3 ms·

I'd be interested in some examples of land reform done right. Most examples I'm aware of were disasters (Venezuela, for example.) One thing to keep in consider

by astine 9y ago

I'd be interested in some examples of land reform done right. Most examples I'm aware of were disasters (Venezuela, for example.) One thing to keep in consideration about the South African situation is that land reform in South Africa is not new; it's written into the constitution. What's new is that South Africa is dropping the requirement to recompense the owners. This could be a problem, not just for the white South Africans but for black South Africans as well as it could drive the middle and upper class out of the country.

rz2k 9y ago
Generally speaking real estate law probably is not constant anywhere over any significant period of time. Even without a revolution, looking just at the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in England[1], it is possible to see how small details were nation-altering in terms of both economic and political[2] power. England is an easy place to start because the common language leads to an extensive Wikipedia article, but you'd find similar ones for any European country in their own language, especially since most experienced the upheaval of revolutions, conquests or occupations. The US had common trends but different details for each state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_land_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_land_law [2] Failure to redraw maps had meant that sometimes one landowner was the constituency behind a seat in the commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832
- astine 9y ago
  I don't think that changes it real estate law are same thing as 'land reform'. The latter usually refers to some sort of overt redistribution, which is what I was talking about. I'd agree that events like the enclosure of common land had profound impact, but that's generally over time.
  - rz2k 9y ago
    Isn't "land reform" just a euphemism though? Whereas there is an intrinsic value to stable property laws, there is always a competing trend toward changing the rules of ownership after the fact, in order to optimize for a specific outcome. For example, abolishing serfdom made your land less valuable if there were no longer people that belonged to it. Or, confiscating monasteries and abbeys, then gifting them to favored nobles is a form of land reform. Similarly creating the conditions that the large manors dissolved later is another form of land reform. In California, you can look at the title histories that trace back to large ranchos from the Mexican period and before, and look at how ownership changed hands. Most owners were legally entitled to retain ownership, but any number of tricks were used to get them to lose their claims. The same goes for changes in ownership of water rights, mineral rights, air rights, or new limitations on what types of commercial activity are permitted. The measures can be beneficial or not, but it seems extremely common for changes in public policy to alter property rights.
dangravell 9y ago
> I'd be interested in some examples of land reform done right. Kerala.
- sn41 9y ago
  Surprising that this came up. I am a Keralite myself. Is the Kerala land reform well-known?
fsloth 9y ago
This article contains a bunch: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country The dearest to me, however, is what was done in my native country, Finland, in the 17th and at the turn of 19th and 20th centuries which created the basis for our current national wealth. To simplify a bit too much: a succesfull land reform looks like splitting the ownership of land which produces agricultural output or timber from few large owners to many dedicated ones. This distributes the revenue from capital among the population using a " market healthy" method. Rather than spread the revenue from the capital, spread the capital itself. This is a solid foundatuon for creating a wealthy middle class - which has been identified as one of the key parts of a healthy modern economy. Zimbabwe just took the land from it current owners - which were already spread among a fairly large population - to complete people who could not tend it as well, and not utilize the capital as effectively.

by astine 9y ago

rz2k 9y ago

Generally speaking real estate law probably is not constant anywhere over any significant period of time. Even without a revolution, looking just at the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in England[1], it is possible to see how small details were nation-altering in terms of both economic and political[2] power. England is an easy place to start because the common language leads to an extensive Wikipedia article, but you'd find similar ones for any European country in their own language, especially since most experienced the upheaval of revolutions, conquests or occupations. The US had common trends but different details for each state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_land_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_land_law [2] Failure to redraw maps had meant that sometimes one landowner was the constituency behind a seat in the commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

astine 9y ago
I don't think that changes it real estate law are same thing as 'land reform'. The latter usually refers to some sort of overt redistribution, which is what I was talking about. I'd agree that events like the enclosure of common land had profound impact, but that's generally over time.
- rz2k 9y ago
  Isn't "land reform" just a euphemism though? Whereas there is an intrinsic value to stable property laws, there is always a competing trend toward changing the rules of ownership after the fact, in order to optimize for a specific outcome. For example, abolishing serfdom made your land less valuable if there were no longer people that belonged to it. Or, confiscating monasteries and abbeys, then gifting them to favored nobles is a form of land reform. Similarly creating the conditions that the large manors dissolved later is another form of land reform. In California, you can look at the title histories that trace back to large ranchos from the Mexican period and before, and look at how ownership changed hands. Most owners were legally entitled to retain ownership, but any number of tricks were used to get them to lose their claims. The same goes for changes in ownership of water rights, mineral rights, air rights, or new limitations on what types of commercial activity are permitted. The measures can be beneficial or not, but it seems extremely common for changes in public policy to alter property rights.

dangravell 9y ago

> I'd be interested in some examples of land reform done right. Kerala.

sn41 9y ago
Surprising that this came up. I am a Keralite myself. Is the Kerala land reform well-known?

fsloth 9y ago

This article contains a bunch: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country The dearest to me, however, is what was done in my native country, Finland, in the 17th and at the turn of 19th and 20th centuries which created the basis for our current national wealth. To simplify a bit too much: a succesfull land reform looks like splitting the ownership of land which produces agricultural output or timber from few large owners to many dedicated ones. This distributes the revenue from capital among the population using a " market healthy" method. Rather than spread the revenue from the capital, spread the capital itself. This is a solid foundatuon for creating a wealthy middle class - which has been identified as one of the key parts of a healthy modern economy. Zimbabwe just took the land from it current owners - which were already spread among a fairly large population - to complete people who could not tend it as well, and not utilize the capital as effectively.