Transcript The Economic Effects of Land Reforms in Kazakhstan

Stock-Taking of Land Reform and
Farm Restructuring
Results of a World
Bank-FAO policy
research study
David Sedik
FAO
Why a Stocktaking?
Country or region
Period
Duration
(years)
Land transferred
(million ha)
Mexico
1917-92
75
100
Brazil
1964-94
30
11
Japan
1945-52
7
2
Korea
1945-50
5
0.5
Taiwan (Rep. of China)
1949-53
4
0.2
CEE countries
1990-2000
10
33
CIS countries
1990-2000
10
116
Why a Stocktaking?


Though land reform can be essential for rural
growth and poverty alleviation, it does not
seem to have lived up to its potential
Production, yields, services declined,
unemployment increased – did land reform
contribute to this?
Four case studies
•

•

Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Moldova
How did reforms affect farm performance and
rural well-being between farm types and
across countries?
Farm performance measured by growth in
yields, productivity, and profitability
Well-being measured by subjective
perceptions
Sources of information and data

Primary
–
–
–
–
–

Household surveys
Farm enterprise surveys
Focus groups
Key informant interviews
Semi-structured interviews
Secondary
–
–
–
Literature review
Official statistics
Data from other surveys and studies
Overview of presentation

Selected comparative results
–
–
–
–
–
–

Agricultural production and land reform
Enabling environment for agriculture
Economic performance
Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural
services
Households’ acceptance of land reform
Gender findings
Policy implications
Overview of presentation

Selected comparative results
–
–
–
–
–
–

Agricultural production and land reform
Enabling environment for agriculture
Economic performance
Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural
services
Households’ acceptance of land reform
Gender findings
Policy implications
Land reform not the reason for
agricultural decline in the 1990s
In all four countries, agricultural production and
productivity began to
–
–
fall before land reform
grow after land reform
Moldova
140
120
Begin
agrarian reforms
Land distribution
120
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Land Priv
GDP
GAO
Land individualization (index)
GAO, GDP Indices (1985=100)
Farm "share privatization"
100
Azerbaijan
120
200
Begin agrarian reforms
Land distribution
180
100
140
80
120
60
100
80
40
60
40
20
20
0
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Land Priv
GDP
GAO
Land individualization (index)
GAO, GDP Indices (1985=100)
160
Good enabling environment yet to be
established in CIS countries
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9.3
8.2
6.6
5.8 6
5
Az
er
ba
i
ja
n
Ka
za
k
5.8 6
M
hs
ta
ol
d
7.8
5.4
ov
a
4.8
Bu
l
n
1997
2003
ga
ria
CE
E
5.3
CI
S
Yield and area growth drives recovery
in Azerbaijan
110
100
1990=100
90
Crop yields
Sown area
80
Livestock
yields
70
60
50
40
1990
1995
1996
1997
1998
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
Crop yield growth drives recovery in
Kazakhstan
130
120
110
Crop yields
100
1990=100
Sown area
90
Livestock
yields
80
70
60
50
40
1990
1995
1996
1997
1998
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
Crop yield and area growth drive
recovery in Moldova
120
110
100
Crop yields
1990=100
90
Sown area
80
Livestock
yields
70
60
50
40
1990
1995
1996
1997
1998
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
Individual farm crop yields equal to or
higher in all CIS (official stats)
1990
1995
2002
Individual farms
50
42
33
Corporate farms
46
35
33
Individual farms
54
38
41
Corporate farms
27
15
20
Individual farms
31
9
20
Corporate farms
13
5
10
Moldova
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
TFP and land productivity greater in
family farms from sample
N
TFP
Labor
productivity
Land
productivity
Family farms
176
5.9
9.9
10.8
Corporate farms
24
1.7
16.7
3.3
Family farms
65
2.3
7,803
1,762
Corporate farms
15
1
3,692
840
Moldova
Azerbaijan
Red italics indicate figures are statistically different at 20% or better level.
TFP and land productivity greater in
family farms from sample
N
TFP
Labor
productivity
Land
productivity
Family farms
178
4.4
683
60
Corporate farms
22
2.7
1446
44
Family farms
23
3.1
9.1
3.4
Corporate farms
34
6.2
34.3
0.5
Kazakhstan
Bulgaria
Red italics indicate figures are statistically different at 20% or better level.
Rural HH subjective well-being: MD
better than BG, but not as high as AZ
or KZ
Percent of households
Bulgaria Azerbaijan
Kazakh
Moldova
Today
Good
6
14
31
14
69
21
20
35
Better
10
18
36
29
Worse
36
4
27
23
Bad
3 yr. change
High portion of income from farming in
Moldova and Azerbaijan
Portion of family income from agriculture
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
27.4
18.5
36.3
AZ
8.9
4.9
12.9
9.2
21.7
BG
KZ
MD
Agricultural sales
Own-consumption
Rural public services deterioration
worst in AZ, BG, improvements in MD,
KZ
Azerbaijan
Present level of
household
1)
satisfaction
with service
Before
2
Moldova
Today
Before
2
Today
Electricity
84.1
43.7
73
79.0
Gas
18.4
3.5
35.7
37.7
Drinking water
68.9
66.7
42.5
38.6
Telephone
25.8
30.2
35.4
50.8
1. Scale from 0 to 100: 0=not available, 100=always available.
2. “Before” refers to the period before dismantling of collective/state farms.
Rural public services deterioration
worst in AZ, BG, improvements in MD,
KZ
Kazakhstan
Present level of
household
1)
satisfaction
with service
Before
)
2
Bulgaria
Today
Before
2)
Today
Electricity
68.1
86.2
91.9
71.6
Gas
65.2
78.5
30.6
33.4
70
72.6
89.6
75.7
48.2
55.0
79.6
65.3
Drinking water
Telephone
1. Scale from 0 to 100: 0=not available, 100=always available.
2. “Before” refers to the period before dismantling of collective/state farms.
Land allocation resulting from land
reforms is least widely accepted in
Moldova
Percentage of households perceiving land allocation as fair
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
92
56
AZ
BG
60
53
KZ
MD
Land legislation is gender neutral but
access to information, resources and
power seems to disadvantage women

In all four countries, female headed households
–
–
–

Use less land
Have lower perceived well-being
Rent out more land
Qualitative interviews suggest that in all countries
women as compared to men have
–
–
–
Less access to information and legal resources
Less access to agricultural equipment
More household responsibilities
Overview of presentation

Selected comparative results
–
–
–
–
–
–

Agricultural production and land reform
Enabling environment for agriculture
Economic performance
Households’ perceptions on well-being and rural
services
Households’ acceptance of land reform
Gender findings
Policy implications
Implications for policy



Ag production stable or grows after robust
land reforms in MD, BG, AZ. This suggests
that these reforms were beneficial.
In CIS countries, individual sector yields
equal to or higher than those in corporate
farms.
Land reform alone not sufficient to ensure
better farm performance or better well being