This article explores key issues around land and agrarian reforms, beginning with definitions. It analyses debates over political intent and the contradictory economic outcomes of (redistributionist) reforms: these decrease some class inequalities but hold potential for further differentiation in the countryside. It also takes up three current issues: gender, land rights and land reforms, neoliberal 'reforms', titling and land 'grabs', and agrarian reforms' contemporary relevance in the context of globalising trends. It concludes that land and agrarian reforms continue to be of much importance to poverty alleviation, food security and sustainable agriculture, particularly in a world framed by neoliberal policies.
The article analyzes the influence of the institutional factor on the process of market transformations in the Russian agrarian sector from the point of view of the institutional theory, namely the transaction costs concept. The author highlights the Russian specifics and the differences of land reforms in this country from those in such countries as Japan, Germany, Scotland, Thailand, and Brazil. The paper provides an in-depth analysis of the relationships between state authorities and landowners, as well as between diverse property regimes. According to this analysis, there are two most significant factors that defined the content and result of the agrarian reforms in Russia: (1) weakness of legal institutions, (2) lack of control over realization and protection of property rights. The author concludes that high transaction costs turned to be the main obstacle during the formation of the land market in this country. Virtually total absence of government's involvement in the minimization of transaction costs is pointed out. At the same time, according to the international experience, such involvement proved to be essential for eventual success of agrarian reform. As a result of institutional deficiencies Russia faces an absolute reduction of cultivated land and a loss of interest in land as a subject of management or as an attractive investment asset. A matter of special examination of the article is the multiplicity of property regimes in the Russian agrarian sector. They are presented by the farmers, agroholdings, mega-farms, small agribusiness, and agricultural cooperatives. The final conclusion of the author's analysis of the existing property regimes is that all of them still lack economic viability because of the fundamental institutional deficiencies of land reform in this country.
This article examines Brazil's experience in agrarian reform from 1985 to 2016. After more than three decades of agrarian reform, Brazil remains a country with highly skewed landownership. Peasant-led agrarian reform efforts have had limited impact in changing this situation. Agrarian reform remains an unfulfilled political promise, and this situation continues to create tensions and conflicts in the countryside. The main reason for the persistence of skewed land concentration is the State's support of agribusiness. Successive post-1985 democratic governments have encouraged the opening of new agricultural frontiers by providing generous economic incentives. Land redistribution has been offset by further land possession; that is, the expansion of small-scale agricultural farming has been counterbalanced by the expansion of large-scale, capital intensive agriculture. Agribusiness has not only undermined agrarian reform efforts but has also generated a growing dependency on a socially and environmentally destructive monoculture agricultural economy. Moreover, Brazil's current political and economic crisis has further undermined the struggle for agrarian reform.
During perestroika period (1985-1991) and when the agrarian reform was planned and actually carried out in Russia (1992-2000) a lot of myths emerged about its targets, methods, and consequences. More than 20 years have passed, but many authors instead of analyzing real processes that take place in modern agriculture in Russia still repeat the old myths created before the reform period or in its first years. This paper attempts to compare the myths and reality and find out which of the fears have come true and which have not.
István Balogh (1894-1976) - as member of parliament and secretary of state in Prime Minister's Office - was powerful hungarian politician from 1944 to 1947. He was the rapporteur of agrarian reform's cases in the Political Committee of Provisional National Assembly (1945). In Summer 1945 every manors divided between smallholders and boors. The lordship top measure was 100 cadastral areas. But who demontsrably kept to antifascist activités in World War II, possessed maximum 300 cadastral areas. The Political Committee - within István Balogh - proceeded in these cases. In this study the author presents the political and economic problems of the hungarian agrarian reform on the basis contemporary documents - proceedings, reports - of the Political Committee (archived by National Archives of Hungary, Budapest).
This paper documents the food and agricultural policy process in the context of agrarian reforms in Tajikistan. It uses the case study of Tajikistan and applies a recently developed conceptual framework for understanding the drivers of policy change. It undertakes a historical review of agrarian reforms and appraises current policy challenges within the food and agricultural sector. Using specific tools to study power relations, financing, and information flows in the policy process, it maps institutional architecture and key stakeholders in the pre- and post-soviet era. Information gathered through focused group discussions, key informant interviews, and recent field research on food and agricultural policy issues is used to analyze factors that drive different stages of the policy making process. We find that understanding the political economy and policy process interface in Tajikistan is key for designing and implementing successful policy interventions. While progress has been made, agrarian reforms towards improving land tenure rights, strengthening WUAs, providing crop insurance against drought, are the necessary steps in a larger policy discussion. Ensuring the effectiveness of land reforms, building agricultural extension system, and supporting agricultural research systems are examples of some key initiatives that the government should focus on. Investments in transportation, storage, credit facilities, and markets involving private sector will speed up the reform process. ; PR ; IFPRI3; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; Capacity Strengthening ; DSGD
