Exploring land: the case of Mexico City Author: Igor Malgrati – word count: 11,711 – 1st September 2010

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc Building and Urban Design in Development Development Planning Unit University College London

  ii  

Acknowledgments

This dissertation closes the amazing experience that I had in London, one that I’m glad to have the

privilege of living.

Many thanks go to the people who allowed, stimulated and encouraged me to return to studing. I’m

particularly grateful to all my master’s friends, to Camillo Boano, Isis Nunez, William Hunter and Eleni

Kyrou.

This dissertation spurs form very fruitful work with Caren Levy and I would like to express my gratitude

to her. During this three months journey, I was also helped by Ana, Amar, Giorgio, Ricardo and Iman. I

would like to give a special thank to Rina Cáceres, for her competent and enthusiastic support as a

historian on the subject of Mexico, as well as to Zeina, with whom I shared hard work and joy of this

final period.

Finally and most importantly, I’m deeply indebted to my family for their support. It is not that much but

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to them: my grandmother, my mother and my father.

Igor Malgrati

27th August 2010

  iii  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii

List of figures and tables v

Acronyms

v

1. ‘LAND’ STILL TO BE EXPLORED?

1.1. Actual situation of debate

1.2. Looking for a different approach

1.3 Structure of the dissertation

1

2. THEORETICAL COORDINATES FOR MAPPING ‘LAND’

2.1. Introducing Bourdieu’s theoretical apparatus

2.1.1. Field

2.1.2. Capital

2.1.3. Habitus

2.1.4. Further concepts

2.2. Interpreting the concept of land

2.3. Exploring the subject in three different dimensions

2.3.1. Land and culture

2.3.2. Land and social hierarchy

2.3.3. Policy and Planning

2.4. Assessing the dimensions.

4

3. MEXICO CITY. TIERRA Y LIBERTAD?

3.1 Setting the case

3.1.1. Mexico city: a city continuously struggling for land

3.1.2. Ejidos: historical path of a revolutionary idea

3.1.3. Imagining Bourdieu in Mexico City.

3.2 Assessing the dimensions.

3.2.1. Land and culture

3.2.2. Land and social hierarchy

3.2.3. Policy and planning

3.3 Exploring 1992 reform.

15

  iv  

4. CONCLUSION

4.1. Findings

4.2. Gaps of information and potential fields of further research

4.3. A final consideration

29

NOTES 32

REFERENCES 32

  v  

List of figures and tables

Figure 1: The administrative Mexico City 17

Figure 2: Distribution of settlement by income in Mexico City 23

Acronyms

CORETT Commission for Regularization Land Tenure

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

PRI Institutional Revolutionary Party (Spanish: Partido Revolucionario Institucional)

PROCEDE Programme of Certification of Ejidal Land Rights and the Titling of Urban House Plots

  1  

1. ‘LAND’ STILL TO BE EXPLORED?.

Today, somewhere, a peasant is working on a land he/she might never possess, a landowner is

thinking of values of land his/her father taught and now his/her children are forgetting. A daughter of a

landowner is wondering why she is not entitled as her brother is, to inherit the land, a private

developer is thinking about costs and benefits for urban development of that previously rural land.

Today, a Bangkok squatter community is negotiating a land in a land sharing procedure, a Brazilian

family is invading a land with other families belonging to O Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem

Terra, an Istanbul gecekondu community is fighting so as not to be evicted for what they consider

their own land.

Today, I’m writing the introduction of my dissertation. I’m in the Peckham Library, in the south of

London. From this window, I can see the skyscrapers of the City from afar. In this position of London,

I immediately realize that ethnicity, behaviour and class are completely different from what I’m used to

at UCL libraries and I’m wondering how physical position in the city influences and is influenced by

social, economical and political forces.

Historically, land was a fundamental key for influencing individuals’ and community lives and urban

development. (Kostof:1991; Scargill:1979). Holding a particular position in a particular land was

meaningful for the several borders connected to land, tracing human structures. The division between

colonial and native settlement, the medieval wall between urban and rural, the boundary wall between

the inside and outside of a gated community are reasons and consequences of particular

mechanisms. To these borders, strictly physical but with a symbolic role sometimes more influential

than the borders themselves, we might add several other kinds of borders attached to land. This was

and is the reason for an intense struggle in order to hold a position or to be able to influence it. In this

struggle an important means and constraint was land in itself because of its environment, its natural

resources and its economic value. Land, in fact, is not only a place but is a capital.

The subject of land with the values attached to it, the influences on individuals and communities’ lives

and the role in urban development are at the heart of this dissertation.

  2  

1.1. Actual situation of debate

The current debate and discourse (De Soto; Durand-Lasserve; Gilbert; Mattingly; Varley; Ward) is very

broad but at this point I would like to emphasise two aspects. First, land is very often object of

security of tenure and access, often considered as rights, however reasons of why these aspects

need to be considered ‘rights’ have seldom been thoroughly investigated. Second, land has been

considered too extensively as an issue of economic capital while its contribution to cultural and social

capital and its symbolic dimension lacked in equal consideration.

Hernando De Soto’s book The Mystery of capital: why capitalism triumph in the west and fails

everywhere else stated, in 2000, that the issue of title deed is crucial for the economic development of

each owner, with the following explanation:

“[poor] hold […] resources in defective forms: houses built on land whose ownership rights are

not adequately recorded […] Because the rights to this possessions are not adequately

documented, these assets cannot readily be turned into capital, cannot be traded outside of

narrow circles where people know and trust each other, cannot be used as collateral for a

loan, and cannot be used as a share against an investment” (2000:5).

The appearance of this book, its theory and, above all, popularity and influence of its author among

the most powerful institutions has given life to a debate (Gilbert:2002; Varley:2002; Smets:2003;

Durand-Lasserve:2007). Though, the discussion has been carried inside the field set by De Soto

which is still very economic and partially political, and it is in two strict terms of dualism between

formal and informal and legal and illegal.

Still, a comprehensive approach considering an analysis of all the facets of the aspects of lands (as

the environment where to live and as capital to be held) highlighting the linkages with social, political

and economic sphere, giving reasons of why land has to be and is considered so important, why and

to what extent access to land and security of tenure has to be promoted, is only fragmentary.

1.2. Looking for a different approach

In 1958, Pierre Bourdieu, a 28 years old French sociologist, left his country to go to Algeria as

lecturer. There, he started an ethnographic experience, which allowed him to study traditional farming

and Berber culture. His constant field work and his vision (in conflict, like Weber, with traditional

Marxism) of a society was to be analysed not only in the simplistic terms of economic classes and

  3  

ideologies, but will bring him, in the next 44 years of study, to define and refine a method for

understanding social and economic practice. This dissertation uses his sociological approach,

considering sociological insights crucial to urban context. As Giddens says, “[t]he city cannot be

regarded as merely incidental to social theory but belongs at its very core. Similarly, ‘urban sociology’

is more than just one branch of sociology among others – it stands at the heart of some of most

fundamental problem of general sociological interest” (Giddens:1981b:140).

Bourdieu’s key concepts (field, capital, habitus) are very flexible and can be used in different domains

and researches. In this dissertation, they will be defined, interpreted and reassembled. Three crucial

dimensions will be highlighted and investigated. First, cultural aspects give account of the roots of a

context and give an alternative entry point to the merely economic dimension. Second, land and

social hierarchy explains why land is related to the social structure and how it might be an element of

cohesion (or division) for individuals, families and communities. Third, policy and planning field has a

strong relationship, in terms of influence and consequence, for land development.

These fields of investigation will lead to a set of questions, which will be used to screen the practical

case of Mexico City, with a special focus on Ejido, a land tenure peculiar of Mexican context.

This exploration of land subject through the use of Bourdieu’s apparatus is meant to take us to a

more structured investigation of gaps in present land discourses. This ambitious but little contribution

has, as a final objective, the better understanding of reality of urban lands. Opening wider insights to

words like access, security of tenure and rights as the means to enable development practitioners,

policy makers and planners to have a more hearted but suitable approach to the multifaceted

problems of the city related to land.

1.3. Structure of the dissertation

This dissertation has four sections. After the main topic and aspects introduced in this chapter,

chapter 2 explain the theoretical framework, introducing the main concepts of Bourdieu and

contextualizing them for land and the different dimensions to be investigated, concluding with a set of

questions to assess a case. Chapter 3 is dedicated to the case, Mexico City and the Ejido land tenure

system in the city. Finally, the last chapter wraps up the previous chapters and suggests areas of

further analysis.

  4  

2. THEORETICAL COORDINATES FOR MAPPING ‘LAND’

The theoretical basis of this dissertation lies on Bourdieu’s theoretical apparatus. The reasons, related

to the apparatus in essence and to the subject of ‘land’ are as follows.

First, Bourdieu’s work is not only a general theory but “a method, directed towards the analysis of

social and economic practice, firmly anchored in ethnographic research” (Harker:1990:21) and this

will be helpful for the practical study of a case.

Second, his analysis addresses complex social dynamics in a comprehensive and flexible manner and

allows different entry points. Some applications of Bourdieu’s apparatus have been done, especially

as part of theoretical frameworks (seldom for strictly practical cases) in addition, most recently, there

have been applications for urban spatial manifestation (Dovey:2010; Webster:2010).

Third, recognizing the importance of cultural, social and symbolic capital and not only of the economic

one, this approach seems particularly suitable in order to deal with land, considering the gaps in the

official discourse mentioned in the introduction.

Four, land is a powerful means for the reproduction of inequalities and Bourdieu’s apparatus may give

interesting insights because one of the main questions that interested Bourdieu was “the question of

how stratified social system of hierarchy and domination persist and reproduce intergenerationally

without powerful resistance and without the conscious recognition of their members” (Swartz:1997:6)

The theoretical chapter will be structured as follows:

• Introducing Bourdieu’s theoretical apparatus (Section 2.1.) in which the main concepts (fields,

capital, habitus) will be briefly summarized;

• Interpreting the concept of land (Section 2.2.) where the concept of land is interpreted through

the lens of the previously introduced theoretical apparatus;

• Approaching the subject (Section 2.3.) where the aspects “land and culture”, “land and social

hierarchy” and “policy and planning” will be substantiated in order to approach the subject

developed in the previous section;

• Exploring the subject in three different dimensions (Section 2.4.) where a set of questions

coming from the previous sections will be developed to explore the case presented in the

chapter 3.

  5  

2.1.Introducing Bourdieu’s theoretical apparatus

In his life of prolific writer and curious researcher, Bourdieu developed a very useful apparatus to

explain the several facets of individuals and groups’ choices. For sake of simplicity, scholars who

studied Bourdieu (Harker:1990; Swartz:1997; Webb:2002) usually deconstruct it in the interlinked

concepts of Field, Capital and Habitus. This section follows the same approach and is meant to

summarize mainly the aspects which will be instrumental to the following steps.

2.1.1. Field

Field is the space where agents (individuals and groups) act and it is constituted by a “series of

institution, rules rituals, conventions, categories, designation and appointments which constitute an

objective hierarchy, and which produce and authorise certain discourse and activities”

(Webb:2002:21). A field is a dynamic place of struggle where the agents define and fight for their

position, through the weight and the quality of capital they have. “Fields are defined by a system of

objective relations of power between social position which correspond to a system of objective

relations between symbolic points: works of arts, artistic manifesto, political declarations and so on.

The structure of the field is defined at a given moment by the balance between these points and the

distributed capital” (Harker:1990:8)

There are multiple kinds of fields and each of those has its regulatory principles that govern the

‘game’ in the field. The agent may belong to several fields at the same time. In this multidimensional

archipelago the social space of the agent is, therefore, “conceived as comprising multiple fields, which

have some relationship to each other, and points of contact” (Harker:1990:9). Agents with proximity in

the social space and with “objective similarities and real connections” (Harker:1990:10), constitute a

class. Social classes are constituted by “biological individuals having the same habitus”

(Bourdieu:1990a:59) and they are associated with the struggle for the “monopoly of the legitimate

representation of the social world” (Bourdieu:1990b:180). In the concepts of social class there is

“other stratifying factors, such as gender, race or ethnicity, place of residence, and age”

(Swartz:1997:154). In the network of fields (the ‘social space’), therefore, social class can be seen as

subfields inside a field (which can also completely overlap with the field itself) or as transversal

elements of different fields.

One of the most important fields, because its hierarchy serves to structure all the other fields, is the

field of power. It’s constituted by different subfields of struggle (within and in between them): artistic

field, administrative field, university field, political field and economic field, whose “[l]eaders […]

  6  

compete to impose their particular type of capital as the most legitimate claim to authority. For

example, artists, writers, and professors compete in the field of power against business leaders to

impose their respective capitals (cultural capital versus economic capital) as the most legitimate”

(Swartz:2008:5). This example present the dichotomy between cultural and economic capital, which

ranks all the other fields of struggle and is one of the most important Bourdieu’s contributions to the

construction of a post Marxism sociology.

The struggle between subfields of power is regulated by the State, constituted by bureaucratic

agencies, authorities, ritual and official classifications regulating group relations.

2.1.2. Capital

Capital is the set of resources used to gain a position in the field and an authority, which, as such, is

considered legitimate. Capital is all that is “rare and worthy of being sought after in a particular social

formation” (Bourdieu:1977:78). Different kinds of capital (economic, cultural, social and symbolic) are

available and can be transformed, partially, into each other.

Economic capital is the ownership or control over economic resources such as cash and assets. All

the following kinds of capital (cultural, social and symbolic) are “significant forms of capital based on

economic but not simply reducible to it” (Dovey:2010:33). Beyond ownership and control, a further

dimension (which is not present in Bourdieu) is the ‘use’ (even without ownership) of economic capital

which can be defined as the obtaining of economic advantages from capital without preventing

others’ future advantages (due to its complete consumption).

Cultural capital is any form of knowledge, experience or connection such as; art, education, belief,

tradition, values, language, agents have in the course of their life, succeed in the field more than other

different sets of knowledge, experience or connection. The quality of cultural capital is measured

through familiarity with the institutionalized and recognized cultural forms.

Social capital is all the resources based on group membership, relationships and network of influence

and support. This kind of capital is collectively owned and each agent owns it as far as her/him

belongs to the group. High level of social capital might reinforce the sense of trust, solidarity and

community while the absence, the sense of fear, alienation and isolation (Dovey:2010:34). “Social

capital is embedded in the built environment where it is situated and reproduced by architectural

programmes as spatially structured patterns of social encounter. Buildings and neighbourhood both

ground and structure social capital, enabling and constraining the development of social capital

  7  

whether in housing enclaves, shopping precints, sporting venues, community centres or university

departments. Bonding is more common in building interiors (families, clubs,…) and bridging more in

neighbourhoods and larger organizations” (Dovey:2010:34)

Symbolic capital is a resource related to status, authority, prestige or recognition. This form of capital

is particularly important because in this form “the different forms of capital are perceived and

recognised as legitimate” (Harker:1990:13). Agents (or groups) with this capital can access position of

power, such as “power to represent commonsense and above all the power to create the ‘official

version of the social world’” (Harker:1990:13). Moreover, “[e]very kind of capital (economic, cultural,

social) tends (to different degrees) to function as symbolic capital […] symbolic capital is not a

particular kind of capital but what every capital becomes when it is misrecognized as capital […] and

therefore recognized as legitimate. More precisely, capital exists and acts as symbolic capital […] in

its relationship with a habitus predisposed to perceive it as a sign” (Bourdieu:2000:242)

The feature of capital (in all its forms) to be transferred to different agents (e.g. from father to children)

is a crucial aspect for the reproduction of the social space and, therefore, of social inequalities.

2.1.3 Habitus

Habitus is “the values and disposition gained from our cultural history that generally stay with us

across context (they are durable and transposable)” (Webb:2002:36). How the agents behave and

respond to the context is not a deterministic consequence of the context but it is largely influenced by

the concept of habitus. Habitus influences and is influenced by the field and by the historical path the

agent makes through different positions and different fields, a key concept Bourdieu calls the

‘trajectory’. Trajectory is constrained and modified by fields but a perspective of freedom can be seen

in the capability of the agents to choose the fields to which they belong and go through. Habitus, for

Bourdieu, is shaped in a moment of practice and constitutes a way of perceiving the reality, behaving

and of producing knowledge. Habitus is a form of symbolic capital.

The relation (influence, compliance, clash, etc.) between habitus of the agent and his/her field is a tool

to understand his/her behaviour. An interesting perspective of this is the forced and unconscious

adaptation of the habitus to the rules of field, what Bourdieu call symbolic violence. There are different

kinds of violence – physical, economic and symbolic (Bourdieu:n.d.) - and what happens to some

groups - especially women (Bourdieu:2002) - is that they are subject of this symbolic violence, which

is based on complicity of the dominated allowing the reproduction of domination. This is “the realistic,

even resigned or fatalistic, disposition which lead members of the dominated class to put up with

  8  

objective conditions that would be judged intolerable or revolting by agents otherwise disposed […]

help to reproduce the conditions of oppression” (Bourdieu:n.d.)

2.1.4 Further concepts

After the introduction of Bourdieu’s framework, as explained by himself and by authors writing about

him, in this section, some other concepts, not strictly related to Bourdieu but necessary to develop

the next section, have to be introduced.

First, land may have attached some characteristics, which might be divided in inherent or acquired

characteristics, being the former the natural ones (height, soil, etc.) while the latter the ones related to

servicing and proximity to activities (Gilbert et al:1985:62-63).

Second, it’s important to introduce the concept of territory as human social creation which “reflects

and incorporates feature of the social order” (Delaney:2005:10) and gives labels to who is inside or

outside it: “the citizen, the settler, the alien, the native, the owner, the tenant” (Delaney:2005:10).

Moreover, “there are potentially billions of territories” (Delaney:2005:4) and “[t]erritory is commonly

understood as a device for simplifying and clarifying something else, such as political authority,

cultural identity, individual autonomy, or rights (Delaney:2005:9). To territories are always attached two

strong and conflictive forces of protection and repulsion. Etymologically, in fact, “[t]erra means land,

earth, nourishment, sustenance; it conveys the sense of a sustaining medium, solid, fading off into

indefiniteness. But the form of the word the [Oxford English Dictionary] says, suggests that it derives

from terrere, meaning to frighten, to terrorize. And Territorium is a “place from which people are

warned”. Perhaps these two contending derivations continue to occupy territory today. To occupy a

territory is to receive sustenance and to receive violence. Territory is land occupied by violence”.

(Connolly:1996:33).

  9  

2.2.Interpreting the concept of land

The broad field of this framework and its flexibility opens the possibilities for a range of research

around different concepts, in order to make aspects related to practice emerge. This is in compliance

with how Bourdieu defines the role of the sociologist: “like all the scientists, the sociologist tries to

establish laws, to grasp regularities, recurrent ways of being and to define their principles. Why do the

people do the things they do?” (Bourdieu:n.d.). About land, in Bourdieu’s framework, some

observations have to be stated.

First, land can be interpreted as field in itself. This is much to the inherent characteristics of land,

which are aspects setting rules. This field and its structure have to be considered as the strongest in

the dawn of civilization, when human structures were more primitive and the rule of human society

were dictated by nature. Despite its present, today its weight is often subordinate to other fields yet

may be still strong.

Second, land is the spatial dimension of other fields and it overlaps, partially or totally, with them in a

relationship of mutual influence. Meaning not strictly related to land in its nature but coming from other

fields, may be embedded in it. The relationships and the mutual influence between position of agents

on land and position on the different fields overlapping with land is an important investigative activity

as through physical evidence, it makes hierarchical structure of the urban society emerge. Balance of

forces from different fields attached to land creates physical or symbolical borders which define and

substantiate positions. Given that borders, as places of transition, are easier to find rather than fields,

their investigation and their traces on land will be used as tool to give account of presence and

balance between fields.

Third, land can be interpreted as an economic and symbolic capital and, therefore, all concepts

related to capital (scarcity, struggle, transmission, access, legitimacy) are related to land. It is an

economic capital, because of its economic value and capability to be traded. As an economic capital,

it’s object of the economic discipline for the estimation of the value (depending on many variables,

from the presence of natural resources to capability to be developed). Moreover, it’s important to

understand who owns, who controls and who uses it. Land may be also a symbolical capital, one of

the most important, because it is in the context where the economic field is influential, particular lands

or (quantity of) land might give those who own, control or use them a particular status. In addition,

despite it cannot be considered as cultural and social capital, position in a land, not necessarily

ownership of it as capital, is a means to access cultural capital (because of the values, stories,

traditions, language attached which are accessible to who can access land) and to access social

  10  

capital (because of the networks grounded on land).

Fourth, when land as symbolic capital has considerable weight among all other kinds of capital (either

land as economic capital or money, resources, etc), or when a strong field is strictly attached and

located on land, the concept of territory emerges, too. Inside territory, the two aspects of sustenance

and violence, which, as per Connolly definition are present at the same time, give account of the

struggle typical of fields.

Fifth, inside the concept of land, habitus gives account of how individuals or particular groups move

inside the fields using land as a capital. Habitus is also the extent to which groups use land as an

economic and symbolic capital to access cultural and social capital. Tracing individual and collective

trajectories gives account of the influences of the fields to habitus in terms of land. How land as a field

influence habitus might be an interesting field of research but, as already pointed out, land as a field

might be subordinated to other fields, especially in an urban context.

Moreover, given that land is at the same time an economic (and symbolic) capital and spatial

dimension of fields, it’s important to clarify here, in this dissertation, but also, in literature, with which

of the aspects of land we are dealing with. The two aspects have some relationships but there is not a

two ways relationship because of the feature of land as a capital of being owned, controlled, used.

Position in land (as spatial dimension of fields) is one of the features of land as capital and contributes

to its value. This means that, in reference to the debate created after De Soto’s argument, there is a

difference between holding a position on land and owning that land (as a capital). The owner may

decide not to hold the position of his/her land, who holds the position is not necessarily the owner

and, sometimes, may not have any relation with the owner, as it happens in the case of squatters.

Reframing De Soto’s position through Bourdieu’s lens is saying that bridging the gap between holding

a position and owning that position – through the ownership of that land as capital - is a solution for

the urban poor. Holding a position on a land, given that land is a spatial manifestation of several fields,

means much more than the land in itself. There are complex balances of forces putting an agent to

that position and the most important is the lack of ownership of land as a capital. With this

interpretation, the solution by De Soto of allowing the formal ownership of land to who already holds

illegally that position is basically a change in these balances of forces, with, for scholars considering

this solution as simplistic, carries risks of unexpected outcomes as taxes on land and housing and

consequence of gentrification through expulsion of the poor (Smets:2003:195).

  11  

2.3. Exploring the subject in three different dimensions

Once the broad context of land is painted through field, capital and habitus, three different aspects

related to land and individuals emerge. Firstly, despite land is mainly an economic capital, choices

about land are related to the individuals’ set of tradition, beliefs, and values. Secondly, each individual

is part of a social hierarchy and has to measure her/his trajectory inside a collective story. Land, for its

nature of capital and spatial dimension of different fields may allow building communalities or stating

differences. Thirdly, State intervention as the regulator between subfields of power tries to inform and

give shape to individual approach to land. As general matter, despite economic aspects are

apparently not mentioned, given the nature of land as economic capital, the influence of economic

field will be involved as crosscutting. These three points correspond to three dimensions for

approaching to the subject of land. In this section, therefore, the sections ‘land and culture’, ‘land and

social hierarchy’ and ‘policy and planning’ will be developed.

2.3.1. Land and culture

Bourdieu’s concept of culture is central in his framework. Culture “provides the very grounds of

human communication and interaction” and “includes beliefs, traditions, values and language; it

mediates practice by connecting individual and groups to institutionalized hierarchies”

(Swartz:1997:1). Culture is the ground of individuals’ practice because “the possibility of agency must

be understood and contextualized in terms of its relation to the objective structures of a culture –

what [Bourdieu] refers to, generally, as cultural fields” (Webb:2002:36). Cultural subfields of power

(artistic and university) have an important role in shaping world (meant in terms of system of fields)

trying to impose their own capital (a particular set of beliefs, traditions, values and language) as

legitimate and alternative to the economic capital. Cultural capital, as such, is a means for domination.

In fact, “whether in form of dispositions, objects, system, or institutions, culture embody power

relation” (Swartz:1997:1) and therefore is a form of domination and perpetration of ‘symbolic

violence'.

Understanding how land (as a capital and as a spatial dimension of other fields) and culture are

related means to investigate the relationship between land and beliefs, traditions, values and language

of that particular context making cultural aspects related to land emerge (instead of the strictly

economic ones), through the investigation of the relation between land and cultural capital (especially

in terms of access) and through the understanding of the influence on the borders on land by cultural

subfields of power (artistic and university).

  12  

2.3.2. Land and social hierarchy.

This section is meant to investigate how land (as spatial manifestation of other fields) is the stage and

embodiment of hierarchy of society (as a structure of position different classes have on land) and its

tension and how land (as capital) is the means for struggle between different classes.

“[A] group sharing […] [the inherited capital] may be expected to follow ‘a band of more or less equally

probable trajectory’” (Harker:1990:20) and, therefore, the tension between individual and collective –

as a cohesive or repulsive force – will emerge in this section, together with its crucial relation with

subfields of power. To this account, political and economical fields (the former strongly influencing

policy and planning, the latter tending to the accumulation of capital) incline, for Vasudevan, towards

the creation of enclosures (Vasudevan:2008), which are, in their substance, situation of individual

ownership.

The relationships between hierarchy of positions in land and social hierarchy, the borders on land

between individual and collective, the dynamism of land (in terms of access, distribution, sharing and

control) among classes and its relationship with social capital are at the core of this dimension.

2.3.3. Policy and Planning

Subfields of power, in their struggle to promote the supremacy of their kind of capital as symbolic

capital greatly influence land (as a capital and as a spatial dimension of other fields). Among those,

land as a capital belongs to economic, political and administrative fields and they are able to influence

it directly. Despite land is not a capital belonging to cultural subfields, these fields may influence it

indirectly, contributing to land discourse.

The regulator of this ‘game’ is the State, which shapes all fields and their rule through its intervention

in policy and planning, with a strong impact also on the other two dimensions. Policy as vision of a

world translated in an approach and planning as active intervention or lack of it have deep influences

on the borders on land as a spatial dimensions of other fields.

Understanding the intervention of State and of the other subfields of power on policy and planning is

the task of this dimension.

  13  

2.4.Assessing the dimensions.

Once substantiating the three approaches defining the areas of investigation of each of them, in this

section, a set of key questions to explore the case presented in the following chapter, will be

introduced.

About the section ‘Land and culture’, the key questions to read the case are as follows:

1. What is the relation between land (as a spatial dimension of other fields and as a capital) and

cultural capital? How does land allow access to cultural capital?

These questions try to address how position, ownership, control, use of land allow access to

cultural capital (beliefs, traditions, values and language), the relationships between features of

land and the different kinds of cultural capital accessed and the compliance of with the

institutionalized and recognized cultural forms

2. How has land informed cultural capital and habitus?

This question tries to give account of the historical roots of the actual condition of cultural

capital and habitus in terms of land.

3. What is the influence on the borders on land by the cultural subfields of power (university and

artistic)?

Given the different borders on land, this question tries to address the direct influence of

cultural subfields of power on them.

About the section ‘Land and social hierarchy’, the key questions to read the case are as follows:

1. What are the different positions inside land (as a spatial dimension of other fields) and what is

the hierarchy?

Given the different borders, this question tries to address how living in different areas might

give different opportunities, problems, status and, in a word, different quality of life.

2. What are the borders on land between different kinds of form of property? How is land

accessed, distributed, shared and controlled among different classes? Is land a means of

‘symbolic violence’?

Of general interest in all cities is the relationships and balances between these three features.

These questions try to analyse the broad situation of land as a capital, showing the balance

  14  

between different kinds of form of property and how different classes can differently develop

their strategy towards land, making emerge if land is a means for the reproduction of

inequalities.

3. What is the relation between land and social capital? How does land allow access to social

capital?

This question is similar to the first of the cultural approach and tries to address how land is

related to social networks and how it is a means to access social capital. It contributes in

opening further insights in the reasons moving people to a particular position and, given that

social capital is collectively hold, clarifies the opportunities of sharing a position and collectively

owning a land.

About the section ‘Policy and planning’, the key questions to read the case are as follows:

1. What is the intervention of the State in terms of land policy and planning?

This question tries to give account of the influence exercised on the borders by the State as

regulators between different fields, especially the ones of power.

2. What is the influence of the subfields of power on land policy and planning and what is their

relationship?

In the context of the struggle between subfields of power, this question tries to give account

of the influence exercised on the State by the different subfields of power.

  15  

3. MEXICO CITY. TIERRA Y LIBERTAD?

In this chapter, the case of Mexico City and a peculiar case of land tenure in it, the Ejidal tenure, will

be analysed through the theoretical framework previously developed, using the key questions as tool

of analysis. Despite the creation of Ejido was mainly in rural area, the incredible growth of cities in

Mexico (especially Mexico City and Guadalajara) has linked development of city to Ejido and,

therefore, our concern here is to keep in account the urban aspects of Ejido.

The reasons behind the choices of the case (Mexico City and the Ejido) are the extraordinary influence

land had in Mexico City’s development, culture and discourse and the distinguishing trait of Ejido land

tenure in this context. Moreover, “[w]hat makes the Mexican case particularly interesting is the fact

that most of the urban expansion in the recent decades has taken place on a type of property that

does not exist in the rest of Latin American cities” (Diaz:2008:11)

In order to introduce the facets of the case, first a section about Mexico City will be developed, the

issue of land (section 3.1.1.) and the Ejidos as land tenure (section 3.1.2). Followed by Bourdieu’s

concepts which will be put in this specific context (section 3.1.3) finally, ending with the questions

introduced in section 2.5 that will be used to analyse Mexico City and Ejidos levels (section 3.2).

At the end of this chapter, a well-documented case of policy intervention, 1992 reform of the article

27 of the Constitution and involving Ejido, will be analysed (section 3.3)

  16  

3.1 Setting the case

3.1.1 Mexico City: a city continuously struggling for land

Mexico City, the capital of Mexico, is “the heart of the nation. It controls the economy, financial

system, communication networks and government of the nation.” (Pick at al:1997:52). At the

beginning of the 20th century, it was the city with “the most sophisticated infrastructure in Mexico, the

largest consumer market, and a concentration of the few existing industries in Mexico, and it was the

site of the national government” (Pick at al:1997:52). It comes at no surprise that it was the perfect

location for strong population growth and economic growth through industrialization. Its demographic

explosion has been widely documented and studied (Gilbert et al:1985; Pick at al:1997; Ward:1998;

UNHABITAT:2003; Connelly:n.d.:4) as engine and reason of many of critical aspects and “Mexico City

has been described repeatedly as an example of calamitous and pathological urban development”

(Schteingart:1988:268)

Being the capital, the political and administrative structure of the State foresees that Mexico City

belongs to the state of Mexico (one of the 31 states of the federal constitutional republic of the United

States of Mexico) and it is also the ‘Federal District’, the place of the federal government belonging to

the entire confederation. While each state is divided in a variable amount of municipalities, the Federal

District is divided in 16 delegaciones. (Connelly:n.d.:10-12)

The history of Mexico saw, in the 19th and 20th century, land as a central issue with the definition of

the border with the United States, the accumulation of land in the hands of latifundistas (1) and the

Agrarian Reform of the 1917.

In Mexico city, the biggest city of Mexico, the 4th biggest city of the world with a population

23,400,000 people (City population:2010), the city where there is the biggest slum in the world

(Davies:2006:31), complex setting (sharp population growth, strong economic and political influences,

colonial past) and, as we will see, the main feature of land as a field are between the main reasons

why, today, the aspect of access to land is still crucial.

  17  

FIGURE 1. The administrative Mexico City (Ward:1998:25)

3.1.2 Ejidos: historical path of a revolutionary idea

Before 1910, Mexico was a country where “half […] of land was controlled by fewer than 10,000

haciendas (2) and a mere of 834 families owned over 130 million of hectares” (Brown:2004:4). These

numbers substantiate how land could be perceived as one of the big injustices and how it contributes

to take, in 1910, to Revolution.

Revolution was a violent impetus against the status quo and brought to the Constitution of 1917,

where an important issue was the Agrarian Reform. Article 27 was crucial because, giving the

ownership of land to nation, ‘[i]t subordinated the property rights of the individual to the needs of the

society: the right to land became a social right”. (Hall:1981:180). The principle of land redistribution

  18  

was embodied in the creation of a form of community land typical of Mexico, the Ejido. This was not

something completely new because it was already present in the laws of the Indies (Leyes de Indias)

implemented by the Spanish conquistadores in 1523, where ejidos were defined as "lands placed in

the exit of the villages that are communally owned by the inhabitants of those villages. In them people

get lumber, spend their free time, and graze cattle without damaging the others." (Diaz:2000:24) For

1917 Constitution, groups of at least 20 people can apply to receive, for agricultural purposes,

parcels of land expropriated to the latifundios (3) and to become members. Ejidos were partly

parcelized for member’s single use and partly left as common land. They could not be sold, rent or

mortgaged but the right to them could be bequeathed to another member of the family at the death

of the member. Given their agricultural purpose, members of Ejidos left idle for more than two years

lose their rights.

After 1917, at different speed related to the different political climate, Mexico has seen the creation of

many Ejidos, reaching, in 1991, half the surface of the whole agricultural land. Most of them could not

develop an intensive agricultural approach and remained mainly for subsistence purpose. The

gravitational attraction of the city, with lack of access to urban land for housing and interests on land

from private developers (Gilbert et al:1985:85-98) made Ejidos objects of change of use by the state

and, mainly illegally, of change of property through invasions, subdivisions and the sale of land

(Varley:1985:1; Gilbert et al:1985:85-98).

In 1992, in order to face "insufficient output, low productivity” and "unacceptable living standards"

(Gruben et al:1992) in the agricultural sector, the article 27 of Constitution was changed in many

aspects (Diaz:2000:31-32). One of the most important shift is that now ejidatarios are allowed to

lease, mortgage and transfer their parcel of land and – if approved by two-thirds of them – to privatize

ejido. will modernize agricultural sector and to attract foreign investment, future participation to

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) with Canada and United States in 1994 (Gruben et

al:1992) and a new climate - from 1982 onwards the ‘pendulum politics’ between activist and

consolidatory presidents stay in the right side (Ward:1998:105) - were the main reasons behind this

reform. Through PROCEDE (Programme of Certification of Ejidal Land Rights and the Titling of Urban

House Plots) community can define and register a single plot to a single member.

What was created “as social spaces whose main purpose was not to increase the productivity in the

agrarian sphere, but to compensate for historical abuses committed in the rural realm” (Diaz:2000:95)

was, 75 years later, not perceived as such any more.

  19  

3.1.3. Imagining Bourdieu in Mexico City.

In this section we are going to identify in Mexico City the concepts of Bourdieu (as contextualized for

land in the section 2.2.): land as a field, land as a spatial dimensions of other fields (through the

concept of border) and land as a capital.

Considering land as a field in Mexico City is particularly suitable. This city has been described,

environmentally speaking, as a “topographical error” (Pick at al:1997:174): it is at the height of 2260

above sea level in a valley between mountain, is at risk of earthquake and, above all, “is one of the

few cities of the world that has no natural drainage outlet, being located in a closed basin on the flat

bed of what was once a series of lakes” (Connelly:n.d.:4). This, together with heavy rains, creates

problem of flood in eastern areas (while southern and western are safer for their height) and “has been

a major factor in urban segregation and the location of slums” (Connelly:n.d.:4).

In Mexico City, many fields attached to land are present and can be made emerge through the

concept of border. This concept in Mexico is particularly interesting for its past and present conflictive

history, especially about the border shared with United States (Delaney:2008:3). In Mexico City a

range of borders, sometimes overlapping, sometimes conflicting, sometimes reinforcing each other,

are attached to land. Some of these have been particularly dynamic in the course of years. Of course,

many other borders might be identified but these are the ones whose evidence has been

documented:

1. Physical. This kind of borders, related to inherent and acquired characteristics may partly

overlap with borders of land as a field. Hill and plain, subsident, urban and rural, close to

water, serviced (by roads, transport, water,etc.) are adjectives typical of Mexico City land. An

interesting perspective of research is that, being physical, many of them can be seen from the

satellite. In the example of periurban ejidos in Xochimilco, in south Mexico City, it is possible to

distinguish channels, boundary walls and the particular orientation 15 30’ NE of fields

(Gonzales Pozo:2009).

2. Administrative. The border between Federal District and the State of Mexico is a border

between a strong control and the lack of it (Gilbert et al:1985:88).

3. Form of property. The relationship and balance between forms or property is of general

interest in all cities and in particular in Mexico City, where there are three forms of property:

private, public, social (3). (Siembieda:1996:383).

  20  

4. Land Use. City expansion, pressure for private redevelopment, decline of industry in the centre

and preferences of classes on the areas to live create in Mexico City a situation where land

use is particularly dynamic. Of particular relevance is the transition from rural to urban, a

border overlapping with physical and administrative ones. (Flores:1959; Ortiz-Chao:3-4)

5. Compliance to law. The border between legal and illegal is particularly interesting for land

development in Mexico City, especially in reference with the political use of it

(Varley:1998:172; Gilbert et al:1985:95; Ward:1998:195) This border has been particularly

dynamic in a country were it was made “one of the most – if not the most – ambitious and

long-established land tenure regularization programmes in the world” (Azuela et al.:1998:157)

Land as a capital has both the features of economic and symbolic capital. About economic capital,

being Mexico City affect to supply demand mechanisms of the market under the weak control of

government, lands have a commercial value depending on many variables (Gilbert et al:1985:105-

118) and can be traded. This may happen formally and informally, through legal or illegal procedures

(Gilbert et al:1985:69). Ejidos, till 1992 reform, had not any formal commercial value but there were

subjects of illegal subdivision and sale at a commercial value, usually more affordable, being the land

illegal and the land unserviced (Ward:1998:251). After 1992 reform, despite the previsions, a massive

sale of parcels of ejido did not happen and “the incorporation of social land to urban development […]

should be evaluated as modest” (Diaz:2008:14). About symbolic capital, given a strong influence of

economic field, amount and kind of parcel of land in Mexico City may tell something of owner status

(in terms of economic class and power). In the case of Ejido, land has a symbolic value for a different

reason. Governance of Ejidos is guaranteed by different bodies (assembly, comisariado and vigilance

council) which are - by law - composed exclusively by members, usually the head of the household.

Who was born in the Ejido and inheritated land right is recognized as such by the assembly. In other

words “[n]ot everyone who works and lives inside an ejido or comunidade is considered a member:

only those who hold land use rights are considered member and have the right to vote.”

(Brown:2004:12).

  21  

3.2 Assessing the dimensions.

In this section, the three dimensions developed in section 2.3 will be analysed through the use of the

question of section 2.3.3.

3.2.1. Land and culture

1. What is the relation between land (as a spatial dimension of other fields and as a capital) and

different kinds of cultural capital? How does land allow to access to cultural capital?

Land as means to develop cultural capital might be a very interesting field of investigation in

Mexico City. About land as a spatial dimension of other field, living in Neza-Chalco-Itza barrio

or in another informal settlement, living in a vecindad (the traditional housing complex

organized around a patio), living in a gated community in Camino a Santa Teresa or living in an

Eido of a particular area of Mexico City, allow to absorb a set of beliefs, traditions, values and

language (through the environment and through the close facilities like community centres,

schools, museums, etc.) whose quality has to be measured through the rules of the cultural

field. In the literature this important aspect has still to be developed and there are not

significant data to work on but it would be important to do it because relating kind of cultural

capital to position in land is a way to investigate how habitus is shaped and inequalities are

reproduced.

2. How has land informed cultural capital and habitus?

What puts land as a central issue has to be found in recent Mexican history because “[i]t is not

surprising that the people of a backward agrarian economy, plagued by land ownership

concentration, extreme income differences and resource waste, should be obsessed by the

possibilities of land reform.” (Flores:1959:115). Injustice around land brought to Revolution,

which gave people not only an economic capital but also a place where to live, a place where

to reinforce the social capital and where to develop and exchange cultural capital. Land

embeds cultural capital and that’s the why the word land with its meanings is always present

in Mexican culture, especially in language and art. In Ejido, there is a two ways relation and

coexistence between land and cultural capital. What is written on the walls of the offices of

Eijido San Nicolas, “Los pierden su tierra pierden su historia” (5), can well explain this

coexistence.

  22  

3. What is the influence on the borders on land by the cultural subfields of power (university and

artistic)?

Many voices from cultural power fields participate to main cultural discourse but about their

impact no data are available and, therefore, it is not possible to develop this challenging

section.

3.2.2 Land and social hierarchy.

1. What are the different positions inside land (as a spatial dimension of other fields) and what is

the hierarchy?

Given all the above mentioned borders (and the ones literature can not capture), especially

physical and the ones related to form of property, and their relationships of overlapping,

conflicting or reinforcing each other, a particular position in Mexico City’s land gives

opportunities (or constraints) to the holder of this position, in reference to the class of holders

with its stratification (ethnicity, gender, age, etc)

Unfortunately literature (Gilbert et al:1985; Ward:1998; Connelly:n.d.), as often happens, does

not describe other than social classes in terms of economic capital, not mentioning other kind

of capital like cultural and social and not mentioning the stratification of class.

Given the economic market as mechanism for land allocation (as spatial dimension of other

field), there is a direct linkage between quality of land (in terms of inherent or acquired

characteristics) and economic capital of who holds (and may own) a position. In an unequal

society, in terms of income, as the Mexican one is (GINI coefficient is 0.48), this mechanism

creates segregation and “the poor occupy the worst land in terms of acquired characteristics

[…] more often than not they also occupy the worst land in terms of inherent

characteristics”(Gilbert et al:1985:62). Despite the complexity of the city prevents a sharp

identification of areas with different economic class, there is a broad distribution, “the poor live

in the east, north and north east while the rich occupy land in the west and southwest.

Middle-income groups eschew the poorer zone and live as near as to their would-be peers as

possible, either in well serviced subdivisions or in housing recently vacated by the rich”.

(Gilbert et al:1985:65). Land occupied by the poor are the ones with high level of pollution and

low services (east and north of the Zocalo) and with sterile soil, waterlogged in the winter and

subject to dust storm in the summer (Lake Texcoco). Exception are some ejidos, the only

  23  

places where land for the poor is valuable and it were accessed, as we will see, mainly

illegally, through invasions, illegal subdivision or purchase of common land.

FIGURE 2. Distribution of settlement by income in Mexico City (Gilbert et al:1985:64).

2. What are the borders on land between different kinds of form of property? How is land

accessed, distributed, shared and controlled among different classes? Is land a means of

‘symbolic violence’?

As mentioned at 3.1.3., there are borders between different kinds of property: private, public

and social (3). In Mexico City, a complete study of the balances and mutual influence between

those forms have yet to be done. Nevertheless, some aspects related to the form of property

peculiar of Mexico, the social, can be done. In fact, in reference to its position in the city and

to the proximity with private land, social land has been crucial for urban development. An

history made of illegal development, expropriation and regularization testifies the importance of

  24  

this kind of property (Gilbert et al:1985:85-98; Diaz:2008:36-49) and open views on its nature.

In fact, Varley points out that, in the history of Ejido, “the ideal of social utility regulating

property has been systematically subordinated to private interest” (Varley:1985:1). This,

however, does not mean that it is comparable to private property and that the borders

between them are only formal. Social property in Mexico is peculiar and, as we will see

afterwards, despite of the expectations, 1992 reform was “far from ending social property in

Mexico, because even in the most populated area of the country, where pressure for new land

is significant, the number of privatizations did not even reach the 5% of the land certified by

CORETT [Commission for Regularization Land Tenure]” (Diaz:2008:36-49).

In Mexico City access to land is mainly demanded to market and may be either legal, guided

by a process of supply and demand and regulated by the government as planner, or illegal,

outside the rules set by the government. Position in the city, commercial value, kind of owner,

of control and tenure are the interlinked reasons of one choice or another. Low income groups

usually uses three different ways to access to land (Gilbert et al:1985:85-86). First, the most

frequent, illegal subdivisions, the ‘fraccionamientos clandestinos’, which is the sale of land

previously divided by landowners, usually without services and not respecting planning norms.

This happened especially in the area of the Lake Texcoco, which is outside Federal district

and for this reason is less controlled. These lands were bought from the State by real estate

companies, illegally subdivided and sold since the 1940s and today is the location of massive

informal settlements. Second, transfer and sale of ejidal land. Despite agricultural land use and

prohibition to members of ejido to sell land (till 1992), the pressure from value of urban in

comparison to agricultural land for member of periurban ejido has been a strong reasons. For

long time Ejidos were seen either as an “escape valve” or an “juridical impediment”

(Ward:1998:252) of urban development. High level of demand, desirable location of many

Ejidos, regularizations (since 1973) and political patronage are the reasons behind this

frequent activity, involving all the Ejidos located in south, west and south-west of the city

(Gilbert et al:1985:89-91). Third, of limited importance, invasions of land whose owner (the

state, a private, the ejidatarians) does not exercise a strong control. Invasions happen when

purchasers are prevented to buy land in subdivided lots (or in ejidos) or when they are

promoted as part of a political activity strategy. This, for example, was done by radical party to

create public order problems to PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) before 1979 election.

In terms of distribution (quantity of owners and tenants and class in relation to the level of land

accumulation) and transmission, data are not present and therefore it is not possible to

analysis.

  25  

Inside classes, the analysis can be extended, because of the considerable amount of gender

studies (Varley:2007; Deere:2001; Deere:2007) focused on Mexico case. These show that,

despite of a formal equality of property land rights by law, women in couple, especially when

they are not married but in a consensual union, are disadvantaged. The situation is worse in

case of illegal ownership. (Varley:2007:1741-1744). In the case of the Eijido, as previously

showed, land is not only economic but also symbolic capital. Owning a parcel of land in an

Ejido means, in fact, being member and accessing to decision-making. “Generally, the head of

a household is the sole member. Most women, unless they are widowed or divorced and

head their own household, do not hold land use rights and are not voting members of Ejidos

and comunidades” (Brown:2004:12). Owning a land in Ejido may be a way to discrimination

and this is a clear example of symbolic violence mentioned by Bourdieu. Before 1992, the

head of the household, after his death, had to leave land to wife or children. This obligation

was removed with 1992, with the effect of amplifying women exclusion from land rights and

consequently from decision making (Brown:2004:16).

3. What is the relation between land and social capital? How does land allow access to social

capital?

This might be a very interesting area of investigation but here the same comments exist as in

question 1 in the section 3.2.1. can be extended. Nevertheless, a particular aspect of Ejidos

has to be here highlighted. Given its nature of land collectively held by groups of families who

were networked even before the constitution of the Ejido, there is an overlap between land as

a capital and social capital. That particular Ejido has that particular community and therefore

that particular Ejido is land of that community. This is an aspect not to be underestimated.

Ejido land is not only an economic and symbolic capital but may be identified with social

capital which is inextricably attached to it. This is well explained by Siembieda:

“The social nature of the Ejido draws its continuity from viewing land as a resource

rather than as a commodity. As a resource, the Ejido strives for sustaining its member

through common bonds to the land; as a commodity, it is solely a means to individual

gain, which occurs in the short run. Once the land is sold, the money spent, the

ejidatario, many times, is left with nothing” (Siembieda:1996:380)

Whenever land is only economic (or even symbolic) capital, sharing of land might not be

considered an option. Working on the dimension of land of just as an economic capital, 1992

  26  

reform tried “to convert what was once thought of as a household resource into the individual

property of the ejidatario […] alone” (Brown:2004:16).

3.2.3. Policy and planning

1. What is the intervention of the State in terms of land policy and planning?

State informs land field through a set of activities in terms of action and inaction

(Ward:1998:197). Mexico passed through three periods of planning in terms of land: before

1970s a laissez faire approach allowed the formation of many informal settlements, from 1971

to 1977 an interventionist phase did large scale remedial actions ad hoc in nature and, since

1977, technical management has been focusing on more efficient and systematic

interventions in land provision and in remedial action (Ward:1998:197).

Different forms of actions and inactions have been applied in Mexico City (Gilbert et

al:1985:71-72). Summarizing the achievements of the research by Gilbert and Ward (1985),

The state intervenes in different ways, modifying borders on land and its dimension of capital.

Firstly, as landowner as many areas in Mexico City are controlled by decentralized agencies

and ministries. Secondly, by stimulating and depressing the price of land, especially through

encouraging building activities. Thirdly, by investing (or deciding not to invest) in buildings,

infrastructure and services like for the periferico, viaducto and ejes viales projects, which

raised the land price for land generally owned by middle and high income groups. Fourthly,

planning land use. “In Mexico City, land-use zoning has been limited in scope; it has been

employed mainly to legitimate government and to protect middle-income and upper-income

land developments” City (Gilbert et al:1985:71). Fifthly, by controlling the low-income

developments through permission, prevention and decision to service technically illegal areas.

2. What is the influence of the subfields of power on land policy and planning and what is their

relationship?

Mexico’s political field, has been characterized by 70 years of one party rule with a clientelistic

culture. Land has constantly appeared, often in rhetoric terms, in the general political

discourse from revolutionary periods till nowadays. Depending on political climate, Ejidos has

been part of this: under some presidents’ government like Cardenas (1934-40), Lopez (1958-

64), Diaz (1964-70), Echeverria (1970-76) there were particularly promoted, with the creation

of a considerable amount of hectares of them. In general terms, what constantly happened,

  27  

for Peter Ward, is that land issues have been used for political control, in a double-face coin

strategy: through controlling the policy and through creating a bureaucracy to manage land

issues. In fact, Gilbert and Ward see illegal settlements as a “safety valve to social tension”

(1985:73) and the permissive behaviour of the state (Gilbert et al:1985:95; Ward:1998:195)

towards the illegal means of accessing land as a way to reproduce and maintain social

inequality. In other words “[i]llegality continues to be a useful way in which the state permits

the poor to occupy the residual land of the city. The system needs to give them some land in

order to reproduce the labour force; it also protects high-value legal land” (Gilbert et

al:1985:75).

Economic field, in a city with political field strongly interested in its own reproduction and with

high demand and limited supply of land, has a strong influence on land, through the dynamism

of economic market (in terms of land accumulation, development for profit, price of land as a

capital), in terms of influences on change of use (Varley:1985), in terms of policy (as we will

see for 1992 reform).

About the administrative field, the border between Federal District and the State of Mexico is a

border between a strong control and the lack of it. This is the reasons for the development of

low income settlements in the State of Mexico, with some exceptions in the east and north

east of the Federal District (Gilbert et al:1985:88) and this is the reason why, the procedure of

registration developed after the 1992 reform, was not implemented in the Federal District.

(Diaz:2000:37-38).

As previously mentioned as answer to the question 3 in the section 3.2.1., in literature there is

not evidence of the contribution by cultural subfields of power.

3.3 Exploring 1992 reform

Of this important and well-documented reform, we gave some partial hints during the whole analytical

chapter and here we intend to give a complete view in reference to the impacts.

The reform showed a gap between what was expected (privatization of ejido and removal of them

from the informal market) and what really happened (limited privatization and continuous presence in

informal market). The reasons have been investigated by many scholars (Sembieda, 1996; Olivera,

2005; Schteingart and Salazar, 2005; Jones and Ward, 1998) and, of those, Diaz (2008) makes a

summary: the bureaucratic procedures of land privatization, the insufficient supply of housing oriented

  28  

to urban poor and their look at informal market, the existence of an institutional framework that

provides incentives for the irregular sales of ejido land and the traditional reluctance of ejidatarios to

deal with public institutions and private investors.

Three more factors, for Diaz, were not considered. First, the “hindering” effect of participation and

transparency because, decision-making tradition and power relationships in Ejido, together with the

complicated procedure of privatization, make ejidatarians prefer informal market (Diaz:2008:69-80).

Second, “the democratization of clientelism”, because, despite the recent disappear of 70 years of

single party system, the status of ejidatarians still gives privileges and “[s]ocial land privatization acts

as a disincentive because keeping the communal status of Ejidos provides them easy access to

politicians, services and subsidies, a privilege than most of the private landowners do not have”

(Diaz:2008:16). This direct linkages to politics works even because, “ejidos are probably the only

social organization in Mexico that are attached to a specific territory, so the best way to exercise

political influence in the Ejido realm is by keeping communities together, something extremely difficult

when land is privatized” (Diaz:2008:17). Third, cultural attachment to land because “[m]ore than

commodities that might be transacted in the land market, Ejidos should be considered as social

spaces in which land possession is intrinsically related to the preservation of their identity as

communities that are heirs of the values of the Mexican society, translated into preferential treatment

given by politicians, public institutions and the rest of the population” and “privatization of land not

only means the end of Ejido as social entity, but also the disappearance of the last vestige of the

Revolution and its ideals” (Diaz:2008:18).

All these reasons can be interpreted either as resistances to economic field coming from ejidatarians’

habitus (and their social capital) in relation to political and cultural field or as non compliance between

policy and real balance between subfields of power. In a few words, “[t]he reforms of 1992 did not

recognize that Ejidos have three dimensions – economic, political and cultural […]. These reforms

assumed ejidatarios behaving according to a market-based logic in which land is a commodity that

can be transacted if there is sufficient economic opportunity”. (Diaz:2008:104). This interpretation is in

just a strictly economic view considered land as an economic capital and failed to foresee the

consequences of the reform.

  29  

4. CONCLUSION

This exploration of the powerful influence of land in urban development unveiled some findings,

showed some gaps in the information, opened possible field of research.

4.1. Findings

The dissertation brought to findings, some of them strictly related to land while some other could be

generalized for other kind of capital.

First, in its nature, land is either spatial manifestation of different fields or economic and symbolic

capital with its aspects of ownership, control and use. This gives an interesting interpretation of

current debate about land and of different positions of scholars around security of tenure and

regularization. Position in land is determined by balance between several fields not strictly related to

land (but grounded in land). Holding a position on land and owning that land as a capital is not

necessarily related and bridging the gap between position and ownership means to change the

balance of fields with consequences not always easy to foresee.

Second, land as capital is mainly economic and becomes symbolic in contexts where it allows who

owns, control, use it to access and influence subfields of power. This may happen when there is a

strong economic field and, therefore, economic capital accumulation is considered positive (the case

of Mexico City) or when owning a land goes hand in hand with access to decision making (the case of

the Ejido). Despite this nature of land as economic capital, a strict interpretation just in these terms

might be partial and misleading, as shown after 1992 reform.

Third, the weight of actions and productions by field of power different from the economic has to be

evaluated in reference to the other subfields and keeping in mind the competition between subfields

of power to impose their capital as legitimate. For this, there might be a conflict of interest when

academia (which belongs to university field) discusses issues of land as economic capital. Academia

tends to impose cultural capital delegitimating economic capital. Nevertheless academia contribution

has not to be considered per se risky, because, on the other hand, the weight of non-economic

subfields of power, especially an academic one, is crucial to act as a guarantee for impartiality of the

State and as control of other subfields.

Four, land as a capital (in terms of control, ownership, use) is contested and influenced by all different

subfields of power. Economic power is interested in accumulation of land and to propose its capital

  30  

as legitimate while the other subfields of power are struggling to impose their own capital. In this

perspective, ‘public interest’ is rephrased as the balance between different subfields of power and the

role of citizens as responsible of creating critical masses to influence this balance through common

habitus. With respect to land, in theory, sharing this economic capital can give a powerful means to

this ‘army of ants’ but sharing may realistically happens only in case land is not only an economic

capital but it is a means to access and maintain alive common valuable achievements, as might be

the social capital attached to the Ejido. On the other hand, whenever new structures of power with

hierarchy based on land (as happens in Ejido) are created, there might be risks of unequal

accumulation of power.

Five, land as a spatial manifestation of different fields and as capital can be an interesting opportunity,

through the concept of symbolic violence, to investigate the reproduction of inequalities. This happens

in the Ejidos, where land is transferred through members, where members can decide on a new

member, where women are members only in case of being head of household, that is when they are

widows or divorced.

Finally, an understanding of the whole facets of land allows policy to be more suitable to the context

and prevent to consequences such as gaps between expectations and reality seen after the 1992

reform. Despite, in Mexico, City economic field is the strongest field, in Mexico City, the story of

reform advices that, in evaluating reality in order to give a conscious response, we have to keep in

mind the other fields of power and what lands allow to access.

4.2. Gaps of information and potential areas of further research.

Being very broad, Bourdieu’s framework opens many more fields of research and this dissertation

could not investigate them not only for lack of space but, above all, for lack of sources and data.

Some of them are worthy to be mentioned.

First, the contribution from other subfields of power (university and artistic) is not mentioned in

literature. Especially academic world, with its influence on land in terms of contribution to the debate

as well as of real influence to the political and economic fields would be worthy of investigation.

Second, positions in Mexico field are studied in reference to economic class while dynamism of

capital is studied in reference to economic class and gender, too. This is common for literature in

many places, not only in Mexico and it is surely an added proof of the weight of economic field. A

reference to stratification of social class (e.g. ethnicity, age, etc.) in relation to land as a spatial

  31  

manifestation of different fields and as capital, despite risks of defining stratification which are not

existing, could unveil more the mechanism of reproduction of inequality.

Third, the investigation about how land as economic capital allows to access to cultural and social

capital (and the ‘quality’ of them measured with field’s rules) would be helpful in understanding why

different groups have the same kind of opportunities and tends to reproduce intergenerational status

quo.

Finally, the history of land as a spatial manifestation of other fields and the progressive stratification of

fields on land in different positions, together with the investigation of the kind of groups which

inhabited it during time would give a better account of the present situation.

4.3. A final consideration

One of the critique I started with was that, in literature, land is too often considered as economic

capital. Despite all, in fact, land is mainly an economic capital and this happens for its nature in

relation with the strong influence of economic field, which, in many countries and in Mexico, too, is the

strongest subfield of power. Scholars are inside the struggle between different subfields of power and

their products are means for the affirmation of the importance of cultural capital. This can be done in

two ways: through production of knowledge in itself and through the kind of knowledge produced.

Production of knowledge in itself allows scholars to be heard and to affirm their presence and their

claim to be influential. The kind of knowledge produced is very related to the habitus of the scholar, to

the rule of the cultural field (or of the subfield inside the cultural field) but could also be influenced by

the rules of other fields. When a field (e.g. the economic or political one) is very influential there is the

risk of an influence not only on reality per se (as argued several times) but also on production of

knowledge about reality. Constantly keeping in mind these constraints might allow not only scholars,

but also policy makers and planners to be more realistic and effective in their work.

  32  

NOTES

(1) (2) (3) Latifundios are big pieces of land whose property belongs to one owner, the latifundista.

Haciendas are estate with, usually a productive activity. Before 1917 Agrarian Reform these words

were part of the common system in Mexico.

(4) “Social property […] means land used for communal or corporate uses by designated local groups

who use in a productive manner. Public property is land held by the government that is used, sold,

leased or transferred for any public purpose. Private property is land held in fee simple form”

(Siembieda:1996:383)

(5) Those who loses land, loses history. Cited in Diaz (2008:93)

REFERENCES

Azuela, Antonio and Emilio Duhau, 1998, “Tenure Regularization, Private Property and Public Order in

Mexico”, in Ann Varley and Edesio Fernandes (eds.), 1998, Illegal Cities. Law and Urban Change in

Developing Countries, Zed Books Ltd, London, UK.

Bourdieu, Pierre, 2000, Pascalian Meditation, Polity press, Cambridge

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1990a, The logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, Stanford

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1990b, In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology, Stanford University

Press, Stanford

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, UK

Bourdieu, Pierre, 2002, Masculine Domination, Stanford University Press, USA

Bourdieu, Pierre, n.d., Sociology is a martial art. Available from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csbu08SqAuc [Accessed 7th July 2010]

Brown, Jennifer, 2004, Ejidos and Comunidades in Oaxaca, Mexico: Impact of the 1992 Reforms,

RDI Reports on Foreign Aid and Development, Seattle, USA

  33  

City Population, 2010, The principal agglomeration of the world. Available from:

http://www.citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html [Accessed 30th August 2010].

Connolly, Priscilla, n.d., The case of Mexico City, Mexico, Available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-

projects/Global_Report/pdfs/Mexico.pdf [Accessed 26th August 2010]

Davis, Mike, 2006, Planet of Slums, Verso, New York

De Soto, Hernando, 2000, The mystery of capital: why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails

everywhere else, BasicBooks, New York

Diaz, Rodrigo, 2008, City Growth and Community-Owned Land in Mexico City, Pontificia Universidad

Catolica de Chile Santiago, Chile. Available from: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/44355

[Accessed 16th August 2010]

Dovey, Kim, 2010, Becoming places. Routledge, New York.

Deere, Carmen Diana, 2001, Empowering Women: Land and property rights in Latin America,

University of Pittsburgh Press, UK

Durand-Lasserve, A. and Selod, H., 2007, The formalisation of urban land tenure in developing

countries, Available from: www.worldbank.org/urban/symposium2007/papers/durand_lasserve.pdf

[Accessed 9th June 2010]

Flores, Edmundo, 1959, The significance of Land-Use Changes in the Economic Development of

Mexico, Land Economics, 35(2), 115-124

Giglia, Angela, 2003, “Gated communities” in Mexico City. Available from: http://uam-

antropologia.info/web/articulos/goglia_gated_communities.pdf [Accessed 24th August 2010]

Gilbert, Alan, 2002, “On the mystery of capital and the myths of Hernando de Soto: what difference

does legal title make?”, International Development planning Review, 24(1), 1-20

Gilbert, Alan and Peter M. Ward, 1985, Housing, the State and the Poor. Policy and practice in three

Latin American Cities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  34  

Gonzalez Pozo, Alberto, 2009, “Las chinampas de Xocimilco: periferia ancestral en peligro”, in Aguilar

Guilermo, Adrián Escamilla and Irma Escamilla (eds), Periferia Urbana. Deterioro ambiental y

reestructuración metropolitana, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Instituto de

Geografía, pp. 273-289

Gruben, William C. and Ronald H. Schmidt,1992, Ejido reform and the NAFTA, FRBSF Economic

Letter. No 92-34, October 1992.

Available from: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/1992/el92-34.pdf [Accessed 12th

August 2010]

Jones, Gareth A. and Peter M. Ward, 1998, “Ejido Reform: Stimulus or Alternative to Migration?”, in

Cornelius, Wayne A. David Myhre (eds.), The transformation of rural Mexico. Reforming the Ejido

Sector, Center for U.S. – Mexican studies, University of California, San Diego, pp.247-275

Hall, Linda B., 1981, Alvaro Obregon: Power and Revolution in Mexico 1911-1920, College Station:

Texas A&M University Press, Texas.

Harker, Richard, Cheleen Mahar and Chris Wilkes, 1990, An Introduction to the Work of Pierre

Bourdieu. The Practice of Theory, The Macmillan press Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and

London

Kostof, Spiro, 1991, The city shaped: urban patterns and meanings through history. Thames and

Hudson, London

Olivera, Jose Manuel, 2002, Alguna Consideraciones sobre Crecimineto Urbano y Dominio Pleno de

Parcelas Ejidales en la Region Valle de Cuautitlan, Estado de Mexico. Available from:

http://www.pa.gob.mx/publica/cd_estudios/Paginas/autores/olvera%20hdz%20jose%20algunas%20

consideraciones%20sobre.pdf [Accessed 25th August 2010]

Ortiz-Chao, Claudia and Bill Hillier, 2007, In search of pattern of Land-Use in Mexico City using

logistic regression at the plot level. Available from: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/3293/1/3293.pdf [Accessed

27th August 2010]

Payne, Geoffrey, 2004, “Land tenure and property rights: an introduction”, Habitat International, 28,

167–179

  35  

Pick, James B. and Edgar W. Butler, 1997. Mexico Megacity, Westview Press, US

Scargill, Ian, 1979, Processes Shaping the City in The Form of Cities. Bell & Hyman, London

Schteingart, Martha, 1988, “Mexico City”, in Dogan, Mattei and John D.Kasarda, The Metropolis Era,

Vol.2, Mega-Cities, pp.268-293.

Schteingart, Martha and Clara Eugenia Salazar, 2005, Expansion Urbana, Sociedad y Ambiente,

Centro de Estudios Demográficos Urbanos y Ambientales, Colegio de México

Siembieda, William J., 1996, “Looking for a Place to Live: Transforming the urban Eijido”, Bullettin of

Latin American research, 15 (3), 371-385

Smets, Peer, 2003, “The market does not work for all; and not just because of lacking property titles”,

Focaal – European Journal of Anthropology, 41, 193-196

Swartz, David, 1997, Culture and power. The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, The University of Chicago

press, Chicago, USA

Swartz, David, 2008, Pierre Bourdieu on power, Available from:

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/2/4/2/pages242427/p242427-

1.php [Accessed 9th August 2010]

UNHABITAT, 2003, The challenge of slums. Global Report on Human Settlement, Earthscan

Publication, London

UNHABITAT, 2007, Global Report on Human Settlement. Enhancing Urban Safety and Security,

Earthscan, London

Vasudevan, Alex, McFarlane, Colin, Jeffrey, Alex, 2008, “Spaces of enclosure”, Geoforum, 39(5),

1641-1646.

Varley, Ann, 2007, “Gender and Property Formalization: Conventional and Alternative Approaches”,

World Development, 35(10), 1739–1753

  36  

Varley, Ann, 2002, “Private or Public: Debating the Meaning of Tenure Legalization”, International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26 (3), 449–61

Varley, Ann, 1998, “The Political Uses of Illegality: Evidence from Urban Mexico”, in Varley, Ann and

Edesio Fernandes (eds), 1998, Illegal Cities. Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries, Zed

Books Ltd, London, UK.

Varley, Ann, 1985, Urbanization and Agrarian Law: the Case of Mexico City, Bullettin of American

Research, 4(1), 1-16

Ward, Peter, 1998, Mexico City, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England

Webb, Jen, Tony Schirato and Geoff Danaher, 2002, Understanding Bourdieu, Sage Publications,

London

Webster, Helena, 2010, Bourdieu for Architects. Routledge, London.