This monograph, a Master’s thesis prepared in 1952 under T. Lynn Smith, is a sociological study of an unsuccessful 1903 law which allowed the establishment of rural syndicates in Brazil. It is characteristically absurd that Brazil began its union legislation with rural unions when these organizations usually develop long after urban unions. However, the word union in the title is somewhat misleading in that the sindicatos set up under the law (only 13 in all Brazil) were not workers’ organizations but landowners’ associations. While the law envisaged sindicatos which could unite both landowners and peasants in cooperatives, in fact the peasant was excluded from the few organizations that were set up.

While the 1903 decree is widely mentioned in the literature on Brazilian labor law, there is no other careful study of how it was put into practice. In a field replete with erudite literature on laws studied in the abstract, it is gratifying to find a monograph by a Brazilian lawyer-sociologist which illuminates the reasons for the enactment and unfruitfulness of an unrealistic legal adornment.

One must not expect this study to help explain the rise of peasant movements throughout Brazil in recent years, since the emphasis is on the static aspects of rural society at the turn of the century. In fact the author implies that there are no peasant organizations in Brazil when in fact farm labor unions and peasant leagues are found in many parts of Brazil, although few are legally recognized. The author uncritically accepts highly doubtful theories about race (from Gilberto Freyre) and Brazilians’ un-associative tendencies (from Oliveira Vianna) but these do not seriously detract from the study. The three background chapters contain nothing that is not available in English, and the background material is not carefully focused. More important, the inadequate bibliography has not been brought up to date. Some applicable material available in Brazil was omitted, as were recent sources. Old editions were given of books that have been revised. With all these shortcomings, the monograph remains excellent critique of the “bacharelismo” so common in Brazilian labor legislation.