Abstract
Understanding of the economic implications of land tenure systems rests on a dual foundation. First, there is a set of historical generalizations about the consequences of alternative tenure arrangements for economic growth. There is also a set of logical deductions about the effect of alternative tenure arrangements on resource allocation and output levels derived from the neo-classical theory of the firm. Among Western economists, economic history and economic logic have combined to produce a remarkable unity in doctrine to the effect that an agricultural sector organized on an owner-operator pattern (a) achieves a more efficient allocation of resources and (b) makes a greater contribution to national economic growth than under alternative systems.
The author is indebted to P. O. Covar, F. C. Byrnes and A. M. Weisblat for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The paper draws on material previously published in ‘Land Reform and National Economic Development’ in G. P. Sicat (ed.), The Philippine Economy in the 1960’s, U.P., I.E.D.R., Diliman, 1964, pp. 92–119, and ‘Equity and Productivity Objectives in Agrarian Reform Legislation: Perspectives on the New Philippine Land Reform Code’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, Nos. 3 and 4, July–December, 1964, pp. 115–130.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Gordon Wright, Rural Revolution in France, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 1964.
C. G. von Dietze, ‘Land Tenure Issues in Western Europe Since the French Revolution’, in K. H. Parsons (ed.), Land Tenure, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1956, pp. 374–383.
David Mitrany, Marx against the Peasant, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1951, pp. 87–98, 118–145.
L. I. Hewes, Japan, Land and Men: An Account of the Japanese Land Reform Program, Iowa State College Press, Ames, 1955.
Chen Cheng, Land Reform in Taiwan, China Publishing Co., Taiwan, 1961, pp. 90–91.
Sidney Kein, The Pattern of Land Tenure Reform in East Asia after World War II, Bookman Associates, New York, 1958.
Alec Nove, ‘Incentives for Peasants and Administrators’, in R. D. Laird, Soviet Agricultural and Peasant Affairs, University of Kansas Press, 1963, pp. 51–68.
P. M. Raup, ‘The Contribution of Land Reforms to Agricultural Development: An Analytical Framework’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 12, No. 1, Oct. 1963, pp. 1–21.
K.V. Ramachandran, R. A. Almendrala and M. Sivamurthy, ‘Population Projections for the Philippines, 1960–1980’, The Philippine Statistician, Vol. 12, No. 4, Dec. 1963, pp. 145–169.
V. N. Dandekar, ‘From Agrarian Reorganization to Land Reform’, Antha Vijnana, Vol. 6, No. 1, Mar. 1964, pp. 51–70.
M. L. Dantwala, ‘Financial Implications of Land Reforms: Zamindari Abolition’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 17, No. 4, Oct–Dec. 1962, pp. 1–11.
Reiner Schickele, ‘Effect of Tenure Systems on Agricultural Efficiency’, Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 23, Feb. 1941, pp. 185–207.
H. O. Heady, ‘Economics of Farm Leasing Systems’, Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 34, No. 3, Aug. 1947, pp. 650–678.
D. G. Johnson, ‘Resource Allocation Under Share Contracts’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 57, Apr. 1950, pp. 111–123
B. H. Slicher von Bath, The Agrarian History of Western Europe, Edward Arnold Ltd., London, 1963, pp. 29–53, 145–151, 310–324.
Mogens Boserup, ‘Agrarian Structure and Take Off’, in W. W. Rostow, The Economics of Take-Off Into Sustained Growth (Proceedings of a Conference held by the International Economic Association), Macmillan, London, 1963, pp. 207–215.
K. J. Pelzer, Pioneer Settlement in the Asiatic Tropics, American Geographical Society, New York, 1948.
J. S. Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice, New York University Press, New York, 1956.
David Weeks, ‘European Antecedents of Land Tenures and Agrarian Organization of Hispanic America’, Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1, Feb. 1947, pp. 60–75.
Peter Dorner, ‘Land Tenure, Income Distribution and Productivity Interactions’, Journal of Land Economics, Vol. 40, No. 3, Aug. 1964, pp. 246–254.
Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century, Princeton University Press, 1961.
V. W. Ruttan, ‘Equity and Productivity Objectives in Agrarian Reform Legislation: Perspectives on the New Philippine Land Reform Code’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. xix, Nos. 3 and 4, July–Dec. 1964, pp. 114–130.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1969 International Economic Association
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ruttan, V.W. (1969). Equity and Productivity Issues in Modern Agrarian Reform Legislation. In: Papi, U., Nunn, C. (eds) Economic Problems of Agriculture in Industrial Societies. International Economic Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08476-0_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08476-0_27
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-08478-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-08476-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)