¹ For an elaboration of this argument, see Kuznets, Simon, ‘Economic Growth and the Contribution of Agriculture: Notes on the Measurement’, International Journal of Agrarian Affairs, III (April 1961), 56–75. It is interesting to note that increased mechanization of agriculture is not the only cause of rural unemployment—the new ‘miracle’ strains of rice and wheat have also contributed to agricultural worker hardships in countries such as Pakistan. However, industrial growth has not been sufficient to absorb these jobless individuals.Google Scholar

² Barlowe, Raleigh, ‘Land Reform and Economic Development’, Journal of Farm Economics, 35 (May 1953), 176–9.Google Scholar

³ The goals of readjustment may be a mixture of economic reasoning—to maximize agricultural production and raise farm incomes—and social justice requirements—to eliminate or minimize economic, political, and social inequalities that prevail as a result of a grossly unequal distribution of land.

⁴ Programs designed to achieve this goal include: mechanization or intensification; credit facilities development; water resources development, ‘infrastructure works’—market-to-farm roads, marketing facilities improvements, price stabilization or guarantees, etc.; technical assistance via improved fertilizers and seeds; in short, those programs which contribute to improved production but have nothing to do with altering the prevailing land tenure arrangements.

⁵ Chang, P. K., Agriculture and Industialization (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Parsons, K. H., Penn, R. J. and Raup, P. M., eds., Land Tenure (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956).Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., p. 12, our emphasis.

⁸ Ibid., p. 20.

⁹ Ibid., p. 20.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 46.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 45.

¹² Ibid., pp. 45–6.

¹³ Barlowe, , op. clt., p. 176.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 176, 180.

¹⁶ Warriner, Doreen, Land Reform and Economic Development (Cairo: National Bank of Egypt, 1955)Google Scholar, and Land Reform and Development in the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1962).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Warriner, , Land Reform and Economic Development, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 18, Warriner's emphasis.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 20.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 21.

²¹ Ibid., p. 30.

²² Barlowe, , op. cit., p. 187, our emphasis.Google Scholar

²³ Sayigh, Yusif A., ‘The Place of Agriculture in Economic Development’, Land Economics, 35 (November 1959), 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Aziz, Ungku A., ‘The Interdependent Development of Agriculture and Other Industries‘, Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 3 (July 1959), 313.Google Scholar

²⁵ Eleventh International Conference of Agricultural Economists (Discussion Group Reports), Cuernavaca, Mexico, August 1961Google Scholar in International Journal of Agrarian Affairs, VIII (September 1962), 139.Google Scholar

²⁶ Alexander, Robert, ‘Nature and Progress of Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, Journal of Economic History, 23 (December 1963), 561CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, Foreign Affairs, 41 (October 1962), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Alexander, , ‘Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, op. cit., p. 203.Google Scholar

²⁸ Horowitz, Irving, Three Worlds of Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 207.Google Scholar

²⁹ Rezsohazy, Rudolph, ‘Events and Trends: Economic, Social and Political Problems in Latin America’, World Justice, 4 (September 1962), 77.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., pp. 79 ff.

³¹ Balogh, T., ‘Agriculture and Economic Development’, Oxford Economic Papers, 13 (February 1961), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Galbraith, John Kenneth, Economic Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Alpert, Paul, Economic Development (London: Collier-MacMillan Ltd., 1963).Google Scholar

³⁴ Chester Hunter, Social Aspects of Development (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966).

³⁵ Currie, Lauchlin, Accelerating Development: The Necessity and the Means (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966).Google Scholar

³⁶ Horowitz, , op. cit., p. 202.Google Scholar

³⁷ Barlowe, , op. cit.Google Scholar

³⁸ Warriner, , Land Reform and Economic Development.Google Scholar

³⁹ Barlowe, , op. cit., pp. 180–2, our emphasis.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 182, our emphasis.

⁴¹ Ibid., pp. 182–3.

⁴² Warriner, , Land Reform and Economic Development, p. 31.Google Scholar The increased humanity theme with regard to peasant-based movements is supported by Wolf's, Eric R. recent study, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1969): ‘ … The peasant's role is thus essentially tragic: his efforts to undo a grievous present only usher in a vaster, more uncertain future. Yet if it is tragic, it is also full o f hope. For the first time in millennia, human kind is moving toward a solution of the age-old problem of hunger and disease, and everywhere ancient monopolies of power and received wisdom are yielding to human effort to widen participation and knowledge. In such efforts … there lies the prospect for increased life, for increased humanity. If the peasant rebels partake o f tragedy, they also partake o f hope, and to that extent theirs is the party of humanity … ’ (pp. 301 and 302).Google Scholar

⁴³ Rezsohazy, , op. cit., pp. 78–79.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The seventeen works are: Warriner, Doreen, Land Reform and Development in the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1962)Google Scholar; Alexander, Robert, ‘Nature and Progress of Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, Journal of Economic History, 23 (December 1963), 559–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, Foreign Affairs, 41 (October 1962), 191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horowitz, Irving, Three Worlds of Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Froehlich, Walter, ed., Tenure, Land, Industrialization and Social Stability (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; Contsourmaris, George, ‘Policy Objectives in Latin American Land Reform with Special References to Venezuela’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 16 (Autumn 1962), 25–40Google Scholar; Duff, Ernest A., ‘Agrarian Reform in Columbia: Problems of Social Reform’, Journal of Inter-American Studies, 8 (January 1966), 75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feder, Ernest, ‘When is Land Reform a Land Reform?: The Columbian Case’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 24 (April 1965), 113–34Google Scholar; Hildebrand, John, ‘Latin American Economic Development, Land Reform and U.S. Aid, with Special Reference to Guatemala’, Journal of Inter-American Studies, 4 (July 1962), 351–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, Alvin, ‘Social Structure, Agrarian Reform and Economic Development in Peru’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 18 (Summer 1964), 45–59Google Scholar; Tuma, Elias, ‘Agrarian Reform in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Study’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6 (October 1963), 47–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Tuma, Elias, Twenty-six Centuries of Agrarian Reform (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Young-Chi, Tsui, ‘Land Use Improvement: A Key to the Economic Development ofTaiwan’, Journal of Farm Economics, 44 (August 1962), 363–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bandyopadhyay, and Ghosh, ‘Role of Agrarian Reform in Agricultural Development in Mexico, Taiwan and India-A Comparative Study’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 22 (January 1967), 37–48Google Scholar; Klein, Sidney, ‘Land Problems and Economic Growth in India and China’, Malayan Economic Review, 5 (October 1960), 66–80Google Scholar; Saco, Alfredo, ‘Land Reform as an Instrument of Change with Special Reference to Latin America’, FAO Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, 13 (December 1964), 1–9Google Scholar; Felix, D., ‘Agrarian Reform and Industrial Growth’, International Development Review, 2 (October 1960), 16–22.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Warriner, , Land Reform and Economic Development in the Middle East, p. 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., pp. 3–6.

⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 32.

⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 32–6.

⁴⁹ Ibid., pp. 37–8.

⁵⁰ Ibid., p. 39.

⁵¹ Ibid., p. 40.

⁵² Ibid., pp. 184–90.

⁵³ Froehlich, Walter, ed., Land Tenure Industrialization and Social Stability (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Marburg, Theodore, ‘Land Tenure Institutions and the Development of Western Society’, in Froehlich, op. cit., p. 75.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Hoselitz, Bert, ‘Land Reform, Industrialization and Economic Development in Asia’, in Froehlich, op. cit., p. 113.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cook, Hugh, ‘Land Reform and Development in the Philippines’, in Froehlich, op. cit., pp. 168–80.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Krishna, Rau, ‘Some Aspects of Land Reform and Economic Development in India’, in Froehlich, op. cit., pp. 214–56. Perhaps a ‘redistribution of scarcity’ rather than wealth would more precisely describe the Indian situation.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Bredo, William, ‘Land Reform and Development in Pakistan’, in Froehlich, op. cit., pp. 260–72.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Contsourmaris, George, ‘Policy Objectives in Latin American Land Reform with Special References to Venezuela’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 16 (Autumn 1962), 38.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., pp. 38–;40.

⁶¹ Horowitz, , op. cit., pp. 205 and 203–4.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid., pp. 205–6.

⁶³ Duff, Ernest A., ‘Agrarian Reform in Colombia: Problems of Social Reform’, Journal of Inter-American Studies, 8 (January 1966), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁴ Feder, Ernest, ‘When is Land Reform a Land Reform?: The Colombian Case’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 24 (April 1965), 113–34.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Hildebrand, John, ‘Latin American Economic Development, Land Reform and U.S. Aid, with Special Reference to Guatemala’, Journal of Inter-American Studies, 4 (July 1962), 351–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Cohen, Alvin, ‘Social Structure, Agrarian Reform and Economic Development in Peru’, Inter-American Economic Affairs, 18 (Summer 1964), 46.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid., pp. 53–9.

⁶⁸ Ibid., pp. 46–7.

⁶⁹ Tuma, Elias, ‘Agrarian Reform in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Study’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6 (October 1963), 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Tuma, Elias, Twentysix Centuries of Agrarian Reform (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Tuma, , ‘Agrarian Reform in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Study’, op. cit., 50.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid., 72–3.

⁷² Ibid., 73.

⁷³ Ibid.

⁷⁴ Young-Chi, Tsui, ‘Land Use Improvement: A Key to the Economic Development of Taiwan’, Journal of Farm Economics, 44 (August 1962), 363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid., pp. 365–71.

⁷⁶ Bandyopadhyay, and Ghosh, , ‘Role of Agrarian Reform in Agricultural Development in Mexico, Taiwan and India-A Comparative Study’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 22 (January 1967), 46–7, 48.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 47.

⁷⁸ Klein, Sidney, ‘Land Problems and Economic Growth in India and China’, Malayan Economic Review, 5 (October 1960), 77.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Saco, Alfredo, ‘Land Reform as an Instrument of Change with Special Reference to Latin America’, FAO Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, 13 (December 1964), 1–9.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Felix, D., ‘Agrarian Reform and Industrial Growth’, International Development Review, 2 (October 1960), 16–22.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Bandyopadhyay, and Ghosh, , op. cit.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid., p. 43.

⁸³ Felix, , op. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Saco, , op. cit., p. 4.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid.

⁸⁶ Ibid., p. 7.

⁸⁷ Ibid., pp. 8–9. Alexander's, ‘Agrarian Reform in Latin America’, op. cit., briefly summarizes the Mexican, Bolivian, Guatemalan, and Cuban reforms and seems to concur wholly with the above.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Some work along these lines is beginning to emerge. Our study (Petras, and LaPorte, , Cultivating Revolution: The U.S. and Agrarian Reform in Latin America, N.Y.: Random House, 1971) attempts this with regard to Chile, Cuba, and Peru. The Inter-American Committee for Agricultural Development (CIDA) in cooperation with the International Labour Office (ILO) under the direction of Gerrit Huizer has recently compiled a ‘Report on the Study of the Role of Peasant Organizations in the Process of Agrarian Reform in Latin America’ (June 1969), which also indirectly examines cause and effect relationships vis-a-vis agrarian reform. Still a third example is the study by Eric R. Wolf cited above which relates, through a variant of the case study technique, the importance of land access and tenure issue to peasant participation in the revolutions of Mexico, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Algeria, and Cuba.Google Scholar