We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2009
The concept of agrarian reform and its role in economic development have been crucial issues among scholars concerned with Third World problems. However, some clarity with regard to the cause and effect nature of agrarian reform is desirable. The purpose of this article is to critically assess past and current literature dealing with agrarian reform and its impact on agricultural development and social, political, and economic change. We will proceed by surveying the literature to determine: (1) where a consensus exists among scholars and officials regarding the concepts of agrarian reform and agricultural development; (2) the role assigned to agrarian reform in social and political development.
1 For an elaboration of this argument, see Kuznets, Simon, ‘Economic Growth and the Contribution of Agriculture: Notes on the Measurement’, International Journal of Agrarian Affairs, III (April 1961), 56–75. It is interesting to note that increased mechanization of agriculture is not the only cause of rural unemployment—the new ‘miracle’ strains of rice and wheat have also contributed to agricultural worker hardships in countries such as Pakistan. However, industrial growth has not been sufficient to absorb these jobless individuals.Google Scholar
2 Barlowe, Raleigh, ‘Land Reform and Economic Development’, Journal of Farm Economics, 35 (May 1953), 176–9.Google Scholar
3 The goals of readjustment may be a mixture of economic reasoning—to maximize agricultural production and raise farm incomes—and social justice requirements—to eliminate or minimize economic, political, and social inequalities that prevail as a result of a grossly unequal distribution of land.
4 Programs designed to achieve this goal include: mechanization or intensification; credit facilities development; water resources development, ‘infrastructure works’—market-to-farm roads, marketing facilities improvements, price stabilization or guarantees, etc.; technical assistance via improved fertilizers and seeds; in short, those programs which contribute to improved production but have nothing to do with altering the prevailing land tenure arrangements.
5 Chang, P. K., Agriculture and Industialization (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Parsons, K. H., Penn, R. J. and Raup, P. M., eds., Land Tenure (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956).Google Scholar
7 Ibid., p. 12, our emphasis.
8 Ibid., p. 20.
9 Ibid., p. 20.
10 Ibid., p. 46.
11 Ibid., p. 45.
12 Ibid., pp. 45–6.
13 Barlowe, , op. clt., p. 176.Google Scholar
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., pp. 176, 180.
16 Warriner, Doreen, Land Reform and Economic Development (Cairo: National Bank of Egypt, 1955)Google Scholar, and Land Reform and Development in the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1962).Google Scholar
17 Warriner, , Land Reform and Economic Development, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
18 Ibid., p. 18, Warriner's emphasis.
19 Ibid., p. 20.
20 Ibid., p. 21.
21 Ibid., p. 30.
22 Barlowe, , op. cit., p. 187, our emphasis.Google Scholar
23 Sayigh, Yusif A., ‘The Place of Agriculture in Economic Development’, Land Economics, 35 (November 1959), 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Aziz, Ungku A., ‘The Interdependent Development of Agriculture and Other Industries‘, Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 3 (July 1959), 313.Google Scholar
25 Eleventh International Conference of Agricultural Economists (Discussion Group Reports), Cuernavaca, Mexico, August 1961Google Scholar in International Journal of Agrarian Affairs, VIII (September 1962), 139.Google Scholar
26 Alexander, Robert, ‘Nature and Progress of Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, Journal of Economic History, 23 (December 1963), 561CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, Foreign Affairs, 41 (October 1962), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Alexander, , ‘Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, op. cit., p. 203.Google Scholar
28 Horowitz, Irving, Three Worlds of Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 207.Google Scholar
29 Rezsohazy, Rudolph, ‘Events and Trends: Economic, Social and Political Problems in Latin America’, World Justice, 4 (September 1962), 77.Google Scholar
30 Ibid., pp. 79 ff.
31 Balogh, T., ‘Agriculture and Economic Development’, Oxford Economic Papers, 13 (February 1961), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Galbraith, John Kenneth, Economic Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Alpert, Paul, Economic Development (London: Collier-MacMillan Ltd., 1963).Google Scholar
34 Chester Hunter, Social Aspects of Development (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966).
35 Currie, Lauchlin, Accelerating Development: The Necessity and the Means (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966).Google Scholar
36 Horowitz, , op. cit., p. 202.Google Scholar
37 Barlowe, , op. cit.Google Scholar
38 Warriner, , Land Reform and Economic Development.Google Scholar
39 Barlowe, , op. cit., pp. 180–2, our emphasis.Google Scholar
40 Ibid., p. 182, our emphasis.
41 Ibid., pp. 182–3.
42 Warriner, , Land Reform and Economic Development, p. 31.Google Scholar The increased humanity theme with regard to peasant-based movements is supported by Wolf's, Eric R. recent study, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1969): ‘ … The peasant's role is thus essentially tragic: his efforts to undo a grievous present only usher in a vaster, more uncertain future. Yet if it is tragic, it is also full o f hope. For the first time in millennia, human kind is moving toward a solution of the age-old problem of hunger and disease, and everywhere ancient monopolies of power and received wisdom are yielding to human effort to widen participation and knowledge. In such efforts … there lies the prospect for increased life, for increased humanity. If the peasant rebels partake o f tragedy, they also partake o f hope, and to that extent theirs is the party of humanity … ’ (pp. 301 and 302).Google Scholar
43 Rezsohazy, , op. cit., pp. 78–79.Google Scholar
44 The seventeen works are: Warriner, Doreen, Land Reform and Development in the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1962)Google Scholar; Alexander, Robert, ‘Nature and Progress of Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, Journal of Economic History, 23 (December 1963), 559–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, Foreign Affairs, 41 (October 1962), 191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horowitz, Irving, Three Worlds of Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Froehlich, Walter, ed., Tenure, Land, Industrialization and Social Stability (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; Contsourmaris, George, ‘Policy Objectives in Latin American Land Reform with Special References to Venezuela’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 16 (Autumn 1962), 25–40Google Scholar; Duff, Ernest A., ‘Agrarian Reform in Columbia: Problems of Social Reform’, Journal of Inter-American Studies, 8 (January 1966), 75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feder, Ernest, ‘When is Land Reform a Land Reform?: The Columbian Case’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 24 (April 1965), 113–34Google Scholar; Hildebrand, John, ‘Latin American Economic Development, Land Reform and U.S. Aid, with Special Reference to Guatemala’, Journal of Inter-American Studies, 4 (July 1962), 351–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, Alvin, ‘Social Structure, Agrarian Reform and Economic Development in Peru’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 18 (Summer 1964), 45–59Google Scholar; Tuma, Elias, ‘Agrarian Reform in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Study’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6 (October 1963), 47–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Tuma, Elias, Twenty-six Centuries of Agrarian Reform (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Young-Chi, Tsui, ‘Land Use Improvement: A Key to the Economic Development ofTaiwan’, Journal of Farm Economics, 44 (August 1962), 363–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bandyopadhyay, and Ghosh, ‘Role of Agrarian Reform in Agricultural Development in Mexico, Taiwan and India-A Comparative Study’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 22 (January 1967), 37–48Google Scholar; Klein, Sidney, ‘Land Problems and Economic Growth in India and China’, Malayan Economic Review, 5 (October 1960), 66–80Google Scholar; Saco, Alfredo, ‘Land Reform as an Instrument of Change with Special Reference to Latin America’, FAO Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, 13 (December 1964), 1–9Google Scholar; Felix, D., ‘Agrarian Reform and Industrial Growth’, International Development Review, 2 (October 1960), 16–22.Google Scholar
45 Warriner, , Land Reform and Economic Development in the Middle East, p. 3.Google Scholar
46 Ibid., pp. 3–6.
47 Ibid., p. 32.
48 Ibid., pp. 32–6.
49 Ibid., pp. 37–8.
50 Ibid., p. 39.
51 Ibid., p. 40.
52 Ibid., pp. 184–90.
53 Froehlich, Walter, ed., Land Tenure Industrialization and Social Stability (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1961).Google Scholar
54 Marburg, Theodore, ‘Land Tenure Institutions and the Development of Western Society’, in Froehlich, op. cit., p. 75.Google Scholar
55 Hoselitz, Bert, ‘Land Reform, Industrialization and Economic Development in Asia’, in Froehlich, op. cit., p. 113.Google Scholar
56 Cook, Hugh, ‘Land Reform and Development in the Philippines’, in Froehlich, op. cit., pp. 168–80.Google Scholar
57 Krishna, Rau, ‘Some Aspects of Land Reform and Economic Development in India’, in Froehlich, op. cit., pp. 214–56. Perhaps a ‘redistribution of scarcity’ rather than wealth would more precisely describe the Indian situation.Google Scholar
58 Bredo, William, ‘Land Reform and Development in Pakistan’, in Froehlich, op. cit., pp. 260–72.Google Scholar
59 Contsourmaris, George, ‘Policy Objectives in Latin American Land Reform with Special References to Venezuela’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 16 (Autumn 1962), 38.Google Scholar
60 Ibid., pp. 38–;40.
61 Horowitz, , op. cit., pp. 205 and 203–4.Google Scholar
62 Ibid., pp. 205–6.
63 Duff, Ernest A., ‘Agrarian Reform in Colombia: Problems of Social Reform’, Journal of Inter-American Studies, 8 (January 1966), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64 Feder, Ernest, ‘When is Land Reform a Land Reform?: The Colombian Case’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 24 (April 1965), 113–34.Google Scholar
65 Hildebrand, John, ‘Latin American Economic Development, Land Reform and U.S. Aid, with Special Reference to Guatemala’, Journal of Inter-American Studies, 4 (July 1962), 351–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66 Cohen, Alvin, ‘Social Structure, Agrarian Reform and Economic Development in Peru’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 18 (Summer 1964), 46.Google Scholar
67 Ibid., pp. 53–9.
68 Ibid., pp. 46–7.
69 Tuma, Elias, ‘Agrarian Reform in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Study’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6 (October 1963), 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Tuma, Elias, Twentysix Centuries of Agrarian Reform (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965).Google Scholar
70 Tuma, , ‘Agrarian Reform in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Study’, op. cit., 50.Google Scholar
71 Ibid., 72–3.
72 Ibid., 73.
73 Ibid.
74 Young-Chi, Tsui, ‘Land Use Improvement: A Key to the Economic Development of Taiwan’, Journal of Farm Economics, 44 (August 1962), 363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75 Ibid., pp. 365–71.
76 Bandyopadhyay, and Ghosh, , ‘Role of Agrarian Reform in Agricultural Development in Mexico, Taiwan and India-A Comparative Study’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 22 (January 1967), 46–7, 48.Google Scholar
77 Ibid., p. 47.
78 Klein, Sidney, ‘Land Problems and Economic Growth in India and China’, Malayan Economic Review, 5 (October 1960), 77.Google Scholar
79 Saco, Alfredo, ‘Land Reform as an Instrument of Change with Special Reference to Latin America’, FAO Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, 13 (December 1964), 1–9.Google Scholar
80 Felix, D., ‘Agrarian Reform and Industrial Growth’, International Development Review, 2 (October 1960), 16–22.Google Scholar
81 Bandyopadhyay, and Ghosh, , op. cit.Google Scholar
82 Ibid., p. 43.
83 Felix, , op. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar
84 Saco, , op. cit., p. 4.Google Scholar
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid., p. 7.
87 Ibid., pp. 8–9. Alexander's, ‘Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, op. cit., briefly summarizes the Mexican, Bolivian, Guatemalan, and Cuban reforms and seems to concur wholly with the above.Google Scholar
88 Some work along these lines is beginning to emerge. Our study (Petras, and LaPorte, , Cultivating Revolution: The U.S. and Agrarian Reform in Latin America, N.Y.: Random House, 1971) attempts this with regard to Chile, Cuba, and Peru. The Inter-American Committee for Agricultural Development (CIDA) in cooperation with the International Labour Office (ILO) under the direction of Gerrit Huizer has recently compiled a ‘Report on the Study of the Role of Peasant Organizations in the Process of Agrarian Reform in Latin America’ (June 1969), which also indirectly examines cause and effect relationships vis-a-vis agrarian reform. Still a third example is the study by Eric R. Wolf cited above which relates, through a variant of the case study technique, the importance of land access and tenure issue to peasant participation in the revolutions of Mexico, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Algeria, and Cuba.Google Scholar
