4Eckhoim "'Erik

47 Pages·2011·1.73 MB·English

'DOCUMENT RESUME
SO 011 806
ED 17
"'Erik
4Eckhoim
AUTHO
,
eform and
th: Land
The iiiipioAsessd.of-t.h4
TITLE
Sustainable Developmapt. Worldwatch L'aper 30.
Worl& watch Inst.,
D.C.
_.INSTITUTION
g
4un 79
-PUB DATE
,-.
.
NOTE
4Ip-.
chustt
1176 Mass
yotldwatCkjn
AVAILAELE FROM
:Avenue,
N.W.,,WashingtoL
($2:00Y
D.
PC -NotAvaalablq Beam -FDR
MF01 :Plus-Po--,-age.
ED RS VRIcE
.
*AgtidultUra;-Cooperatiou;. *Developing rations;
DESCRIPTORS
Di advantaged EtvironMent; -*Economic DeVelopmen-,
EconoTicDisadvantagem%mti POod;. [lumen Dignity; Land
ttlementi:*Land -Use; -Lbw. Income; NeedszNutrition;
Re.f44Ps;
Quality of
Population Treni._
Problams; World:Pf-,,ObleMs
ACT
.
the worldwide land
,
Major argum -:
anal background =
form. debate are ,reviewed. In'dsvaaloping nations .in 'Africa, Asia,
con*rcl of farmind remains ,a principal key to
and Latin America, th
1 landless peasants
.th,1 bottom- of
weAltt-, status, -and pOiter.
Ocioecehomic ladder, esti Tted by the World Bank -at.: more than
,Ale
such as fobd i--
6U0 million people, are
mable- to met basic.. need
And family plannirg.
R -view of
fuel, shelter, educatien, h-ialriv-ca
=`r.
indicates that
he e
noMiC:.
internatiahal a4ricultUral_butp4.,,
for
redistributiVe
sociaP.case
case for land reform- oft-7,n,riv
policies.,44ot only do:grossly sklrld, land pwnerSH,p and oppressive
ntvz social consquences, they alSO,resultin a
_cy condition
'stem which useS-land and capit:Al less efficiently tdlan small 'family
ec homic case for
In, addition to ificreasd crop output, -th
rms.
land reform also rests on selfpropelled ecoUomic(1.-velopment, full
mployment, and pOlitical and economic sAbility. However, -although
(-3-
Uhited Nations officials and diplomats from developing' countries
realize the contribut. on that land- refbrt Can Make to agricultural
by political maneuvering.,
progress, land reform is gen,?rally avoid 2.1
The contiuSibri :is that if.dev-?.1opingtions combine land
redistribution with population stabilization and intlligent lase, of
land
foreign Capital,,th4ywill gen.:rat4 mora -_juita le- and- effieie
--.- 4Author/DB)
***** ****** ******
***
****-
E -s are
t hat can be made
Reproductions supplied by
oc lam
fro% th..
************4**************
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS-
U.S,DEPAi WIRT OP HEALTH,'
e
Mp,fRIA
IN, 11CROFICHE ONLY
EDUCATION a WELFARE
HAS BEEN
BY
RATIONAL INSTITUTE OP
EDUCATION.
HAS BEEN REORO.
THIS DOCUMENT
ROA
RECEIVED
OUCEO .EXACTLY AS
ORTOIR.
THE .PEREON DR ORGAII0ZATICIN
VIEW OR OPINIONS
Al 0 IT POINIS OF
14
-7STAV-E0-00-1a0TNECESSARI,LX-REFRE-
I TU TE or
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
SETT OFF ICIAL NATIONAL i NST
EoycATIN-pcisiTioN OR POLICY
_
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC),"
.
.
'
=
:,Th...131:spoe8gOd''-of'theEar
Land Reform
Stistalhabfe.T:*.lopinerit
4
Worldwatch Paper 0
June 1979
'
2
and;
sections of this paper may. be reproduced in magazines
Wcrldwatch Institute.
newspapers with acknowledgmenb-r6
do not
The views. expressed are those /of the author and
and its
-necessarily represent those.of Worldwatch Institute
directors, officers, or staff.
F
:0 Copyright Woridwatch Ittstitute, 1979
79: 740
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number
'
0-916468;29-1
ISBN
Printed on _recycled paper
a
. Introduction
ied of the Earth
The Dipeyss
8 enure a
Lana Productivity
15
\2\
Sustainable Development
re nu
Land Reform .
32
, The-Poli lc
.
. . .
.
.
)
ith bull
deg ed
argued ,-With ballots;:sonle 1
s
rnetirn
ut land, r
ly,,atiAted with wbras, the d
o
_ a
and 4-11.
.hkenti th centofy.l. Yet -J
hsas resurfaE47-time and 3gain in
uments
today, -perhaps because of ' their v y fainiliaritr,
a
ribtx--
about the social and econorriic benefits of equitable farm and
it blved
.
cti
tion.often seem stale and tired. eunortgAnany Of thps
'etly'-
concern abou*land
in development plannin
a
,
the world.'s
unctional dormancy. MOny
slipped- into a -state of
rather ourtdated,
urban .residerIs seem to thkrk about land. reform as a
...
,coricernwhen they'think aboilt it at all
;-
I.
!'
s
/-
.,rs14.
But the WorkUs farmers' and farm kvorkers know bettter,In mainly
.
control of the) i i;.-rici and -its fruits is
.agrarian soCieties, the struggle for
sorrtetim s
,s-urface
:.;!a coristantrine, always simmering beneath t
acid
x.platling.into-vi6lent.e, Over the next IWO d cades, as the Iluipber
rural people lacking secure.access to farmland amfroaches only?billioi
conflict footed in inequaliiy- of landownership i. apt to become more
after country.
.,
,
acute ill
.
.-,4`
widely shared goais,tne
the international camn4unity's
Many -Of
the slowing
elimination of rrialnutritioa the ,provision' of jobs for rill,
protection of productive
soils
rfflgration, 4
rural urban
of runaway
and ecologically vital forestsare not likely to be achieved witttout_
radical changes ,in the ownership and- controrof;land.lt is a delusion
pooredt ?vole will be met
to think that th.ebasic needs `of the world' S.
without renewed attention to politically sensitive, 14d-tenure clue
the dispossessed of
tions. It is an ern greater delusufn to think that
Land their plights' worsen
the earth will vevatch their" numbers igro
i Will not go away.
without protesting. The issue of land refor
.
landownership have shaped patterns
Throughout history, patterns of
helped de-
nearly all societies. They have ale()
urnan relations in,
of
economic ;change: In agrarian
the p9ssibility and pace of
tei1rriine
productive asset, the tangible expression
societies, land is the primary
have
Some tenure patterns
of economic and hence political power.
pronioted
inequality, while others'have
manifested and solidified social
appuhaing equidity, Some tenure
social mobility or Ewen something
while others have en-
patterns have blocked technological progress
relationship of people to
And invariably, changing the
couraged it
the relationship of people to one an-
the land has meant changing
and sometimes of wars or revo-
otherthe stuff of political .struggles
lutiens,
landownership
the primacy of agricultural
As societies industrialize,
wanes. New elites
of political and economic power
as .a determinant
control of capital,.:technology, or
have often accrued power through
of nonagricultural jobs has
military force. Access to N broad array
stifling ties to poor land or
freed tiany people from long-standing,
.advanced coun-
in the' most economically
to rich-landlords Yet even
significant source of wealth and in
tries, landownershii, remains a
where only one in every 28
people
fluence_ In the United States;
today
and ownership of farms are
lives on a farm, changes in the size
the implications for employment, resource'
generating questions about
in industrial coun-
and community wellar4. Landholding patterns
, use,
they
social impact they once had, but
tries do not have the pervasive
and the distribution of income.
still influence the quality of life
where three-fourths of the world's
In 'Africa, Asia, and Latin America,
wealth,
remains a principAl key to
people live, the control of farmland
Third World
majority of the people in most
status, and. power. A large
aliving
and most of those must "make
countries live in rural areas,
land-
make a living at all While rural
through agriculture if they are to
.
whete
, and-Latin America;
hs of the woild's Apple live,
the control of farmland
al key.,
remains, a pri
alth, status, anower ."--
tenure and social patterns vary greatly from pace to place, it is gel-L-
individuals own a large share of the land,
ally:true that where-it
'
in-ale ocal politics andthrough their roles
these same individuals do
the economic lives of
their
as lenders, landlords, and em "Dyers
bov.lh-,other regions, a larger number of tarrners owning srtiall
-1.1nder.uch conditions these
or medium sized plots ply predominat4
landowners, tact; may Be the controllers ngf weaRh are d: power; at the
security ind the possi-
certain ;comp
'usually enjoy 'a
least, the
y,
pei-sonal economic egress
n a given area, h
laindless
Whatever land-tenure-pattern
ova
they
Hundreds of millions of
.and the .near-landless who are n the
.
lives through agricul
families are struggling' to improve
eir
cultural lifefarmland. Many
without secure access fo the basis of a
r whatever rittance-lhey
sell their labor to more foriuilate far-
f
under conditions-.insecure
cari get; others rent land at exorbitant
ant and technical progress;
enough to smother. incentives for inve
n from inadequately sized,
still ethers scratch ,...;hat. produce the
n seek other employment in
often fragmented family plots `and
or e to,make ends meet.
The landless, the insecure tenants, and (hose owning marginal plots
all the-poorest"
too small to support a family together constitute nearly
of the poorthose whose basic needs for food, fuel, shelter, educa-
in
It
,are,. and family planning-are frequently, unmet.
tion, health
i
many cases thpy who are born into debt and die in debt, who see up to
half their infants die before age five who liVe chronically on,a tight-
?- wire of survival from which they can quickly fall it the weather or the
In Bangladesh during the
international economy turns against the
i
ong the landless was trip e
the death rate
food short yegi of 1975 ,
res of land., -
no'ng people owning three or mote
that-
r
designed to-help
scusslons of the tural poor, like the prowams
often lump all of them together as "small farmers." the
them, to
truly; poor often seernairivisible to urban elites and the#ntemational
7
E6man of Cornell
concerned about rural poverty, As Milton.J.
farmac':
of the_torrn
ersity writes of the indiscriminate use
catch-all tern n Conceal, the
Not only does this imprecise
differences which. distinguish rural house-
many specific
oc'cupation, incorne,0 and eth5-i,
/holds- by asset piosition,
image Of the rural.poor
nicity, but it tends to produce an
Jef-
Latin American_ versions of the
as Asian, African or
relatively'small but secure
fersonian yoeman Earraer with
the help of improved technologies,
O holdings which, with
and
inputs, production incentives,
cropping practices,
family , hvel Hood.
marketing could provide a decent
conceived as providing
Helping the rural po,or is thus
mall farmer.'"
of the
fetter services to this-vemion
II lam households
In some countrws,,,there are many
nd have a reasonable
which more Or less fit-this image,
under
y livelihoods -
chance of' providing decent fa
They need and could
evailing institutional conditions.
and devtforoent
nefit from the held of governments
seldom the majority of .rural
agencies. But they are
the poorest.;
households and they are certainly
farmers together
n-
pees, and marginal -
Landless labOrers, sha_recr
residents in.irst countries of Asia-and
stitute the majority-of rural
have-gen-
number in Africa. Th
Latin America and are increasing in
development process; in fact, de-
ber byp sed by the global
,
erally
,
designed to improve heir status
ams not, carefully
p
velocm
distinguish be -,'
can won it
which is why t e froArent Eaildre_ to
farbners,of more than
landless and the more' secure small
tween
studies in a host of countriesincluding
,
acaaemic' concern. Decent
Philippives Thailand,
Indonesia. Malaysia , Pakistan, the
U.angladesh
that the absolute incomeg of some groups
And parts o India indicate
the tace of cider -
d over the last two decades, often in
have doc
uct GNP and agricultural output.
()Ss rytional p
-able gr wth
reveal
ntris would,,tindou tedly
Similar sides n q many other
morfttan
p
that
live in rural hourrebol
re either completely
landless,
a_
or that laik secure access-
"to adequate farmland.-
1
9
absorp-
ageS for:some laborers
gimilar patterns. fall
ejeifion of
tion of marginal Ian :o dings.by better-off farmers;
_
ofitaBle new
tenants by landowners seeking to take advantage of
technologies or.to avoid threatehed tenancy reforms.'
amined by Esman and hi' colleague,s
In the' Asian- countries a
s that are landless or nearly so On
protiortion ofcAurAl fa
l
tad high of 85'percent on the Indonesian
a low of 53 perortt
1.) In the L.afin American countries covered,
island of Java. (See
bl
these categories account` N anywhere ,from 55 percent of rural resi-
uatemala. Similar
dents.. in Costa Rica to 85 percent in Bolivia a
data aire not availabte for Africa,`' ut indication are that the compara-
ble propertionS for most of that':,-continent wiould be considerably
smaller than ihey are in Asia.and Lan'tircArnerica.
Conservative extrapolatii:ms of the able data suggest that, alto-
local households that
gether, more than 6007 million per
ive
ark either completely landless or thai jack secilre acces4 to adequate
roaches tilt World
farmland. Not coincidentally; this rough figuWa
"labsolute pover-
Bank's estimate that'nearly 800 million people' live
.
at the very snargin of existence.'" Along vJith he most destitute
ty
om Nral land-
urban slum -dwellersthemselves usually refugees
lessnesslandless laborers and those farming insecu e or marginal
plots are the absolutely poor,'
rately podr people live in South
Roughly hialf the world's most des
Asia, particularly in dangladeslt, India, and Pakistan. In these three
countries, according to a World Bank study, some -28 percent of
rural hpuseholds. are "totally landless and suppo'rt a population of
157 mill on people by their wage labor alone in environments where
unemploym6nt and un'ctereniployrnent are widespread.'' Perhaps as
many more are farming marginal plots or renting under oppressive
conch 'ons. In noncommunist Asia as a whole, reports the Tood and
Agric lture Organization (FAO) some 30 percent of the rural labor
ompletely landless.5
force i
. 3
.
10 Table 1: Landless and Near-Landless People in Selected Asian and.
Latin American Countries;
Landless and
ear-Landless
Number of
as Share of
Plural
Rural'Households
ouseholds
Count
(percent)
millions)
Asia
.75
11.85
Bangladesh
86.00
India
9.39
85
Java, Indonesia
4,43
Philippines
8
77
Sri Lanka
1.89
Latin America
85
.61
Bolivia
9,72
Brazil
570
66
2.400
Colombia
55
_23
Costa Rica
68
Dominican Rep.
_74
.86
75
Ecuador
80
.53
Salvador
85
.00
Guatemala
60
Mexico
_4_50
1.48
75
Peru
Data for assorted yearn-in tRy early seventies.
Source: Milton J. [;swan.
is quite small by inter-
Throughout most of Asia, the average farrrr
national standards; in most Asian countries, more than 90 percent of
all.farms are smaller than ten hectares. A-rnong those fortunate enough
to own farmlands ownership in Asia tends to be more broadly based
than it is in Latin America. Inequality among landowners is nonethe-
_
_
10