LAND REFORM

a purposive change in the way in which agricultural land is held or owned, the methods of cultivation that are employed, or the relation of agriculture to the rest of the economy. Reforms such as these may be proclaimed by a government, by interested groups, or by revolution. The concept of land reform has varied over time according to the range of functions which land itself has performed: as a factor of production, a store of value and wealth, a status symbol, or a source of social and political influence. Land value reflects its relative scarcity, which in a market economy usually depends on the ratio between the area of usable land and the size of that area's population. As the per capita land area declines, the relative value of land rises, and land becomes increasingly a source of conflict among economic and social groups within the community. The patterns of wealth and income distribution and of social and political influence are partly determined by the laws governing land tenure. These laws specify the acceptable forms of tenure and the privileges and responsibilities that go with them. They define the land title and the extent to which the owner can freely dispose of it and of the income accruing from its use. In this sense, the form of tenure determines the wealth and income distribution based on the land: if private ownership is permitted, class differentiation is unavoidable; in contrast, public ownership eliminates such distinctions. The forms of tenure range from temporary, conditional holding to ownership in fee simple, which confers total unencumbered rights of control and disposal over the land. Historically, land reform meant reform of the tenure system or redistribution of the land ownership rights. In recent decades the concept has been broadened in recognition of the strategic role of land and agriculture in development. Land reform has therefore become synonymous with agrarian reform or a rapid improvement of the agrarian structure, which comprises the land tenure system, the pattern of cultivation and farm organization, the scale of farm operation, the terms of tenancy, and the institutions of rural credit, marketing, and education. It also deals with the state of technology, or with any combination of these factors, as shown by modern reform movements, regardless of the political or ideological orientation of the reformers. a purposive change in the way in which agricultural land is held or owned, the methods of cultivation that are employed, or the relation of agriculture to the rest of the economy. Reforms such as these may be proclaimed by a government, by interested groups, or by revolution. Land reforms may be classified according to whether they focus on altering the terms of landholding; on land redistribution; on changing the scale of operations; on altering patterns of cultivation; or on supplementary measures such as marketing, credit, or education reforms. The most common political objective of land reform is to abolish feudal or (if the landowners are foreign) colonial forms of landownership; in either case, exploitation of peasants is the target. The social status of peasants is often a concern of land reform as well. Economic objectives of land reform may include encouraging more intensive cultivation and coordinating agricultural production with the rest of the economy, particularly with an eye to supporting an industrialization program. Evaluating the success of land reform programs is often complicated by vaguely stated objectives. Some are virtually impossible to put into measurable terms, and often there are inherent contradictions. Economic success is the easiest to measure; it may be indicated by a sustained increase in per capita real income, substantial capital investment in agriculture, a rise in productivity, a decrease in rural unemployment, or by the responsiveness of the agricultural sector to the specific demands of the rest of the economy. Social and political indicators are less reliable. The inadequacies of these indicators are highlighted by several paradoxes of land reform: land redistribution implies the loss of the landlord's economic and managerial contributions; reform often means breaking up efficiently run farms; compensation to evicted landlords drains the economy; farmers tend to spend increased incomes on consumption rather than saving for investment; reforms often lead to increased participation in social and political institutions before an adequate educational system can be implemented; and measures to prevent future concentration of ownership may prevent the creation of efficient operations. The earliest record of land reform is from 6th-century-BC Athens, where Solon abolished the debt system that forced peasants to mortgage their land and labour as tenants of their creditors. The reforms of the Gracchi in Rome in 133 BC redistributed public lands that had been usurped by the nobility and specified minimum and maximum individual landholdings. In 121 BC, however, the reform was reversed, and land concentration became the rule throughout Europe for many centuries. The French Revolution largely realized the social and political aims of the reformers; feudalism and serfdom were abolished, along with any debt not based on real property, and the lands of the clergy and political emigrants were seized and sold at public auction. While little if any economic benefit occurred, the small family farm became the cornerstone of French democracy. In England reform was facilitated by the great movement of peasants into urban centres during the Industrial Revolution. Sweden and Denmark peacefully abolished serfdom in the late 1820s; Germany, Italy, and Spain did so after the revolutions of 1848. Reform in Ireland was not completed until the 1930s. Tsar Alexander II emancipated Russia's serfs in 1861, but the reform was partial and economically unsuccessful. The Russian Revolution of 1917 introduced public ownership and collectivization of agricultural land. At first the Soviet reforms entailed much bloodshed and loss of capital, but the eventual mechanization of farms resulted in the release of many farm workers to the industrial sector. After the revolution of 1915, Mexico moved to abolish conditions that had resulted in virtual serfdom for large numbers of peasants and the impoverishment of rural, especially Indian, populations. Only a relatively small amount of redistribution was attempted, but this resulted in lasting political stability for the country. Land reform in Latin America has typically reflected internal instability and international pressure and is complicated by a rapidly increasing population, extremely high land ownership concentrations, extensive foreign ownership, inadequate cultivation methods, and the dependence of the economy on a few staple export items. Cuba, under a Communist government, has made comprehensive reforms, with greater social than economic success. Egypt instituted in 1952 the most drastic reforms outside of Communist countries, although probably because of the country's underdeveloped industrial sector, the economic effects have been minimal. Land reform was also instituted in many other countries of North Africa and the Middle East, usually following independence or revolution. Of the tropical African nations, Ethiopia and Mozambique have initiated the more radical land reforms, vesting the land title in the state and guaranteeing the right of use to those who till the land and to their descendants. Another notable example of land reform was instituted after the Communists came to power in China; the Chinese commune system, with its more recent incentive and individual-responsibility programs, is generally held to be successful and quite effective. Additional reading The philosophy and logic of land reform are presented in A. Whitney Griswold, Farming and Democracy (1948, reissued 1963), a lucid scholarly analysis of the political significance of various farm structures and a discussion of the family farm as a cornerstone of democracy; Folke Dovring, Land and Labor in Europe in the Twentieth Century, 3rd rev. ed. (1965), an examination of the political and ideological bases of land policy since the French Revolution; Elias H. Tuma, Twenty-Six Centuries of Agrarian Reform: A Comparative Analysis (1965), a synthesis of theory and history, with an attempt to formulate a general theory of agrarian reform, and Agrarian Reform in Historical Perspective Revisited, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 21:329 (1979), which updates and retests the author's earlier theory; Erich H. Jacoby, Evaluation of Agrarian Structures and Agrarian Reform Programs (1966), a checklist of administrative and organizational changes that contribute to reform success; and Doreen Warriner, Land Reform in Principle and Practice (1969), a provocative discussion of the evolution of reform and conflict between theory and practice.More recent works discussing the same issues include World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, The Peasants' Charter (1981), a declaration of principles and program of action by most of the nonsocialist developing countries; John D. Montgomery (ed.), International Dimensions of Land Reform (1984), an overview of how such issues are handled by international agencies; Ingrid Palmer, The Impact of Agrarian Reform on Women (1985), an examination of fertility, health, and nutrition; John P. Powelson, The Story of Land: A World History of Land Tenure and Agrarian Reform (1988), a good starting place for study, with a comprehensive bibliography; Demetrios Christodoulou, The Unpromised Land: Agrarian Reform and Conflict Worldwide (1990), an excellent resource list and a fine study of the circumstances which render land reform necessary; M. Riad El-Ghonemy, The Political Economy of Rural Poverty: The Case for Land Reform (1990), a convincing argument for reduced land concentration; and Solon L. Barraclough, An End to Hunger?: The Social Origins of Food Strategies (1991), a study placing land reform issues for developing countries in the broader world context.Reforms in the ancient world are addressed in W. Warde-Fowler, Notes on Gaius Gracchus, English Historical Review, 20:209227 and 417433 (1905); E.G. Hardy, Were the Lex Thoria of 118 BC. and the Lex Agraria of 111 BC Reactionary Laws?, Journal of Philosophy, 31:268286 (1910); Ivan M. Linforth, Solon the Athenian (1919, reprinted 1971); and W.J. Woodhouse, Solon the Liberator: A Study of the Agrarian Problems in Attica in the Seventh Century (1938, reprinted 1965).Elias H. Tuma, European Economic History: Tenth Century to the Present (1971), summarizes the agrarian reform history of most countries of Europe since the Middle Ages. Early French reforms are examined by Marc Bloch, French Rural History: An Essay on Its Basic Characteristics (1966; originally published in French, 1931); and Georges Lefebvre, The Coming of the French Revolution: 1789, bicentennial ed. (1989; originally published in French, 1939). Reform in tsarist Russia is addressed in Geroid T. Robinson, Rural Russia Under the Old Rgime: A History of the Landlord-Peasant World and a Prologue to the Peasant Revolution of 1917 (1932, reissued 1969).Any study of recent decades must begin with Progress in Land Reform: Sixth Report (1976), issued jointly by the United Nations, its Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the International Labour Organisation; and with two publications from the FAO, Review and Analysis of Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in the Developing Countries Since the Mid-1960s (1979?), and Land Reform, Land Settlement, and Cooperatives (semiannual), which offers feature articles, summaries of recent reform legislation, and a comprehensive bibliography of new literature.Summaries and analyses of reform over broad regions can be found in Jean Le Coz, Les Rformes agraires: de Zapata Mao Ts-toung et la F.A.O. (1974), which compares the Soviet model with the Chinese, and with reform in Latin America and the Middle East, and highlights the role of the FAO in reform implementation; V.E. Stanis, Socialist Transformation of Agriculture: Theory and Practice (1976; originally published in Russian, 1971), covering reform in eastern Europe after World War II; Russell King, Land Reform: A World Survey (1977), a good summary for the general reader, with references; David A. Preston (ed.), Environment, Society, and Rural Change in Latin America: The Past, Present, and Future in the Countryside (1980), a collection of essays, pessimistic as to the efficacy of most reform; Ajit Kumar Ghose (ed.), Agrarian Reform in Contemporary Developing Countries (1983), covering developments in agrarian reform through the early 1980s, with illustrations from the field; M. Riad El-Ghonemy (ed.), How Development Strategies Benefit the Rural Poor (1984), an FAO summary of reform programs; and Peter Utting, Economic Reform and Third-World Socialism: A Political Economy of Food Policy in Transitional Societies (1992), a lucid introduction to certain economic aspects of land reform in socialist economies.Studies of specific countries and regions which also highlight important theoretical trends include Maurice H. Dobb, Soviet Economic Development Since 1917, 6th ed. (1966); George Yaney, The Urge to Mobilize: Agrarian Reform in Russia, 18611930 (1982); John Yin, Infrastructure of the Soviet Agriculture (1991); Eric J. Hooglund, Land and Revolution in Iran, 19601980 (1982); Elias H. Tuma, Economic and Political Change in the Middle East (1987); Asghar Schirazi, Islamic Development Policy: The Agrarian Question in Iran (1993); Kenneth M. Luno, The Pasha's Peasants: Land, Society, and Economy in Lower Egypt, 17401858 (1992), providing historical perspective; James Brow and Joe Weeramunda (eds.), Agrarian Change in Sri Lanka (1992); James Putzel, A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines (1992), a detailed and erudite study; John O. Haley and Kozo Yamamura (eds.), Land Issues in Japan: A Policy Failure? (1992); William Hinton, The Great Reversal: The Privatization of China, 19781989 (1990), discussing the mixture of collective and private approaches to land-use practices; Vivienne Shue, Peasant China in Transition: The Dynamics of Development Toward Socialism, 19491956 (1980), a close study of the initial stages of agricultural development and state control of the rural economy; Anthony Y.C. Koo, Land Market Distortion and Tenure Reform (1982), concentrating on Taiwan and Southeast Asia; Laura J. Enrquez, Harvesting Change: Labor and Agrarian Reform in Nicaragua, 19791990 (1991), an unusual and particularly valuable work because of its revolutionary setting; Steven E. Sanderson, Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State: The Struggle for Land in Sonora (1981), covering 191776, with much discussion of the national situation; and Roger Bartra, Agrarian Structure and Political Power in Mexico (1993), illuminating the debate over small-scale agriculture versus other, more corporate forms.Some excellent sources on African land-reform issues and policies which have not been widely available until recently are Essy M. Letsoalo, Land Reform in South Africa: A Black Perspective (1987), an essential majority perspective; Fred T. Hendricks, The Pillars of Apartheid: Land Tenure, Rural Planning, and the Chieftaincy (1990), which covers some of the homeland issues; Michael De Klerk (ed.), A Harvest of Discontent: The Land Question in South Africa (1991), which details the controversial South African situation; and Thomas J. Bassett and Donald E. Crummey (eds.), Land in African Agrarian Systems (1993), a collection of essays covering much of the continent. Elias H. Tuma History of land reform The ideas and principles discussed so far may be illustrated by a selective survey of the history of land reform. Ancient reforms The recorded history of reform begins with the Greeks and Romans of the 6th and 2nd centuries BC, respectively. Land in ancient Athens was held in perpetuity by the tribe or clan, with individual holdings periodically reallocated according to family size and soil fertility. Population increase, expansion of trade, growth of a money economy, and the opening up of business opportunities eventually made financial transactions in land an economic necessity. Land itself continued to be inalienable, but the right to use the land could be mortgaged. Thus, peasants could secure loans by surrendering their rights to the product of the land, as sale with the option of redemption. Lacking other employment, the debtor continued to cultivate the land as hektemor, or sixth partner, delivering five-sixths of the product to the creditor and retaining the rest for himself. Mortgaged land was marked by horoi, or mortgage stones, which served as symbols of land enserfment. When Solon was elected archon, or chief magistrate, c. 594 BC, his main objective was to free the land and destroy the horoi. His reform law, known as the seisachtheia, or shaking-off the burdens, cancelled all debts, freed the hektemoroi, destroyed the horoi, and restored land to its constitutional holders. Solon also prohibited the mortgaging of land or of personal freedom on account of debt. The impact of the reform was extensive but of short duration. The hektemoroi were freed, but since no alternative sources of support or credit were provided and creditors were uncompensated, dissatisfaction and instability persisted. Two decades of anarchy were followed by a revolution, c. 561 BC, that brought Peisistratus to power. He enforced the reform and distributed lands of his adversaries (who were killed or exiled) among the small holders. He also extended loans to aid cultivation and prevent migration to the city and expanded silver mining to create employment. Although the amount of land redistributed is unknown, Peisistratus was apparently able to satisfy the peasantry, secure their loyalty, and stay in power for life, but the economic effects are too vague to evaluate. The Roman reform by Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus came between 133 and 121 BC. The land reform law, or lex agraria, of Tiberius was passed by popular support against serious resistance by the nobility. It applied only to former public land, ager publicus, which had been usurped and concentrated in the hands of large landholders. Land concentration reduced the number of owners and hence the number of citizens and those eligible to serve in the army. In addition, such concentration was accompanied by a shift from cultivation to grazing, which reduced employment and increased the poverty of the peasants, producing a crisis. The motives of the reformers continue to be debated, but it would appear that concern for the poor and political stability were major factors. The lex agraria specified minimum and maximum individual landholdings, with an allowance for male children of the family. Excess land would be expropriated and compensation paid for improvements. A standing collegium, or commission, was to enforce the law, but implementation was delayed because Tiberius was killed in the year of its passage. When Gaius was elected tribune about a decade later, he revived the reform and went even further. He colonized new land and abolished rent on small holdings since rent on large holdings had been suspended as compensation for expropriation. Gaius was killed in 121 BC, however, and within a decade the reform was reversed: private acquisition of public land was legalized, the land commission was dissolved, rent on public land was abolished, all holdings were declared private property, and squatting on public land was prohibited. Even colonization was ended, and colonies established by Gaius were broken up. Another period of land concentration was inaugurated.