de janvry, the role of land reform in economic development (1981)

(386, 388): land reforms create a reform sector, and a nonreform sector. most have sought their economic impact in the later, but the political payoff in the former.

(388): most common LRs have been (1) antifeudal reforms seeking to implant a capitalist elite, farmer class, or free peasantry, or (2) reforms seeking to dispossess a larger capitalist elite in favor of farmers or peasantry.

(388): they've typically required an economic incentive, aside from their political importance -- achieving thus both equity and efficiency gains

(389): the GR served as a surrogate to antifeudal reforms

(389): today (80s), a further set of LRs is clearly needed; but this is unlikely, for four reasons:

1. the political alliance is exceptional -- it is difficult to generate a coalition to oppose the landed elite, typically requires revolutionary pressures
2. the same alignment of equity and efficiency is not necessarily present (hmm); any drastic land reform implies short-term costs
3. countries have industrialized to serve foreign markets/luxury markets; not interested in building the domestic market
4. LRs are typically limited only to their political purpose--they will be as limited as possible while creating a supportive political minority

(390-392): four types of LRs

1. conservative: purely legitimizing purpose, the least that can be done to create a supportive minority
2. national bourgeois: LR seen as a way of expanding the domestic market for wage goods, disposessing feudals
3. populist: give the land to the peasants (premised on efficiency on sm. farms, which have zero social opp cost for labour)
4. radical: (not specified well, at all)