Abstract
Recognition of institutional reform as an important variable for economic development has been relatively slow in coming. As with population problems, it has taken many years of debate and publicity to bring this ‘externality’ into proper focus for economists. A significant shift of informed opinion was brought to attention through the conference on land reform held in Washington, D.C., in early June 1970 as a ‘Spring Review’ by the U.S. Agency for International Development.1 An official summarisation of the Review’s results acknowledges that ‘In the past the United States has been notably reluctant to become involved in any aspect of land reform and its attitude has sometimes actually prevented progress’, but now the speaker envisaged United States policy as ‘moving from apathetic neglect to benign interest and a willingness to share in the effort’.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
On this aspect, see Folkes Dovring, ‘Macro Constraints on Agricultural Development in India’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics (Jan–Mar 1972) pp. 46–66.
Don Kanel, ‘Size of Farm and Economic Development’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, XXII (Apr–June 1967) 26–44.
On the sharecropping problem, see Charles Issawi, ‘Farm Output under Fixed Rents and Share Tenancy’, Lxind Economics, XXXIII, 1 (Feb 1957) 74–7, and
Dale W. Adams and W. Rask, ‘Economics of Cost-Share Leases in Less Developed Countries’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, L, 4 (Nov 1968) 935–42.
See Folke Dovring, ‘Land Reform and Productivity in Mexico’, Land Economics, XLVI, 3 (Aug 1970) 264–74.
For a theoretical rationale of farmer co-operation, see Paavo Kaarlehto, ‘Co-operation as a Form of Economic Integration’, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, V, 1 (Stockholm, 1954–5) 85–97.
See E. Louise Peffer, ‘The Family Farm and the Land Speculator: Reflections on a Much Worked Theme’, Journal of Farm Economics, XL, 2 (May 1958) 330–43.
Ping-ti-Ho, Studies on the Population of China, 1368–1953 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1959) pp. 217 ff.
Cf. Folke Dovring, ‘Variants and Invariants in Comparative Agricultural Systems’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, LI, 5 (Dec 1969) 1263–73.
On the role of small-scale marketing in low-income countries, see P. T. Bauer and B. S. Yamey, ‘Economic Progress and Occupational Distribution’, Economic Journal (Dec 1951), and
V. C. Uchendu, ‘Some Principles of Haggling in Peasant Markets’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, XV, 1 (1966) 10–20
See Folke Dovring, ‘Eighteenth-Century Changes in European Agriculture’, Agricultural History, XLIH, 1 (Jan 1969) 181–6;
cf. also J. D. Chambers and G. E. Mingay, The Agricultural Revolution, 1750–1880 (New York: Schocken Books, 1966) pp. 34ff.
On the relation between rent and gross income, see Conrad Hammar, ‘Intensity and Land Rent’, Journal of Farm Economics, XX, 4 (Nov 1938) 776–791.
The classical statement by Karl Kautsky, Die Agrarfrage (Stuttgart, 1899), is still couched in the terms of private-account rates of return.
Karin Dovring, ‘Land Reform as a Propaganda Theme’, in Dovring, Land and Labour in Europe in the Twentieth Century, 3rd rev. ed. (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1965) pp. 278–375, 473–9, 507–10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Copyright information
© 1974 International Economic Association
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dovring, F. (1974). Land Reform: A Key to Change in Agriculture. In: Islam, N. (eds) Agricultural Policy in Developing Countries. International Economic Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-63663-1_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-63663-1_20
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-63665-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-63663-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)