designed to attract, retain, and reward workers.…”

The New Face of Debt-Peonage in the Bolivian Amazon: Social Networks and Bargaining Instruments

“…The authors cited above mostly considered debt-peonage as a form of inhuman treatment, but others interpreted it as: social relations of pre-capitalist production (Weinstein 1986), livelihood strategies based on power imbalances between oppressor and oppressed (Brown 2006, Knight 1986), a relatively effective mechanism to leverage resources difficult to access, or an efficient type of contract given certain work conditions (Barham and Coomes 1994b). A common element among these different interpretations is its importance to provide for and control workers, according to the requirements of productive activities where labor was needed (Bales 2000, MacDonald and McWhiney 1980, Washbrook 2006.…”

“…The acceptance of debt peonage is based on the comparative advantages that this means in terms of the worker's welfare (Bauer 1979, Knight 1988, Martinez-Alier 1977, influenced by the type of relation between laborer and patron. For instance, in Central America, peasant resistance to wage labor was the answer to their preference for a feudal system (Knight 1986). In the Amazon basin during the rubber boom, people accepted debt-peonage to retain the advantages of individual work autonomy characteristic of an extractive model Coomes 1994b, Weinstein 1986).…”

“…The current use of habilito in northern Bolivia raises some fundamental questions of debtpeonage as a labor negotiation and contracting tool. The classical definition of debt-peonage is the payment of a loan with the labor or services of the debtor (Bauer 1979, Knight 1986, Washbrook 2006). The typical case of debt-peonage is that both capital and assets requiring labor are monopolized by one party, allowing that party to establish the conditions of compensation for work services provided.…”