India : land policies for growth and poverty reduction

In India land continues to be of enormous economic, social, and symbolic relevance. The way in which land can be accessed and its ownership documented is at the core of the livelihood of the large majority of the poor, especially in rural and tribal areas and determines the extent to which increasingly scarce natural resources are managed. Land policies and administration are critical determinants of the transaction cost associated with modalities to access land for productive, residential, and business use and, through the ease of using land as collateral for credit, the development of the financial sector. Land is also a major source of government revenue and a key element for implementing government programs. This implies that land policies and institutions will have a far-reaching impact on the ability to sustain India's current high rate of growth, the extent to which such growth reaches the poor, and the level and spatial distribution of economic activity. At the same time, the policies put in place by different states and the institutions tasked to implement them often fail to live up to the importance of the issue. In fact, land administration institutions seem to impose high costs without generating commensurate benefits and are generally perceived as corrupt, mismanaged, and lacking transparency. With land reform policies having largely run their course, and growing evidence that restricting land rental may do little to help the poor, many observers have lost confidence in the ability of land institutions to contribute to the welfare of the poor or the potential for improving the performance of land administration. In this chapter the author first show that land administration in India does indeed have shortcomings but also use data from India to show that addressing the shortcomings of the land administration system is necessary. The report then highlights some of the recent success stories to argue that doing so is entirely feasible but only if, in addition to focusing on technical aspects, a number of policy issues are addressed as well.

[1]  Juan Camilo Cárdenas,et al.  Real wealth and experimental cooperation: experiments in the field lab , 2003 .

[2]  H. P. Binswanger,et al.  What are the prospects for land reform , 1988 .

[3]  Mukesh Eswaran,et al.  A Theory of Contractual Structure in Agriculture , 1985 .

[4]  A. Banerjee,et al.  Empowerment and Efficiency: Tenancy Reform in West Bengal , 2002, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  F. Zimmerman,et al.  The dynamic cost and persistence of asset inequality in an agrarian economy , 2000 .

[6]  P. Bolton,et al.  A Theory of Trickle-Down Growth and Development , 1997 .

[7]  M. Carter IDENTIFICATION OF THE INVERSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FARM SIZE AND PRODUCTIVITY: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF PEASANT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION , 1984 .

[8]  B. Agarwal,et al.  Marital Violence, Human Development and Women's Property Status in India , 2005 .

[9]  François Bourguignon,et al.  Oligarchy, democracy, inequality and growth , 2000 .

[10]  D. Andolfatto A Theory of Inalienable Property Rights , 2002, Journal of Political Economy.

[11]  H. Gintis,et al.  Wealth Inequality, Wealth Constraints and Economic Performance , 1998 .

[12]  Joseph Zeira,et al.  Income Distribution and Macroeconomics , 1988 .

[13]  Gershon Feder The relation between farm size and farm productivity: The role of family labor, supervision and credit constraints , 1985 .

[14]  A. Quisumbing,et al.  Resources at Marriage and Intrahousehold Allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa* , 2003 .

[15]  Dwayne Benjamin,et al.  Can unobserved land quality explain the inverse productivity relationship , 1995 .

[16]  R. Mearns Access to land in rural India - policy issues and options , 1999 .

[17]  Songqing Jin,et al.  The potential of land rental markets in the process of economic development: Evidence from China , 2005 .

[18]  James A. Robinson,et al.  Are Endowments Fate? , 2002 .

[19]  James A. Robinson,et al.  Land Reform and the Political Organization of Agriculture , 2002 .

[20]  Klaus Deininger,et al.  Land policies for growth and poverty reduction , 2003 .

[21]  P. Mo Income Inequality and Economic Growth , 2000 .

[22]  H. P. Binswanger,et al.  Chapter 42 Power, distortions, revolt and reform in agricultural land relations , 1993 .

[23]  T. Yamano,et al.  Legal Knowledge and Economic Development: The Case of Land Rights in Uganda , 2006, Land Economics.

[24]  T. Besley,et al.  Land Reform, Poverty Reduction and Growth: Evidence from India , 1998 .

[25]  K. Basu,et al.  The Economics of Tenancy Rent Control , 2000 .

[26]  Lakshmi Iyer,et al.  History, Institutions and Economic Performance: The Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure Systems in India , 2002 .

[27]  Songqing Jin,et al.  Land Sales and Rental Markets in Transition: Evidence from Rural Vietnam , 2003 .

[28]  Land Reforms, Poverty Reduction, and Economic Growth: Evidence from India , 2008 .

[29]  Richard Arnott,et al.  Time for Revisionism on Rent Control , 1995 .