Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Их Британи Умард Ирланды Нэгдсэн Вант Улсын дипломат алба, т

No description

Д. Бэкү

on 18 September 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Их Британи Умард Ирланды Нэгдсэн Вант Улсын дипломат алба, т

Thank You

: Korean Development Experience and Lessons
: Chung Moo Kwon
: Darisukhbaatar Bilguudei/Mongolia


Which involves the changing of laws, regulations or customs regarding land ownership.
Land reform may consist of a government-initiated or government-backed property redistribution, generally of agricultural land.
Divergent Perceptions of Agrarian Problems
State policies in nearly all developing countries have abetted the incorporation of rural people and resources into national and world markets. In some countries, however, the state adopted peasant-based strategies that put a high priority on promoting greater equity among rural people and on broad-based articulated economic growth. In many others, the dominant state strategy was merely to stimulate economic growth.
The Evolution of Land tenure systems and agrarian structures
Bi-modal Latifundia system
Clientelistic small-cultivator land system
Customary communal land tenure system
The need to reform inequitable
Agrarian structures
The main problem for the rural poor lies in insecure and inequitable terms of access to land and other requisites for decent livelihoods. Many are unable to produce enough to meet their basic needs. As a result, the rural poor in developing countries are often unable to provide themselves and their families with locally acceptable livelihoods.
Actors and Issues: The Argument
Land reform necessarily requires participation by its intended beneficiaries as well as by the large holders, who lose some of their land rights, and by the state that, as a minimum, provides the legal framework for reform.
Beginning of 20th century, over half the country’s agricultural land was held in about 6,000 large estates of over 1,000 hectares each; a few of these estates were over a million hectares in size. The 1917 constitution declared the supremacy of the state, representing the public interest over private property, thus legitimizing the expropriation and redistribution of land.
The 1953 agrarian reform legislation provided for expropriation of poorly managed large estates and the partial expropriation of other large rural properties for redistribution to the peasantry. Many other actors influenced land reform and its aftermath. Peasant organizations, labor unions and the state, however, were the principal protagonists. Bilateral and international aid agencies were active in Bolivia following land reform.

Land from large estates, both privately and publicly held, was redistributed to peasant producers in small holdings.
The big sugar corporations were expropriated (with compensation) and converted into worker-managed proportional profit farms. In addition, an important portion of the rural population received titles to small plots of land for a house and garden.
The first Cuban agrarian reform, only very large holdings were expropriated. When the US retaliated with a trade embargo, all US property owners were expropriated. Under a second agrarian reform law all holdings over 67 hectares in size were taken over by the state. Three quarters of the country’s agricultural land had been expropriated by 1964.
Land reform was begun in 1960s and preceded by widespread peasant union organization and protests. One fourth of the country’s rural landless received farms of about 10 hectares each, about one tenth of the country’s agricultural land. Half the land allocated to peasants came from expropriated large estates and half from state-owned public lands.
The United Nations and other international organizations contributed to the reform process. The activities of ICIRA (Chilean Agrarian Reform Research and Training Institute), supported by FAO/UNDP financial resources and technical assistance, and by UNESCO and the ILO, illustrate some of the opportunities and limitations for international organization support of land reform. It commenced organizing practical training courses for government extension agents, agrarian officials and peasant organization leaders in 1964. By 1972, ICIRA programmes of technical assistance, training and research were active in support of CORA (Agrarian Reform Corporation), INDAP (Institute for Agricultural and Livestock Development) and several other government agencies wherever land reform was being implemented.

In 1932, the army in El Salvador slaughtered over 20,000 peasants and rural workers who were demanding land and better wages. In Nicaragua land reform followed the military victory of the Sandinista rebel forces in 1979. The Nicaraguan Rural Workers Federation (ATC), and the Small Farmers Organization (UNAG) that was created in 1981, played active roles in pushing the land reform. In El Salvador, the 1980 land reform law adapted. Some 400 large estates (over 500 hectares each), including one fourth of the country’s agricultural land, were expropriated and assigned to their workers as production co-operatives. The second phase of the reform that would have expropriated land in 12,000 estates between 150 and 500 hectares each. Phase III provided land titles for poor tenants. Some 65,000 small tenants became “owners”.
Role of the States
The role of the state in land reform is crucial. This is because the state comprises the institutionalized political organization of society. It articulates and implements public policy, and adjudicates conflicts. In theory, the state has a monopoly over the legitimate use of coercive force within its territory, together with the responsibility to pursue public good for all its citizens. Land reform without the states participation would be a contradiction of terms. In every Latin American case where significant land redistribution benefiting the rural poor took place, the state played a decisive role. In Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua, land reform accompanied social revolutions in which insurgent political forces seized state power with wide popular support. Of the Latin American cases, electoral politics were important in bringing about land reforms in Guatemala, Puerto Rico, Venezuela and Chile. Authoritarian military juntas had initiated serious land reforms in Peru and El Salvador.
Two of the most successful state-directed non-revolutionary land reforms at this time took place in South Korea and Taiwan. When the Chinese Nationalist government decreed a land reform in Taiwan, it was implemented with widespread support and participation by the peasantry. The reform received important financial and technical assistance from the US government. State-directed non-revolutionary land reforms in South Korea and Taiwan, like those following peasant-based revolutions in China and Vietnam, made major contributions to these countries subsequent economic and social development. In each case, the state's role in land reform was crucial. It sometimes promoted reform, sometimes prevented it, sometimes reversed it and sometimes diverted it to benefit groups other than the rural poor.

Peasant Organizations
In every case where significant land reforms occurred, protests and demands by organized peasant producers and rural workers made crucial contributions to bringing them about. Peasant activists who initially agitated and organized to bring about reform were usually only a small minority among the rural poor, especially in repressive contexts, but they enjoyed wide covert and passive support. It was possible for widely different groups of the rural poor to unite in protests against the monopolization of land and abusive treatment by landlords and their allies.

Large Landholders
As was to be expected, most large landowners resisted land reform in every case examined. Such contradictions among estate owners were reflected by divisions within large landholders’ organizations and associations, such as the SNA in Chile. They seldom were able to present a united front when political pressures for land reform mounted. Moreover, as urbanization and industrialization proceeded, landholding oligarchies became relatively less influential in national affairs.
Political Parties
Political parties played a prominent role in the land reforms. In formally democratic states with functioning Multi-party systems immediately before and during land reform, competition for the votes of the rural poor and others who might benefit from a redistribution of rights to land was important in placing land reform high on the political agenda. In more authoritarian political systems, open party competition for popular support was outlawed or severely constrained. Regimes that came to power as a result of popularly based revolutionary movements.

Non-Governmental Organizations
In some contexts, peasant associations, large landowners’ societies, co-operatives, workers’ unions, religious and professional organizations, consumers’ societies and the like are considered to be NGOs. Such NGOs were active in all the land reforms mentioned earlier. Their roles tended to be peripheral to those of the state, political parties and popularly based non-state organizations, such as peasant associations and rural workers’ unions. When the state was actively attempting to implement or guide popularly based land reforms it was relatively easy for NGOs to contribute to these programmes. They have often played crucial roles in movements aimed at approaching more socially and ecologically sustainable styles of development. But their capacity is limited.

International Organizations
International organizations and agencies associated with the United Nations system are in a uniquely advantageous position for promoting land reform in developing countries. They are well placed to call attention to the negative impacts of unjust agrarian structures on the livelihoods of the poor and on prospects for sustainable development. International organizations have provided useful technical assistance in many countries carrying out land reforms. The FAO sent a highly qualified Mexican expert to Bolivia in the 1950s to advise the government on land reform issues based on the Mexican experience. After the 1950s, the FAO, the ILO, UNESCO and several other international agencies offered technical assistance to member governments undertaking land reform programmes.

The social differentiation accompanying globalization not only affects in contradictory ways the mobilizing capacities of pro-reform peasant and worker movements, but also those of large landholders and their allies opposing land reform. The possibilities have improved for peasants and rural workers to find influential supporters among the urban popular and middle classes, as well as from a few progressive large landowners. Moreover, the spread of formally democratic multi-party political regimes offers new opportunities to press for reform through the ballot box. Growing urban unemployment stimulates political pressures to improve social conditions in the countryside in order to slow migration of the rural poor to the cities and internationally.
Many rural people in developing countries have been among those most negatively affected by globalization processes. They still constitute nearly half the world's, and three fifths of the developing countries, population, ranging from over four fifths in the ìleast developed countries to less than one third in Latin America. Moreover, they account for the vast majority of the world's poor and undernourished.
Land reform is primarily an issue of basic human rights. It implies access to land and its benefits on more equitable and secure terms for all of those who physically work it and primarily depend upon it for their livelihoods. In developing countries, land reform usually involves expropriating large holdings and redistributing them as individual family holdings or as worker-managed co-operatives, but there are many variations and sequences depending on the situation. Where customary common property regimes are still vigorous, reform might mean secure tenure and restitution of lost lands. In some cases, land reform goals could be approached without redistributing land, but this is highly unlikely in poor countries.

An approach to sustainable and equitable development requires well informed, purposeful courses of action by the state and other concerned social actors. In recent reforms, peasant organizations and the state regime of the moment were central actors. Redistributive land reforms can still play a crucial role in relieving rural poverty and in promoting broad-based sustainable development.
Full transcript