From: krishna@seas.smu.edu (Sanjay Krishna)
Subject: ECON-FARM corp - Land Reforms more essential
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Science
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:51:04 GMT


 
 This is in response to the ECON series - 

I think the idea is a good one. They were two complaints, one by Ashmeet saying
that this is close to Socialism. But going through the article, it appears 
closer to capitalism. Land Ceiling Act is not the right term - since it refers
mainly to Urban land. Forcible redistribution of agricultural land in India 
is often referred to as Land Reform - which may be a mistake to a few people
if you look back in retrospective, but it is perhaps the single most important
tool for greater rural incomes that India witnessed. The zamindari system-with
huge lands vested in a few families could never have ensured this. This is 
because these families never needed to invest in increasing agricultural 
output. The food output from their lands were enough to satisfy their own 
needs and to market the surplus -often at rates dictated by a coterie of 
their own friends. The large number of farm labourers were reduced  to a 
subsistence level of living. 

Land Reforms is something which is not peculiar to India - infact, the 
problem in India is, it is not as wide spread as it should be. Every nation
has had some kind of land reforms. The western nations already had land 
reforms by the turn of this century. As Solon Baccaulorogh ( spelling ?) 
an economist( who is pro market or capilistic) says - " Land in a rural 
or agricultural setting means everything. Land means status. Land  means
increased rural income. Land means greater employment. Land reforms are
something that MUST BE IMPLEMENTED for prosperity to ensue". Mind you,
he uses the word prosperity here and not social justice. Land distribution
leads to a sudden need for immense agricultural investment because you 
have so many people with farms or lands who wish to maximise the lands'
output. Taiwan and Korea are two nations which have been compared in 
a book to India and they showed how a proper land reform implementation 
magically transformed the two other countries. The per capita income 
of Korea in 1962 was $78 in rural Korea - it climbed to $1500 in the 

The farm corporations like Deepak ? said does not address social issues.
Probably not. But it does not prevent social change. I believe that 
economic change leads to social classes being realinged. If you believe
it is the other way around then I rest my case. It is very hard to 
point out what comes first or what should come first. 

There is one positive aspect in this idea. When irrigating a certain 
region usually a dam is built first. Then for the downstream canals
to be built and land levelling to be done , it takes an incredibly long
time in India. This is because, every farmer down stream wants the canal
to flow right thru his field and court delays and corruption bogs the 
project down intermiably. Project delays harms everyone in the country
because scare fiscal resources are just wasted. In the ECON- Farm ( actually
there is nothing new in this idea ) the lengthy court proceedings might
stop because there will not be a clamour for wet lands from induviduals. 
It will be enough to irrigate the area belonging to the corporation. 

A lot of inovative ideas are around to improve Agriculture - but no govt
has the guts to implement it. Land Reforms which is so crucial is a big 
farce in the country - with only West Bengal under Jyoti Basu really 
making a genuine attempt to implement it well. Unfortunately, since his 
was a communist govt everyone wasted no time in criticising it, instead
of pointing out the follies in the WB govt approach to trade unions and 
the resulting industrial stagnation.  


Sanjay.