Introduction to Land Reforms

Land reform (also agrarian reform, though that can have a broader meaning) are Measures, such as the division of large properties into smaller ones, that are taken to bring about a more equitable apportionment of agricultural land. The most common political objective of land reform is to abolish feudal or colonial forms of landownership, often by taking land away from large landowners and redistributing it to landless peasants. Other goals include improving the social status of peasants with Athens, and coordinating agricultural from production industrialization where Solon

programs. The earliest record of land reform is 6th-century-BC abolished the debt system that forced peasants to mortgage their land and labour. The concentration of land in the hands of large landowners became the rule in the ancient world, however, and remained so through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The French Revolution brought land reform to France and established the small family farm as the cornerstone of French democracy. Serfdom was abolished throughout most of Europe in the 19th century. The Russian serfs were emancipated in 1861, and the Russian Revolution of 1917 introduced collectivization of agriculture. Land reform was instituted in a number of other countries where communists came to power, notably China. It remains a potent political issue in many parts of the world. In Pakistan and South Asia in general, small farmers receive little support in the form of credits, agricultural extension services, appropriate output prices, and easier marketing opportunities. It is clearly time that the

Pakistani government stepped in to institute significant land reforms and extend support to small farmers. However, these reforms must take into account the country's past failures, since the country has not done too well with its program of institutional reforms. It has already made two failed attempts at implementing such changes. The first was in 1959, when land reforms fixed the ceiling for private ownership of land at 500 acres irrigated and 1,000 acres un-irrigated. However, this did little to better distribute the lands in the hands of the country's prosperous rural elite. It was more of a cosmetic exercise than a significant social change. One of the problems was that ceilings were fixed in terms of individuals rather than families. The reforms included generous productivity exemptions as well as separate provisions for orchards. Instead of portioning out lands, some landlords actually did rather well from the exercise, receiving generous compensation for surrendering uncultivated land. Barely 35 percent of the excess land declared by landowners was actually obtained by the government, with redistribution benefiting only eight percent of subsistence farmers. A second attempt at land reforms was made by President Zulifikar Ali Bhutto in 1972. This time, the ownership ceiling was reduced to 150 acres of irrigated and 300 acres of un-irrigated land. However, although these reforms looked good on paper, the impact was totally diluted when they were actually implemented. Less than 0.9 million acres of land was acquired for redistribution, which was about one-third of the land resumed under the 1959 land reforms. Once again, the ceilings were in terms of individuals rather than families. That meant a number of

large landowners have managed to keep their holdings within an extended joint family framework and have given up only some marginal, not very productive, swampy lands. In both of the above-mentioned cases, what went wrong was not the intention, but the implementation of land reforms. They had to be implemented by the ruling class which was also the class that was going to be negatively affected by them. Of course, there was no way these could be implemented realistically speaking because of this.

The Need to Revive Land Reforms

In the social sector, the goal is to reduce inequality in income, wealth, and chances in life. The economic goals consist of increasing production and productivity in agriculture, improving capital formation and transfer, employing more labourers, and later on discharging them with progressing development, as well as increasing the demand for inputs and services that work as incentives towards development in non-agricultural sectors. An improvement in the balance of payments by increasing exports or avoiding imports by raising domestic production is likewise an aspiration. In addition, mutual promotion of the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors by increasing coordination between them is a goal of some agrarian reforms. In the individual cases, the goals and goal combinations are determined by the existing situation and are especially influenced by the conditions at the beginning, by the already achieved degree of economic development, and the existing social system. The package of goals has grown continually more

complicated centuries struggles variations political target

over

the

years. Whereas in past more for equality agrarian today. ideology, will the be was the main goal of most reform, there are many According to the particular

collectivization of family farms based on individual property or permanent rights of use. In these cases the attempt is also made to attain the advantages of larger units by founding cooperatives. If the priority is given to making a contribution towards economic development, the measures may concentrate on an increase in production and more employment. In the case of an already achieved higher level of development and already existing occupational alternatives, income distribution gains more significance than the distribution of land. Higher incomes bring with them a tendency towards larger farm units. The changing technology that results presents special demands on the agrarian structure, especially the suitability for mechanization. Just as agrarian reform is not a one time process, but rather an adoption to changing requirements and circumstances, the reform goals shift in type and intensity in the course of time. Generally, Land reforms are a critical need, with particular focus on equality of public land distribution to both men and women. The purpose of land reform should be to bring about a more equitable distribution of land ownership and access to land. Land reforms have been withdrawn, but it is taking time for the customs to change. Not only is it necessary to remove restrictive laws to bring about Land Reform, but it will be necessary to introduce new laws to assist in land distribution. Political and legislative change on its own is of no lasting

advantage without being accompanied by economic reform, which gives an advantage to the people. In the arena of human development in Pakistan, land reforms play an important role in reducing poverty and empowering the poor, especially farmers and the agricultural class. In countries like Pakistan, the power of the class that owns land is really a monopoly that has served as a barrier to social and economic progress for the poor. Through land reforms, landlords' far-reaching power on the local political and economic power is reduced and more power can be given to the poorer workers on the land. Land reforms provide the opportunity for the benefits of future economic growth to be distributed among all sectors of society. Deliberate change in the way agricultural land is held or owned, the methods of its cultivation, or the relation of agriculture to the rest of the economy. The most common political objective of land reform is to abolish feudal or colonial forms of landownership, often by taking land away from large landowners and redistributing it to landless peasants. Other goals include improving the social status of peasants and coordinating agricultural production with industrialization programs.

Consequences of Land Reforms

Examining the results of effects of land reforms it was found out that those countries that underwent land reforms have favorable rates of economic development than countries which were reluctant to accept them.

Land reforms in Pakistan were directed against the feudal landlords and against the poor tenants and agricultural laborers, whereas they benefited the rural middle class, especially the upper middle class. The top of the traditional upper class, especially the revenue collectors who had no definite function, were eliminated as well as the largest landowners, especially in India. But large scale landed property was not abolished, only restricted, and land concentration was thus somewhat reduced. These measures were especially directed against the landlords who did not cultivate their own land or at least manage its cultivation, but restricted themselves to collecting rent. This old feudal upper class was decisively weakened and today no longer plays an important role in these countries. But the lower class, among whom great

expectations were aroused but not fulfilled, is the actual loser in the agrarian reform process. The landless and the sharecroppers were not affected at all by the reform measures and benefited from land allotments only in specific cases. A large number of the previously protected tenants were deprived of their rights owing to the transition to self cultivation and quite a number of them new cultivate the same land, but under less favorable conditions. They now have only short term lease contracts, and these sometimes still comprise supplementary agreements. They are not beneficiaries, but the losers in the agrarian reform process. Those who actually benefited from the agrarian reforms belonged to the rural middle class, i.e., small landlords and larger owner cultivators. The emphasis on the promotion of owner cultivation in the laws and the way in which this term was defined resulted in a concentration of land in the hands of this middle group.

Former landlords, who cultivated the rest of their land after part of it had been expropriated, were forced downwards into this middle group. From below, economically sound cultivators who had the means to buy the titles to the land they cultivated rose into the group. They all increased the number of economically viable medium sized farms. Generally, in land reforms government help small farmers by providing ready access to extension services and agricultural infrastructure, such as irrigation water and roads. An additional benefit of land reforms is that it will help to solve the problems caused by the fact that farmers often use relatively inefficient capital-intensive techniques due to distorted factor market prices and that small farmers do not have access to the liberal credit subsidies on imported machinery and capital equipment. In Pakistan and South Asia in general, small farmers receive little support in the form of credits, agricultural extension services, appropriate output prices, and easier marketing opportunities. It is clearly time that the Pakistani government stepped in to institute significant land reforms and extend support to small farmers.