Land and agrarian reform in the 21st century: changing realities, changing arguments?

1
Land and agrarian reform in the 21st century: changing realities, changing arguments?

By: Ben Cousins
Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS)
University of the Western Cape
Keynote address
Global Assembly of Members, International Land Coalition
Entebbe, Uganda, 24-27 April 2007
________________________________________________
Mike Davis’s recent book1, Planet of Slums , paints a vivid picture of a rapidly urbanizing global
society where hundreds of thousands of people leave rural areas each week in search of a
promised land of jobs, houses and consumer goods. Most urban immigrants, however, find
themselves living in vast, sprawling slums. Many do not find jobs, and eke out a bare living
within an informal economy, now estimated to comprise around 1billion people globally. Davis
characterizes this informal economy as a ‘sink for surplus labour which can only keep pace with
subsistence by ever more heroic feats of self-exploitation and the further competitive subdivision
of already densely filled survival niches’ (Davis 2004: 27). A very different picture from
Hernando de Soto’s vision of a dynamic informal economy filled with millions of microentrepreneurs,
held back from entry to the miracle -world of capitalism only by the refusal of their
governments to properly register and ‘formalise’ their property rights! And, in my view, a more
accurate, if disturbing, one.
Part of the reason for this mass flight from the countrysides of the Third World is the failure of
most rural development policies of the past few decades, whether these were couched in terms of
‘community development’, ‘modernisation’ of peasant agriculture or structural adjustment. While
rural poverty has remained intractable in many places, contemporary globalization has seen the
emergence of increasingly tightly integrated global agro-food commodity chains under the
control of large agri-business corporations , which oversee the production, processing and
distribution of crop and livestock products in international markets, as well as the supply of inputs
to ‘high tech’ forms of farming. National governments are increasingly eager to attract investment
by these corporations, and often bend over backwards to make land available to them, sometimes
for agricultural production itself – as we see happening in Uganda today.
Some rural producers are managing to secure a niche for themselves in global commodity chains
by meeting exacting export market requirements; they are often located on larger plots of land
and employ non-family labour. At the same time liberalized markets have seen low-priced
imports flooding into domestic markets, creating further problems for many farmers. In this
‘brave new world’ many rural households can no longer rely on agriculture alone, and are being
forced to diversify their livelihood within the local economy, or to seek non-rural sources of
income. As Deborah Bryceson has pointed out, large-scale ‘de-agrarianization’ of rural
economies as a result of structural adjustment policies helps to explain livelihood diversification
and urban drift. Another consequence has been the emergence of new forms of social
differentiation within the ranks of ‘peasants’ and ‘the rural poor’, that build on the inherent
tendency of small-scale rural producers to separate out into antagonistic classes of capital and
labour, but articulate with gender, ethnic, religious and other identities in complex ways
1 Verso, 2006, which is based on his 2004 article in New Left Review.
2
In the light of these changing realities, we need to ask: what convincing rationale s exist for land
reform in the 21st century, and in particular, for land policies and programmes that have poverty
reduction as their key objective? It seems increasingly inadequate to simply re-assert that in many
third world countries rural poverty remains widespread and is strongly associated with inequality
in land holding, or to just take it for granted that poor people have a right to land and resources
for their own sustenance. Simplistic assumptions that secure rights to good quality land, held
either individually or collectively, together with access to credit, inputs and markets and policies
that favour small-scale producers, will be sufficient to ensure adequate livelihoods for the
majority of rural producers, can be questioned, in the light of the realities sketched above.
It is also insufficient to add ‘socio-political imperatives’ for land reform such as defusing the
potential for violent conflict, assisting with post-conflict reconstruction, promoting the rights and
social status of indigenous groups and women, redressing historic injustices, or promoting
environmentally sustainable land use (Borras et al 2007). These undoubtedly reflect the strong
association between land and political dynamics in many contemporary contexts, and growing
awareness of the centrally important question of ecological sustainability – but do these
considerations contribute much to convincing rationales for poverty reducing land reform, in the
harsh world of an integrating global economy under the sway of capital? On the other hand, it is
true that a variety of popular struggles over land continue to be waged in many parts of Africa,
Latin America and Asia, as rural people actively resist being dumped on the rubbish heap of
history, and that issues of identity and unequal power relations are often integral to such
struggles.
In my view the realities of a changing and urbanizing world require us to reconsider the economic
justifications for land reform, and to think through what this means for a pro-poor land agenda in
struggles, advocacy and policies. As before, thinking through the connections between land and
agricultural livelihoods, as well as other forms of income (such as natural resource harvesting and
processing, eco-tourism) will be crucial, if coherent arguments for a broader programme of
agrarian reform are to be mounted. In a recent attempt, Akram-Lodhi and colleagues (2007: 391)
argue that land policies must ‘reform land-based social relationships in a multidimensional
manner’. This must include addressing the ‘economically inefficient’ nature of prevailing
property rights regimes, and ensuring that reforms are ‘productivity-enhancing’ and firmly
embedded within ‘the broader structure and goals of strategies for capital accumulation and
national development, poverty elimination and social transformation’ (ibid).
But these kinds of arguments also run into difficulties these days. Many are sceptical, given the
dynamics of global change. One example is Rigg (2006), who suggests that a large proportion of
the rural population in the South can never become ‘rural entrepreneurs’ because they lack the
basic assets and resources which are required. In his view policy makers should see ‘rural futures
as differentiated and complex … sustainable livelihoods … are increasingly likely to be divorced,
spatially and occupationally, from the land’ (ibid: 196, and see Table 1 below).
Table 1. Rural poverty and rural production (from Rigg 2006)
Question Old answer New answer Broken links
Best way to assist
rural poor?
Redistribute land
Invest in agriculture
Re-skill the poor
(investing in
agriculture is
inequality widening)
Poverty and inequality
have become delinked
from activity
and occupation
How to build
sustainable future in
Support small-holder
farming
Support people’s
efforts to le ave
Association of propoor
policies with
3
rural South? farming, permitting
the amalgamation of
land holdings and
emergence of agrarian
entrepreneurs
small-holder farming
has been broken
Reinvigorated and more persuasive arguments are required in favour of ‘pro-poor’ land reform, if
the skeptics are to be convinced. In the past a variety of economic arguments were articulated, but
remember that most land reform to date has been of the ‘land to the tiller’ kind, involving the
confiscation of land owned by landlords with their social origin in pre-capitalist social structures,
and the ‘Agrarian Question’ was originally framed in terms of the role of land and agriculture in
the transition to industrialised forms of capitalism. In the view of some analysts, the Agrarian
Question of capital, on a ‘world -historical scale’, has now been resolved (Bernstein 2006). Is
there a new agrarian question, perhaps of ‘classes of labour’, arising from the conditions of the
21st century (ibid: 453)? If there is, then this might require the re-framing of the rationales for
land reform.
Older perspectives and approaches may still have some relevance, however. In Table 2 below I
distinguish between six main types of economic rationale for land reform, drawn from three
influential schools of thought, each of the six being also associated with particular political
ideologies or stances. (Not considered in this table are traditio ns that downplay economic
arguments for land reform in favour of other goals such as justice, historical redress or sociopolitical
rights)
What I would like to suggest is that proponents of ‘pro-poor land reform’ such as the ILC and its
affiliates should carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of these kinds of arguments, in
the light of the specific and often highly variable conditions found in different contexts. Some of
these older perspectives may still be useful, others may not; new arguments may need to be
developed. Given rapid urbanization and the growth of slum dwelling, it will be important to
apply these arguments to peri-urban and urban areas as well as rural, and to examine the new
forms of relationship between these once so distinct but increasingly blurred forms of habitation
and livelihood.
What does the typology in Table 2 suggest might be the key issues to focus on in such an attempt
to reformulate the rationale for pro-poor land reform? One can take something useful from each
of the six traditions listed. For example:
1. From the neo-liberal school one might take on board a concern with productive efficiency and
think about policies that will promote the optimal use of scarce land, labour and capital (but
without necessarily accepting its ideological emphasis on ‘market forces’ as the main driver of
processes of wealth creation).
2. From the neo-populist tradition one might accept that scale of production is an important issue
to address, and that a key focus should be factors (including policies) that influence the efficiency
of a variety of forms and scales of production (but without necessarily accepting its founding
premise of an ‘inverse relationship’ between scale and efficiency).
3. From a livelihoods -oriented ‘developmentalism’ one might take a focus on the multiple
livelihood sources of poor people, to help avoid a narrow and blinkered focus on farming alone,
4
as well as some policy emphases such as ‘territorial’ or area-based development’ planning (but
without necessarily accepting the its profoundly apolitical stance).
4. From a welfarist approach to land reform one might take a key concern with household food
security (but without necessarily accepting that this should be the sole purpose of land reform).
5. From the radical populist tradition one might take on board a central concern with the need to
reconfigure agrarian structure (at both the national and international scale) ie. the distribution of
productive enterprises and associated property rights, and their performance in terms of output
and net income (without necessarily accepting its tendency to emphasize the unitary interests of
‘peasants’ or ‘the rural poor’ and insufficiently acknowledge tensions between emerging class
and gendered interests).
6. From the Marxist tradition one might take a central concern with evaluating the economics of
land reform in terms of a wider concept of social efficiency that includes consideration of
exploitation, as well as a focus on the class and gender relations that underpin the organization of
production and of agrarian structure (without necessarily accepting the idealization of large scale
agriculture in some strands of the tradition, or the economic reductionism of some forms of
Marxism).
While there is something to be taken from each of these schools of thought, eclecticism has its
limits, and choices have to be made when it comes to politics and policies. I locate myself, for
example, within the Marxist tradition, am skeptical that ‘market-assisted’ approaches to land
reform have much to offer, and think that recent attempts to theorize an Agrarian Question of
‘classes of labour’ are cogent and speak to contemporary realities more powerfully than other
approaches. What this might mean in terms of policy advocacy, however, is not yet clear.
Conclusion
Proponents of land reform are often concerned not only with issues of land and agriculture in
relation to issues of national economic growth and development, poverty reduction and food
security, but also in relation to questions of social justice and redressing historical legacies of
dispossession and/or exploitation (the ‘land question’). These remain important. In this address,
however, I have offered the view that the economic bases of ‘pro-poor land reform’ need
reformulating in the rapidly conditions of the contemporary world. Large urban populations need
to be fed and technologically sophisticated forms of farming need to be put at the service of
productive regimes that sustain these populations, while questions of the ecological viability of
current technologies loom ever larger. Issues of the unequal structure of international agricultural
trade regimes need to be considered and made integral to thinking about agrarian reform.
At the same time, capitalism in most parts of the South seems incapable of providing secure
livelihoods for the majority of the population. As Mike Davis puts it (2004: 27),
The labour-power of a billion people has been expelled from the world system,
and who can imagine any plausible scenario, under neo-liberal auspices, that
would re-integrate them as productive workers or mass consumers?
The challenge for proponents of land and agrarian reform is to ‘imagine’, think hard
about, and work for plausible alternative scenarios for sustainable and sustaining rural
and urban economies. There are important lessons from past formulations and
experiences, but in many ways this is unchartered territory.
5
References
Akram-Lodhi, A.H., S.M. Borras Jr and C. Kay (eds), 2007. Land, Poverty and
Livelihoods in an Era of Globalization. Perspectives from developing and transition
countries. Routledge: London and New York.
Borras, S.M. Jr, C. Kay and A.H Akram-Lodhi, 2007. ‘Agrarian reform and rural
development: historical overview and current issues’, in Akram-Lodhi et al.
Bernstein, Henry, 2006. ‘Is there an Agrarian Question in the 21st Century?’, Canadian
Journal of Development Studies, Vol XXVII, No. 4: 449-461.
Davis, Mike, 2004. ‘Planet of Slums’. New Left Review 26: 5-34.
Davis, Mike, 2004. Planet of Slums. Verso: London and New York.
Rigg, Jonathon, 2006. ‘Land, Farming, Livelihoods and Poverty: Rethinking the Links in
the Rural South’, World Development, Vol 34, No. 12: 180-202.
6
Table 2. Arguments for land reform
Neo-classical
economics
Sustainable
livelihoods
Marxism and
radical political
economy
Politics/
ideology
Neo-liberalism Neo-populism Developmentalism Welfarism Radical populism Class struggle
Central
focus
Well-functioning
markets vs market
distortions and
‘imperfections’
Linking equity and
productivity
Development =
poverty reduction
Poverty alleviation Inequality in land
holdings as a
cause of rural
poverty; unequal
power relations
Agrarian question
in transitions to
capitalism; new
agrarian questions
of ‘classes of
labour’
Policies
advocated
Market-led LR:
reduce market
imperfections;
register private
property rights;
provide credit to
promote investment
Market-assisted
LR: reduce policy
biases favouring
large farms or
urban consumers;
promote efficient
markets; secure
property rights;
credit; land taxes
State action to
support
smallholder
production eg land
reform, targeted
subsidies, coordination
of
marketing;
LR as part of
territorial
development.
Enhanced access to
land for small-scale
food production as a
safety net
Radical, pro-poor
agrarian reform,
either state- or
beneficiary-led;
must be
productivity
enhancing, with
complementary
agricultural and
dev. policies
2 views:
collectivization of
efficient large
capitalist farms
(or: improve
conditions of
labour) vs support
for struggles for
land of agrarian
classes of labour
Beneficiaries Efficient farmers at
any scale; (often
economies of scale
apply and larger
farms seen as
socially efficient)
Efficient small
farmers who
maximize returns to
land
The rural poor
with multiple
livelihoods; small
farmers
The rural poor and
unemployed with
limited access to
jobs or alternative
incomes
Peasants (small
family farmers) and
farm workers, the
rural poor
Fragmented
classes of labour:
agric workers,
petty commodity
producers, semiproletarians
Useful
questions
How efficient is
production on
redistributed land?
Returns to land,
labour, capital?
What factors &
conditions influence
the efficiency of
different scales of
production?
What are the
multiple sources
of livelihood for
LR beneficiaries?
What difference
does food production
make to household
welfare of LR
beneficiaries?
How has LR
impacted on
agrarian structure
(sub-regional and
national)?
What dynamics of
class & gender
differentiation
occur within LR?