new landowners to mortgage land while at the same time cutting off informal credit they had earlier obtained from the landlord (Guinnaune and Miller, 1997).7 Thirdly, transforming a large farm into a viable smaliholder enterprise requires a change in the pattern of production, subdivision of the farm, and construction of infrastructure. As the productivity advantage of land reform hinges on increased incentives by owner-operators and adoption of labor-intensive crops, attention to complementary investments and awareness by beneficiaries are critical. Generally beneficiaries, even if they are workers of the former farm, are not accustomed to making independent entrepreneurial decisions, implying that training and human capital formation is therefore an essential component of the land reform process. Realizing the productivity benefits from land reform requires to shift the focus from political to productivity- and poverty related objectives4<sup>8</sup> Due to these difficulties, and the fact that land reform was a highly politicized topic, many of the land reforms that have been undertaken since the 1960s have not achieved their stated objectives. Evidence on the longer-term impact of land reform on poverty and productivity is more limited than desirable.<sup>49</sup> However, in countries (e.g. Zimbabwe, Malawi, South Africa, Brazil, Colombia, and the Philippines, among others) that continue to be characterized by concentration underutilized tracts of land in large farms alongside with pervasive lack of land access for poor and landless, macro-economic reforms have altered the rules of the game. The fall in land prices associated with the loss of privileges that had historically been conferred on large farms them by discriminatory laws, trade protection, and credit subsidies might make it easier to utilize the market for a type of land redistribution aimed at increasing productivity and equity.

To this end, a number of countries (Brazil, Colombia, South Africa) are in the process of implementing a new model of "negotiated" land reform. Key elements of this approach are (i) an emphasis on sustainable poverty reduction through elaboration of integrated farm projects by the poor (which are then supported by a land purchase grant); (ii) decentralized execution and integration into development objectives at the local level with an overarching emphasis on beneficiary training and human capital formation; (iii) and private sector involvement in project development, financing, and implementation. Obviously, mere adoption of a "negotiated" mode is not immune against the shortcomings that have plagued earlier land reform

> 4 Severely restricted access to credit, together with insecure property rights have also led to widespread selling of land by former land reform beneficiaries in Nicaragua - often at prices way below the productive value of the land (Joakin 1996).

> _"K_ The effect of political motivation on beneficiary selection and the stop-and go cycle of land reform in response to political crises rather than opportunities for productivity increases and poverty reduction, and the difficulties of urban-basecdlites to design reform programs to suit small farmers are well documented (Barraclough 1970).Apolitical approach to land reformwould be consistent with the interpretation of land reform as a piecemeal strategy by the rich to avoid the imminent threat of revolt - with backtracking as soon as the threat weakensl [orowitz 1993).

> _"'_ One example for such economic analysis is the study by Scott et al (1976) for Kenya. While it illustrates that land reform can have a positive social rate of retum, it is based on data gathered in the immediate aftermath of the reforms after which data collection was discontinued.

34