IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/millen/v10y2019i3p272-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agrarian Reform and Democracy: Lessons from the Philippine Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Leonardo A. Lanzona Jr.

Abstract

Throughout the country’s history, agrarian reform in the Philippines has long been a combative issue and one that is often preceded by some form of instability and violence. Used mainly as a tool to garner grassroots support, agrarian reforms were formally institutionalized by setting up regulations on land size and contracts. Despite efforts to integrate the reforms to the markets, including the clustering of small hectares (ha) of land into large corporate estates, the benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program remained elusive under conservative demarcations set by regulations, including the definition of property rights, transformation or maintenance of state structures and the contract limitations to be formed at the production level. Land continues to be redistributed favorably to former landowner elites. This study finds that inequality in land ownership persists as the institutions set de facto political power to the elites. Under this condition, the equitable redistribution of land is an impossibility. The Philippine Agrarian Reform Programs have been hampered by high transaction costs and inadequate credible commitments, thus resulting in the erosion of market forces and elite capture of institutions. Based on agency theory, the existing regulation-based programme, which relies on the state’s power to expropriate, should give away to a more demand-driven, community-led Agrarian Reform Program that gives the parties more space to negotiate and bargain about the final allocation of the land. This involves the promulgation of relational contracts and the creation of more democratic institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonardo A. Lanzona Jr., 2019. "Agrarian Reform and Democracy: Lessons from the Philippine Experience," Millennial Asia, , vol. 10(3), pages 272-298, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:millen:v:10:y:2019:i:3:p:272-298
    DOI: 10.1177/0976399619879866
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0976399619879866
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0976399619879866?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David De La Croix & Clara Delavallade, 2011. "Democracy, Rule of Law, Corruption Incentives, and Growth," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(2), pages 155-187, April.
    2. Avner Greif, 2008. "Commitment, Coercion and Markets: The Nature and Dynamics of Institutions Supporting Exchange," Springer Books, in: Claude Ménard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, chapter 28, pages 727-786, Springer.
    3. Deininger, Klaus & Squire, Lyn, 1998. "New ways of looking at old issues: inequality and growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 259-287.
    4. Balisacan, Arsenio M, 1993. "Agricultural Growth, Landlessness, Off-farm Employment, and Rural Poverty in the Philippines," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(3), pages 533-562, April.
    5. Albertus, Michael & Diaz-Cayeros, Alberto & Magaloni, Beatriz & Weingast, Barry R., 2016. "Authoritarian Survival and Poverty Traps: Land Reform in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 154-170.
    6. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2020. "Land Reform and Productivity: A Quantitative Analysis with Micro Data," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 1-39, July.
    7. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    8. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2000. "Land Reform, Poverty Reduction, and Growth: Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(2), pages 389-430.
    9. Acemoglu,Daron & Robinson,James A., 2009. "Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671422, September.
    10. Marife M. Ballesteros & F. Bresciani, 2008. "Land Rental Market Activity in Agrarian Reform Areas : Evidence from the Philippines," Development Economics Working Papers 22614, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    11. de Janvry, Alain & Gordillo, Gustavo & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & Platteau, Jean-Philippe (ed.), 2001. "Access to Land, Rural Poverty, and Public Action," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199242177.
    12. Mr. Dietrich Vollrath & Mr. Lennart Erickson, 2007. "Land Distribution and Financial System Development," IMF Working Papers 2007/083, International Monetary Fund.
    13. Huffman, Wallace E & Just, Richard E, 2004. "Implications of Agency Theory for Optimal Land Tenure Contracts," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 617-642, April.
    14. North,Douglass C. & Wallis,John Joseph & Weingast,Barry R., 2013. "Violence and Social Orders," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107646995.
    15. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    16. Ola Kvaløy, 2007. "Asset Specificity and Vertical Integration," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(3), pages 551-572, September.
    17. Carter, Michael R, 1984. "Identification of the Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of Peasant Agricultural Production," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 131-145, March.
    18. Albertus,Michael, 2015. "Autocracy and Redistribution," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107106550, September.
    19. Cornia, Giovanni Andrea, 1985. "Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: An analysis for fifteen developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 513-534, April.
    20. repec:phd:pjdevt:pjd_2002_vol__xxix_no__2-c is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Reyes, Celia M., 2002. "Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty," Discussion Papers DP 2002-02, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    22. Andreas Assiotis & Kevin Sylwester, 2013. "Do the effects of corruption upon growth differ between democracies and autocracies?," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 06-2013, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    23. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 2002. "Relational Contracts and the Theory of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 39-84.
    24. Alchian, Armen A. & Demsetz, Harold, 1973. "The Property Right Paradigm," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 16-27, March.
    25. Claude Menard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), 2005. "Handbook of New Institutional Economics," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-0-387-25092-2, January.
    26. Demsetz, Harold, 1969. "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, April.
    27. Andreas Assiotis & Kevin Sylwester, 2014. "Do the Effects of Corruption upon Growth Differ Between Democracies and Autocracies?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 581-594, August.
    28. Albertus,Michael, 2015. "Autocracy and Redistribution," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107514300, September.
    29. Roberto Rigobon & Dani Rodrik, 2005. "Rule of law, democracy, openness, and income," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 13(3), pages 533-564, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bequet, Ludovic, 2021. "Agricultural productivity and land inequality. Evidence from the Philippines," MPRA Paper 108131, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Ludovic Bequet, 2022. "Agricultural productivity and land inequality. Evidence from the Philippines," DeFiPP Working Papers 2203, University of Namur, Development Finance and Public Policies.
    3. Azadi, Hossein & Vanhaute, Eric & Janečková, Kristina & Sklenička, Petr & Teklemariam, Dereje & Feng, Lei & Witlox, Frank, 2020. "Evolution of land distribution in the context of development theories," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Korkut Alp Erturk, 2019. "Elite Collective Agency and the State," Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Utah 2019_04, University of Utah, Department of Economics.
    2. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    3. Besley, Timothy & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2010. "Property Rights and Economic Development," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4525-4595, Elsevier.
    4. Alexis Rampa & Yiorgos Gadanakis & Gillian Rose, 2020. "Land Reform in the Era of Global Warming—Can Land Reforms Help Agriculture Be Climate-Smart?," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    5. Nina Boberg-Fazlic & Markus Lampe & Pablo Martinelli Lasheras & Paul Sharp, 2020. "Winners and Losers from Enclosure: Evidence from Danish Land Inequality 1682-1895," Working Papers 0178, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).
    6. Mike, Károly, 2016. "Merre vezessen a magyar kapitalizmus útja?. Látkép Ronald Coase világítótornyából [Which course for Hungary s capitalism?. A view from Ronald Coase s lighthouse]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 597-614.
    7. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2020. "Land Reform and Productivity: A Quantitative Analysis with Micro Data," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 1-39, July.
    8. Benson, Allison L., 2021. "From targeted private benefits to public goods: Land, distributive politics and changing political conditions in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    9. Vollrath, Dietrich, 2008. "Agrarian Structure and Endogenous Financial System Development," MPRA Paper 12430, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Bequet, Ludovic, 2021. "Agricultural productivity and land inequality. Evidence from the Philippines," MPRA Paper 108131, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. repec:cte:whrepe:32377 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jongwook Kim & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2002. "Resource-based and property rights perspectives on value creation: the case of oil field unitization," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4-5), pages 225-245.
    13. Drbohlav, P. & Svitálek, J. & Hejkrlík, J., 2017. "Socio-economic Assessment of the Philippine Agrarian Reform," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 9(2), June.
    14. Bhattacharya, Prasad S. & Mitra, Devashish & Ulubaşoğlu, Mehmet A., 2019. "The political economy of land reform enactments: New cross-national evidence (1900–2010)," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 50-68.
    15. Kim, Sung Min & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2006. "Collaborative Planning, Forecasting, and Replenishment (CPFR) as a Relational Contract: An Incomplete Contracting Perspective," Working Papers 06-0102, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    16. Juan David Torres, 2022. "Shaping inequality? Property rights, landed elites and public lands in Colombia," Documentos CEDE 20514, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    17. Ludovic Bequet, 2022. "Agricultural productivity and land inequality. Evidence from the Philippines," DeFiPP Working Papers 2203, University of Namur, Development Finance and Public Policies.
    18. Boberg-Fazlić, Nina & Lampe, Markus & Martinelli Lasheras, Pablo & Sharp, Paul, 2022. "Winners and losers from agrarian reform: Evidence from Danish land inequality 1682–1895," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Casaburi, Lorenzo & Caprettini, Bruno & Venturini, Miriam, 2021. "Redistribution, Voting and Clientelism: Evidence from the Italian Land Reform," CEPR Discussion Papers 15679, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Albertus, Michael & Diaz-Cayeros, Alberto & Magaloni, Beatriz & Weingast, Barry R., 2016. "Authoritarian Survival and Poverty Traps: Land Reform in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 154-170.
    21. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2011. "Pillars of Prosperity: The Political Economics of Development Clusters," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9624.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Market-led agrarian reform; democracy; transaction costs; agency theory; Philippines;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:millen:v:10:y:2019:i:3:p:272-298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.