Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a409a72879b75aae

Jump to content

Land reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Land reforms)
Farmers protesting for land reform in Indonesia in 2004

Land reform (also known as agrarian reform) is the transfer of agricultural land ownership from large private landowners to small farmers and people without any landholdings.[1] It involves the changing of laws, regulations, or customs regarding land ownership, land use, land economics, and land transfers.[2][3] Land reform is a political process that involves the redistribution of wealth and political power that comes from owning large swathes of land.[1]

Land reform is often considered a contentious process, as land is a key driver of a wide range of social, political and economic inequalities.[4][5] The structure and distribution of land rights has been linked to state formation, economic growth, inequality, political violence, and identity politics, making land reform highly consequential for the long-term structures of society.[4]

Reforming the ownership of land may be initiated by governments or market forces, and at times have been sparked by revolution.[6][7] In the 20th century, both capitalist and communist governments have enacted land reforms.[6]

Overview

[edit]

Land reform refers to the transfer of ownership from the more powerful to the less powerful, such as from a relatively small number of wealthy or noble owners with extensive land holdings (e.g., plantations, large ranches, or agribusiness plots) to individual ownership by those who work the land.[8] Such transfers can be government-initiated or government-backed. The transfer of ownership may be with or without compensation. Compensation can vary from token amounts to the full value of the land.[9]

Land reform may entail the transfer of land from individual ownership—even peasant ownership in smallholdings—to government-owned collective farms. The term has also been used to refer to the exact opposite: the division of government-owned collective farms into smallholdings.[10] The common characteristic of all land reforms is modification or replacement of existing institutional arrangements governing possession and use of land. While land reform may be radical in nature, such as large-scale transfers of land from one group to another, it can also be less dramatic, such as regulatory reforms aimed at improving land administration.[11]

Land usage and tenure

[edit]

Land ownership can be seen as controversial in part because the ideas about what it means to access or control land can vary considerably across regions and even within countries.[12] Land reforms, which change what it means to control land, therefore create tensions and conflicts between those who lose and those who gain from these redefinitions.[13]

Western conceptions of land have evolved over the past several centuries to place greater emphasis on individual land ownership. The formal processes that developed historically also reinforce this view of land, for example through issuing official documents like land titles.[14] However, control over land may also be perceived less in terms of individual ownership and more in terms of land use, or through what is known as land tenure.[15] Historically, in many parts of Africa for example, land was not owned by an individual, but rather used by an extended family or a village community. Different people in a family or community had different rights to access this land for different purposes and at different times. Such rights were often conveyed through oral history and not formally documented.[16] Today, groups of people who practice communal land use include, for example, the traditional peoples and communities in Brazil such as fundos de pasto and faxinais.[17][18]

The terms which dictate control over and use of land can take many forms, and their choice reflects these different ideas of land ownership and tenure. For example, "formal" or "statutory" land systems refer to ideas of land control more closely affiliated with individual land ownership. "Informal" or "customary" land systems refer to ideas of land control more closely affiliated with land tenure.[19]

Formal and informal land ownership come in a wide range of forms both historically and in the present day. Some of the different systems include:

An Afghan farmer receiving ownership of land in 1978.

Motivations

[edit]

Land reform is a deeply political process so the arguments around it concern ruling powers, political ideologies and economic systems.[20][21] Historically, there have been a range of different social, political, and economic motivations and imperatives that led to land reform initiatives in various countries.[22]

In the 19th century in colonized states, a colonial government may have changed the laws dictating land ownership to better consolidate political power or to support its colonial economy.[23]

For much of the 20th century, nation states sponsored land reform for two broad agendas: gaining political legitimacy and providing conditions for development.[24] Land reform has been widely recognized as a social justice measure to correct historical injustices and as an economic intervention that can break established patterns like landlordism and lead to structural transformation. 20th-century land reform initiatives have been driven by both capitalist and communist ideologies, and have at times been advanced through armed revolutions.[6] But since the emergence of neoliberalism in the 1980s, the general trend globally has been to roll back, contain, and block land reform while promoting market-oriented land policies.[25]

Starting in the 1990s, voter mobilization and the use of land for providing political favors to supporters have also become possible motivations for land reform efforts, such as the extensive redistributive land reforms of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.[26]

Today, land reform efforts are increasingly understood as integral to broader struggles for food sovereignty, climate justice, and decolonization.[27][28]

Outcomes and challenges

[edit]

Arguments in support of land reform focus on its potential social, economic and environmental benefits, particularly in developing countries, that may emerge from reforms focused on greater land formalization. Such benefits may include eradicating food insecurity, reducing gas emissions and alleviating rural poverty.[29] Yet, land reform is an intensely political process[30] and because of this many of those opposed to land reform are nervous as to the underlying motivations of those initiating the reform. For example, some may fear that they will be disadvantaged or victimized as a result of the reforms. Others may fear that they will lose out in the economic and political power struggles (especially in developing countries) that underlie many land reforms.[31]

Contemporary support for such reforms gained particular momentum after the publication of The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else by Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto in 2000. In his book, De Soto argues that the poor are often unable to secure formal property rights, such as land titles, to the land on which they live or farm because of poor governance, corruption and overly complex bureaucracies. Without land titles or other formal documentation of their land assets, they are less able to access formal credit. According to de Soto, political and legal reforms within countries will help to include the poor in formal legal and economic systems, increasing the poor's ability to access credit, and contributing to economic growth and poverty reduction.[32]

Many international development organizations, such as the World Bank, have embraced de Soto's and others' ideas about the benefits of formalizing land rights.[33] This has translated into a number of development programs that work with governments and civil society organizations to initiate and implement land reforms.[34] However, opinions are divided about whether formalizing land rights is one-size-fits-all strategy that necessarily empowers the poor. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, where land registration and titling are advocated by various groups as a pro-poor strategy, there are often multiple, conflicting claims to the same land by different individuals or groups. This means that formalizing land rights would benefit some groups more than others and create tensions.[35]

Land reforms can help resolving conflicting land laws, particularly in former colonies, where formal and informal land systems may exist in tension with each other.[36] Such conflicts can make marginalized groups vulnerable to further exploitation.[37] For example, in many African countries with conflicting land laws, AIDS stigmatization has led to an increasing number of AIDS widows being kicked off marital land by in-laws. While AIDS widows may have both customary and statutory rights to the land, confusion over which set of laws has primacy, or even a lack of knowledge of relevant laws, leave many of them at a significant disadvantage.[38] Conflicting formal and informal land laws can also clog a country's legal system, making it prone to corruption.[39] Such land reform efforts are most successful when pursued alongside complementary movements for racial justice and against the legacies of colonialism. Together these can ensure that reforms address not just competing legal systems but the underlying structures of dispossession and inequality.[40]

Land reforms carried out in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are credited with contributing to industrial development. The equitable distribution of land led to increasing agricultural outputs, high rural purchasing power and social mobility.[41]

Additional challenges in land reform concern equity issues and potential elite capture of land, particularly regarding reforms focused on greater land formalization. If improperly or inadequately implemented, such reforms may further disadvantage marginalized groups such as indigenous communities or women.[42][43] These concerns also lead to questions about the institutional capacity of governments to implement land reforms as they are designed. Even if a country does have this capacity, corruption and patrimonialism could lead to further elite capture.[44] In Colombia, for example, the state transferred the rights of a large amount of public land to private owners over the past two centuries, with the aim to reduce rural poverty by giving land to those who do not own any. In areas with typically small and medium size farms, the land distribution reduced inequalities in ownership. However, in areas where members of a rural elite already owned much of the land, the new plots were also diverted into the large farms.[45]

In looking at more radical reforms, such as large-scale land redistribution, critical views include concerns that redistributed land will not be used productively and that owners of expropriated land will not be compensated adequately or compensated at all. Zimbabwe is a commonly cited example of the perils of such large-scale reforms, whereby land redistribution contributed to economic decline and increased food insecurity in the country.[46]

Types

[edit]

There are different types of land reform, including state-led agrarian reforms and market-led agrarian reforms.[7]

State-led agrarian reforms are developed by national governments, which create programs and projects to carry out these initiatives. State-led reforms can take multiple forms. They may involve a one-time intervention by the state to create egalitarian ownership among peasants, or expropriation to establish collective agriculture. Their success varies across countries and political contexts.[7]

Following the criticisms that state-led agrarian reforms received in the 20th century, and in the context of financial institutions' intervention, international institutions such as the World Bank proposed the development of market-led agrarian reforms. In these the market, through the buying and selling of land, regulates how land is distributed and drives the distribution of wealth. This strategy was put in place in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa, among others, during the 1990s.[47] Market-led agrarian reforms have been highly criticized, because they underestimate the power of large landlords and capitalist agribusiness and their economic capacity to deprive the poorest populations of land, thereby creating major problems of equity.[7]

National efforts

[edit]

Land reform became a major policy issue worldwide after World War Ⅱ. From the 1950s to the 1970s, land reform initiatives figured prominently on the popular agenda in many countries. Debates on land reform were especially heated in the developing countries of the Global South, where it was closely linked to the attainment of national development goals.[48] In this period, countries differed widely in how much land was redistributed by state-led land reforms and how many households benefited from these. The scale of land redistribution shows the extent to which land reform defined the politics of the time in many countries:

  • Bolivia (1952-1977): Redistributed 74.5 percent of total agricultural land to 83.4 percent of all agricultural households.[49]
  • South Korea (since 1945): Redistributed 65 percent of total agricultural land to 77 percent of all agricultural households.[50]
  • Chile (1964-1973): Redistributed nearly 50 percent of total agricultural land to 20 percent of all agricultural households.[51]
  • Taiwan (1949-1953): Redistributed 48 percent of total agricultural land to 48 percent of all agricultural households.[52]
  • Peru (1963-1976): Redistributed 42.4 percent of total agricultural land to 32 percent of all agricultural households.[53]
  • Mexico: Redistributed 42.9 percent of total agricultural land to 43.4 percent of all agricultural households.[49]
  • Japan (since 1945): Redistributed one-third of total agricultural land to 70 percent of all agricultural households.[54]
  • Philippines (since 1972): Redistributed nearly half of total agricultural land to two-fifths of all agricultural households.[55]
  • El Salvador (1980-1990s): Redistributed 20 percent of total agricultural land to 12 percent of all agricultural households.[56]
  • Venezuela: Redistributed 19.3 percent of total agricultural land to 24.4 percent of all agricultural households.[56]
  • Egypt (1952-1961): Redistributed 10 percent of total agricultural land to 18.5 percent of all agricultural households.[54]
  • Costa Rica (1961-1979): Redistributed 7.1 percent of total agricultural land to 13.5 percent of all agricultural households.[49]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. 1 2 Borras Jr., Saturnino M.; Franco, Jennifer C. (2025-05-16). Essential Concepts of Land Politics: An A–Z Guide (1 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 86. doi:10.4324/9781032658438. ISBN 978-1-032-65843-8.
  2. ↑ Batty, Fodei Joseph. "Pressures from Above, Below and Both Directions: The Politics of Land Reform in South Africa, Brazil and Zimbabwe". Western Michigan University. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, Illinois. April 7–10, 2005. p. 3.
  3. ↑ Lipton, Michael; Saghai, Yashar (2017). "Food security, farmland access ethics, and land reform". Global Food Security. 12: 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.03.004.
  4. 1 2 Albertus, Michael; Klaus, Kathleen (10 December 2024). "Land and Politics". Annual Review of Political Science. 28: 19–36. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-040623-112955.
  5. ↑ Lund, Christian (2008). Local Politics and the Dynamics of Property in Africa. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511510564. ISBN 978-0-521-88654-3.[page needed]
  6. 1 2 3 Wolf, Eric R. (1973). Peasant wars of the twentieth century. New York: Harper and Row. ISBN 978-0-06-131774-3. OCLC 1346569.
  7. 1 2 3 4 M. Borras, Saturnino; McKinley, Terry (November 2006). "The Unresolved Land Reform Debate: Beyond State-Led or Market-Led Models" (PDF). International Policy Centre for Inclusive Development. International Poverty Centre. Retrieved 10 September 2026.
  8. ↑ Borras, Saturnino M. (January 2006). "The Philippine Land Reform in Comparative Perspective: Some Conceptual and Methodological Implications". Journal of Agrarian Change. 6 (1): 69–101. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2006.00115.x.
  9. ↑ Adams, Martin and J. Howell. "Redistributive Land Reform in Southern Africa". Overseas Development Institute. DFID. Natural Resources Perspectives No. 64. January 2001. Archived 2009-12-05 at the Wayback Machine
  10. ↑ Adams, Martin and J. Howell. "Redistributive Land Reform in Southern Africa". Archived 2009-12-05 at the Wayback Machine Overseas Development Institute. DFID. Natural Resources Perspectives No. 64. January 2001.
  11. ↑ Ghana's Land Administration Project Archived 2011-07-21 at the Wayback Machine
  12. ↑ La Croix, Sumner. "Land Tenure: An Introduction". Working Paper no. 02-13. May 2002. University_of_Hawaiʻi.
  13. ↑ Boone, C. (October 2007). "Property and constitutional order: Land tenure reform and the future of the African state". African Affairs. 106 (425): 557–586. doi:10.1093/afraf/adm059.
  14. ↑ Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [1689] 1991. and Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. Books 1—III. London: Penguin Books. 1999.
  15. ↑ "What is land tenure?" Food and Agriculture Organization.
  16. ↑ Dekker, Henri A.L. The Invisible Line: Land Reform, Land Tenure Security and Land Registration. Ashgate: Burlington, 2003. p. 2.
  17. ↑ Fernandes, Bernardo Mançano (4 Dec 2009). "The MST and Agrarian Reform in Brazil". Socialism and Democracy. 23 (3): 90–99. doi:10.1080/08854300903155541. ISSN 0885-4300.
  18. ↑ Coca, Estevan Leopoldo de Freitas (2011-08-23). Um estudo da diversidade e atualidade da reforma agrária: análise dos tipos de assentamentos do Território Cantuquiriguaçu - estado do Paraná (Thesis). Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp). Retrieved 2026-09-02.
  19. ↑ "Land Law." Law and Development. The World_Bank. February 23, 2007. ,
  20. ↑ Borras Jr., Saturnino M.; Franco, Jennifer C. (2025-05-16). Essential Concepts of Land Politics: An A–Z Guide (1 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 86. doi:10.4324/9781032658438. ISBN 978-1-032-65843-8.
  21. ↑ Manji, Ambreena S. (2006). The Politics of Land Reform in Africa: From Communal Tenure to Free Markets. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84277-495-3.[page needed]
  22. ↑ Akram-Lodhi, A. Haroon; Borras, Saturnino M.; Kay, Cristóbal (2009). Land, Poverty and Livelihoods in an Era of Globalization: Perspectives from Developing and Transition Countries. Taylor & Francis Group. p. 16-17. ISBN 978-0-415-49401-4.
  23. ↑ Berry, Sata. "Debating the land question in Africa." Johns Hopkins University. N.d. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-01-13. Retrieved 2010-12-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  24. ↑ Fox, Jonathan (1993). The politics of food in Mexico: state power and social mobilization. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-2716-9. OCLC 26303765.
  25. ↑ Franco, Jennifer C.; Borras, Saturnino M. (2021-10-03). "The global climate of land politics". Globalizations. 18 (7): 1277–1297. doi:10.1080/14747731.2021.1979717. ISSN 1474-7731. PMC 8567742. PMID 34744514.
  26. ↑ Boone, Catherine; Kriger, Norma (April 2010). "Multiparty elections and land patronage: Zimbabwe and Côte d'Ivoire". Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 48 (2): 173–202. doi:10.1080/14662041003672502.
  27. ↑ Shattuck, Annie; Grajales, Jacobo; Jacobs, Ricardo; Sauer, Sergio; Galvin, Shaila Seshia; Hall, Ruth (2023-02-23). "Life on the land: new lives for agrarian questions". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 50 (2): 490–518. doi:10.1080/03066150.2023.2174859. ISSN 0306-6150.
  28. ↑ Martínez, Nury; Vasquez, Saúl Vicente; Seufert, Philip (2025-11-10). "Towards the Second International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD+20): an opportunity to advance the realization of the right to land and territories". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 52 (7): 1735–1740. doi:10.1080/03066150.2025.2556457. ISSN 0306-6150.
  29. ↑ Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, Markelova, Helen and Moore, Kelsey. "The Role of Collective Action and Property Rights in Climate Change Strategies." International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2010. and Economic Commission for Africa. "Land Tenure Systems and their Impacts on Food security and Sustainable Development in Africa." 2009.
  30. ↑ Boone, C. (October 2007). "Property and constitutional order: Land tenure reform and the future of the African state". African Affairs. 106 (425): 557–586. doi:10.1093/afraf/adm059.
  31. ↑ "A chance to improve how Kenya is run." The Economist. July 29, 2010
  32. ↑ De Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books. 2000.
  33. ↑ Deininger, Klaus W. Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction. The World Bank. 2003.
  34. ↑ World Bank. "Regional Study on Land Administration, Land Markets, and Collateralized Lending." 2003.
  35. ↑ Boone, Catherine (2019-03-04). "Legal Empowerment of the Poor through Property Rights Reform: Tensions and Trade-offs of Land Registration and Titling in Sub-Saharan Africa". The Journal of Development Studies. 55 (3): 384–400. doi:10.1080/00220388.2018.1451633. ISSN 0022-0388.
  36. ↑ Moore, Jina. "Africa's continental divide: land disputes." Christian Science Monitor. January 30, 2010.
  37. ↑ Kafumbe, Anthony Luyirika (July 2006). "Access to justice: Widows and the institutions regulating succession to property in Uganda". Human Rights Review. 7 (4): 100–113. doi:10.1007/s12142-006-1005-8.
  38. ↑ Ambasa-Shisanya, Constance (August 2007). "Widowhood in the era of HIV/AIDS: A case study of Slaya District, Kenya". SAHARA-J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS. 4 (2): 606–615. doi:10.1080/17290376.2007.9724882. PMID 18071612.
  39. ↑ Tettey, Wisdom, B. Gebe and K. Ansah-Koi. "The Politics of Land and Land-related Conflicts in Ghana: A Summary." Land Policy Reform Project. Institute for Statistical, Social and Economic Research at the University of Ghana. 2008. Archived 2020-03-07 at the Wayback Machine
  40. ↑ Woods, Dee; Robbins, Martha Jane (2025-11-10). "Reflections on racial justice and land reform". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 52 (7): 1715–1722. doi:10.1080/03066150.2025.2552908. ISSN 0306-6150.
  41. ↑ "Land: The Triumph of Gardening". How Asia Works: Success and Failure in the World's Most Dynamic Region. Grove Press. 2014. ISBN 9780802121325.
  42. ↑ Drimie, S. (18 May 2016). "The impact of HIV/AIDS on land: case studies from Kenya, Lesotho and South Africa". HSRC Review. 1 (2): 3. hdl:20.500.11910/9657.
  43. ↑ Varley, Ann (October 2007). "Gender and Property Formalization: Conventional and Alternative Approaches". World Development. 35 (10): 1739–1753. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.06.005.
  44. ↑ Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. World Bank Publications. 2008. ISBN 978-0-8213-7588-4.[page needed]
  45. ↑ Faguet, Jean-Paul; Sánchez, Fabio; Villaveces, Marta-Juanita (4 August 2020). "The perversion of public land distribution by landed elites: Power, inequality and development in Colombia". World Development. 136: 105036. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105036 – via LSE Research Online.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  46. ↑ "From breadbasket to basket case". The Economist. Archived from the original on 2024-09-29. Retrieved 2026-09-10.
  47. ↑ Borras, Saturnino M. (6 June 2003). "Questioning Market‐Led Agrarian Reform: Experiences from Brazil, Colombia and South Africa". Journal of Agrarian Change. 3 (3): 367–394. doi:10.1111/1471-0366.00059. ISSN 1471-0358.
  48. ↑ Akram-Lodhi, A. Haroon; Borras, Saturnino M.; Kay, Cristóbal (2009). Land, Poverty and Livelihoods in an Era of Globalization: Perspectives from Developing and Transition Countries. Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 16–17. ISBN 978-0-415-49401-4.
  49. 1 2 3 Thiesenhusen, William C. (1989). Searching for agrarian reform in Latin America. Boston: Unwin Hyman. ISBN 978-0-04-497017-0. OCLC 17842345.
  50. ↑ El-Ghonemy, Riad (1990-09-25). The Political Economy of Rural Poverty: The Case for Land Reform. Routledge. p. 283. ISBN 978-0-415-04082-2.
  51. ↑ Kay, Cristóbal (1998). "Latin America's agrarian reform: lights and shadows". Land reform, land settlement and cooperatives (2). ISSN 0251-1894.
  52. ↑ Griffin, Keith; Khan, Azizur Rahman; Ickowitz, Amy (16 December 2002). "Poverty and the Distribution of Land". Journal of Agrarian Change. 2 (3): 279–330. doi:10.1111/1471-0366.00036. ISSN 1471-0358.
  53. ↑ Janvry, Alain De (1981). The agrarian question and reformism in Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-8018-2532-3. OCLC 7464840.
  54. 1 2 King, Russell (2019). Land Reform: A World Survey. Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-0-429-05191-3.
  55. ↑ Borras, Saturnino M. (21 December 2005). "The Philippine Land Reform in Comparative Perspective: Some Conceptual and Methodological Implications". Journal of Agrarian Change. 6 (1): 69–101. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2006.00115.x. ISSN 1471-0358.
  56. 1 2 Paige, Jeffery M. (1996). "Land Reform and Agrarian Revolution in El Salvador: Comment on Seligson and Diskin". Latin American Research Review. 31 (2): 127–139. doi:10.1017/S0023879100017970. ISSN 0023-8791.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_reform&oldid=1376294005"