Summary

...

The agrarian reform contributed to relieve the unemployment pressure and to increase agricultural production and productivity, although it could not prevent a massive exodus of rural population from the mountains and the most marginal areas. The program of public works was in turn quite successful in sustaining both employment and income. It also achieved important multiplier effects, as the increased local demand spurred a temporary growth in the local manufacturing of consumer goods, still sheltered from external competition.

In fact, despite the rapid growth of the north, the gap between the two parts of the country did not increase: throughout the 1950s, the region's per capita GDP and per capita consumption remained a stable proportion of the north-central values (respectively 53–55% and 61–62%). Per capita investment actually increased from 55% to 62%, as a result of public works (Table 2). Southern employment remained stable the heavy losses in agriculture were compensated by significant increases in the construction sector (owing to public works) and in manufacturing (as a consequence of the increased local demand).

...

Summary

The political debacles between peasants and the landlords resulted into turmoil and bloodshed, with the peasants as oftentimes the victims, politicized further the reform. Let alone the high record of adjudication cases and court proceedings related to land reform prove that land distribution is not an easy task. We have witnessed that we cannot ignore the vested interest of the landed elites in the historical land reform laws and programs in the country. Land reform has become a polity reality, and the politics played a significant role on the various policies and programs undertaken in each regime more than the true concern of the plight of landless poor people.

The existing land reform law-CARP- is obviously deficient in many aspects which are detrimental to success. In the future, any land related policies therefore must seriously take into account the market-orientation, administrative capacity, budgetary requirement, the modality of land transfer, equity across gender, and the manner of its implementation. These issues are the causes why CARP is taking a long time. While I opine that the current reform may not be a complete failure; however, its deficiencies and loopholes disrupt the efficient implementation thereby producing discontent and disbelief.

Success stories of ARBs are available, though a thorough evaluation is necessary especially in correlating this to agrarian poverty issue. But this success was only made possible because of external help and favorable circumstances. In the post-land reform regime, supportive institutions and inputs, as part of land reform policy, are vital in making the entire reform work. And this support must be publicly supplied and government initiated. If the government is lacking of its effort, the reform will fail to deliver the best outcomes that tackle equity consideration and poverty reduction in the long run. Government should therefore provide the necessary resources to the still frail ―new‖ landowners to be able to adjust in their new role. Only when they become stable and can stand on their own that they can contribute to the other goals of development. Land reform, after all, does not end in giving lands to the landless. They need public support that will enhance the effectiveness of the reform. We cannot just leave farmers in limbo without the necessary safety nets.

Overall, the program entails serious challenge to succeed as an agenda on poverty reduction of the government in the long run. While modest outcomes have been observed in the current land reform, in the future, however, more and more agricultural households can no longer secure their livelihood from the land. In the post-reform regime, as the case of many developing countries now, land reform may have not probably solved all the social, political and economic issues embedded in the development agenda; however, it is still a crucial ingredient in improving the well being of poor rural people. After all, rural is still dominated by agriculture, and its progress within the framework of agrarian development benefits local poor people and tackles poverty in the long run.

click the button for more infos...