Colonialism is often treated as a historical period that ended with political independence. However, many of the systems it established continue to shape the coffee sector, influencing who controls land and trade, whose labor is undervalued and where economic benefits accumulate. Understanding these colonial legacies begins with examining how coffee cultivation spread around the world.

The global expansion of coffee cultivation was part of an imperial project, deeply connected with the enforcement of violent forced-labor regimes. During European colonization, coffee’s spread across the world was tied to the seizure of land, forced labor and trade systems built to move valuable agricultural goods from colonized territories to European markets.

Even though colonial rule has ended across most of the coffee-producing world, many of the dynamics and relationships it established remain. To this day, land is unequally distributed, and much of the value associated with coffee is still created and captured after it leaves the countries where it was grown.

By stating these continuities, we don’t mean that the coffee sector has remained unchanged or that every present inequality has a single historical cause, but it is important that we recognize that today’s industry did not begin on neutral ground. The opportunities available to farmers, companies, and even governments have been shaped by earlier decisions about whose land could be taken, whose labor could be exploited and whose knowledge counted.

Colonialism was about more than just land

Colonialism was not only the political occupation of one territory by another. It also created systems for classifying people and assigning them different economic roles. Peruvian sociologist Aníbal Quijano used the term coloniality of power to explain how these structures continued after colonial administrations ended. According to his perspective, the idea of race became a tool for organizing labor and authority on a global scale. European identity was associated with ownership, knowledge and command, while Indigenous and African identities were tied to coerced or poorly compensated work. The racial focus has a colonial origin and character, and it has proven to be more durable and stable than colonialism itself.

This created what Quijano called a “global model of control of work.” It explains why political freedom didn’t automatically fix the economy. When new nations gained independence, they often kept the same old land laws and export systems. In many cases, the people in charge changed, but the unfair structure stayed the same.

Coffee is a perfect example of this. European powers pushed coffee production across Latin America, Africa, and Asia to supply their own markets. This often relied on slavery or forced work. While the details are different in each country, the goal was the same: organize local land and labor to grow a crop for export. This also affected who we see as “experts.” Local and Indigenous knowledge was often ignored. We see this today when farmers are treated only as people who need help or training, even though they have centuries of experience caring for their land.

Land ownership as a colonial legacy

Land is one of the clearest examples of how the past affects the present. In Latin America, colonizers took over Indigenous lands and replaced communal sharing with private estates. Owning this land gave families political power and wealth that could be passed down through generations.

This concentration of land hasn’t changed much. For example, research from Oxfam shows that in Latin America, just 1% of the largest farms hold 81% of agricultural land. Even though many small families grow coffee, they are working within a system where the best land and legal rights were originally handed out based on colonial hierarchies.

In many countries, families and social groups that benefited from European settlement accumulated land that could be passed down, divided or used to secure financing. Indigenous and Afrodescendant communities were more likely to be dispossessed, confined to less favorable areas or incorporated into estates as workers. Their descendants can therefore enter the modern coffee economy from profoundly different starting positions. One group may inherit a farm, legal documentation and financial connections. Another may contribute essential labor while owning little or no land and having limited access to formal credit.

These differences matter for coffee sustainability. A producer cannot easily invest in shade trees, soil recovery or water infrastructure without secure access to land. A community cannot protect a watershed if decisions about the territory are fragmented or made elsewhere. Education and technology may expand what is technically possible, but they cannot compensate for unequal control of the basic resources on which production depends.

Independence didn’t fix the trade balance

As we have seen, independence gave former colonies their own governments, but they were still stuck in a global economy that wanted their raw materials. Roads and ports were already built to move coffee out of the country. They needed the money from these exports to survive, so they had to keep the same system going.

This structure remains visible in coffee’s global value chain. Producing countries generally export green coffee, while activities such as roasting, branding and retail take place closer to wealthier consumer markets. These activities are largely controlled by companies with greater access to capital, market information and consumers, allowing them to retain a greater share of the final value. Research has documented growing inequality among actors in the coffee value chain. A 2025 study of specialty coffee value chains by Karl Wienhold and Peter W. Roberts similarly found that the additional value generated when producers supply differentiated specialty markets is largely, though unevenly, captured by actors farther along the chain. These findings challenge the assumption that higher retail prices and growing demand for specialty coffee necessarily result in producers receiving a proportional share of that value.

This disconnect is what Benoit Daviron and Stefano Ponte described as “the coffee paradox.” Consumers may pay more for coffee and be presented with increasingly sophisticated stories about its origin, while many of the people who grow it remain unable to earn a secure living from their work. Higher retail prices do not move automatically through the chain. Where value ultimately stays depends on who owns the most profitable activities, who holds bargaining power and how prices are determined at each stage. In a future article, we will examine more closely how value is created, delivered and captured across the coffee sector, and why these distinctions matter for understanding who ultimately benefits.

Why unequal systems are so difficult to change

Path dependency helps explain why colonial patterns can persist even when many people agree that they are unfair. The concept describes how earlier choices shape the options available later. Once money, infrastructure and institutions have been organized around a particular model, changing direction becomes costly. Each new investment makes the established path easier to follow and alternatives harder to pursue.

For example, let’s consider the possibility of retaining more value at origin through roasting, product development or stronger domestic markets. Competing in those activities may require affordable financing, equipment and reliable logistics. It also requires access to consumer markets and the ability to withstand years of uncertain returns. Companies already established in importing countries possess many of these advantages because previous investment created them there. The existing path rewards those who are already on it.

Looking at coffee’s history can shape its future

Discussing colonial legacies can feel uncomfortable because it challenges many happy stories about coffee. The sector often celebrates connection, entrepreneurship and shared appreciation for quality. Those things can be genuine while existing alongside unequal structures. A close relationship between a buyer and a producer does not erase the wider conditions under which each entered the relationship. Good intentions do not guarantee equal power.

Historical analysis is valuable because it changes the questions we ask. Instead of wondering only how producers can meet market expectations, we can ask who created those expectations and who can afford to meet them. Instead of treating poverty in coffee communities as a technical problem, we can examine how land, value and risk have been distributed.

Coloniality isn’t the only force shaping coffee today, but recognizing its influence and taking responsibility for the systems in which we continue to participate are good starting points if sustainability is to mean more than making the current model slightly less harmful. It can become a process of changing who has the authority, resources and freedom to shape coffee’s future.

 

References:

Quijano, Aníbal. “Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America.” International Sociology, vol. 15, no. 2, 2000, pp. 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005.

Utrilla-Catalan, Rebeca, Rocío Rodríguez-Rivero, Viviana Narvaez, Virginia Díaz-Barcos, Maria Blanco, and Javier Galeano. “Growing Inequality in the Coffee Global Value Chain: A Complex Network Assessment.” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 2, 2022, article 672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020672.

Wienhold, Karl, and Peter W. Roberts. “Is the Rising Tide of Specialty Coffee Lifting All Boats?” World Development, vol. 195, 2025, article 107103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2025.107103.

Daviron, Benoît, and Stefano Ponte. The Coffee Paradox: Global Markets, Commodity Trade and the Elusive Promise of Development. Zed Books, 2005. This is a book rather than an article.

Oxfam. “A Snapshot of Inequality: What the Latest Agricultural Census Reveals About Land Distribution in Latin America.” 10 July 2017.

Guereña, Aníbal. Unearthed: Land, Power and Inequality in Latin America. Oxfam, 2016.