A recent study on the operation of land markets in a village in Sambalpur revealed that about 70 percent of land sales over the 40-year period 1955-95 were distress sales, i.e. for consumption and debt repayment, medical or marriage purposes, which are highly inelastic (Sarap, 1998). Land sale for investment purposes accounted for between 20 and 33 percent of all transactions for marginal, small and medium farmers, but for nearly half of the land sale transactions of large farmers<sup>30</sup> . The investment expenditure of the former group was found to represent a form of distress diversification into low productivity, non-farm enterprises<sup>31</sup> which required small amounts of working capital. The large farmers, on the other hand, invested the proceeds from the sale of land in purchase of commercial vehicles, building construction, financing higher education, and finding jobs for their children.

The research also showed that large farmers:

- purchased a larger area of land per transaction compared with other size classes of farmers, suggesting that they enjoyed more ready access to credit;

- often purchased productive land in the village, or plots situated near their present landholdings; and * purchased land from everyone - from other large farmers as well as from medium, small and marginal farmers.

Swain (1998) reported similar findings on the operation of the land market from a comparative study of an agriculturally advanced and irrigated village in Cuttack district and an agriculturally backward village in Dhenkanal district. All land transactions bar one in the advanced village were for distress purposes: consumption, marriage, loan repayment, replacement of dead bullocks, and funerals. One farmer sold off his unirrigated holding to buy an irrigated plot. In the agriculturally backward village, two out of every three land sale transactions were for meeting the expense of a daughter's wedding.

These findings suggest that the land market is underdeveloped and sluggish across different parts of Orissa. It is mostly driven by distress sales, as farmers are unwilling to part with their plots of land under normal conditions. And, it is the large farmers who are the dominant players in the land market, buying productive and better located lands and consolidating their holdings.

Discussion in this section suggests a general 'Principle of Joint Requirements' (Lipton, 1998: 4), if access to land for the rural poor is to be enhanced through the market. It seems that lowering the costs of transacting in the land sale market alone may be unable to induce land sales, unless several requirements are met jointly. The total rate payable for stamp duty and registration fees must be reduced. Land records and the registration system need urgently to be computerised and the two systems integrated. The revenue inspector's workload requires a measure of rationalisation. But these steps will have to be accompanied by a number of additional measures. Imperfections in the credit market need to be removed. Non-farm employment and investment opportunities need to be increased. And there will also have to be improved access to education, health and skill formation, if reduced transaction costs are to facilitate land sales and lead to improved access to land by the rural poor.

As first steps, GOO should focus on rationalising rate of stamp duty, coordinating the computerisation of land records and registration, and rationalising revenue inspectors' workload. These may not immediately encourage new sellers to enter the land market, but at least the existing transactors would be spared considerable hardship and harassment.

30 Marginal: less than I acre, Small: I -2.5 acres, Medium: 2.51 - 5 acres, and Large: above 5 acres.

31 E.g. small vegetable shops (in a portion of the house), paddy husking, or spices and vegetable marketing.

41