Poverty and the Distribution of Land

Abstract

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 Rental and Sales Markets in Paraguay

“…If we accept the latter, then if the market could be made to function perfectly, it would redistribute land to the more efficient, smaller farmers, enhancing both equity and efficiency. This possibility has gained popularity in light of the widespread failure of government imposed solutions (such as redistribution) to the skewed distribution of land and its concomitant inequality (Griffin, Khan, and Ickowitz 2002). These failures are taken to prove that the state cannot address the problem and so the market is the last bastion of hope for equitable redistribution.…”

Rural Poverty and Development Strategies in Latin America

“…38 It is a high-level debate which raises 38 The debate started with an article by Keith Griffin, Azizur Rahman Khan and Amy Ickowitz (see Griffin et al 2002). In a special double issue of the Journal of Agrarian Change (JAC) edited by Terence J. Byres (2004a) the essay by Griffin, Khan and Ickowith (GKI) is thoroughly discussed in nine articles.…”

Liberalisation and the debates on women's access to land

“…31 Interestingly there are some parallels between the above-mentioned neoclassical arguments for gender equality and arguments made by some economists for redistributive land reform as a mechanism for reducing poverty and enhancing growth and equity. 32 The argument for redistributive land reform, like the argument for gender equity, is based on the understanding that current resource allocation (to 'large landowners' versus 'small farmers', like male farmers versus female farmers) is inefficient and that the reallocation of resources (in favour of 'small farmers', as in the case of female farmers) will improve static efficiency, enhance agricultural growth and reduce poverty. Both arguments abstract from a very small number of empirical studies (Berry and Cline's 1979 work is the reference for the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity; Udry's work is the reference for the inefficiency of gender inequality), and then generalise to a 'mythical uniform terrain' (sub-Saharan Africa, the world).…”