IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eip/journl/y2021i1p49-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Egalitarian And Market Land Reforms In The Context Of Basic Human Rights And Public Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • O. Borodina

Abstract

Based on the generalization and analysis of modern scientific and applied approaches and real results of land transformations in the last century in transition economies, the article reveals the essence of the nature of market and egalitarian land reforms, as well as their goals and general economic results. Egalitarian reform has as its main priority a rapid reduction of rural poverty and development of the new landowners’ skills to build their potential for its implementation in the general societal context. Market-oriented land reform aims at economic efficiency of the market based allocation of resources to ensure the growth of export-oriented agricultural production. Egalitarian land reform focuses on human and the realization of his or her basic rights, while market land reform focuses on the economy. Empirical data on land reforms in China show that their egalitarian nature was based on the creation of a society with equal opportunities of its members in the management of and access to land resources and material benefits obtained from them, and on ensuring a wide spread of the benefits from rural growth in society as a whole. Currently, China is the only country in the world that progressed from a "country of low human development" in 1990 to a "country of high human development" in 2018. The author proves that the purpose of land reform cannot be primitivized to a simple division of land into plots for transfer to private ownership based on free market turnover. Guaranteeing basic human rights and achieving public welfare from a land reform are achieved not only via obtaining land in private ownership, but also via supporting these acts with a fair distribution of control over the production process. Imposing on society a pseudo-scientific concept that land is a commodity that, like an apartment, mobile phone or bag of feed, can be freely bought and sold on market at open auctions, which will consolidate the country's economic power would inevitably lead to even greater income polarization, violation of basic human rights and, consequently, to social confrontations and significant social upheavals.

Suggested Citation

  • O. Borodina, 2021. "Egalitarian And Market Land Reforms In The Context Of Basic Human Rights And Public Welfare," Economy and Forecasting, Valeriy Heyets, issue 1, pages 49-70.
  • Handle: RePEc:eip:journl:y:2021:i:1:p:49-70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eip.org.ua/docs/EP_21_1_49_uk.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fan, Shenggen & Zhang, Linxiu & Zhang, Xiaobo, 2002. "Growth, inequality, and poverty in rural China: the role of public investments," Research reports 125, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Ravallion, Martin, 2009. "Are There Lessons for Africa from China's Success Against Poverty?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 303-313, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bianca AVRAM POP & Simona SABOU, 2018. "The Role Of Agriculture In Romanian Development," Business Excellence and Management, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 8(1), pages 5-18, March.
    2. Zhang, Yingqiang & Eriksson, Tor, 2010. "Inequality of opportunity and income inequality in nine Chinese provinces, 1989-2006," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 607-616, December.
    3. McNamara, Paul E. & Ulimwengu, John M. & Leonard, Kenneth L., 2010. "Do health investments improve agricultural productivity? Lessons from agricultural household and health research," IFPRI discussion papers 1012, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Bharadwaj, Prashant & Fenske, James & Kala, Namrata & Mirza, Rinchan Ali, 2020. "The Green revolution and infant mortality in India," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    5. Rahman, Aminur, 2014. "Investment climate reforms and job creation in developing countries : what do we know and what should we do ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7025, The World Bank.
    6. Manfred Wiebelt & Rainer Schweickert & Clemens Breisinger & Marcus Böhme, 2011. "Oil revenues for public investment in Africa: targeting urban or rural areas?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 147(4), pages 745-770, November.
    7. Dillon, Andrew & Sharma, Manohar & Zhang, Xiaobo, 2011. "Estimating the impact of rural investments in Nepal," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 250-258, April.
    8. GOH, Chor-ching & LUO, Xubei & ZHU, Nong, 2009. "Income growth, inequality and poverty reduction: A case study of eight provinces in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 485-496, September.
    9. Anderson, Kym & Huang, Jikun & Ianchovichina, Elena, 2004. "Will China's WTO accession worsen farm household incomes?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 443-456.
    10. Fisayo Fagbemi & Babafemi Oladejo & Opeoluwa A. Adeosun, 2020. "The Effectiveness of Poverty Alleviation Policy: Why is the Quality of Institutions the Bane in Nigeria?," Working Papers of the African Governance and Development Institute. 20/099, African Governance and Development Institute..
    11. WANG, Zuxiang & SMYTH, Russell & NG, Yew-Kwang, 2009. "A new ordered family of Lorenz curves with an application to measuring income inequality and poverty in rural China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 218-235, June.
    12. Fisayo Fagbemi & Babafemi Oladejo & Opeoluwa A. Adeosun, 2020. "The Effectiveness of Poverty Alleviation Policy: Why is the Quality of Institutions the Bane in Nigeria?," Research Africa Network Working Papers 20/099, Research Africa Network (RAN).
    13. Shenggen Fan & Connie Chan‐Kang & Keming Qian & K. Krishnaiah, 2005. "National and international agricultural research and rural poverty: the case of rice research in India and China," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 369-379, November.
    14. Julie A. Silva, 2013. "Rural Income Inequality in Mozambique: National Dynamics and Local Experiences?," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 43(1), pages 23-50, Summer.
    15. Allen, Summer L. & Badiane, Ousmane & Ulimwengu, John M., 2012. "Government expenditures, social outcomes, and marginal productivity of agricultural inputs: a case study for Tanzania," IFPRI discussion papers 1172, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Bhattacharya, Rudrani & Sen Gupta, Abhijit & Sikdar, Satadru, 2020. "Building Infrastructure to Promote Inclusive Growth," Working Papers 20/321, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
    17. Denis Nitikin & Heng-fu Zou, 2006. "Social Safety Nets in China," CEMA Working Papers 566, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    18. Romanus Osabohien & Oluwatoyin Matthew & Precious Ohalete & Evans Osabuohien, 2020. "Population–Poverty–Inequality Nexus and Social Protection in Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 575-598, September.
    19. Hazell, Peter & Fan, Shenggen, 2003. "Agricultural growth, poverty reduction and agro-ecological zones in India: an ecological fallacy?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 433-436.
    20. Brosig, Stephan & Glauben, Thomas & Herzfeld, Thomas & Rozelle, Scott & Wang, Xiaobing, 2007. "The dynamics of Chinese rural households' participation in labor markets," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 37(2-3), pages 167-178.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eip:journl:y:2021:i:1:p:49-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Iryna Bazhal (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://eip.org.ua/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.