Harvesting the past? Lessons for land reform in Asia

Most of the world’s poor live and work in rural areas. Agriculture and land rights are thus central to the fight against poverty. Redistributing land can benefit agricultural productivity and rural incomes. What lessons can be learned from past agrarian reform experience in north-east Asia?

A London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) study suggests that current land reform programmes risk failing if political lessons of the past are ignored. Recent studies have increasingly suggested that growth and redistribution are not incompatible, giving new credibility to redistributive agrarian reforms.

As 67 per cent of Asia’s workforce depends on agriculture as their principle income and much of the service and manufacturing sectors are also directly related to it, the rural economy remains central to development efforts. Agrarian reform after World War II also contributed to the development successes of many East Asian economies. Reviewing the experience of comprehensive reform in South Korea and partial reform in the Philippines, the study draws lessons for Asian governments’ future development strategy, including the following:

• Land reform has to be demand driven, with the state concentrating resources where potential beneficiaries are organised and, where they are not, fostering organisation with the help of civil society to ensure reforms are not side-tracked and resources depleted.
• Creating support services for beneficiaries, such as agricultural extension, credit and marketing services, should be an integral part of land reform programmes. These should be tailored to the needs of small farmers to increase the positive impact on incomes and poverty.
• Land reform should not be confused with the ‘resettlement’ of beneficiaries in previously uncultivated areas: uprooting beneficiaries and creating new communities requires enormous resources and often involves encroaching on rapidly dwindling stocks of forest land and infringing the rights of indigenous peoples.
• Documenting property rights and ownership is vital to reform not only in agriculture and rural communities, but also in the financial sector.
• Indecisive and drawn-out programmes have had negative effects on investment in agriculture and alienated agribusiness corporations. By contrast, comprehensive and rapid redistributive land reforms have resulted in considerable equity and poverty alleviation.

The World Bank’s recent enthusiasm for reform, while over-optimistic about the role of land markets, presents new opportunities in Asia if these are informed by past experience. Key policy lessons include:

• The state still needs to be involved in implementing redistributive land reform programmes as potential small farmers lack the economic power, information and political connections necessary to engage successfully in land markets.
• Government agriculture departments or ministries need to develop programmes that focus on the technology, infrastructure and marketing needs of small farmers, moving away from the exclusive focus on the needs of large and capital-intensive farming.
• Governments can take advantage of new social movements around environmental, women’s and indigenous people’s concerns, all of which are potential allies in favour of redistributive land reform.
• Development programmes that encourage and facilitate the self-organisation and education of people in rural areas remain crucial in creating the demand for land reform programmes.
• As in the past, redistributive reforms can contribute to achieving peace and security in rural communities, where poverty and political alienation continue to be breeding grounds for violence, rebellion and crime.

Source(s):
‘Land reforms in Asia: Lessons from the past for the 21st Century’, LSE Development Studies Institute, Working Paper Series #00-04, by James Putzel, 2000 Full document.

Funded by: LSE

id21 Research Highlight: 26 February 2003

Further Information:
James Putzel
Development Studies Institute
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7955-6252
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955-6844
Contact the contributor: s.redgrave@lse.ac.uk

Development Studies Institute, LSE, UK

Other related links:
'Dovetailing agricultural extension and poverty alleviation: opportunities in Vietnam'

'Death of land reform? New issues, new coalitions, venerable objectives'

'Unfinished business: the politics of land reform in southern Africa'

'Chiefs and lairds: land reform in Africa and Scotland'

'Modern land rights for South Africa? The case for land reform'

FAO focuses on land tenure issues

See also the Land Tenure Centre at the University of Wisconsin-Madison