Is Nominal Public but de Facto Private Land Ownership Appropriate? A Comparative Study among Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam; Japan; Taiwan Provice of China; South Korea; China; Myanmar; and North Korea
In the transition from the centrally planned economy to a market-oriented rural development, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam established a nominal state - but de facto private - land ownership. As a result, both new landlessness and inefficient land-holding immediately appeared. How to prevent these problems while still achieving market-oriented rural development? The Chinese model - a third way between the centrally planned economy and free market system - provides a useful example, which may be relevant not only to these three countries as well as Myanmar and North Korea, but also to many other economies.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||1998|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.eui.eu/ECO/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eui:euiwps:eco98/12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Rhoda Lane)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.