Ejido Sector Reforms: From Land Reform to Rural Development

2016 ◽  
pp. 87-122
2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Grabowski

The policies followed by patrimonial states generally involve playing one group against another and are inimical to long-run growth. Social cohesion or closure among rural groups (tenants, part-owners, etc.) provides a mechanism by which the governing elite are likely to find increased opportunities to behave in a developmental way. More strongly, this rural cohesion or closure often compels them to behave in a developmental manner. Such closure is most likely to result from broad based rural development resulting in the creation of extensive social networks via the operation of intermediaries. The prewar experiences of Japan and Korea with land reform are used to illustrate the argument.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-98
Author(s):  
Nurliana Kamaruddin

The study of East Asia has generally focused on its national development experience with emphasis given to industrial urban-based growth. However, the region has also been credited for impressive rural growth due to the Northeast Asian land reform and overall investment for a Green Revolution by states. Less emphasis has been given to a comparative exploration of different rural development programs that existed. Studies on rural development programs within the region have been diverse with case-specific perspectives, rather than in accordance with a unified conceptualization of what it means to have successful rural development. This article attempts to address that gap by evaluating two cases, the South Korean Saemaul Undong and the Malaysian Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA). It applies three different development perspectives; the neoliberal approach, the developmental state approach, and the humancentered approach, to determine the degree to which these programs can be considered successful. An East Asian conceptualization of successful rural development is identified based on an emphasis on government capacity, grassroots participation, a shared mentality for national development and a prioritization on building human capital.


Author(s):  
Kristen E. Looney

This chapter explains South Korea's mixed record of rural development. It begins with an overview of rural change in the postwar period and shows that agriculture did not contribute much to the overall economy or to rural household incomes because of an adverse policy environment. The situation improved in the 1970s, with noticeable gains in production, incomes, and infrastructure, although progress was uneven in each of these areas. The chapter then discusses rural institutions and the shift away from urban bias. It argues that agriculture underperformed because land reform was insufficient for long-term growth and because South Korea's rural institutions were relatively weak. The Ministry of Agriculture was low in the bureaucratic hierarchy, and its extension agencies never developed deep roots in society. The National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (NACF) in particular was qualitatively different from its counterpart in Taiwan; it was an appendage of the state that exhibited linkage but not autonomy. Rural policy was implemented in a more rigid, top-down manner, with less participation from small farmers and fewer people advocating on their behalf. The South Korean case illustrates both the strengths and weaknesses of a campaign approach to development. The New Village Movement essentially reset the priorities of every branch of government, temporarily overriding other work.


1979 ◽  
pp. 269
Author(s):  
Harold Marcus ◽  
John M. Cohen ◽  
Arthur A. Goldsmith ◽  
John W. Mellor

Author(s):  
A. Domanskyj

Success factors of the of land reforms and sustainable development of the rural areas. Ownership and use of land resources has a dynamic and increasing tendency towards the concentration of land by certain state and public institutions as well as individuals in the historical aspect. It leads to the enrichment of the small monopolists and the poverty of the village. Usually, when a critical limit of conflict will be reached, it should be resolved by state reforms. From the second half of the 19th century, on the territory of today’s Ukraine there were three significant land reforms. First two are the reforms in 1848 in Austrian-Hungary, and Stolypin reform of 1906–1907. Their purpose and solutions can be directly related to the land reform that has started in the beginning of 1991 in Ukraine. Until now, this reform has not yet been fully implemented. It causes a number of progressive prods, connected primarily with the land market. The moratorium on the sale of agricultural land does stands in the way of land mortgages, land capital, investment attractiveness, issues related to land protection, soil fertility conservation, land use optimization, excessive use, land reclamation, and the development of small and medium-sized agricultural producers. Small and large villages have been disappearing, the problems of preserving forests, reservoirs, and biological diversity has been worsening. Certain risks can be seen in the newly amalgamated territorial communities as there is a high dependence between the number of village councils and villages. There are different models of land reforms applied in the world. European models of land reform, particularly Polish and French models are the most suitable in the light of current situation in Ukraine. The model of the harmonious development of rural areas, covering about 90% of the entireterritory of the country, should be based on the paradigm of sustainable development. In Europe, three major models of rural development have emerged: sectoral based on the development of agriculture; redistribution, which involves the reduction of discrepancies between the more underdeveloped rural areas and advance industries and the territorial (cluster) model that implies the development of the rural territories is carried out on the basis of the corresponding interdependencies within the local economy. There five models of rural development in Ukraine at the current stage: sectoral (intersectoral); redistributive; cluster; model, focused on the village, that entails priority given to meet the needs of the specific territory and local tradition preservation; and finally, the mixed, based on several components of the different models, mainly sectoral and cluster. Education, professional enhancement, spirituality and Christian ethics, citizens’ activism and civic society development also belongs to the crucial factors for the sustainable development of rural areas.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document