stock-taking of land reform and farm restructuring
DESCRIPTION
Stock-Taking of Land Reform and Farm Restructuring. Results of a World Bank-FAO policy research study. David Sedik FAO. Why a Stocktaking?. Why a Stocktaking?. Though land reform can be essential for rural growth and poverty alleviation, it does not seem to have lived up to its potential - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Stock-Taking of Land Reform and Farm Restructuring
Results of a World Bank-FAO policy research study
David SedikFAO
Why a Stocktaking?
Country or region Period Duration (years)
Land transferred (million ha)
Mexico 1917-92 75 100
Brazil 1964-94 30 11
Japan 1945-52 7 2
Korea 1945-50 5 0.5
Taiwan (Rep. of China) 1949-53 4 0.2
CEE countries 1990-2000 10 33
CIS countries 1990-2000 10 116
Why a Stocktaking?
Though land reform can be essential for rural growth and poverty alleviation, it does not seem to have lived up to its potential
Production, yields, services declined, unemployment increased – did land reform contribute to this?
Four case studies
• Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Moldova How did reforms affect farm performance and
rural well-being between farm types and across countries?
• Farm performance measured by growth in yields, productivity, and profitability
Well-being measured by subjective perceptions
Sources of information and data
Primary– Household surveys– Farm enterprise surveys– Focus groups– Key informant interviews– Semi-structured interviews
Secondary– Literature review– Official statistics– Data from other surveys and studies
Overview of presentation
Selected comparative results– Agricultural production and land reform– Enabling environment for agriculture– Economic performance– Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural
services– Households’ acceptance of land reform– Gender findings
Policy implications
Overview of presentation
Selected comparative results– Agricultural production and land reform– Enabling environment for agriculture– Economic performance– Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural
services– Households’ acceptance of land reform– Gender findings
Policy implications
Land reform not the reason for agricultural decline in the 1990s
In all four countries, agricultural production and productivity began to– fall before land reform– grow after land reform
Moldova
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
GA
O, G
DP
In
dic
es (
1985=
100)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Lan
d in
div
idu
aliza
tio
n (
ind
ex)
Land Priv GDP GAO
Begin agrarian reforms
Farm "share privatization"
Land distribution
Azerbaijan
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
GA
O,
GD
P I
nd
ice
s (
19
85
=1
00
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
La
nd
in
div
idu
ali
zati
on
(in
de
x)
Land Priv GDP GAO
Begin agrarian reformsLand distribution
Good enabling environment yet to be established in CIS countries
55.8 5.8 5.4
7.8
4.8
6.66 6
8.29.3
5.3
0123456789
10
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Bulgaria
CEECIS
1997 2003
Yield and area growth drives recovery in Azerbaijan
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
1990
=100
Crop yields
Sown area
Livestockyields
Crop yield growth drives recovery in Kazakhstan
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
199
0=10
0
Crop yields
Sown area
Livestockyields
Crop yield and area growth drive recovery in Moldova
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
1990
=100
Crop yields
Sown area
Livestockyields
Individual farm crop yields equal to or higher in all CIS (official stats)
1990 1995 2002
Moldova
Individual farms 50 42 33
Corporate farms 46 35 33
Azerbaijan
Individual farms 54 38 41
Corporate farms 27 15 20
Kazakhstan
Individual farms 31 9 20
Corporate farms 13 5 10
TFP and land productivity greater in family farms from sample
N TFP Labor productivity
Land productivity
Moldova
Family farms 176 5.9 9.9 10.8
Corporate farms 24 1.7 16.7 3.3
Azerbaijan
Family farms 65 2.3 7,803 1,762
Corporate farms 15 1 3,692 840
Red italics indicate figures are statistically different at 20% or better level.
TFP and land productivity greater in family farms from sample
N TFP Labor productivity
Land productivity
Kazakhstan
Family farms 178 4.4 683 60
Corporate farms 22 2.7 1446 44
Bulgaria
Family farms 23 3.1 9.1 3.4
Corporate farms 34 6.2 34.3 0.5
Red italics indicate figures are statistically different at 20% or better level.
Rural HH subjective well-being: MD better than BG, but not as high as AZ
or KZ
Bulgaria Azerbaijan Kazakh Moldova
Today
Good 6 14 31 14
Bad 69 21 20 35
3 yr. change
Better 10 18 36 29
Worse 36 4 27 23
Percent of households
High portion of income from farming in Moldova and Azerbaijan
36.3
4.9 9.221.7
27.4
8.912.9
18.5
0102030405060708090
100
AZ BG KZ MD
Agricultural sales Own-consumption
%
36.3
4.9 9.221.7
27.4
8.912.9
18.5
0102030405060708090
100
AZ BG KZ MD
Agricultural sales Own-consumption
%
Portion of family income from agriculture
Rural public services deterioration worst in AZ, BG, improvements in MD,
KZ
1. Scale from 0 to 100: 0=not available, 100=always available.2. “Before” refers to the period before dismantling of collective/state farms.
Azerbaijan Moldova
Present level of household satisfaction1) with service
Before2 Today Before2 Today
Electricity 84.1 43.7 73 79.0
Gas 18.4 3.5 35.7 37.7
Drinking water 68.9 66.7 42.5 38.6
Telephone 25.8 30.2 35.4 50.8
Rural public services deterioration worst in AZ, BG, improvements in MD,
KZ
1. Scale from 0 to 100: 0=not available, 100=always available.2. “Before” refers to the period before dismantling of collective/state farms.
Kazakhstan Bulgaria
Present level of household satisfaction1) with service
Before2
) Today Before2) Today
Electricity 68.1 86.2 91.9 71.6
Gas 65.2 78.5 30.6 33.4
Drinking water 70 72.6 89.6 75.7
Telephone 48.2 55.0 79.6 65.3
Land allocation resulting from land reforms is least widely accepted in
Moldova
92
5660
53
0
10
20
30
40
5060
70
80
90
100
AZ BG KZ MD
%
Percentage of households perceiving land allocation as fair
Land legislation is gender neutral but access to information, resources and power seems to disadvantage women
In all four countries, female headed households– Use less land– Have lower perceived well-being– Rent out more land
Qualitative interviews suggest that in all countries women as compared to men have
– Less access to information and legal resources– Less access to agricultural equipment– More household responsibilities
Overview of presentation
Selected comparative results– Agricultural production and land reform– Enabling environment for agriculture– Economic performance– Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural
services– Households’ acceptance of land reform– Gender findings
Policy implications
Implications for policy
Ag production stable or grows after robust land reforms in MD, BG, AZ. This suggests that these reforms were beneficial.
In CIS countries, individual sector yields equal to or higher than those in corporate farms.
Land reform alone not sufficient to ensure better farm performance or better well being