Agrarian Reform – The Unfinished Business
During the years following World War II, many countries
introduced land reforms – however, with varying degrees
of success. In East Asia, strong pressure from occupying armies
and sever crises led to successful improvements in the economic,
social and political situation. An important part of the success
story was the result of the inclusion of a land management
reform and the organization of services for the beneficiaries
of the agrarian reforms. Taiwan was without a doubt the most
outstanding example, and it is a pity that other countries
following suit did not learn the lesson from this success
story. These early reforms provided incentives for increasing
productivity, as well as promoting equality and reducing the
power based on the control of land.
The many attempts at land reforms that followed were not
able to achieve the same results. Weak governments were not
able to break the resistance of powerful landlords, and the
only limited provision of services to, or even the exclusion
of beneficiaries of the reforms from services further decreased
whatever success there might have been.
The arguments respecting land reform – pro because
of the need to eliminate obstacles to socio-economic development
and con because of the tremendous political and financial
costs – lost momentum with the advent of powerful new
developments during the late 60s and 70s. Severe food shortages
became the overwhelming concern of the governments in some
of the large countries. The continued decreases in farm sizes
due to the partitioning of land through inheritance initiated
discussions – beginning with the Indian Association
of Agricultural Economists – as to whether it would
make sense to increase the already large number of too small
farms by allocating small plots to landless in the course
of land reform. The impact of biological and technological
innovations in agriculture, the so-called ‘green revolution,’
was regarded as proof that technology could solve all problems.
Finally, real or assumed non-agricultural development seemed
to offer alternatives to rural life and reduce pressure demanding
land reform. Some of these arguments will be taken up in more
detail later on in this paper.
No matter what the short and long-term value of such arguments
might be, it had become rather quiet respecting the issues
of land-tenure reform until the changes in the socialistic
countries took place. While it is probably still too early
to draw conclusions on the land tenure changes in these countries
– some of them are still experimenting, others are going
through an obscure process of arbitrary actions by regional
administrations – a number of the old assumptions concerning
land reform are no longer accepted as the ultimate wisdom,
and new issues have emerged. Recently the discussion has concentrated
on the following aspects:
- Is traditional land reform necessary, or could the goal
be reached at lower cost by means of structural policy measures,
or incentive taxation, or ‘market led land reform’?
Who would be charged with the burden of such land reform?
- Is it still possible to pass a land reform for an entire
country as in the 50s, at best with double ceilings for
non-irrigated areas – but without paying attention
to the great differences in quality and quantity or security
of irrigation, the soil and location – or have regional
differences become so influential that they have to be taken
into consideration (which would probably lead to structural
policy measures).
- The increasing mobility of the people is related to this
issue, both residential as well as occupational. The greater
mobility results in migration from remote areas with limited
fertility to the centres of agricultural production and
more non-agricultural development, a trend which might demand
different treatment in attempts to change the agrarian structure.
This includes the need to anticipate socio-economic changes
which can be expected to take place in the near future,
whether caused by outmigration or technological impacts.
Changes have to be accepted by the people, and it makes
little sense to distribute small parcels of land to people
who will migrate within a few years because of poor prospects
for improving their lives under the prevailing conditions.
Should we invest in marginal, fragile land, and what are
the land tenure preconditions for doing so?
- Today, changes in land tenure have to take the requirements
not only of the agricultural sector and population into
consideration, but rather also of the economy and society
at large. Urbanization and industrialization require land,
and improvements in the infrastructure, recreational facilities,
water reservoirs and environmental concerns have their own
land requirements. The loudest request for a golf course
should not be the winner in the competition for land, but
rather proper land-use planning which takes all of the aspects
into consideration.
- Finally, at the higher level of sophistication that exists
in most countries today, the different interests and conditions
represented by various cultural groups within the countries
call for specific treatment in accordance with the varying
needs and requirements. The division of land that is registered
in the name of an ethnic chieftain who is actually, or should
be, the custodian of his tribe could destroy the economic
basis of the tribal society. Each case must be considered
separately because the same legal situation may signify
that expropriation would result in the deterioration of
the traditional tribal society, or that in other cases the
chieftain would be transformed from being a custodian into
a landlord.
All of these and similar aspects in the end call for the
incorporation of land tenure policy into a broader general
policy of socio-economic development with the goal of facilitating
increases in productivity, improving the living conditions
of the rural population and protecting the environment. Ultimately,
it will probably require a transition from land tenure to
a broader concept of resource tenure with the focus not only
on including land, but also water, grazing land, forestry
and the available or other potential means of existence and,
last but not least, such aspects as the protection of biodiversity.
In order to make such a comprehensive policy manageable,
it would be necessary to limit it to a specific region, i.e.,
it would have to be a regional development policy.
next: 3. The Farm Size - Productivity Issue
|