Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Land Tenure

  • Chapter
Land and Labor in Europe in the Twentieth Century

Part of the book series: Studies in Social Life ((SCL))

  • 97 Accesses

Abstract

Wherever there is land in use, somebody may be said to hold the land. Whether an individual, a firm, a group, a tribe, a community, or a State, there is at least one user having some kind of title, formal or informal. In most of the discussion of the recent past, the distinction between owner-operated and rented land has overshadowed other problems of land tenure, at least outside of the Communist orbit. How much of a simplification this traditional dichotomy respresents is now gradually emerging. Founded as it is on traditional legal doctrine, the concept of ownership cannot retain the same economic significance under changing material and cultural circumstances; and so the evaluation of ownership and tenancy also tends to be modified. The psychological difference, too, derives from the concepts of legal ideology and is likely to be modified with shifts in the general situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Cf W. Stark, Ursprung und Aufstieg landwirtschaftlicher Grossbetriebe in den böhmischen Ländern (Brunn 1934).

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Confino, Domaines et seigneurs en Russie vers la fin du XVIIIe siècle (Paris 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Gurland, Grundzüge der muhammedanischen Agrarverfassung und Agrarpolitik, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung türkischer Verhältnisse (Dorpat 1907).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf M. E. Christie (M. E. Seebohm), The evolution of the English farm (London 1952).

    Google Scholar 

  5. V. Ricchioni, “Sopravvivenza dell’enfiteusi nel mezzogiorno,” Rivista di economia agraria Vol. 14, No (Rome 1959, Mar) showing, i. a., that recent emphyteutic contracts have included hard economic consequences for tenants.

    Google Scholar 

  6. In this sense still M. Sering & C. v. Dietze (ed.) Die Vererbung des ländlichen Grundbesitzes in der Nachkriegszeit (München & Leipzig 1930), Vol. 3, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  7. On Albania, see A. Blanc, “Recherches sur les communautés patriarcales et les structures agraires en Albanie du Nord,” Bulletin de l’Association de géographes français (Paris 1960, May/June).

    Google Scholar 

  8. L. Dikoff, “Die rechtliche Lage des Landbesitzes vom Standpunkt des Erb-und Sachenrechtes,” Die nationalökonomische Struktur der bulgarischen Landwirtschaft, hrsg v. J. St. Molloff (Berlin 1936), p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See G. C. Broderick, English land and English landlords. An inquiry into the origin and character of the English land system, with proposals for its reform (London 1881), pp 156 sqq. On eastern Germany, see J. Conrad in Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik (Berlin 1888), p. 149. On Italy, at a more recent date, see A. Serpieri, La struttura sociale dell’agricoltura italiana (Rome 1947), and M. Rossi-Doria, “Problemi del lavoro in agricoltura” Annuario dell’agricoltura italiana (Rome 1950), pp 369-404.

    Google Scholar 

  10. G. García-Badell y Abadia, “La distribución de la propiedad agrícola de España en las diferentes catgorías de fincas,” Revista de estudios agro-sociales, No 30 (Madrid 1960, Jan.) For older periods see Fr. de Cárdenas, “Del estado de la propiedad territorial de España durante la edad media,” Revista de España (Madrid 1872), and P. Carrión, Los latifundios en España (Madrid 1932).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Publications statistiques hongroises, N.S. Vol. 18, “Dénombrement de la population des pays de la Sainte Couronne Hongroise en 1900, 9me partie, Conditions de la propriété bâtie et foncière” (Budapest 1907).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Norges offisielle statistikk, XI. 103 (Oslo 1952), pp 50 sq.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thus, L. García de Oteyza, “Los regimenes de la explotación del suelo nacional,” Revista de estudios agro-sociales (Madrid 1952, Oct–Dec), pp 49-62; also the French farm censuses of 1882, 1892, 1929, and 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See for instance Norges offisielle statistikk, VIII. 188 (Oslo 1932) pp 83-100, and ibid., XI. 103 (Oslo 1952), pp 48 sqq.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See the early Russian property statistics as quoted in Appendix 5, under the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. S. Orwin & W. R. Peel, The tenure of agricultural land, 2ed. (Cambridge 1926), pp 20, 22, and S. G. Sturmey, “Owner-farming in England and Wales 1900–1950,” Manchester School of economic and social studies, Sept 1955, Vol. 23, pp 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. F. Dovring, “Les recensements agricoles français,” Bulletin mensuel de statistique, Supplément trimestriel (Paris 1955, Apr–Jun).

    Google Scholar 

  18. For instance, Les diverses formes du métayage, Vol. 1 (Paris 1953), overlooks in the general report (by J. Milhaud) how the land coverage in the censuses was so different as to vitiate any comparison between several departments. Cf also G. Sévérac, “Réflexions sur le métayage en France,” Economie rurale, 48 (Paris 1961, Apr–Jun), pp 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. D. J. Alexander, “A note on the conacre system in Northern Ireland,” Journal of agricultural economics (Reading 1963, Jun). See also L. F. Cain, “Land tenure in Ireland in the modern period,” Agricultural History, Vol. 27 (Urbana, Illinois, 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  20. L. García de Oteyza, “Los regímenes de explotación del suelo nacional,” Revista de estudios agro-sociales (Madrid 1952, Oct–Dec), pp 49-62.

    Google Scholar 

  21. H. Hopfner, Die ländlichen Siedlungen der altkastilischen Meseta (Hamburg 1939), especially pp 140 sq, quoting statistics available in local administrative offices.

    Google Scholar 

  22. D. H. Fransens, Een onderzoek naar de toestand van de landbouwers in Rump en Gellicum (Wageningen 1950, processed), pp 13 sq.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chr. Evelpides, Ē georgia tēs Ellados (Athens 1944), p. 25, footnote 2. On the occurrence of mixed tenures see, in addition to the 1950 census of agriculture, also A. A. Diamantopoulos, Ē pedias tou Mornou (Athens 1940), pp 32 sq, N. E. Ai’valiotakis, O kampos tēs Messenias kai ai oreinai lekanai avtou (Athens’42), pp 92 sq, and idem, Ai oreinai lekanai Feneou-Stymfalias (Athens’41).

    Google Scholar 

  24. F. Dovring, “Les recensements agricoles français,” Bulletin mensuel de statistique, Supplément trimestriel (Paris 1955, Apr–Jun).

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Krause, “Pachtland und Betriebsgrössen. Reichsgebiet,” Berichte über Landwirtschaft (Hamburg & Berlin 1937, Vol 21), pp 733 sqq, and idem, “Pachtland und Betriebsgrössen. Landschaftliche Unterschiede,” Berichte über Landwirtschaft (Hamburg & Berlin 1938), Vol. 22, pp 252-280.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Unstable farm holdings occur both where mixed tenure is combined with short-term or precarious leases and where the whole type of tenure is precarious. See for instance, M. Rossi-Doria, “Considerazioni circa il carattere dei contratti di compartecipazione e di colonia parziaria nel Mezzogiorno d’Italia,” Rivista di economia agraria (Rome 1948), pp 318-333; M. R. Savatier, La distinction entre métayage et salariat (Paris 1948); A. Prax, “Métayage et société,” Progrès agricole et viticole (Lyon 1951), pp 246-250; L. H. Thiney, “Le métayage est-il une société?” Revue de législation agricole (Paris 1951), pp 43-45; and A. N. Houwing, “Pacht of maatschappij?” De Pacht (The Hague 1951, May), pp 130-140.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cf A. Finzi, “Diritto di proprietà e disciplina di produzione,” Atti del primo congresso nazionale di diritto agrario (Firenze 1936).

    Google Scholar 

  28. French C. c. 522.524, includes livestock, straw, and manure. German BGB 94-97: distinction between “Bestandteile” and “Zubehör”. Italian C. c. 812: land and buildings, trees, etc.; 817-818 on “pertinenze”, cf also 816 on “universalità di mobili.” Swedish statute of 1875 on real estate: includes a limited set of fixtures; attached chattel is not dealt with here but is treated separately in the rules on tenancy. The rule of English Common Law was that quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit (what is planted on the land accrues to it).

    Google Scholar 

  29. French C. c. 1821 (undiminished inventory), 1824 (manure is inventory, not part of the holder’s profit). Italian C. c. 1640–1642. German BGB 582 sqq. Cf also B. W. Adkin, A handbook of the law relating to Landlord and Tenant, 12 ed. (London 1947), pp 219 sqq, and 280 sq.

    Google Scholar 

  30. L. de Pina Manique, A fragmentaçăo da propriedade rústica (Lisbon 1935).

    Google Scholar 

  31. L. Dikoff, “Die rechtliche Lage des Landbesitzes vom Standpunkt des Erb-und Sachenrechtes,” Die sozialökonomische Struktur der bulgarischen landwirtschaft, hrsg. v. J. St. Molloff (Berlin 1936), p. 98.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ley de 20.12.1952 sobre concentración parcelaria, Art. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Code rural, 1:1:3, art. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  34. “Flurbereinigungsgesetz vom 14. Juli 1953,” Bundesgesetzblatt 1 (Bonn 1953, 18 July).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cf C. A. Ramberg, in Lantbrukstidskrift för Dalarne (Falun 1952), pp 87-95.

    Google Scholar 

  36. K. Skovgaard, in the F.A.O. Agricultural Studies, 11 (Rome 1951), pp 52 sq.

    Google Scholar 

  37. A. Durand, La vie rurale dans les massifs volcaniques des Dores, du Cézallier, du Cantal et de l’Aubrec (Aurillac 1946), pp 140 sqq; J. Baert, “Deling van grond bij boerennalatenschap,” De Pacht (The Hague 1949), pp 134-152; A. W. Ashby & I. L. Evans, The agriculture of Wales and Monmouthshire (Cardiff 1944), p. 85, and M. Tcherkinsky, “The evolution of the system of succession to landed property in Europe,” Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology (Rome, IIA, 1941, Jun.).

    Google Scholar 

  38. French C. c. 832, cf Greek C. c. 1889, still providing for only facultative indivisibility.

    Google Scholar 

  39. On the geography of Anerbenrecht, see W. Henkelmann, “Grundstückszusammenlegung und Erbrechtsform,” Deutsche Agrarpolitik im Rahmen der inneren und äusseren Wirtschaftspolitik… hrsg. Fr. Beckmann, H. Bente & B. Harms (Berlin 1932), Vol. 1, pp 601–612; E. Grass & A. Münzinger, “Die Flurbereinigung in Süddeutschland,” Berichte über Landwirtschaft (Hemburg & Berlin 1936), Sonderh. 123, p 33 and the map facing p. 49, and W. Hartke, “Zur Geographie der bäuerlichen Liegenschaften in Deutschland,” Petermann’s geographische Mitteilungen (Gotha 1940), pp 16-19 and Plate 3.

    Google Scholar 

  40. E. H. Kaden, “The peasant inheritance law in Germany,” Iowa Farm Review (Iowa City 1934–35), pp 350-368.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Statute of 1947, 3 July, No 139; cf A. Bedřich, „A propos des questions de la propriété agricole et sa protection,” Bulletin de droit tchécoslovaque (Prague 1952, Dec. 1), p. 332. Cf also Fr. Kuber, “Besitzwechsel,” in V. Brdlík, Die sozialökonomische Struktur der Landwirtschaft in der Tschechoslowakei (Berlin 1936), pp 111-118.

    Google Scholar 

  42. J. Skeie, Odelsretten og aseteretten (Oslo 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sovetskoe grazhdanskoe pravo, red. D. N. Genkin (Moscow 1950), Vol. 1, pp 340 sq. Cf the Constitution of the USSR, Art. 7; further V. Gsovski, Soviet Civil Law (Ann Arbor 1948), Vol. 1, pp 773 sqq, and V. K. Grigor’ev, B. V. Erofeev & M. S. Lipetsker, Zemel’noe i kolkhoznoe pravo (Moscow 1957), pp 91 sqq, 252 sqq.

    Google Scholar 

  44. F. Dovring, “European reactions to the Homestead Act,” Journal of Economic History 22:4 (New York 1962, Dec), pp 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Reichsheimstätten-Gesetz of 1924, Jan 18. Cf M. Sering & C. v. Dietze, (ed.) Die Vererbung des ländlichen Grundbesitzes in der Nachkriegszeit (München & Leipzig 1930), Vol. 3, pp 4 sq with note 7; Smallholdings, First Report of the Smallholdings Advisory Council (London 1949); Land Settlement in Scotland, Report by the Scottish Land Settlement Committee (Edinburgh 1945); D. Arnskov, Smallholdings in Denmark (Copenhagen 1924); Loi de 12/6 1909 sur la consommation d’un bien de famille insaisissable; cf M. Augé-Laribé, La politique agricole de la France de 1880 à 1940 (Paris 1950), pp 89 sq.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Spain: Ley sobre colonización y distribución de la propiedad de las zonas regables, of 1949, April 4. Portugal: Regulamento de Lei No 2,014. Aproveitamento de terrenos pela colonizaçăo. Decreto No. 36,709 de 5 de Janeiro de 1948, in its Divisăo 3, stating that the owner may decide which one of the heirs is to take over the entire holding, but admitting also that the holding may remain undivided family property. This regards only the holdings created by the Junta de Colonizaçăo interna.

    Google Scholar 

  47. On England see G. Hallett, The economics of agricultural land tenure (London 1960), especially chapters 3 and 4.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Code rural art. 837 sqq, cf art. 809 sqq.

    Google Scholar 

  49. R. Savatier, article in Semaine juridique (Paris 1948), 2, 4420: “Le désir de donner la terre à celui qui la cultive l’emporte sur celui d’assurer au fermier une exploitation durable.”

    Google Scholar 

  50. Statute of 1951, July 7; cf W. G. A. Lammers, “De gewijzigde belgische pachtwetgeving,” Landbouwwereldnieuws (The Hague 1952, Jan), pp 53-57.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Belgian C. c. 1743, 1748; cf the statute of 1929, Mar 7, para. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  52. M. J. Boerendonk, Farm tenancy policy in the Netherlands (The Hague 1950). See also J. Pen, “Het pachtbeleid,” Economisch-statistische berichten (Rotterdam 1960), pp 900-902, 920-923.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Provvedimenti in materia agraria… Legislazione aggiornata al 1 guigno 1953… (Milano 1953), pp 3-43, and subsequent annual statutes in the Gazzetta ufficiale.

    Google Scholar 

  54. A. de Feo, “I patti agrari,” Notiziario C.G.I.L. (Rome 1954), pp 107-110, with proposed statute text, pp 111-117. More recent proposals include the complete suppression of sharecropping. Cf also F. Alvis, “L’equo canone d’affitto nelle provincie emiliane,” Rivista di economia agraria (Rome 1959), pp 460 sqq.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cf L. Garcia de Oteyza, “Los regimenes de explotación del suelo nacional,” Revista de estudios agro-sociales (Madrid 1952), pp 49-62.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Constitution of the USSR, artt. 6–8; Ustav sel’skokhoziaĭstvennoĭ arteli — osnovnoi zakon kolkhoznoi zhizni (Moscow 1951), pp 36 sqq.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ustav sel’skokhoziaistvennoi arteli (Moscow 1951), st. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  58. M. Gendel’man, “Vnutrikhoziaĭstvennoe zemleustroístvo kolkhozov s neskol’kimi naselennymi punktami,” Sotsialisticheskoe sel’skoe khoziaĭstvo (Moscow 1952, Mar), pp 38-46.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Thus the Bulgarian statute which is among the most radical ones, in V. Chervenkov, op. cit. (see Chapter 7).

    Google Scholar 

  60. A. W. Ashby & I. L. Evans, The agriculture of Wales and Monmouthshire (Cardiff 1944), p. 93, about the “good” landlord who charged a low rent but contributed no investment either.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Cf V. A. Dicey, Lectures on the relations between Law and Public Opinion in England during the nineteenth century (London 1905, re-ed. 1924).

    Google Scholar 

  62. A. W. Ashby & I. L. Evans, The agriculture of Wales and Monmouthshire (Cardiff 1944), p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  63. K. Skovgaard & A. Pedersen, Survey of Danish agriculture (Copenhagen 1946), pp 35 sq.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Fr. Houillier, “Les modes de faire-valoir en France. L’importance économique et sociale du fermage,” Agriculture pratique (Paris 1951, Sep), pp 415-418.

    Google Scholar 

  65. P. Caziot, La valeur de la terre en France, 3 éd., rev., (Paris 1952), pp 27 sqq; cf also P. Voirin, “La propriété dite culturale dans le nouveau statut français du fermage,” Legislative information (Rome, FAO, 1950, Sep), pp 115–124.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Fr. Houillier, “Les modes de faire-valoir en France. Le métayage,” Agriculture pratique (Paris 1952, Jan), pp 11-14, and H. de Farcy, “La répartition des modes de faire-valoir en France,” Revue de géographie de Lyon (Lyon 1951), and Les diverses formes du métayage, Vol. 1 (Paris 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Cf M. Andrault, article in Revue de législation agricole (Paris 1951, Sep–Oct).

    Google Scholar 

  68. L. Garcia de Otayza, “Los regímenes de explotación del suelo nacional,” Revista de estudios agro-sociales (Madrid 1952), pp 49-62. Cf also M. Garcia Isidro, “Contratos de aparceria: el célebre articulo 70 de la ley de 1940,” Agricultura (Madrid 1951, Feb), pp 70-74.

    Google Scholar 

  69. M. Rossi-Doria, “Considerazioni circa il carattere dei contratti di compartecipazione e di colonia parziaria nel Mezzogiorno d’Italia e i modi di una loro regolazione,” Rivista di economia agraria (Rome 1948), pp 318-333.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Thus at least in the Po valley; but also instances such as the portwine district in northern Portugal, and the Spanish huerta on the Mediterranean coast, would probably justify analogous conclusions.

    Google Scholar 

  71. M. Tcherkinsky, The land tenure systems of Europe (Geneva, League of Nations, 1939).

    Google Scholar 

  72. K. Kroeschell, Die Bodenordnung in der modernen Gesellschaft (Schriftenreihe für ländliche Sozialfragen, H. 34, Hannover 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  73. G. Prawitz, Jordfrågan (Stockholm 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  74. C. V. Noilhan, “Une évolution de la législation française en faveur de l’indivisibilité de l’exploitation agricole,” Académie d’agriculture de France, Comptes rendus (Paris 1951, Apr 11), pp 240-253.

    Google Scholar 

  75. O. Howald, “Das neue Bodenrecht,” Agrarpolitische Revue (Zürich 1949, fasc. 4), pp 121-128; idem, “Das neue schweizerische Landwirtschaftsgesetz,” Agrarische Rundschau (Wien 1952, Fasc. 8), pp 9-18; O. Kauffmann, Die Neuordnung des Landwirtschaftsrechtes (Zürich & Strasbourg 1952, reproducing two articles from the Agrarpolitische Revue).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Italian statute, No 841, of Oct 21, 1950. Cf L. Gui, “Le prime sei aziende modello,” Agricoltura (Rome 1952, May), pp 5-8, and A. Serpieri, “Imprese contadine e non contadine nell’agricoltura italiana,” Rivista di economia agraria (Rome 1951), pp 71-82. The Spanish statute is the Ley de explotaciones agrarias ejemplares of July 14, 1952; cf A. Leal García, “La ley de explotaciones agrarias ejemplares,” Revista de estudios agro-sociales (Madrid 1953, Apr–Jun).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Statute of 1951, 11 July, No 5, Recueil des lois (Prague) on sale and lease of land, and Statute of 1947, July 3, on farm inheritance. Cf A. Bedřich, “A propos des questions de la propriété agricole et sa protection,” Bulletin de droit tchécoslovaque (Prague 1952, Dec), p. 332.

    Google Scholar 

  78. “Leggi di riforma fondiaria e prowedimenti connessi,” including a number of statements relating to this legislation, published as a special issue of L’agricoltura italiana (Rome 1951); “Ley de colonizatión de grandes zonas,” Boletin oficial del estado (Madrid 1940, January 25, No 25). Cf R. Gomez Ayau, in the Revista de estudios agro-sociales (Madrid 1952), p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  79. B. Rossi, “Il fondamento giuridico del limite alla proprietà,” L’agricoltura italiana (Rome 1950), pp 169-171; A. Ballarin Marcial, “El sentido humano del nuevo derecho de la agricoltura,” Arbor (Madrid 1953), pp 481-500; J. L. del Arco, “La nouvelle loi espagnole concernant l’entreprise agricole familiale,” Agrarpolitische Revue (Zürich 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  80. G. Costanzo, “The small holding: its creation and its problems,” Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology (Rome, IIA, 1943), pp 81–115.

    Google Scholar 

  81. H. Campion, Public and private property in Great Britain (London 1939).

    Google Scholar 

  82. “Statens utarrenderade domäner arrendeåret 1910–11,” Kungl. Statistiska Centralbyrån, Statistiska Meddelanden Ser. A, Vol. 1:2 (Stockholm 1913). On public forests in Sweden, see the official series, Kungl. Domänstyrelsens förvaltning, Skogsväsendet… 1911/12 et sqq, later changed to Sveriges officiella Statistik, Domänverket (annual issues).

    Google Scholar 

  83. A. E. Davies & D. Evans, Land nationalisation: the key to social reform (London 1921); R. A. Price, Public freeholds (London 1944); L. B. Powell, The land: State or free? (London 1946); R. G. Proby, “The future of private landowning,” Central Landowners Association, Journal (London 1949), pp 75-82. 165a. Thus. G. Clauson, Communal land tenure (Rome, FAO, 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  84. J. Días, Vilarinho da Furna. Uma aldeia comunitaria (Porto 1948); idem, Rio de Onor: comunitarismo agro-pastoril (Porto 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  85. J. Costa, Colectivismo agrario en España, 2 ed. (Madrid 1915); cf also M. Le Lannou, Pâtres et paysans de la Sardaigne (Tours 1941).

    Google Scholar 

  86. R. Belitch, La propriété foncière en Yougoslavie (Paris 1930).

    Google Scholar 

  87. See for instance J. M. Zumalacárregui, Ensayo sobre el orígen y desarollo de la propiedad comunal en España hasta el final de la Edad Media (Madrid 1903); L. Carretero y Nieva, Las comunidades castellanas en la historia y en el estado actual (Segovia 1922), and R. Altamira, Historia de la propiedad comunal (Madrid 1927).

    Google Scholar 

  88. P. Gronset, “Stölshamnene våre, Utskifting må til,” Norsk landbruk (Oslo 1944), pp 144 sq; on communal pastures in Norway see H. Slogedal, article in Tidsskrift for det norske landbrug (Oslo 1948), pp 4-13.

    Google Scholar 

  89. W. H. Ubbink, “Schaarweiden”, De Pacht (The Hague 1951), pp 162-180.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Bundesgesetz über die Erhaltung des bäuerlichen Grundbesitzes, of 1951, June 12, especially its art. 17. Cf also O. Kauffmann, Die Neuordnung des Landwirtschaftsrechtes (Zürich & Strasbourg 1952).

    Google Scholar 

  91. A. Durand, La vie rurale dans les massifs volcaniques des Dores, du Cézallier, du Cantal et de l’Aubrec (Aurillac 1946), pp 130 sqq, and J. P. Moreau, “Un cas particulier d’usages agraires: Les ‘communaux à viager’,” Revue de géographie de Lyon 33 (1958), pp 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. G. Medici, “Proprietà collettive, demani, usi civici,” Rivista di economia agraria (Rome 1948), pp 303-317. Cf also G. Vöchting, “Mischbesitz, Allmende und Gemeindeeigentum in Süditalien,” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 162 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  93. A. Leal García, “Modalidades de la propiedad inmobiliaria en la provincia de Cáceres,” Boletín del instituto de reforma agraria (Madrid 1934, Jun).

    Google Scholar 

  94. R. García Redruello, “Derecho rural consuetudinario: las’ suertes’ como forma de propiedad colectivizada en el agro español,” Surco (Madrid 1947), pp 29 sq.

    Google Scholar 

  95. P. Benassi, Affittanze collettive (Torino 1920), pp 43 sqq, with examples of Statutes, pp 101 sqq.

    Google Scholar 

  96. G. Pesce, La compartecipazione collettiva nell’azienda agraria, 2 ed., (Rome 1937).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Joint farming co-operatives, A preliminary survey (Geneva, ILO, 1949); H. F. Infield, “Cooperative farming in the world today,” Cooperative living (Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 1949, Spring); H. F. Infield & J. B. Maier, Cooperative group living: an international symposium on group farming and the sociology of cooperation (New York 1950).

    Google Scholar 

  98. G. Gojat & M. Tournier, “L’application des principes communautaires à la répartition des terres communales,” Diagnostic économique et social. Economie et humanisme (Paris 1951), pp 291-294.

    Google Scholar 

  99. P. Coutin, “Les exploitations agricoles en France,” Revue de l’action populaire (Paris 1951), pp 583 sqq.

    Google Scholar 

  100. P. Coulomb, “Réflexions sur la structure des groupements agricoles d’exploitation” l’Economie rurale 55 (Paris 1963, Jan/Mar), pp 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. For instance, Spravochnik predsedatel’ia kolkhoza, 3 ed., (Moscow 1948); cf A. Vucinich, Soviet economic institutions (Stanford 1952), pp 57 sqq.

    Google Scholar 

  102. A. Kraeva, “Voprosy sochetaniíà lichnykh i obshchestvennykh interesov v kolkhozakh,” Voprosy ėkonomiki (Moscow 1961, No 8), pp 72-79.

    Google Scholar 

  103. G. Kotov, “O Perspektive zblizheniíà kolkhoznoĭ i sovkhoznoĭ form khoziaistva,” Voprosy ėkonomiki (Moscow 1961, No 2), pp 26-39.

    Google Scholar 

  104. For the background, see D. Warriner, Revolution in Eastern Europe (London 1950), chapters 7 and 8.

    Google Scholar 

  105. O. v. Frangeš, “Agricultural labour communities in south-eastern Europe,” Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology (Rome, IIA, 1941), pp 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ibid., pp. 25sq; I. Balev. Zěmědělskoto stopanstvo i kooperativnata obrabotka na zemiata (Sofia 1940), p. 45; N. I. Kanev, Kooperativno obrabotvane na zemiate i natsionalen stopanski plan (Sofia 1939), and M. Genovski, Obsrtvenost i kultura (Sofia 1939), pp 202 sq.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Folke Dovring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Dovring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1965 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dovring, F., Dovring, K. (1965). Land Tenure. In: Land and Labor in Europe in the Twentieth Century. Studies in Social Life. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6137-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6137-6_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-5756-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6137-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation