The Haiti vs. Dominican Republic comparison is interesting, but I think the Cuba vs. Haiti comparison is equally valuable - although I imagine it gets neglected

The Haiti vs. Dominican Republic comparison is interesting, but I think the Cuba vs. Haiti comparison is equally valuable - although I imagine it gets neglected in the USA because it makes Cuban socialism/communism look a lot better than free-trade-philanthropic-democratic-capitalism system that was applied in Haiti. Of course, if you include the Dominican Republic, the situation gets more complex. However, the article's central claim (small farms destroy arable land, so large foreign-owned plantations are more sustainable) is invalidated by comparison to Cuba: > "The reason why this does not occur in all countries is that larger farms benefit from economies of scale. Haiti’s small farms were too small to justify investments in labour-saving technologies. They were also too small for basic investments in soil fertility, like leaving land fallow. It’s hard to leave land uncultivated when your family must eat from a small plot. Finally, small farms create erosion through a tragedy of the commons. Erosion does not just affect your farm, it affects neighbouring farms. Investing in erosion prevention for your own land has little effect if your neighbours do nothing. Farmers on small plots, therefore, have an incentive to ignore the erosion problem and overfarm their own land." So, why has Cuba been successful when it broke up the plantations and distributed the land to small farmers?