Land reform in India
Economic theory, taken alone, doesn't tell you whether land reform is good or bad. So let's take a look at the data, the answer may surprise you, for India at least.
Contributed Content (0)
Ask a Question
if land reform does agriculture less efficient, isn't better to tax production and redistribute it to poor people that otherwise could benefit from land reform?
That might be true, given a highly effective government with little overhead/leakage. In places where this would matter though, I find it unlikely that much if any of the retained surplus would reach the poorest.
I think there also might be gains in having people work and earn their wages rather than becoming beneficiaries of government alimony.
For practice question #2, "_conducted_ tenancy reforms" would make more sense to me than as it is -- without a verb.
I don’t see how changes in urban poverty provide any insight into correlation vs. causation for the impact of land reform on rural poverty. Politics plays a huge role in policy development, and it is not at all unusual to see the advancement of policies that benefit farmers but not the urban poor, or vice versa. (One sees this in the US quite often.) Even if a government were “anti-poverty,” presumably urban and rural poverty would be tackled by different means, which would most likely have variable rates of efficacy. Is it true that in India measures for rural and urban poverty always move in tandem? If not, how can one provide any meaningful disambiguation of the data for the other?