Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:05:38.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Land Reform Versus Agricultural Reform: Turkish Miracle or Catastrophe Delayed?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Manoucher Parvin  and
Mukerrem Hic
Manoucher Parvin
Affiliation:
The University of Akron
Mukerrem Hic
Affiliation:
The University of Akron
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The change from an agriculturally based economy to one based primarily on industrial and services sectors requires a complex transformation in technology of productions, physical and human capital structure, social and political institutions, and cultural attitudes. Although broad similarities exist, no two countries have traced an identical path. One major economic and ideological concern in such a transformation is the fate of private property in general and land ownership in particular. Furthermore, the degree of redistribution of political power and material wealth of existing or emerging groups constitutes an important characteristic of the transformation itself. Thus, an important and interesting link in the chain of probable events is the occurrence or non-occurrence of land reform. The nature and degree of land reform, if it happens, or the variety of its substitutes, if it does not, provide vital clues to the specificity of the political economy of development.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , May 1984 , pp. 207 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 For a wide range of definitions of land reform, see Tai, Hung-Chao, Land Reform and Policies: A Comparative Analysis, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), p. 11.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., p. 12.

3 Russett, Bruce M., “Inequality and Instability: The Relation of Land Tenure to Politics,” World Politics, XVI. no. 3, 04 1964, p. 445.Google Scholar

4 Dorner, Peter, Land Reform and Economic Development (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 134.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., p. 135.

6 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Progress in Land Reform, Fourth Report (New York: 1966), p. 129.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., p. 158.

8 Dorner, Land Reform, p. 17.Google Scholar

9 See Karpat, Kemal, “The Land Regime, Social Structure, and Modernization in the Ottoman Empire,” in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East, Polk, W. and Chambers, R., eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).Google Scholar

10 See Barkan, Ömer Lütfü, “Türkiye'de Toprak Meselesinin Tarihi Esaslari” (Historical Foundations of the Question of Land in Turkey), Ulkü, Vol. XI, 1938;Google Scholar and “Türk Torprak Hukuku Tarihinde Tanzimat” (Ottoman Reform in the History of Turkish Land Law), Tanzimat, Ministry of Education (Istanbul: 1940), pp. 321–421.Google Scholar

11 Karpat, Kemal, Turkey's Politics; The Transition to a Multi-Party System (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

12 Aktan, Resat, “Türkiye'nin Toprak Reformu Meselesi” (The Problem of Land Reform in Turkey), 26–27 Mayis 1965 Toprak Reformu Semineri (Seminar on Land Reform, 26–27 May 1965), Turkish Economic Association (Ankara: 1966).Google Scholar

13 Karpat, Turkey's Politics, pp. 102–04.Google Scholar

14 The authors are completing a book on the subject which further elaborates on these factors.Google Scholar

15 Eldem, Vedat, “La Revenue Nationale de la Turquie,” The Review of the Faculty of Economics, Istanbul University, 10 1947–01 1948, pp. 109–110.Google Scholar

16 Calculated from SIS, National Income and Expenditure of Turkey. 1948–1972, Publication No. 680 (Ankara: 1973).Google Scholar

17 Rostow, W. W. in Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge University Press, 1960, p. 38)Google Scholar calls this the second development drive following the first that was launched during the Atatürk period, though a different strategy of development was pursued.

18 The successful implementation of agricultural reform since 1950, along with industrialization as a factor alleviating land thirst in Turkey, has also been mentioned in Hershlag, Z. Y. and Brill, E. J., Turkey: The Challenge to Growth (Leiden: 1968), pp. 208–10.Google Scholar

19 See Gürtan, Kenan. “Sectoral Distribution of Investments and Related Problems.” in Hiç, Mükerrem, ed., Problems of Turkey's Economic Development, Vol. 1 (Istanbul: 1972).Google Scholar

20 Hirsch, Eva, Poverty and Plenty on the Turkish Farm: Study of Income Distribution in Turkish Agriculture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970). In particular, see Table 6, p. 170.Google Scholar

21 Ibid.

22 Some authors have claimed that the emergence of merchants and their monopolistic position left the family farms producing cash crops still at subsistence level, while the structure of agriculture remained basically feudalistic. (See Kiray, Mübeccel, “Values, Social Stratification, and Development,” Journal of Social Issues [04 1968], pp. 94–96.)Google Scholar Neither of these points, however, can be deemed valid generalizations for Turkish agriculture.

23 On the lag in the dissipation of benefits of such agricultural reform measures to the small farmers, see also Aresvik, Oddvar, The Agricultural Development of Turkey (New York: Praegar Publishers, 1975).Google Scholar

24 VIS covered 56 provinces out of 67 and took four years to be completed (1963–67). It shows a much greater percentage of landless, small farmers, and tenant farmers than the SIS agricultural surveys. But the former is much less reliable since the interviews were not checked with land registries and village headmen and committees of village eldermen, as was done in the latter.Google Scholar

25 SPO, Gelir Dagihmi 1973 (Income Distribution 1973) (Ankara: 1976), p. 24.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., pp. 23–28.

27 See Ahluwalia, Montek S., “Income Inequality: Some Dimensions of the Problem,” Finance and Development (09 1974), no. 3.Google Scholar

28 For the income and land Gini ratios of several LDCs, see Bruce M. Russett, “Inequality and Instability.” The concentration ratio for the distribution of landholdings in Turkey can be calculated from the data presented in Table 6. They are 0.43 for 1952, 0.35 for 1963, and 0.32 for 1970. There are two sources of statistics on land distribution in Turkey. The one used in this study belongs to the State Institute of Statistics. The other is Village Inventory Studies, prepared by the Ministry of Village Affairs for 56 provinces covering the years 1963–1967. The latter shows a somewhat higher concentration ratio for land distribution compared to the SIS series. But it is still far from compatible when compared to Gini ratios of land distribution of those LDCs that have about the same Gini ratios of income distribution as Turkey.Google Scholar

29 For 1963 essentially a residual method was used for arriving at the figures for higher-income groups. Earnings of lower-income groups were underestimated while many items were not properly accounted for to arrive at the earnings of the highest income group. For details, see Ömer Celal Sarc, Gelir Dagihmi, Dişarda ve Türkiye'de (Income Distribution, Abroad and in Turkey) (Istanbul: Economic and Social Studies Conference Board, 1970).Google Scholar

30 During the period 1950–60, against an increase in crop area of 8.7 million hectares, the increase in the amount of land cultivated by tractors expanded only by about 1.9 million hectares while that cultivated by draft animals expanded by about 6.8 million hectares. See SIS, Statistical Yearbook, 1975, p. 164.Google Scholar

31 It was noted earlier that the Ministry of Village Affairs has also compiled statistics on land distribution covering 56 provinces; the compilation of data took four years (1963–67). This series shows distribution of land to be more unequal than is indicated in the SIS series.Google Scholar

32 For similar views, see Güneş, Turan, “Toprak Reformunun Yaratmaya ÇahŞtigi Mülkiyet ve Işletme Yapisi” (The Structure of Landownership and Basis of Cultivation Aimed at by Land Reform), 26–27 May 1965 (Ankara: Turkish Economists Association, 1966).Google Scholar

33 SIS, 1950 Census of Agriculture, No. 12, Dec. 1953, p. 1.Google Scholar

34 SIS, 1963 Census of Agriculture, Sample Survey Results, No. 477, 1965, pp. 6 and 7.Google Scholar

35 SIS, the above two references.Google Scholar

36 Compare Turkish data on land distribution and the landless with data on other LDCs, published, for instance, in Russett, “Inequality and Instability”; Schickele, Rainer, Agrarian Revolution and Economic Progress (New York, 1968) and others.Google Scholar

37 Opponents of land reform in Turkey have used this argument extensively. See, for instance, Konfederasyonu, Tüirkiye Ziraatçilar (Turkish Confederation of Farmers), Toprak Reforniu ye Tarimsal Gerçekler (Land Reform and the Realities of Turkish Agriculture) (Ankara: 1964).Google Scholar

38 For an estimate of the financial costs involved, see Aksit, Ahmet, “Toprak Reformu Teşkilati ve Finansman Meseleliri” (Organization and Financing Problems of Land Reform), Toprak Reformu Semineri, 26–27 Mayis 1965 (Seminar on Land Reform, 26–27 May 1965) (Ankara: Turkish Economic Association, Institute of Economic Research, 1966).Google Scholar

39 For similar views, see Hershlag, Turkey: The Challenge to Growth.Google Scholar

40 Kemal, Karpat, The Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization, Chapters 5 and 6 (Cambridge University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

41 See, for instance, Ankara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, Makinalasma, Türkiye'de Zirai (Mechanization of Agriculture in Turkey) (Ankara: 1954);Google Scholar and Kandiotti, Deniz, “Social Change and Stratification in a Turkish Village,” Journal of Peasant Studies (07 1974), Vol. I, no.4.Google Scholar

42 SIS, Statistical Yearbook 1975, p. 363.Google Scholar

43 Turkish Businessmen's and Industrialists' Association, Turkish Economy, Prospects for Growth within Stability (Istanbul: 1978), p. 35.Google Scholar

44 For elaboration of above points, see Parvin, M., “Ideological Trends in the Middle East and Development of Turkish Political Economy,” Orient (06 1981)Google Scholar, and “Social Disintegration: Exacerbation of Social Tension in the Sixties and Seventies in Turkey,” in Die Türkische Krise, Druck NVV Druck and Service, 09 1980.Google Scholar