The mounting tensions and turbulence that pervade the politics of most Latin American countries stem from the attempt to solve a basic question that at bottom, and contrary to common belief, poses a nonideological, pragmatic choice. Is it possible to remedy economic stagnation and chronic inflation exclusively by means of administrative and technological measures, such as better farming methods, industrialization, foreign aid, regional economic integration, and improvements in the terms of trade? Or will it be necessary, in addition, to try massive, fundamental reforms such as the nationalization of the mining and petroleum industries and agrarian reform? Considering the enormous forces of active discontent that every day exert increasing pressures over the politics of Latin America and the negligible results of the relief measures tried so far, the question may seem rhetorical. But be that as it may, a better understanding of the feasible alternatives, or of the lack of alternatives, open to policy makers is necessary. Part of this understanding can be gained by a discussion of the economics of land reform. The ideas on land reform currently held by several influential professional groups inevitably partake of the biases of each profession. Scientists and technicians ordinarily tend to exaggerate the connection between their own scientific preoccupations and any sort of economic and political reform. This leads them to think of agrarian reforms as if they should be confined, by some exclusive rule of scientific etiquette, to manipulations and decisions within their favorite field of technology. Thus, in circles of agronomists, plant and animal scientists, irrigation experts, and the like, it is generally believed that land reforms have the self-evident, straightforward purpose of increasing production. The repertory of measures designed to achieve these basic "reform" objectives is largely confined to research on the selection, adaptation, and introduction of innovations