Editor's Notes
| Published date | 01 April 1963 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1099-162X.1963.tb00600.x |
| Date | 01 April 1963 |
LOCAL
JOURNAL
OF
ADMINISTRATION
OVERSEAS
Volume
II
.
Number
2 • April
1963
l?ditor's
)\(otes
AN
ARTICLE
on
land
reform in
Egypt
in this issue completes atrilogy on this
theme.IAt this
point
it
may
be timely to invite
the
reader's
attention
briefly
to some points of similarity
and
of
difference between
the
three countries as
described by
our
three
separate
contributors.
The
traditional
land
system in Egypt, as in
India
and
Japan,
contained
obstacles to economic development in
the
prevalence
of
monopoly in land-
ownership
and
the
keeping of the
rural
population
on a low level of income
and
status.
In
all three countries
land
reform has been carried
out
by expropri-
ating
land
from large estates, on
payment
of
compensation by the
State
acting
as
an
intermediary,
and
redistributing it to small-scale farmers
and
the landless.
These
reforms have
had
varying degrees of success,
but
the articles indicate
that
there
have been
many
common
problems, such as how to devise safeguards
to overcome
the
evasive tactics
of
landlords,
the
satisfactory enforcement
of
legislation
with
alimited supply of suitable officials, peasants ignorant of their
rights,
the
settlement
of
surplus
rural
population on new land or their absorp-
tion into industry,
and
the
provision of security
of
tenure
and
rent
control
for
the
residual mass
of
tenants otherwise unaffected by
the
reform.
The
article on
Japan
suggested
that
these problems have been
much
less
serious there,
and
a
greater
number
of
people have benefited in consequence.
Land
holdings which owners
may
keep for themselves have been fixed at a lower
ceiling (generally between 6
and
15acres)
than
in
Egypt
and
India.
The
primary
aim
has been the removal of social inequalities,
with
improved
production
as
aside-effect; redistribution has not
meant
achange in
the
pattern
of cultivation,
but
of ownership.
In
India,
the first aim has been increased efficiency
and
productivity,
and
the second the elimination of exploitation
and
injustice.
Egypt
started
with
land
reform as a social
and
political measure,
but
this, as
Dr.
Warriner
explains, has since evolved into an agricultural policy.
Theproblem
of
reconciling
the
objectives of a greater equality
of
distribution with increased
productivity is being
met
by the creation of supervised co-operative societies,
membership
of
which is obligatory for all recipients
of
land.
Thus
individual
ownership is secured
but
under
official
management
which ensures technical
1
Observations
onLand
Reform
Administration in
r.'gypt
by Dr. Doreen Warriner, p.
100.
See also
Land
Reform
in India by Dr.
Vera
Anstey, .l.L.A.O., Vol.
I,
No.2,
April 1962, p. 88;
and
The
Administration of the
Japanese
Land
Reform
by Mr. R. P. Dare, J.L.A.O., Vol.
I,
No. 4,
October
1962, p. 23 1.
59
To continue reading
Request your trial