The ability of individuals to have access to land on which to grow crops and raise animals is very important to those who are economically disenfranchised. This is especially important in rural areas where people may not be able to access products readily. This need is emphasized even more in areas where agriculture is the main means of employment. In order to improve the lives of the people in these areas the governments began using land reforms. According to Dictionary.com land reform is a governmental program that takes land from farmers and redistributes it among the landless. In this paper, I will discuss land reforms in the 1940’s and 1950’s and how they are affecting society still today
Land reforms are the changing of laws and regulations that make it possible for lands to be redistributed. This usually results in the transfer of land from a person or corporation that holds a large percentage of the land into the hands of a person who has no land. This is mostly done to agricultural land as a part of a governmental property redistribution program. The transfer of land ownership may be completed without an exchange of compensation. When compensation is given the amounts vary depending on the land. Land transfer also works in the opposite manner with small landowners having to transfer their lands into government ownership. This is usually done to create collective farms. Land reform programs are usually implemented in one of three ways, community based, market assisted, or state led. Each of these has its own limitations which may hinder people from benefitting from the program.
The identifying factor of all land reforms is the change of the identifying arrangements regarding governing the ownership and usage of the lands. Many land reform acquisitions are subject to harsh legal debate. The reason for this, is because one must identify what land ownership means for the area in which a person lives. This is because the rules are different depending on which country or region a person resides. According to Acheson the property owners are divided into having five different types of rights (1) access, which is the ability of the individual to utilize the land as they deem fit (2) alienation, which is the ability to transfer or sell property (3) exclusion, this is the right of a person to forbid another person from being able to enter onto their property (4) management, this would include and repairs or improvements done to the land and (5) withdrawal which is the right of a person to withdraw from a contract within 14 days of signing These rights can be held by an individual or a group and can include some or all of the rights
The need for land reforms stems from historical precedence that allowed for the accumulation of property by tax exempt people or entities. For example, according to Borras, the temple lands of Ancient Egypt were tax exempt. This meant that all of the best lands were bought by the priestly class. This made them rich, but starved the government of the money they would have been getting for taxes. The concept of tax exempt land for the nobility would continue into the 20th century. After WWI many Eastern and Central European countries executed land reforms. This meant that land that was greater than a certain size was expropriated. . Europe was not the only country to implement land reforms in the early to mid-1900’s. Mexico implemented them in 1917 after the Mexican Revolution, along with Bolivia, China, Cuba, Malaysia, Namibia, South Korea, Taiwan, Zimbabwe, and a number of Arab and African countries have used land reform as a way to decolonize and to promote socialism and nationalism. . In many third world countries land reform helps them improve their social and economic development. This is because they are able to sell the crops and meat from their farms, making them less dependent on the government.
In the 1940’s Walter Goldschmidt an anthropologist, who was working for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was studying the effects of agriculture in small California communities. . He was able to show that communities with small farms in the small town of Dinuba (located in Tulare County) thrived. The reason for this success was partly due to the fact that there was not a large wealth disparity between residents. The lack of differences in wealth helped the area become both socially and economically stronger
When Goldschmidt studied the city of Arvin in Kern County, California, which was surrounded by large industrial farms. He discovered that life was quite different. The town had a large divide in terms of wealth. Only the people who were in charge of managing the farms had stable incomes and many people were barely getting by. The owners of the farms themselves did not even live in the city. The town itself was run down and filled with dilapidated buildings such as churches and schools. This discovery led Goldschmidt to believe that family farms where the ideal small business in America and that they would “lay the economic base for the liberties and the democratic institutions which this Nation counts as its greatest asset.”(Goldschmidt). Goldschmidt also felt that it was important to recognize the “industrial quality of farming” (Goldschmidt).
Along with the consequences that it would have on urban areas. Goldschmidt also felt that “the regulations of the Labor Relations Act should be applied to the agricultural sector and that unions should not only be allowed to develop, but should be encouraged”. (Goldschmidt).
Unfortunately, the US government did not see the family farm as being an asset by the 1940’s so the government fired Goldschmidt and hide his work for many years. The government also enabled land reforms that allowed corporate entities to take land away from family farms in order to create large industrial farms. The fact that the government was unwilling to follow Goldschmidt’s recommendations, has caused, according to Goldschmidt the monopolization of the agricultural industry by agribusinesses. The result of this has been to weaken small farmers which has led to a dependence on corporate farms.
The demographic the was hit the hardest by the decline of farming and land reforms were the African American farmers. According to there were 746,717 black farmers in the United States in 1900, by 1910 that number had gone up to 19.6 percent, equaling 893, 377. Then after 1920 when the number of African American farmers was at its peak of 925,710, there is a sudden drop in African American farmers. This was because many African American farmers were pushed into abandoning the farms their families were gifted by the United States during the Reconstruction.
They accomplished this by depriving the former slaves of their promised 40 acres and a mule. This was accomplished by government intimidation, lies, denying loans to African Americas and harassment. Things for the African American farmer got worse in the 1950’s when the battle for civil rights began to heat up. The actions of the white farmers caused many of the African American farmers to flee to the North. By 2000 there were less than 18,000 African American farmers that were still farming. This is a decline of 98% since 1900.
In the West there is more of an emphasis on individual land ownership. This may, however, be more about the use of the land rather than ownership. This type of land ownership is known as land tenure. Land reform is a highly debatable political issue with strong opinions on each side. The people who are against it have the tendency to associate it with socialism and/or communism. The other arguments against land reform are usually a result of fear. This fear is usually in regards to the motivation behind the reform. This tends to be instigated by a fear of losing an economic or political power struggle or becoming disadvantaged as a result of accepting a land reform. Some people are concerned with land reforms due to formalization of property rights. This is because research shows that land reforms tend to be ineffective or they cause future conflict and/ or hardship.
There is also the issue of elite capture of land and equity issues. This mainly occurs in situations where there is a large amount of land at stake. For many people there is a fear that disadvantaged groups will be taken advantage of. There is also the fear that the land that is redistributed will not be used in a way that is productive and/ or the owner of the land will not be compensated properly for the worth of the land. This issue can easily be remedied by compensating the landowners fairly and allowing for productive use of the land. The inability to utilize the land in a productive manner can lead to increased food insecurity and economic decline. While the ability to utilize the land to its full potential can lead to economic and societal growth.
The people who are arguing for land reforms draw attention to the potential economic and social benefits, especially in developing countries. These benefits include the ability to grow enough crops to combat food shortages and to help alleviate rural poverty. Land reform also allows people to be more economically independent and makes it so they are not constantly worried about losing their access to land. This enables the tenants to make improvements to the land which will help increase production on the land. In 2000 Hernando de Sota wrote “The Mystery of Capital” in which he claimed that the poor are unable to get land ownership of the land that they farm or live on for a variety of reasons, such as government corruption and/ or difficult laws. Due to the poor not having documentation of their land they are not able to get credit. The inability to get credit hinders their chances of acquiring more land. This contributes to a rise in poverty. . By ending feudalism and breaking up the land into smaller segments it allows everyone the opportunity to contribute economically rather than having a constant cycle of the wealthy getting richer, and the poor becoming more disenfranchised. With land reforms the peasant class is given the ability to not only to the improvements in their own economic status but also to the economic status of their country. This is because the state or country can now make money from the land.
There are many organizations that agree with de Soto and have created a number of programs that work with various governments and civil organizations to implement land reforms that benefit the poor and disenfranchised. Other reasons that people support land reform is because it helps to regulate conflicting land laws, in cases where formal and informal land laws may conflict with each other. This is beneficial to a countries legal system as many times lawsuits about land end up in the legal system. Once the issue is in the legal system. The issue may take an extremely long time to address. For most people, being secure in land ownership would help them utilize it better. This would in many cases result in the landowner feeling more secure in their ability continue to work the land. This would lead to the landowner making improvements to increase production. These improvements would lead to long term economic growth not just for the farmer, but for the whole area.
America is not the only country that was affected by land reform in the 1950’s. Brazil has been in conflict since the 50’s due to the belief that there should be family run farms that provide the population with quality produce . The Brazilian government had many refineries in large debts. The refinery owners tried to settle their debts by giving a portion of their land to the government. This led to an increase in land reform in Brazil. Since the government was willing to compensate the owners of large tracts of land and then they divided them into smaller lots that they then provided to the poor in order for them so operate small farms
In India during the 1940’s and 1950’s. There were 3.4 million hectares of privatized land that was held in the territory of Rajasthan. Despite the fact that the population had increased 183% from 1901 to 1972.. Jodha maintains that the population increase was not the reason that the government converted common land into privatized property . Instead Jodha contended that the change was caused by land reforms and increased commercialization of the economy. This was because in the 1950’s, numerous types of resources in Rajasthan were considered common property amongst the villagers. These were resources like grazing land, crops that were available for grazing after the harvest, waste dumping areas and ponds.
Prior to the 1940’s in India the country was under a feudal system.. In this type of economic system one person “a landlord” would own all of the land in the village. The tenants would then pay rent to the landlord by giving him a portion of the crops that they had raised as well as paying a nominal fee for their animals to be able to graze on the land. This system was abolished after the revolution that occurred in the 1940’s and 1950’s India. The land was then divided and given to the poor who then could choose to start small family farms.
In conclusion, while many people support the privatization of lands because they see it as being more cost effective. They also contend that the privatization of land helps to promote land conservation, and they believe that it helps to eliminate over capitalization. There is ample evidence to prove that common property organizations in many societies run effectively and can last a long time. . This seems to indicate that as long as the lands natural resources are utilized properly, then both privatized and common land can be successful. This is one of the reasons why land reforms are so important to disenfranchised people. As mentioned earlier helping people to have access to land allows them the opportunity to become self-sufficient by being able to grow their own crops and raise their own animals. This helps lessen their economic dependability and increases their social and economic opportunities.
References
Acheson, James M.. 2015. “Private Land and Common Oceans: Analysis of the Development of Property Regimes”. Current Anthropology 56 (1). [University of Chicago Press, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research]: 28–55. doi:10.1086/679482
Borras, Saturnino M. "The Philippine Land Reform in Comparative Perspective: Some Conceptual and Methodological Implications." Journal of Agrarian Change J Agrarian Change 6, no. 1 (2006): 69-101. Accessed February 26, 2016.
de L’Estoile, Benoît. 2014. ““money Is Good, but a Friend Is Better”: Uncertainty, Orientation to the Future, and “the Economy””. Current Anthropology 55 (S9). [University of Chicago Press, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research]: S62–S73. doi:10.1086/676068.
De Soto, Hernando de. 2000. The Mystery Of Capital. New York: Basic Books.
Goldschmidt, Walter. 1978. As You Sow. Montclair, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun.
Jodha, N. S. 1985. Population growth and the decline of common property resources in Rajasthan, India. Population and Development Review 11(2): 247–264.
La Croix, Sumner. 2002. LAND TENURE: AN INTRODUCTION. Ebook. 1st ed. Hawaii: University of Hawaii. http://www.economics.hawaii.edu/research/workingpapers/WP_02-13.pdf.
The Economist,. 2002. "From Breadbasket To Basket Case". http://www.economist.com/node/1201137.
US Commission on Civil Rights,,. 2012. Black Farmers United: The Struggle Against Power And Principalities. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office,.
Vallianatos, Evaggelos. 2012. "America: Becoming A Land Without Farmers". Independentsciencenews.Org. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/environment/america-becoming-a-land-without-farmers/.
