Talk:Land reform

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Areas of the article to expand[edit]

I see this is the CSB collaboration of the week. Unlike some topics, I'm not knowlegable enough on this to jump in and write (though I'll see if I can do some useful research). Some topics, though, that I think should be engaged by this article:

  1. Relation to squatting, homesteading, collectivization of farms.
    • Now at least mentioned -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Transitions from collectivization to smallholding as the Communist states ended or (as in China) underwent major transitions toward capitalism
    • China material now fleshed out in this respect. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Relation to the rather opposite trend of the British enclosure movement.
    • A "See also" link provided as a "Contrast". -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Korea as an example where land reform probably occurred largely because Japanese occupation had weakened the political power of traditional landlords.
    • mentioned, implied, no real discussion yet. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  5. The degree to which land reform in various times and places has involved reassignment of existing, clear title to land vs. the degree to which it has involved the transition from traditional, undocumented title (commons, etc.).
  6. The current use of the rhetoric of land reform in Zimbabwe for a movement that seems only marginally to be one of land reform.
    • Like many other things, now at least mentioned. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Compensation (or its lack) to previous owners
    • Mentioned several places. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Arguments of the relative efficiency of smallholdings vs. plantations/latifundia. Cash crops vs. subsistence farming. How these tradeoffs relate to market economies (or lack thereof) at various times.
  9. Try to find sources that look at at least a couple of reasonably successful land reform efforts and at some of the failures, possibly some discussion of comparative factors; I suspect availability of capital and the relative quality of the lands would both loom large.
  10. Relation to other policy matters (e.g. tax systems, the drug war, GMOs and other aspects of agribusiness vs. organic farming or other sustainable agriculture)

Also, if anyone can simply add here in Talk a list of potentially useful source material (online and on paper), that would be very helpful. I'll be looking for some sources and sharing what I find. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:52, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Land Research Action Network, which the page already links to, has some country studies. I haven't had a chance yet to see if they are any good. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Sustainable Development Department of the FAO has a number of publcations on their website covering both general and specific cases of land reform [1]--nixie 02:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Google on site:lcweb2.loc.gov "land reform" to get mentions of land reform in U.S. gov't country studies, all of which are public domain. Similarly, site:lcweb2.loc.gov "agrarian reform" -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's slightly easier to get to from here [2], its a great resource, shame they ran of funding before they finished the rest of the developing world--nixie 07:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The World Bank has a decent publication on land reform--nixie 08:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've now used the "What links here" feature to gather up what substantive info Wikipedia already had on land reform efforts and get them into the article. There's probably more that's not linked here. So far, there is roughly nothing about the Communist countries. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Land Reform/Land Rights[edit]

We'll need to make the distinction between land reform and Land rights. Some information on land rights see the links on the discussion page--nixie 08:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see some clarity around whether prior owners are getting fair market value for the land redistribution and violence that is occurring as a result of the land reform announcement. I have seen several articles on the internet along with video that indicate many are getting nothing and that white farmers in particular are being killed for their property. The videos and articles show people of little means as being the victims. The videos are the victims speaking and showing the injuries and describing family members being killed. Clearly there is more going and victimizing whites and killing them is not reasonable. I am sure there will be those saying its pay back but two wrongs do not make a right. Justice must be for everyone if this country is to transform itself. I hope they do not screw it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.48.245.36 (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

land reform in venezuela[edit]

Plan Zamora in Venezuela seems to focus on land that is owned by the government or currently lying fallow. This runs counter to the definition of land reform we have in the lead paragraph, where the two examples are both of land that is under use. More on Plan Zamora from Global Exchange and Narco News (two of the first google hits).

The government is a large land owner too- the definitation in the lead is a bit narrow. It really should say that land reform is the redistribution of public or privately held land for use by small farms and so on --nixie 00:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Land reform for poverty alleviation and food security[edit]

Good material to expand this section can be found here [3]

Urban analogue[edit]

I believe there is an urban anaolgue to this that could get an article and should be linked to, but I don't know the term and don't know if we have an article. Under French law, and probably under some others, there is apparently a statute intended to prevent real-estate speculators from hoarding empty apartments and allows the government (I think at the city level) to intervene and expropriate the property. If anyone knows anything about it, I'd appreciate it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:06, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Here are some things I could come up with:

  • There is a process called restitution which covers the expropriation of property by the for a price, this article covers some detail [4]. It seems to be realtively common in former communist states [5]. Resitituion isn't covered in the Property law article.
  • In the early part of the 20th century the French instituted a system of land development planning whereby the national government coordinated and planned land-use and development in consultation with local government. It grouped land for similar purposes - agriculture, housing, wooded reserves, conservation of existing open spaces. This planning system was modelled on Baron Haussmann's famous restructuring of Paris between 1853 and 1869. It was a system much admired and imitated throughout Europe. The government had the power to acquire land cheaply for public purposes, including housing. There were taxes on unearned improvements in land value [6].
  • In some American states there are laws that make it possible to force the sale of vacant urban property [7].--nixie 08:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. These probably deserve articles of their own... -- Jmabel | Talk 18:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

United States[edit]

Someone with familiarity with land reform in the United States should add something. My understanding is that a series of late 19th century land reforms resulted in squatting rights, basically if you live on a piece of land and no one stops by to assert their ownership by collecting rent (even a token one) or to demand you leave for some fixed period then you can apply for a title to the land. The period is usually between 7-10 years. Plus, there is also the system of title insurance which facilitates easy exchange of property. Basically a homeowner pays $1000-2000 a year to an insurance company that investigates the property when you first buy it, and defends your title. If they fail to defend your title they refund you the full purchase price, or at least your morgage if you have a minimal policy. Often a country engaging in land reform has many conflicting titles to the same land, so anyone selling a title to the land can't demand its full value because the new owner has to contend with the possibility that another title holder might show up some day. And, the lack of clear titles means no insurance company is willing to sell title insurance at reasonable rates. --Zenyu 00:06, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

This may be what the user above described, but it's kind of shocking that the page on land reform doesn't mention the Homestead Act in the United States, which inspired many other LR attempts around the world. 130.64.30.178 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden[edit]

Any swedes around, was the minimum tenant lease really defined as 25 years, or was it more complicated??

Any suitable stuff on "statare" and "torppare", or "back-stugu-sittare"??

But you did not fight any civil war, no, no really drastic land reforms, yes??

Scandinavian squatting laws[edit]

or "every man's right" mainly include the rights to

- trespass on land property of anyone is always allowed, if not causing clear harm to the property owner - hovewer, not too close to the house, kitchen window of that property owner - to pick berries, mushrooms, even some trees if it is not "common sense" that the property owner has the property rights to them, uses the rights somewhat regularly. - however, arranging tourist and "survivor"-style for-profit taxable activities on the land property of others is still something to be fully solved in the courts.

Squatting is too legally free, almost everywhere (except directly under the kitchen window) although the ancient scandinavian legal and linguistic definition of squatting is different.

However, property rights, the right to tax and squat, was a traditional problem already before the medieval times.

I think you are mistaken. The rights given by Allemannsretten are only valid for "utmark" (typically non-inhabited, not cultivated land), not "innmark" (the opposite). This makes your claim that "it's okay to trespass on private land as long as it's not under the kitchen window" somewhat absurd. Read http://www.dirnat.no/wbch3.exe?p=1513 --Nnp 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

north american land reforms[edit]

are, by definition, something defined by the fact (of the squatters) that there were no property laws.

North American Squatting laws are still in the process of intelligent creation and evolution


http://sacunion.com/pages/california/articles/5790

Indian Casino on Special Election Ballot The Associated Press Published: August 4, 2005 MARYSVILLE, Calif.—The Yuba County Board of Supervisors has placed a measure on November’s special election ballot asking voters whether they support the development of a tribal hotel-casino.

Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday night to put an advisory measure before voters asking if a casino should be built on 40 acres in south Yuba County.

Leaders of the Enterprise Rancheria have proposed building an eight-story hotel with a 207,760-square-foot casino. The county supervisors have already given their support under an agreement approved two years ago that would give the county a share of the profits if the casino is built.

The tribe must still get approval from federal officials and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. County officials said they hope the advisory ballot measure will demonstrate local support for the project.

Finnish Saame property and land rights[edit]

- If you find your neighbor's reindeer on your seasonally agreed on property, when your reindeer has the agreed rights of it. - kill it, but do not eat it, leave it as a sign for your neighbor, that he should watch better after his lost, maybe hungry, reindeer. - if you are really hungry, please feel free to eat it. - wait until the youngest reindeer are old enough to figure out if they should be killed or not. - do not start any major reindeer war, try to negotiate a new solution. unsigned comment

The above text is nonsense. The reindeer herding is organized into paliskunta collectives, which take care of herding activities in their area on behalf of the owners. Each reindeer is earmarked to show its proper owner and foals are given the earmark of the female which has born them in the herdings that take place twice a year. Rest of the time the reindeer are free in the wild. It is the duty of every reindeer owner to belong in the paliskunta of their place of domicile. Only inhabitants of the reindeer herding area are allowed to own reindeer. The reindeer owners pay for their paliskuntas for the taking care of the reindeer.
The question about the right of the Sami to the state owned land in Lapland is an entirely different thing, however. The question is juridically and morally complicated and the above scribbling most likely tries to address some aspect of it. --MPorciusCato 13:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water rights in the desert[edit]

Is it true, that the buyer sets the price, not the seller??

occupational colonial forces, their political and legal power, traditional landlords[edit]

Supposedly, this millenium was created to handle some of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_creationism

Finland[edit]

The following was recently added, placed oddly in the article. It looks like a straight plagiarism of http://www.tts.fi/uk/publication/teho-magazine/teho04_5.htm. The matter probably belongs in the article, but we cannot just copy and paste from other web sites without permission. I'd welcome someone working this through. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • After the Finnish Civil War of 1918, new land reform laws and mechanisms were applied and implemented
Summary
Tarmo Luoma
Work, efficiency and wellbeing for 80 years
During the first years of Finland’s independenceFinnish Civil War, agriculture saw many changes. As a result of the Land Reform Acts of 1918 (torpparilaki) and 1922 (Lex Kallio), over 64,000 freehold properties were created as compulsory purchases of leasehold properties gave former tenant-farmers Tenant_farmer an opportunity to acquire land. Farm work was quite labour-intensive, and cost of labour made up over 60 per cent of overall costs. Established in 1924, the Farm Work Efficiency Institute aimed at making work more efficient through research, education and training.
http://www.tts.fi/uk/publication/teho-magazine/
http://www.tts.fi/uk/publication/teho-magazine/teho04_5.htm#Paakirjoitus
This is also sometimes called "the Finnish dream of Latin America and Africa".

Asia: India[edit]

There seems to be an error in the sentence: "This has ensured an almost life long loyalty from the farmers and the communists have been in power ever since." The page List_of_political_parties_in_India states that the India Congress Party (145 seats) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (138 seats) both have more seats in parliament than the Indian Communist Party (Marxist) which has only 43 seats. I hope someone can check into the accuracy of this and correct the statement regarding "the communists have been in power ever since" to accurately reflect present political power in India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.206.117.184 (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006.

The reference is specific to West Bengal which, to the best of my knowledge, remains Communist. If you think it is unclear that this is specific to West Bengal, feel free to suggest another wording. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut, but open to discussion[edit]

Cut from the lead paragraph: "The philosophical princip of any land reform is 'the possession of land to whom who cultivate it'." At the very least: "princip" ==> "principle" and "whom who" ==> "those who", or something like it. But, more importantly, I wonder if that can really be said to be the principle behind all land reforms. Some land reforms have been collectivizations, taking land out of the proprietorship of supposedly inefficient smallholders. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion About Merger[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to merge Agrarian Reform into this article. What does everybody else think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takethemud (talk • contribs) 11 April 2006.

Agrarian reform is the broader term. Right now it is a stub. I'd rather see it expanded than merged, though I won't scream if there is consensus the other way, just so long as it is understood that this article must then ultimately cover that broader meaning. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My concern is that persons looking for information about agrarian reform might not be able to find what they are looking for if they do not also look up land reform. takethemud 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud[reply]
Land reform is reasonably prominently linked in the Agrarian reform article. Maybe do something to make it yet more prominent? - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vague swipe at Ho Chi Minh[edit]

This edit with no citation says, with reference to Ho Chi Minh's land reform "at a cost of tens of thousands of lives". Given the continual fighting in Vietnam in the period, and the difficulty of working out the net effects of any given policy in those circumstances, I would doubt that this can be objectively known either way, tens of thousands being not many against such a background. I am particularly suspicious of a totally uncited claim like this. Does anyone have something citable on this? Otherwise I think it should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 12 days, no response, I am removing. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tens of thousands are modest estimates made by the communist government themselves. http://dangcongsan.vn/details.asp?topic=2&subtopic=5&leader_topic=79&id=BT1060374012 DHN 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reform", according to whom?[edit]

Obviously it isn't "reform" to those who are having their property stolen. The entry is an example of "loaded", propagandist phrase- terminology with built-in POV that Wikipedia should avoid. --Mike18xx 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reform is not always about stealing. Kenya managed to pass white-owned farms to black ownership, with white farmers getting compensation. South Africa is addressing this as well. It needs its own article. Wizzy…☎ 07:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a mugger swipes your wallet with $100 inside, then peels out a twenty for "compensation", is he still a thief? Of course he is.--Mike18xx 08:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My parents were happy with the price paid for their farm in Kenya.Wizzy…☎ 09:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did they have a choice to refuse?'---Mike18xx 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not - I don't know. They wanted to leave. Wizzy…☎ 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike18xx
why do you claim that the term "Land reform" shall be already POV? The tiny little word reform says nothing about whether it is something good or not; it says only that something is reformed, changed -to better or to worse. Land reform is an official and usual term. Of course, many of the "wealthy landowners" who are (sometimes without compensation) expropriated by a land reform would say stealing -but that's their POV. Béka 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge[edit]

Propose merger of this, and the similar Agrarian reform, with either nationalization or expropriation.--Mike18xx 08:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't agree. Agrarian reform is not the same as Land reform. Land reform focuses on the propriety of land and its reform, while Agrarian reform has a broader meaning including the reform of the use of land, agricultural methods etc. Also, Land reform is not the same as nationalization or expropriation; Land reform does not always mean the nationalization of land, and there are many other things than land that can be nationalized or expropriated. Land reform should be kept as an own article distinct from Agrarian reform, nationalization and expropriation. Béka 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Wizzy…☎ 09:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice to say that the very term "xyz reform" carries built-in POV, and shouldn't therefore constitute a Wikipedia entry. If you don't prefer nationalization or expropriation, come up with something better.--Mike18xx 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is inherently POV, and I like the current title. Wizzy…☎ 11:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your parents hadn't wanted to leave, would it have been "reform" to them to get kicked off their property?--Mike18xx 12:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article deals with Land reform in many countries. Brazil, for instance, has huge tracts owned by wealthy absentee landlords....
I own a classic car that I leave in a locked garage for months at a time. What of it? I observe that you've evaded answering my pertinent question. (While unfortunate, it is understandable, given that many people do likewise when faced with examining the ethical incongruities embodied within political world-views "sold" as being ethical.)--Mike18xx 13:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zimbabwe was acknowledged to have very skewed land ownership, with nobody willing to do much about it (Government included) until it was seized as a convenient issue. South Africa and Namibia have similar problems, again with poor engagement. You imply that the 'reformers' are simply thieves. If my parents had wanted to stay, they would probably have considered it wrong to be forced off the land. An old Zimbabwean chief would also have considered it wrong to have been moved on at the point of a gun. That is why 'reform' is needed - equitable reform, we hope. Property redistribution - implies (to me) to include the non-moveable assets like houses as well as the land itself. Though they are tied together, I think they can be treated separately. Wizzy…☎ 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're bringing up Zimbabwe at all within the context of asserted "reform" is beyond bizarre -- considering that it's a repellant dictatorship lorded over by a raving psychopath.--Mike18xx 13:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check Land reform in Zimbabwe - an article I have done quite a bit of work on. Wizzy…☎ 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge into Property redistribution[edit]

--Mike18xx 12:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a merge to an article created today, with no other editor except you, carrying all your baggage ? I think not. Wizzy…☎ 12:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I breathlessly anticipate a logical reply sometime this century.--Mike18xx 13:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn how to move articles - copy-paste removes the history. Wizzy…☎ 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to the proposal. Land reform is a form of Property redistribution and should be mentioned in that article. But land reform was historically and is today such an important and special issue that it merits an own article. Béka 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Important" and "special" to whom? Those getting pinched loot handed to them? Well yeah -- as the saying goes, "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always get the support of Paul." Be that as it may, and the fact that "xyz reform" in the context of political propaganda advertising renders it POV by definition, I will indeed stipulate the term does his significant historical use, and have decided to withdraw the merger proposal.--Mike18xx 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: This article has already established that land reform is a common phenomenon, worthy of an article in its own right. The term is in common use, probably tremendously more common use than "property redistribution" (Google gives 4,370,000 hits to 13,700; I don't always trust the "Google test", but the the ratio is over 100:1, it's unlikely to be misleading). And Mike18xx as much as admits that his reason for wanting to make this change is to make a political point. - Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: Land reform was the goal of most agrarian rebellions during the last few centuries and was debated using that term fiercly from 18th to 20th century. In some cases, there have been land reforms compensating the former owners fairly (e.g Finnish solution of lease-holder problem). In other cases, e.g. freeing the Russian serfs of 1863, it may be asked, if the former owners had any moral right to the ownership of the souls and the land. It must be seen that in an agrarian society, the land is not simply an asset. As agriculture is the only way for the majority of population to live, the unequitable ownership of land is mirrored by unequitable property distribution. The weakness of the market often prevents any market-based solutions, such as moving into cities. Although the term might carry a point-of-view, it may still merit an article shedding light on both viewpoints. --MPorciusCato 15 August 2006
Struggles against feudalism and monarchism shouldn't be cheapened by considering them "land reform" struggles, and agriculture is not only not the only way for the majority to live today, it's not even the dominant let alone preferred one (save, perhaps, in those areas still suffering under autocratic governments). "Land reform" was never about, say, Robin Hood seeking rightful use of Sherwood Forest, claimed as it was then as the property of the Crown under Prince John. Throughout the 20th century, the term was synonymous with Marxist/socialist grabbings of legitimately-owned properties (with the "reform" label just being the selling point propaganda to outsiders, while free loot was the sales pitch to the local supporters) -- and any article not mentioning that is a poor article indeed.--Mike18xx 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may hate the term, but the fact is that those "[s]truggles against feudalism and monarchism" were often about what was then called land reform.
Divorced of any attempts to shrug off feudalism and monarchy, such attempts dwindle merely to land grabs, or a sovereign redistributing property (which he initially expropriated by divine right, or inherited thereof)) to curry support from a sector of the populace, not anything resembling a true "reform".--Mike18xx 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should see that the agriculture is not nowadays the only way to live but in many undeveloped countries it is the only source of livelihood for the majority.
The reason said countries are "underdeveloped" is invariably because they are feudal or monarcharial regimes.
In a market economy, the market mechanism would cause the flow of the population into population centers, decreasing the supply of farm workers and increasing their standard of living.
Uninhibited (by government restrictor plates) economies subject agriculture to the same economy of scale, and attendant innovation, as everything else; Farm workers leave after their standard of living increases, not before.
However, in many economies, this mechanism is not operating either due to the inability of the towns to provide work for the majority of population or due to political and social restraints.
As I indicate above, without those being addressed, "land reform" contains no "reform". ("town(s)", btw, are not volitional entities invested with the ability to "provide work", and usage to such effect runs afoul of the ambiguous-collective logical-fallacy.
In such case, the only way for the farm workers to achieve a right to self-determination may well be to obtain land.
If the given of the argument is that the person in question is "politically or socially (redundancy, see ambiguous-collective above) restrain(ed)", then reform is not going to be flowing from the political entity performing property redistributing.
The land reform is needed only where the market is ineffective.
(Free) markets are never "ineffective"; only markets subject to political coercion fail to bring buyers and sellers together.
In addition, there have been successful land reforms that were initiated by the liberal parties, not by socialists. A classic example is the Finnish reform of 1919–1922. In this case, there was a large (15 % of the population) class of lease-holders who inhabited a small farm which belonged to a larger farmer.
Obviously the "larger farmer" didn't consider it a "successful land 'reform'" after the government stole his property. Actual "reform" would entail nobody being able to steal anyone else's property by government force. Are you beginning to understand how "reform" is just a propagandistic euphamism yet? The fact that Paul, when Peter is robbed to provide to Paul, would like to fancy his windfall as the result of "reform" doesn't make it so. Paul is just a recipient of loot.
The rent was paid mostly in work. In 1918, Finland fought a civil war, lost by socialists. The winners recognized the lease-holder problem and the parliament removed it by giving the lease-holders the right to buy their farms. The compensation to the owners was full and the terms of payment rather long, over ten years.
If I were to steal your property, would you call it "reform" if I generously promised to pay you its full value over ten years? (In the US, the so-called "lease holder" non-problem was resolved by a robust economy making agriculture less profitable than services and manufactoring, which drew people into cities, with the consequence that large land-holders found it more profitable to sell their land to suburban development than continue growing crops on it.)
The reform did not cause any violence but gave the lease-holder class the status of independent farmers. I fail to see any socialization or nationalization in the process.--MPorciusCato 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly was a classic instance of government-mandated Property Redistribution.--Mike18xx 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, providing an example of something that is notland reform is entirely beside the point, a total straw man argument. - Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me; Robin of Loxley only wanted to hunt the deer on Crown-claimed land, not farm it -- and that, of course, makes all the crucial, principled, difference in the world, eh wot, matey? (Wait, there I go with the deep sarcasm again....)--Mike18xx 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As you said earlier, the land reform has often been a tool to get rid of feudalism prevalent in the society. (In Finland, when we got the market working in the 1960's, it resulted in the development you were describing. However, in 1919, there was no market and the redistribution of property most likely actually speeded up the forming of this market by increasing the demand for consumer goods.) I don't suppose anyone is advocating land reform in developed countries. The typical sign of feudalism is land ownership centered to the select few holding the economic and political power.
I heartily agree with you that there is a significant support for the view: "all land reform is property redistribution and stealing". I even concur with you that from your standpoint, land reform is stealing. I just want to bring out, that there is significant, idealistic support coming from other viewpoints, different for different eras, countries and reforms. Not all supporters of land reform are lazy government thieves wanting to enrich themselves. Many, I'd like to say, most are acting bona fide and consider property rights less important than the rights they are advancing. According to the NPOV policy, we must also bring out this fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPorciusCato (talk • contribs) 25 August 2006.


Kenya reversion[edit]

What has the new link reference for Kenya have to do with Kenya land reform ? It discusses South Africa exclusively. And Kenyatta was dead in 2004.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwizzy (talk • contribs) .

No answer from Mike18xx - I am putting in another link. Wizzy…☎ 08:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed PRC information[edit]

PRC land law hasn't lead to landless peasants or large rural land lords.

Roadrunner 19:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two references sections should be merged[edit]

There are two references sections. They should be merged. I would not do merging because I do not know how I can merge them in beautiful style. (sorry) Please merge them.Penpen0216 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Indian Nations[edit]

Native American nations are technically separate entities out side of the federal government’s jurisdiction and therefore should have their own separate bullet, Native American Nations. --J intela 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Collectives[edit]

should thier be something in their about land restitution and the break up of collectives after the fall of cummunism --J intela 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

This entire article is very lacking in sources, and I have tagged it accordingly. I'll give anyone interested in adding sources at least a week before I come back and start removing unsourced claims. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is very lacking in sources, particularly for the first three sections (Introduction, Land ownership and tenure and Arguments for and against land reform). I will begin adding sources/removing several unsourced claims tomorrow evening EST. Kcsl (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara quote[edit]

The Che Guevara quote just got removed for the second time. I think that quoting Che Guevara in this article (or GWB in democracy) might be appropriate, considering that both people were a significant influence on the topic regardless of whether or not they were nice guys or a "genocidal assholes". On the other hand, only quoting Che at the top of a list and no one else might give him undue weight. Does anyone else have an opinion about this? --Explodicle (T/C) 02:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is cited, relevant, and appropriate. Per the IP's question on George Bush - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for this quote and article, as head of the Agrarian reform program in Cuba, Guevara would be more than appropriate to quote on the topic.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to First Three Sections[edit]

In reviewing the first three sections of the article, I think, in addition to adding more citations, it may be useful to add some additional structure to Land reform, land ownership and tenure, and arguments for and against land reform. As they are written now, these sections reflect the more controversial aspects of land reform. While such aspects should not be ignored, adding some nuances to the issue might be useful as well (such as the earlier suggestion on the talk page to i.e. add a section for "Land reform for poverty alleviation and food security." Also, given the incredibly varied nature of land ownership and tenure, I think an introduction to the broader ideas of this issue (i.e. formal vs. informal land rights, customary vs. statutory land laws) may provide useful before listing the specific examples that are offered in this section. Some additional structure to the arguments for and against land reform (as well as some additional content on arguments in favor of reform) would also strengthen this section further. Does anyone have any additional comments/suggestions? I'll plan make a few adjustments over the next few days and will place particular emphasis on adding citations as well.Kcsl (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments sections/articles are lame. Try to keep it objective, like "politics of land reform"; "economics of land reform"; etc. Savidan 04:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Land legislature @ the Government of Ceylon and the transitions to the current Government of Sri Lanka[edit]

Land legislature @ the Government of Ceylon and the transitions to the current Government of Sri Lanka Wednesday, 03rd January 2012

The administrative provisions for the land use corresponding to the land legislature enacted

The administrative provisions for the enactment of the land legislature would hold the transitions in the ownership of the holdings,the issues and the additions in the number of holdings @ a time and the clearnace of wasteland for the defined land use practices including slots extended to the food networks in the climatic zones.

The administrative provisions are also held for the extent in the forest clearance per calendar year for defined uses and the subsequent reforestation or replanting.

The administrative provisions for the land use are also held under the strategies for town and country planning @ a time. The tasks in the work plans listed under the town and country planning @ a time are also held for the goals and the performance including the feasible options @ reforestation or replanting.

The adoptations in the land legislature for the individual users -

The land legislature for the individual uses pertaining to the uses of the forest resources are held in the specific permits validated per the land legislature and the provisions there in. The land legislature for the use of the slots for the seasonal cropping also would be considered for the provisions extended in the crops and the cropping systems compatible or defined as per the stipulations for the crops in the specific geographical locis or as per the stipulations for the crops in the specific climatic zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Maheswaran (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Land legislature @ the Government of Ceylon and the transitions to the current Government of Sri Lanka == The communications to the GOSL for the collectives of Sri Lanka

Land legislature @ the Government of Ceylon and the transitions to the current Government of Sri Lanka Wednesday, 03rd January 2012

The administrative provisions for the land use corresponding to the land legislature enacted

The administrative provisions for the enactment of the land legislature would hold the transitions in the ownership of the holdings,the issues and the additions in the number of holdings @ a time and the clearnace of wasteland for the defined land use practices including slots extended to the food networks in the climatic zones.

The administrative provisions are also held for the extent in the forest clearance per calendar year for defined uses and the subsequent reforestation or replanting.

The administrative provisions for the land use are also held under the strategies for town and country planning @ a time. The tasks in the work plans listed under the town and country planning @ a time are also held for the goals and the performance including the feasible options @ reforestation or replanting.

The adoptations in the land legislature for the individual users -

The land legislature for the individual uses pertaining to the uses of the forest resources are held in the specific permits validated per the land legislature and the provisions there in. The land legislature for the use of the slots for the seasonal cropping also would be considered for the provisions extended in the crops and the cropping systems compatible or defined as per the stipulations for the crops in the specific geographical locis or as per the stipulations for the crops in the specific climatic zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.197.70 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japan[edit]

Given the events in Paraguay, I have tried to make the section on Japan both more factual and readable in English.

G. Robert Shiplett 21:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Land reform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Land reform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Land_reform&oldid=1208087783"