IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/phs/prejrn/v56y2019i1and2p80-126.html

The case against the case for land reform: transaction costs and misplaced exogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Karl L. Jandoc

    (University of the Philippines)

  • James A. Roumasset

    (University of Hawaii)

Abstract

The paper reviews the pros and cons of land reform with particular attention to the Philippines. We find a repeated theme in supporting arguments for land-to-the-tiller reform and the outlawing of share tenancy: that land reform will improve efficiency by lowering transaction costs. We show that this is logically incorrect and fails to draw appropriate lessons from the evidence. More generally, the arguments for land reform suffer from misplaced exogeneity, in particular by implicitly regarding farm size and organizational form as exogenous.

Suggested Citation

  • Karl L. Jandoc & James A. Roumasset, 2019. "The case against the case for land reform: transaction costs and misplaced exogeneity," Philippine Review of Economics, University of the Philippines School of Economics and Philippine Economic Society, vol. 56(1 and 2), pages 80-126, June and .
    • Handle: RePEc:phs:prejrn:v:56:y:2019:i:1and2:p:80-126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pre.econ.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pre/article/view/981/879
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Janvry, Alain & Fafchamps, M. & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1991. "Peasant Household Behavior with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explain," CUDARE Working Papers 198579, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    3. Roumasset, James, 2008. "A new institutional approach to pro-poor agricultural development: Lessons from Asia," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5-6), pages 378-388.
    4. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2022. "Are There Too Many Farms in the World? Labor Market Transaction Costs, Machine Capacities, and Optimal Farm Size," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(3), pages 636-680.
    5. Klaus Deininger, 2003. "Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15125, April.
    6. Deininger, Klaus & Squire, Lyn, 1998. "New ways of looking at old issues: inequality and growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 259-287.
    7. James Roumasset & Marilou Uy, 1987. "Agency Costs and the Agricultural Firm," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(3), pages 290-302.
    8. Eswaran, Mukesh & Kotwal, Ashok, 1986. "Access to Capital and Agrarian Production Organisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(382), pages 482-498, June.
    9. Katsumi Nozawa, 2016. "Banana production and cooperatives in the Philippines: a structure for self-reliance of farmer growers under agrarian reform," Philippine Review of Economics, University of the Philippines School of Economics and Philippine Economic Society, vol. 53(2), pages 119-146, December.
    10. Eswaran, Mukesh & Kotwal, Ashok, 1985. "A Theory of Contractual Structure in Agriculture," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 352-367, June.
    11. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1983. "An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 7-45, January.
    12. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2020. "Land Reform and Productivity: A Quantitative Analysis with Micro Data," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 1-39, July.
    13. Binswanger, Hans P. & Deininger, Klaus & Feder, Gershon, 1995. "Power, distortions, revolt and reform in agricultural land relations," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 42, pages 2659-2772, Elsevier.
    14. Avinash K. Dixit, 1998. "The Making of Economic Policy: A Transaction Cost Politics Perspective," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262540983, December.
    15. de Janvry, Alain & Fafchamps, Marcel & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1991. "Peasant Household Behaviour with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explained," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(409), pages 1400-1417, November.
    16. Feder, Gershon, 1985. "The relation between farm size and farm productivity : The role of family labor, supervision and credit constraints," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2-3), pages 297-313, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roumasset, James A., 2024. "The Microeconomics of Agricultural Development: Risk, Institutions, and Agricultural Policy," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 21(AJAD 20th), October.

    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. Boucher, Stephen R. & Barham, Bradford L. & Carter, Michael R., 2005. "The Impact of "Market-Friendly" Reforms on Credit and Land Markets in Honduras and Nicaragua," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-128, January.
    2. Carter, Michael R. & Zimmerman, Frederick J., 2000. "The dynamic cost and persistence of asset inequality in an agrarian economy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 265-302, December.
    3. James Roumasset, 2006. "The Economics of Agricultural Development: What Have We Learned? Processes," Working Papers 200604, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    4. Barrett, Christopher B., 1996. "On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, December.
    5. Carter, Michael R. & Zimmerman, Frederic, 1998. "The Dynamic Cost And Persistence Of Asset Inequality In An Agrarian Economy," Staff Papers 12644, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    6. Roumasset, James A., 2006. "The Economics of Agricultural Development: What Have We Learned?," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25598, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Fumagalli, Laura & Martin, Thomas, 2023. "Child labor among farm households in Mozambique and the role of reciprocal adult labor," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    8. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Taylor, Matthew P.H. & Helfand, Steven M., 2021. "The Farm Size – Productivity Relationship in the Wake of Market Reform: An Analysis of Mexican Family Farms," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315138, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Conning, Jonathan & Udry, Christopher, 2007. "Rural Financial Markets in Developing Countries," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 56, pages 2857-2908, Elsevier.
    11. Omotilewa, Oluwatoba J. & Jayne, T.S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo B. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus, 2021. "A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    12. C. S. C. Sekhar & Namrata Thapa, 2023. "Rural market imperfections in India: Revisiting old debates with new evidence," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(5), September.
    13. Guilherme Berse Rodrigues Lambais & Marcelo Marques De Magalhães & José Maria Ferreira Jardim Da Silveira, 2014. "Land Reform And Technical Efficiency: Panel Data Evidence From Northeastern Brazil," Anais do XL Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 40th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 200, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    14. World Bank, 2007. "India - Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction," World Bank Publications - Reports 7818, The World Bank Group.
    15. repec:eee:labchp:v:3:y:1999:i:pb:p:2859-2939 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Roumasset, James, 2004. "Rural Institutions, Agricultural Development, and Pro-Poor Economic Growth," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 1(01), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Deininger, Klaus & Binswanger, Hans, 1999. "The Evolution of the World Bank's Land Policy: Principles, Experience, and Future Challenges," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 14(2), pages 247-276, August.
    18. Eric C. Edwards & Martin Fiszbein & Gary D. Libecap, 2022. "Property Rights to Land and Agricultural Organization: An Argentina–United States Comparison," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(S1), pages 1-33.
    19. Kopper, Sarah A., "undated". "Agricultural labor markets and fertilizer demand: Intensification is not a single factor problem for non-separable households," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274184, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne, 2021. "Factor Market Activity and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Tanzania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(3), pages 443-464, March.
    21. Conning, Jonathan H. & Robinson, James A., 2007. "Property rights and the political organization of agriculture," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 416-447, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations

    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:phs:prejrn:v:56:y:2019:i:1and2:p:80-126. 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: HR Rabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seupdph.html .

    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.