The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Land Reform in Developing Countries: Property Rights and Property Wrongs
Abstract
Land reforms are laws that are intended, and likely, to cut poverty by raising the poor’s share of land rights. That raises questions about property rights as old as moral philosophy, and issues of efficiency and fairness that dominate policy from Bolivia to Nepal. Classic reforms directly transfer land from rich to poor. However, much else has been marketed as land reform: the restriction of tenancy, but also its de-restriction; collectivisation, but also de-collectivisation; land consolidation, but also land division. In 1955-2000, genuine land reform affected over a billion people, and almost as many hectares. Is land reform still alive, for example in Bolivia, South Africa and Nepal? Or is it dead and, if so, is this because it has succeeded, or because it has failed? There has been massive research on land reform and this book builds on some surprising findings. Small farms’ share in land is rising in most of Asia and Africa. This is not driven (as widely claimed) by growth in rural population or farm productivity, but by the relative efficiency of small farms, and in some cases by land reform. Whether land reform helps the poor depends not only on land transfers, but at least as much on its effects through employment, non-farm activity, GDP growth and distribution, as well as the village status and power of the poor. Avoidance, evasion and even distortion of land reform laws sometimes advance their main aims. Liberalisation and its accompaniments (such as supermarkets) can be powerful friends or fatal foes of small farms and land reform. This book will be of great interest to students, researchers and consultants working on agriculture, farm organisation, rural development and poverty reduction, with special emphasis on developing countries.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Various scholars have noted that the misgivings that prevail about small-scale farming influence land (reform) policies in many countries (Hughes, 2006;Scott, 1998), despite growing evidence of small holder productivity (Lipton, 2009).”
From Land Reform in Southern Africa: Myths, Visions and the Harsh Realities of Development and Justice: Review Essay: Land Reform in Southern Africa (2011) · cites this paper as Lipton, 2009
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals
White, B., Borras Jr., S. M., Hall, R., Scoones, I., & Wolford, W. (2012) · The Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.691879 · Cited by 913
“…rural bias debate between Byres and Lipton (Kay 2009, 109-115) and which intersect with more specific arguments on the so-called ‘inverse relationship’ between farm size and productivity (see also Byres 2004, Bernstein 2010, Griffin et al 2002, Lipton 2009, Hazell et al. 2010, Wiggins et al. 2010).”
BackgroundAnderson, C. R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M. J., Kiss, C., & Pimbert, M. P. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11195272 · Cited by 375
Africa's changing farm size distribution patterns: the rise of medium‐scale farms
Jayne, T. S., Chamberlin, J., Traub, L., Sitko, N. J., Muyanga, M. C., Yeboah, F. K., Anseeuw, W., Chapoto, A., Wineman, A., Nkonde, C., et al. (2016) · Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/agec.12308 · Cited by 382
“…Asia and most other agricultural growth successes have occurred with steadily rising absolute numbers of rural and agricultural populations for extended periods of time, with Asia’s rural population only having begun to decline very recently (Bezemer and Hazell, 2006; Lipton, 2009, p. 100).”
BackgroundInfluentialChallenges posed by the new wave of farmland investment
Deininger, K. (2011) · The Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.559007 · Cited by 303
“Unless they are disadvantaged by policy distortions in favor of large farms (Binswanger et al. 1995b), they will produce more efficiently than wage labor-based operations, which need to spend resources supervising workers (Allen and Lueck 1998, Binswanger and Deininger 1997, Lipton 2009).”
BackgroundHall, R., Scoones, I., & Tsikata, D. (2017) · The Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1263187 · Cited by 260
“Debates continue about the relative merits of large and small farms, their implications for labour absorption, rural livelihoods and growth in Africa’s farm sector (Lipton 2009; World Bank 2008; Collier and Dercon 2014; cf. Deininger and Byerlee 2011; Baglioni and Gibbon 2013).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Lipton, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Sussex (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Lipton, Michael
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2009-06-24
- OpenAlex
- W2798728184
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 10.50
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Development › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Keywords
- land reform, property rights, land redistribution, smallholder farming, poverty reduction, rural development, land tenure, land consolidation, land division, collectivization, rural employment, off-farm activities, developing countries
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review