Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
benefit the working class poor. For example, mainstream land titling and land rights
formalization initiatives carried out in settings marked by high degree of inequality
and power imbalances between social classes are likely to benefit local elites, not the
rural poor. But even some radical conventional redistributive land reforms that are
blind to social class differentiation may, at best, benefit only a small section of the
rural poor, usually the better-off section of the rural dwellers.
For our purposes, a pro-poor land policy is one that recognizes that the interests of
landless and near-landless rural poor are plural : these are the diverging and, at times,
competing interests of landless peasants, rural laborers, indigenous communities,
artisanal fisherfolk-cum-rural laborers, male and female, and so on. By specifying
the plurality of subgroups among the rural poor, we will be able to disaggregate the
outcomes of a land policy and see its differentiated impact upon the socially differenti-
ated rural poor. A land policy may benefit one section of the poor, but not another; or
benefit one section of the poor, but harm another. Making land policies more inclu-
sive is a difficult challenge; the resolution may lie in resolving the land question and
beyond , to include other reforms within the agrarian structure and rural livelihood
complex of the poor, especially labor reforms. “ Too land-centered agrarian reform
advocacy” may overlook critical labor reforms , with strategic negative implications.
Bringing class back in land policy studies (see Bernstein 2010; Herring and Agarwala
2006) and political struggles will be critical for categorically pro-poor land policies
to emerge and get promoted.
4. Historical . A pro-poor land policy is historical in its perspective. This means,
the policy should understand the issue of land-based wealth creation, political
power transfers and recipients from longer historical perspectives. This allows for
a “social justice” framework to be fully developed. By embedding a land policy view
from deep historical circumstances, it is able to detect and prevent possible pitfalls
in land policy frameworks that may undermine some sections of the poor. Problems
of social conflict and political instability may occur when ahistorical land policy is
carried out, based solely on the “here and now” calculation which are often guided by
monetary considerations, e.g., market value of the land, “legitimate legal” claimant
of the land. Straightforward ahistorical land policies—or ahistorical interpretations
of land policies—are likely to result in antipoor outcomes. Ahistorical land poli-
cies are likely to undermine the legitimate claims of other poor people and unable
to contribute to inclusive development or political stability. For example, under the
contemporary Philippine land reform, potential beneficiaries have to be prioritized
because there are more claimants than there are available lands for redistribution. In
commercial plantation sectors (rubber, pineapple, banana), actually employed work-
ers are the priority beneficiaries. It is only when there are excess lands after satisfying
the demand by actually employed workers that other poor people near the planta-
tion can be considered as possible beneficiaries. Many plantations in the Southern
Philippines were originally part of Muslim territories. Several decades ago, when the
commercial plantation belt was being established, many Muslim communities were
Search WWH ::




Custom Search