Introduction: Contextualizing and Interrogating the GKI Case for Redistributive Land Reform

The GKI case for redistributive land reform is first contextualized historically: by considering its broad historical context that extends back to ancient times, and its more recent context, that of the effort to secure 'development' in poor countries in the post-1945 era. Two broad forms are briefly considered: tenurial reform and redistributive reform. The decline of land reform in policy agendas from the late 1960s onwards, and its recent reappearance are noted. That reappearance has included 'market friendly' reform, strongly pushed by the World Bank. It is in these contexts that the bold and radical GKI case for redistributive land reform has been made. A brief résumé of that case is provided. Thereafter, the nature of the interrogation of GKI by contributors to the special issue is outlined, this including treatment of the GKI methodological/ideological context. This interrogation covers a questioning of: the nature of their neo-populist/neo-classical logic and the theoretical problems associated therewith; the existence of an inverse relationship between land productivity and land size; the supposed impact on agricultural growth; the postulated effects of urban bias; and the ignoring of the 'real politics of land'. This encompasses treatment of Japan, Taiwan, China, former Soviet bloc countries, Southern Africa (with a focus on South Africa and Zimbabwe) and Bangladesh.     

Neo-Classical Neo-Populism 25 Years On: Déjà Vu and Déjà Passé. Towards a Critique

The Griffin, Khan and Ickowitz argument in favour of redistributive land reform, as a means of eradicating rural poverty, is an updated version of a case made by Griffin 30 years ago, and is here seen as a variant of neo-classical neo-populism. The essential logic presented by GKI is considered and it is argued that the approach is defective in its lack of historical perspective and its deployment of a static approach in a dynamic context: these defects manifested in its ignoring of the processes associated with capitalist transformation. It is further argued that its logical foundation is the neo-classical construct of perfect competition, which is without historical basis; its empirical justification is a postulated inverse relationship between land productivity and size of holding, supposedly true of all places and all times, but which is swept away by the development of capitalism in agriculture; and its social specification, in failing to capture the existence of differentiated peasantries, ignores the actual class structure of the countryside.     

Power, Property Rights and the Issue of Land Reform: A General Case Illustrated with Reference to Bangladesh

The argument for land reform is most persuasive when the proposed land reform promises not only to improve distribution but also to increase growth and efficiency. Such is the promise in the GKI advocacy of radical redistributive land reform. In this paper, first (a) the Griffin, Khan and Ickowitz (GKI) and (b) World Bank positions on land reform are compared, and their points of agreement and disagreement identified. Secondly, the political economy of Bangladesh is examined to evaluate the appropriateness of these two competing neoclassical approaches for understanding the constraints in the agrarian sector. Thirdly, it is argued that the anomalous evidence on land transactions and productivity in Bangladesh cannot be easily accommodated within purely economic models of markets in the way that the neoclassical approach attempts. Paradoxically, both the World Bank's focus on institutional reform and GKI's focus on radical land reform are derived from such attempts and both suffer from similar empirical and theoretical problems. There is a strong case for going back to Brenner-type political economy approaches for understanding the dynamism and constraints facing agrarian transitions. Such an approach puts the analysis of class and power at the centre stage of an analysis of structure and change in the agrarian economy, and focuses on the distribution of power that prevents primitive accumulation in some countries leading to a capitalist transformation.     

A Note on Former Soviet Bloc Countries

It is argued that while it is difficult to be critical of GKI, because the picture painted of the former Soviet bloc countries is so broad, the treatment is not sufficiently detailed to be analytically illuminating. Four important weaknesses are identified. The first is the problematic analogy of private plot agriculture on the former state and collective farms with minifundia in Latin America, and the consequent analogy of collective farms with latifundia. The second is the argument that private plot farming was involuting in a Geertzian sense. Thirdly, the GKI redistributive land reform agenda for Russia is questioned and a case is made for privately owned and managed large farms. Finally, GKI are criticized for failing to take account of the limited rural labour supply in Russia.     

Land reallocation reform in rural China: A behavioral economics perspective

Based on prospect theory, we develop a theoretical framework to unify divided views on land reallocation reform in China. Our theoretical framework and empirical verification explain the driving forces behind the success of the rural land reallocation reform in China. We find that rural land reallocation reform in China is characterized by induced and imposed institutional changes. The relationship between induced and imposed institutional change is complementary instead of competing. The decision and frequency of land reallocation are affected by both local endowment and central government policy. Empirical findings also suggest that land reallocation reform in China is incremental, with interim policy targets from different stages taking gradual effect. The incremental implementation of the “No Reallocation” policy is the reason behind the widespread, diversified land reallocation practices across the country; this policy also contributes to the success of rural land reform in China. The theoretical model can be used to study a wide range of government-led institutional changes in China, such as affordable housing schemes and the National New-type Urbanization Plan (2014–2020).     

In Defence of Neo-Classical Neo-Populism

This paper is a response to the discussion in the special issue of this Journal on Redistributive Land Reform Today (Vol. 4, Nos. 1 and 2). We begin by attempting to clarify the methodological debate, differentiating our approach, which our critics call neo-classical neo-populism, from mainstream neo-classical economics and historical materialism. We then distinguish between land tenure reforms and redistributive land reforms, and argue that it is the latter that really matter. Next, we address the issue of the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity. Fourth, we discuss cases in which systems of labour control are used to transform the peasantry into a landless rural proletariat and challenge the view that systems of labour control can usefully be reduced to a problem of transaction costs. We end with discussions of reform in the transition economies, China and Bangladesh, where we defend the view that it is the distribution of landownership rather than operational holdings that largely determines the extent of poverty.     

'Changing Before Our Very Eyes': Agrarian Questions and the Politics of Land in Capitalism Today

This paper endorses the criticisms of neo-classical populism and its advocacy of redistributive land reform provided by other contributions to this special issue of the Journal, to which it adds several further points. If GKI propose a version of an agrarian question of 'small' or 'family' farming, and its resolution through a familiar (Chayanovian) path of development, much of the critique rests, in one way or another, on the 'classic' agrarian question in capitalist transition, in effect the agrarian question of capital in which the agrarian question of labour was once subsumed. Here the question is posed whether, in the conditions of contemporary 'globalization' and its tendency to the 'fragmentation' of labour, there might be a new agrarian question of labour, now detached from that of capital, and which generates a new politics of struggles over land (and its distribution). Even to conceive of this question is beyond the analytical and political field of vision of neo-classical populism. Some of the dimensions of an agrarian question of labour are illustrated in a brief consideration of recent, and highly contradictory, events in Zimbabwe: a unique case of comprehensive, regime-sanctioned, confiscatory land redistribution in the world today.     

土地供应管制、住房供给弹性与房价周期波动

研究目的:分析土地供应管制通过住房供给弹性渠道对房价周期波动的影响。研究方法:理论分析,计量检验。研究结果:(1)土地供应管制影响房价波动的渠道是:土地供应管制的宽松和收紧通过供地规模、用地成本以及市场预期影响住房供给弹性,再经由供求关系和投机效应的传导影响房价波动。(2)土地供应管制可以解释45%的城市间住房供给弹性差异;地方政府不同松紧程度的策略性供地行为导致住房供给弹性与城市经济发达程度负相关,中央偏向中西部的土地配额管制政策导致东部城市住房供给弹性低于中西部城市。(3)住房供给弹性决定了房价周期波动,并具有非对称性效应:在市场景气繁荣阶段,供给弹性越小,房价涨幅就越大;在市场不景气阶段,房价跌幅与供给弹性的关系存在方向上的不确定性。研究结论:土地和住房领域供给侧改革的一个重点是改革供地制度和调整供地政策,使土地供应与住房需求在时空维度上相匹配,将有利于熨平房价波动,降低市场风险。     

Poverty and the Distribution of Land

Redistributive land reforms have begun to attract the attention of scholars and policy makers once again. In this paper, we review old arguments and bring them up-to-date in the light of recent research. We begin with the case in favour of redistributive reforms focusing on fragmented factor markets and systems of labour control, of which concentration of land ownership is but one aspect. We then examine land reform in practice, focusing on distinct regional features and outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the transition economies of the former Soviet bloc and, as examples of success, East Asia (including China and Vietnam). Next we discuss the macroeconomic context and the two-way direction of causality between a redistribution of productive assets and the overall performance of the economy. We underline the importance of weakening the system of labour control, eliminating landlord bias and correcting urban bias. Finally, we argue that a prominent feature of all successful land reforms has been a high degree of land confiscation; full compensation and various types of 'market friendly' land reform are unlikely to be successful.     

宅基地使用权流转制度改革的制度经济学解析

研究目的：以“外部利润——同意一致性——宅基地制度创新”为研究主线，对江都市宅基地流转进行制度诠释，探讨蕴含其中的理论价值和政策含义。研究方法：文献资料法、理论分析法、实证分析法。研究结果：宅基地使用制度的外部环境发生了变化，外部利润显著增加，宅基地使用权流转制度具有强烈的现实需求。宅基地使用权的流转不仅能够有效弥补现行农村土地制度的不足，壮大集体经济组织实力，而且能够实现地方政府、集体经济组织和农民的共赢，达到一致同意。研究结论：宅基地使用权流转制度改革是一种较优的政策选择。     

Land Tenure and Tenure Regimes in Mexico: An Overview

This article provides an overview of the evolution of land tenure and tenure regimes in rural Mexico from colonial times to the present. It shows how, by the late nineteenth century, the dual system of indigenous communal tenure and Spanish and criollo landholdings was undermined by liberal legislation that sought to privatize community lands. This resulted in a process of disappropriation and concentration of land in a few hands, which created the setting for rural upheaval during the Mexican revolution and for the subsequent redistributive land reform and the creation of a 'social sector' consisting of ejidos and agrarian communities. By the 1960s, however, the reform sector began to enter into crisis. A reform of the Constitution and new agrarian legislation of 1992 opened the way to privatization of land in the social sector, expecting that this would dynamize production. It is shown that this has not been the case. In a context of globalization and asymmetric free-trade relations the crisis has only deepened.     

The Philippine Land Reform in Comparative Perspective: Some Conceptual and Methodological Implications

Using empirical evidence from the Philippine land reform (1972–2005), this paper examines land reform theory and practice, and argues that convention has a priori excluded a significant portion of actually existing land-based production and distribution relationships, while it has inadvertently included in its definition and analysis land transfers that do not constitute real redistributive reform. This problematic framing of 'exclusion–inclusion' has led to incorrect accounting and analysis of the nature, scope, pace and direction of change/reform that have occurred (or not) in the agrarian structure of a particular setting. This problem has prevented the emergence of nuanced comparative land reform studies, with possible further implications for studies that attempt to trace causal relationships between land redistribution and agrarian transformation.     

'Urban Bias', Intersectoral Resource Flows and the Macroeconomic Implications of Agrarian Relations: The Historical Experience of Japan and Taiwan

It is argued that agrarian relations play a critical role in the pattern of intersectoral resource flows and the way in which the agricultural sector shapes the macroeconomy in developing countries. The notion of 'urban bias' used by GKI is defective in its abstracting from the pre-existing agrarian system and from the prevailing institutions and in focussing on one simple set of influences outside the agricultural sector itself, i.e. government policy bias. This is illustrated with reference to the historical experience of two countries regarded as exemplary by GKI: Japan and Taiwan. Their experience shows that high rates of taxation and surplus extraction from agriculture are not incompatible with maintaining profitability and production incentives in agriculture, as long as agrarian relations and other enabling conditions can ensure a fast enough rate of technological progress and productivity growth in the sector. The macroeconomic implications of different agrarian relations are much more complex than the urban bias story told by GKI would suggest.     

Does the Decoupling Reform Affect Agricultural Employment in Sweden? Evidence from an Exogenous Change

This study uses aggregated municipality data, for the years 2001–2009, to explore whether direct payments to farmers affect agricultural employment in Swedish municipalities. The decoupling reform in 2005 included a new grassland support payment accompanied by management obligations that had unexpectedly high redistributive consequences as it greatly increased common agricultural policy payments to municipalities with large areas of grassland. In some municipalities, total payments more than doubled. Thus, since the reform seems exogenous to the behaviour of farmers and the regional economy, the reform can be used to identify a subsidy effect. We find that a permanent increase in agricultural employment can be attributed to the new grassland support. Our results indicate that the grassland support generates an additional job at a cost of SEK 250,000, relative to the average agricultural wage of SEK 333,000. However, the subsidy effect is largely keeping jobs in agriculture, i.e. the grassland support may be slowing down the process of structural change in grassland regions.     

2023年土地科学研究重点进展评述及2024年展望——土地经济分报告

研究目的：梳理并比较2023年国内外土地经济领域的研究进展和研究重点,展望未来研究方向。研究方法：文献分析法。研究结果：2023年,国内研究集中于政策对地价的影响、城市土地供给结构与策略的时空动态、土地财政与土地金融、农村集体经营性建设用地入市改革进展、农地流转的影响因素和结果、三权分置改革、宅基地盘活等问题;国外研究侧重土地保护措施和环境保护政策对地价的影响、土地市场的福利效应、土地产权的性别不平等、征地制度的公平性等。研究结论：2023年土地经济研究领域实现了深度和广度的拓展,下一步应着重通过理论研究的创新实现政策的体系化阐释,通过实证研究的深化促进政策的系统性设计,更好地服务新时期的土地制度改革。2024年将重点关注土地经济学科建设和基础理论研究、土地要素市场化配置、城乡融合发展的土地制度创新、自然资源产权制度改革与权益实现路径、全民所有自然资源资产所有权委托代理制度试点等方向。     

土地股份合作制效率的经济学分析——基于国家、产权和契约的视角

研究目的：从国家、产权和契约的视角对土地股份合作制的效率进行经济学解读,探讨蕴含其中的理论价值和政策含义。研究方法：文献资料法,理论分析法。研究结果：国家要素的“失灵”导致了土地股份合作制效率出现“短板”; 随着国家要素水平的降低,土地股份合作制迅速发展并产生较高绩效;而且,在国家要素的水平的阀值范围内,股份合作制才是农村土地制度改革最适模式。研究结论：采取放松政府管制、规范机制建设确保国家、产权和契约要素的协调运行,提高土地股份合作制的效率。     

撤县设区提升城市土地利用效率了吗？ ——基于全国261个城市的实证研究

研究目的：探究撤县设区政策对于不同城市土地利用效率的影响,以期为下一步撤县设区调整找准有效空间提供决策依据。研究方法：理论分析、DEA模型、多时点双重差分模型。研究结果：（1）从全样本回归结果来看,撤县设区政策对于城市土地利用效率具有提升作用,表现为实验组城市在撤县设区后较对照组土地利用效率显著提高0.031;（2）根据城市人口规模进行分类回归发现,撤县设区政策对特大城市、大城市和中等城市的土地利用效率具有明显提升作用,而对于小城市的政策评估结果并没有表现出显著影响;（3）撤县设区政策对于城市土地利用效率的提升作用具有短期滞后性和影响长期性的特点。研究结论：撤县设区政策可有效提升城市土地利用效率,并具有城市异质性特点。当城市亟需获得未来发展空间载体时,撤县设区政策可以从中发挥正向推动作用。     

Classical Horizontal Inequities in the Provision of Agricultural Income Support

This article explores the redistributive effects of classical horizontal inequities induced by agricultural policy. Within-farm type horizontal inequity is associated with differences in the level of support received by farms of a given type and level of pre-support income. Between-farm type horizontal inequity arises from systematic differences in support levels between commodity regimes. The overall redistributive effect of such inequities in Scottish agriculture is shown to be substantial, though systematic discrimination between farm types is not the major cause. The imperfect targeting of support revealed by the empirical findings has implications for the design of policy.     

On the Characterisation and Measurement of the Redistributive Effect of Agricultural Policy

The article proposes a coherent framework for the evaluation of the redistributive performance of agricultural policy. An illustrative study shows that the vertical stance of policy in Scotland was progressive in absolute terms, reflecting the chronic dependence of Scottish agriculture on policy transfers. Nevertheless, the overall redistributive effect of policy was to increase absolute inequality in farm incomes because of horizontal inequities in the incidence of transfers, though neither systematic discrimination between farm types nor systematic reranking was the main cause. The targeting of policy transfers could be improved by the use of indicator variables more strongly correlated with pre‐transfer incomes.     

The Impact of the 2013 CAP Reform on the Decoupled Payments’ Capitalisation into Land Values

We assess the effects of the 2013 CAP reform on the capitalisation of decoupled payments in land rental values. Our estimates suggest that the reform leads to an increase in the capitalisation of decoupled payments by an additional 18 cents for each Euro of decoupled payments relative to the pre‐reform situation. However, there is an important variation in the reform effects between Member States (MS) particularly between Old Member States (OMS) and New MS (NMS). In NMS, the capitalisation rate slightly reduces from 83% in the pre‐reform period to 79% in the post‐reform period. Although, the rate is significantly lower in OMS, it doubles (from 21% to 43%) due to the reform. The main sources of the post‐reform capitalisation in the European Union (EU) are the pre‐reform capitalisation accounting for 69% of the total post‐reform capitalisation, followed by the entitlement stock change with 19%, by the internal convergence of payments with 18%, the budget change (including external convergence) with 1%, and the differentiation of payments (redistributive payment) with ?7%. Overall, our estimates suggest that on average in the EU, the non‐farming landowners’ policy gains are 27% of the total decoupled payments in the post‐reform period compared to 18% in the pre‐reform period.