Redistributive Land Reform: No April Rose. The Poverty of Berry and Cline and GKI on the Inverse Relationship

At the theoretical heart of the Griffin, Khan and Ickowitz (GKI) case for redistributive land reform ('a many-splendoured thing') lies the highly influential study by Albert Berry and William Cline, Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Developing Countries, published for the ILO in 1979. That study is regarded by many as the definitive work on the inverse relationship between farm size and land productivity. This paper subjects Berry and Cline, and by extension GKI, to critical scrutiny with respect to their policy implications, theoretical framework and empirical evidence. It also provides an alternative class-theoretic approach to understanding the inverse relationship which undermines the use of the latter as the central rationale for redistributive land reform. If the approach of Berry and Cline can be shown to be theoretically, methodologically and empirically flawed, then perforce the argument and policy recommendations of GKI, who replicate that approach, can be shown to be fundamentally defective.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

'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.     

Land Reform in South Africa

An insightful study of the complexities of land reform in South Africa is reviewed, and its key arguments assessed. The study astutely combines ethnographic and historical detail from in-depth case studies in Mpumalanga Province with critical analysis of land reform policies, and locates these within larger theoretical debates on property rights, citizenship and identity. The author argues that a profound and unresolved tension exists within South Africa's land reform programme between broad and inclusive conceptions of 'rights' that are linked to notions of restored citizenship and sovereignty, and a conception of 'property' as individualized ownership of land, implying a much narrower conception of citizenship. The study also focuses on the roles of a variety of mediators and 'brokers' in land reform. Despite its many strengths, the study is not entirely convincing, partly because some key policy debates are mischaracterized. Its treatment of questions of agricultural production, rural livelihoods and the political economy of agrarian change is somewhat disappointing.     

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.     

Revisiting the World Bank's land law reform agenda in Africa: The promise and perils of customary practices

This paper revisits the World Bank's land law reform agenda in Africa by focusing on two central issues: (1) land law reform as a tool for resolving land conflicts, and (2) the role of land law reform in addressing gender inequalities. While the Bank's recent land report provides insights for improving land governance in Africa, it fails to acknowledge the exploitative and contentious politics that often characterize customary land tenure systems, and the local power dynamics that undermine the ability of marginalized groups to secure land rights. Using insights from recent fieldwork, the paper analyses the links between land law reform and conflict in Ghana, and the gendered dynamics of reforming land governance in Tanzania. These “crucial cases” illustrate how land law reform can provoke conflicts over land and threaten the rights of vulnerable populations (e.g. migrants and women) when customary practices are uncritically endorsed as a means of improving land governance. As such, the paper concludes with a series of recommendations on how to navigate the promise and perils of customary practices in the governance of land.     

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.     

Land Reform: Taking a Long(er) View

The paper proposes a broad argument that the end of state–led development from the 1970s coincided with (i) the final wave of major redistributive land reform, and its place within transitions to capitalism, that lasted from about 1910 to the 1970s, and (ii) the beginnings of contemporary 'globalization'. Self–styled 'new wave' agrarian reform in the age of neo–liberalism, centred on property rights, is unlikely to deliver much on its claims to both stimulate agricultural productivity and reduce rural poverty. The reasons are grounded in the basic relations and dynamics of capitalism, and how these are intensified and reshaped by and through globalization. Understanding these processes, with all their inevitable unevenness, requires (i) recognizing that the historical conditions of the 'classic' agrarian question no longer apply, and (ii) developing the means to investigate and understand better the changing realities facing different agrarian classes within a general tendency to the concentration of capital and fragmentation of labour, including how the latter may generate new agrarian questions of labour.     

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.     

Impact of land tenure on land use in low-income countries

The role of land tenure in agricultural development has been a subject of intensive research, particularly within the context of land and agrarian reform. The complexity of the world's major land tenure systems is well recognized and no attempt is made here to go beyond an overview as this paper limits itself to the impact of land tenure on land use in low income situations. Present land use is determined by a host of factors, of a physical/biological and socioeconomic nature. In applying land evaluation, the question it is necessary to ask is to what extent, when and where land tenure conditions act as a considerable constraining factor impeding a more optimal use of land resources. Even in what used to be low-population density areas (such as Sub-Saharan Africa) it appears that the frontier phase is becoming exhausted and the intensification of agriculture proceeds; it becomes imperative to examine land tenure in relation to land use implications. It is shown that so far a multi-disciplinary approach has often been lacking in treating land tenure and related issues.     

Customary vs Private Property Rights? Dynamics and Trajectories of Vernacular Land Markets in Sub‐Saharan Africa

Contemporary discourse on land in Africa is polarized between advocates of tenure reform through state registration of individual titles to land and others who claim that customary or 'communal' tenure is the only check against landlessness among the poor in the African countryside, and that 'pro-poor' land policy should therefore strengthen customary rights to land. This paper draws on a growing body of evidence on the emergence of vernacular rural land sales and rental markets to question assumptions that underlie the non-market 'ideal type' communal tenure model that has historically dominated policy thinking in Africa, and continues to be shared by both sides of the current land tenure reform debate. The paper argues that recognition of the specific characteristics of 'vernacular land markets'– commoditized transfers of land within the framework of customary tenure – is essential if state land policies are to succeed in promoting the interests of the poor.     

Searching for a Weapon of Mass Production in Rural Africa: Unconvincing Arguments for Land Reform

Many recent arguments for land reform share a central proposition concerning the relative efficiency of small farm production. This article argues that the theoretical reasoning underlying this proposition is not coherent, and furthermore the empirical support for this size–efficiency relationship in Africa is astonishingly weak. Given the evidence, the continued focus on the efficient, egalitarian family farm can only be ideologically driven. The poorest rural people are unlikely to benefit and will probably be harmed by the policies based on these arguments for land reform. To illustrate this point, the article considers data from land redistribution programmes, particularly in South Africa, that suggest not only that the poorest did not acquire land, but also that they suffered declines in rural wage earning opportunities that are crucial for their survival.     

Land tenure and management reforms in East and Southern Africa – the case of Botswana

Since attainment of independence, almost every country in East and Southern Africa has introduced some kind of land reform aimed at reconciling indigenous land tenure practices and those introduced by colonial regimes. The reforms have centred on modification of tenurial rules on access, ownership, administration and transfer of land rights coupled with land redistribution and/or restitution in some countries. With the exception of a few countries, such as Botswana, land reforms have largely remained on statute books with little to show on the ground. The paper gives an overview of land reforms in East and Southern Africa, taking Botswana as a case study. It notes that although Botswana has largely been successful in implementing land reforms, it is currently experiencing land tenure problems, especially in peri-urban settlements and inner city low-income areas, despite government's enhanced control over local land administrative structures. The paper ends with suggestions on how to contain the current problems.     

2015年土地科学研究重点进展评述及2016年展望——土地管理领域分报告

研究目的:归纳分析2015年国内外土地管理领域的研究进展,展望研究趋势。研究方法:文献统计法。研究结果:2015年国外土地管理研究侧重于土地利用冲突及应对机制、土地权属效应、土地纠纷解决路径等方面,国内研究更多关注土地制度改革、土地市场管理与调控、不动产统一登记制度、自然资源资产管理、土地政策与法律,以及土地用途管制与耕地保护等方面。研究结论:2015年土地管理领域在土地管理体制机制建设等方面的研究进一步加强,针对改革实践中的热点问题研究比较突出,有价值的基础理论研究尚显薄弱;2016年将重点关注土地管理体制机制创新、农村土地制度改革、不动产统一登记制度、自然资源资产核算及管理体制、土地法学理论与实践等研究。     

The Land Crisis in Zimbabwe Viewed from South of the Limpopo

Farm invasions in Zimbabwe have highlighted the pressing need for land reform throughout the southern African region. In South Africa, where the racial disparities in land holding are most severe, the events in Zimbabwe have raised the temperature of the land debate and led to calls for land invasions by some rural groups. The ANC-led government, facing criticism from both right and left for the slow pace of reform, has veered between strident defence of private property rights and threats to expropriate white farms. White farming interests have reacted differentially, with some progressive voices joining the calls for an accelerated reform programme. Current land reform policy in South Africa seems set to advance the interests of emerging black commercial farmers and tribal chiefs at the expense of the rural poor and landless.     

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.     

农村土地制度改革的经济学考察

研究目的:归纳与论述土地资源的基本属性与功能,凝练土地经济学规律,探讨农村土地制度改革方向与路径。研究方法:归纳与演绎。研究结果:土地具有自然属性、经济属性和公共属性;土地的特殊性决定了土地的功能序位,资源功能是基础,资产功能不能影响生产、生活功能,资本功能不能冲击生产功能;农村土地制度改革的目标是实现市场化配置,但必须防止过度资本化。研究结论:土地的特殊属性决定了土地经济规律的特殊性,决定了土地制度与其他商品经济制度的区别;土地作为总量有限、位置固定、不可再生的自然资源,其经济制度必须遵循土地经济学的规律,遵循产权清晰、规划管制、公平保障的基本规则。