76633 The Evolution of the World Bank's Land Policy: Principles, Experience, and Future Challenges Klaus Deininger • Hans Binswanger This article examines the evolution of policy recommendations concerning rural land issues since the formulation of the World Bank's "Land Reform Policy Paper" in 1975. That paper set out three guiding principles: the desirability of owner-operated family farms; the need for markets to permit land to be transferred to more productive users; and the importance of an egalitarian asset distribution. In the 25 yean since that paper was published, these guiding principles have remained the same, but it is now recognized that communal tenure systems can be more cost-effective than formal title, that titling pro- grams should bejudged on their equity as well as their efficiency, that the potential of land rental markets has often been severely underestimated, that land-sale markets enhance efficiency only if they are integrated into a broader effort at developing ruralfactor mar- kets, and that land reform is more likely to result in a reduction of poverty if it harnesses (rather than undermines) the operation of land markets and is implemented in a decen- tralized fashion. Achieving land policies that incorporate these elements requires a coher- ent legal and institutional framework together with greater reliance on pilot programs to examine the applicability of interventions under local conditions. In the rural areas of most developing countries, land is not only the primary means for generating a livelihood but often the main vehicle for investing, accumulating wealth, and transferring it between generations. Thus the ways in which access to land is regu- lated, property rights are defined, and ownership conflicts are resolved has broad impli- cations beyond the sphere of agricultural production. These regulations, rights, and procedures affect not only the ability of households to produce for their subsistence and for the market but also their social and economic status (and often their collective identity), their incentive to work, their willingness to use the land sustainably, and their ability to self-insure or to obtain access to financial markets. The World Bank Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999), pp. 247-76. © 1999 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK J47 The importance of land issues in fostering economic growth and reducing poverty was the impetus for the World Bank's 1975 "Land Reform Policy Paper." At the time, this dialogue was complicated both by an economic environment in which government interventions often caused the prices of rural land to deviate signifi- candy from the net present value of agricultural profits and by a political context in which land was at the heart of a broader ideological struggle. In many developing countries today, far-reaching macroeconomic reforms have removed distortionary policies, the ideological divide has narrowed or disappeared, and the need to tackle structural issues has greatly increased the demand for policy advice. These consider- ations provide an opportune moment to review earlier policy recommendations and to use experience to assess the role of such policies in the broader process of develop- ment. This article reviews the analytical underpinning for policy recommendations and examines die effectiveness of such advice in the areas of tenure security, land markets, and land reform. The broad consensus underlying current thinking about land issues can be sum- marized in four key principles: • The desirability of owner-operated family farms on both efficiency and equity grounds • The importance of secure property rights to land in eliciting effort and investment and in providing the basis for land transactions • The need for a policy and regulatory environment that promotes transfers to more efficient land uses • The positive impact of an egalitarian asset distribution and the scope for redis- tributive land reform where nonmarket forces have led to a highly dualistic own- ership and operational distribution of land, that is, a distribution characterized by very large and very small holdings. Although these principles remain valid, experience with land reforms challenges earlier assumptions in four areas. First, the 1975 World Bank land reform policy recommended that communal tenure systems be abandoned in favor of freehold titles and the subdivision of the commons. Today it is recognized that some com- munal tenure arrangements can increase tenure security and provide a (limited) basis for land transactions in ways that are more cost-effective than freehold titles. Where that is the case, governments may find it useful to reduce the cost of coop- eration, improve accountability, and facilitate a gradual evolution of communal systems to meet emerging needs, possibly for greater individualization of property rights over time. Second, although individual tiding has great potential to increase investment and productivity, several preconditions must be satisfied for this to be a desirable inter- vention. The circumstances under which tide is conferred are important; for ex- ample, tiding should be area-based (that is, it should cover an entire area at once) 248 The World Bank Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) and fit within a broader strategy of rural development. Otherwise, imperfections in other factor markets may undermine or even eliminate the advantages from posses- sion of title, at least for the poor. Third, the earlier skeptical view of land rental markets has given way to a recognition of their critical role as a means for providing the poor with access to land. The removal of remaining restrictions on land rental is therefore a top policy priority. In contrast, how- ever, removing the restrictions on markets for land sales may not be the most urgent requirement for increasing efficiency—and may have a negative impact on equity. Mea- sures thus should be sequenced properly, emphasizing rentals rather than sales, and should be integrated with the development of other rural factor markets. And fourth, a growing literature has made the case for redistributive land reform on efficiency and equity grounds. Most of die land reforms undertaken during the last 20 to 30 years, however, were politically motivated and have not lived up to expectations. Recendy, a new approach has emerged: encouraging community- managed agrarian reform based on voluntary negotiation. Provided that careful moni- toring permits officials to make the necessary changes in program design and that political pressures to provide free handouts to influential lobbies can be resisted, this approach can help to overcome long-standing problems of asset distribution and social exclusion, which are key factors leading to rural violence. In addition to such changes in specific recommendations, land policy is increas- ingly viewed as an integral element of a broader development process rather than as a string of narrowly oriented technical interventions. This view is based on experi- ence showing that a lack of consensus on the broader subject of land policy has often compromised the effect on development of specific interventions, such as land ti- ding. In countries where land issues have in the past resulted in civil strife, revolu- tion, and war, reaching a consensus requires time and involves all the relevant sectors of civil society. Initiating such a process, ensuring its integration into a broader frame- work of rural development initiatives, and strengthening the analytical capacity of key players have become important components of the World Bank's approach to land issues. At the same time, the political sensitivity of such issues and the need to adapt to site-specific conditions often dictates that specific approaches be explored on a small scale before they are implemented broadly. The Conceptual Basis of the World Bank's Land Policy A stylized fact, confirmed by a large literature, is that owner-operated smallholder farms are desirable from both an equity and an efficiency perspective. Secure indi- vidual property rights to land would therefore not only increase the beneficiaries' incentives and provide collateral for further investment but, if all markets were com- petitive, would automatically lead to socially and economically desirable land mar- KUus Deiningn tnd Ham Binsuvngrr 249 ket transactions. The arguments advanced in favor of secure property rights are based on three observations. First, clear property rights can prevent wasteful "overinvestment" in protective measures by individuals eager to claim and defend their property rights. As Malik and Schwab (1991) point out, property rights are a public good, and in the absence of public enforcement of these rights, individuals will overinvest in protective mea- sures to claim and secure their rights. This privately optimal spending will be ineffi- cient from a social point of view, particularly if the claim is secured through negative environmental externalities, as is the case in many frontier situations (Alston, Libecap, and Mueller 1999; de Meza and Gould 1992; Feder and Feeny 1991). Government regulations have often directly encouraged such behavior (Binswanger 1989). Providing farmers with residual rights to production, even if these are only tem- porary, will increase the incentive to clear and cultivate land, as illustrated by the tremendous increases in output and productivity associated with the transition from collective to individual (usufruct) rights in China (Lin 1992; McMillan, Whalley, and Zhu 1989). The link between secure ownership rights (although not necessarily a formal title) and investments in farm improvements also emerges in evidence from Burkina Faso (Brasselle, Gaspart, and Platteau 1997), China (Jacoby, Li, and Rozelle 1998; Yao 1996), Ghana (Besley 1995), and Niger (Gavian and Fafchamps 1996). At the same time, the lack of enforceable—though not always formal or indi- vidual—property rights has been associated with the unsustainable use and degrada- tion of natural resources. A breakdown in the ability of communities to enforce rules governing the use of communally held land and the inefficiency of collective forms of production (Deininger 1995) were at the root of environmental degradation in Mexico (Key and others 1998; McCarthy, de Janvry, and Sadoulet 1998).' Even in situations where individual property rights are infeasible, helping communities de- velop structures that overcome these coordination problems and establish effective property rights can enhance the sustainability of resource use, prevent environmen- tal degradation, and promote the overall efficiency of land use (Baland and Platteau 1996). A second issue relates to credit access. In addition to increasing demand for invest- ment, as discussed above, secure landownership and the associated ability to use land as collateral can increase the supply of credit from formal sources. This can also contribute to the evolution of financial markets in more general terms (Alston, Libecap, and Schneider 1996; Carter and Olinto 1996; Feder and others 1986; Lopez 1997). A third benefit is that written records of landownership improve the transferabil- ity of property. By reducing asymmetric information about landownership and quality, land transactions are less costly to implement, thus increasing the liquidity of the land market and making it possible to transfer land from less productive to more productive individuals. The ability to transfer land may be of limited importance, however, in the early stages of development, when nonagricultural opportunities aso The World Bank Raamh Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) and regional migration are limited, and in marginal environments, where economic opportunities are more constrained. The importance and value of being able to transfer use or ownership rights to land increase with economic development, specialization, and better-functioning markets, and one would expect the transferability of land brought about by better-defined property rights to be of increasing relevance with higher levels of population density and nonagricultural development. Indeed, in coastal China, more secure transfer rights are associated with higher allocative efficiency in the economy (Yao 1996). Given the distribution of agricultural production and the need (especially at low levels of technology) to adjust constandy to variations in the environment, owner- operated farms have an advantage over large operations, which are associated with the large agency costs entailed in managing wage labor Qensen and Meckling 1976). Conceptually, it has long been recognized that supervisory capacity is an important determinant of the mode of operation of large tracts of land (Eswaran and Kotwal 1985a, b; Feder 1985). Empirical evidence indicates not only that hired labor is less productive than family labor but also that the intensity of supervision matters (Frisvold 1994). A large number of studies based on aggregate or cross-sectional data con- firmed die existence of a negative relationship between farm size and productivity for all but the smallest farms (Benjamin 1995; Berry and Cline 1979; Carter 1984; Kutcher and Scandizzo 1981; Newell, Pandya, and Symons 1997). The relationship weakens if adjustments for soil quality are made (Benjamin 1995; Bhalla and Roy 1988). Still, several studies using panel data with household- or plot-specific effects show a negative relationship between farm size and productivity that is likely to originate in labor market imperfections of the kind mentioned (Burgess 1997; Olinto 1995; Udry 1996). Economies of scale and imperfections in other markets can outweigh the cost advantages of owner-operated farms. Scale economies can arise from die use of ma- chinery and the advantages of professional management and marketing, die use of which would lead to declining average costs with firm size.2 Empirically, the indivisibilities associated with machinery rarely increase optimum farm size beyond the level at which, with existing technology, the labor of a family (possibly comple- mented by hired labor for specific seasonal tasks) is fully utilized. Even where they would, rental markets can help to overcome this indivisibility, at least to some ex- tent. Most empirical studies (for example, Burgess 1997 and Feder and others 1989 for China, Lanjouw 1995 for India) are therefore unable to reject the hypothesis of constant returns to scale in agricultural production. The number of cases in which true technical economies of scale apply is therefore limited. One example is plantation crops, such as bananas, sugarcane, and tea, where production is often organized on a scale that corresponds to the optimum scale of the processing factory. Even in this case, however, the supervision advantages of owner-operators have frequently led to the adoption of contract grower arrange- KUus Deiningtr tnd Hans Binswanger 2 S1 merits (Glover 1990). Economies of scale in processing or marketing are therefore important for the size of farming operations only so long as markets for outputs and inputs are either unavailable or malfunctioning. Imperfections in other markets, such as lack of access to capital and insurance markets, put small farms at a disadvantage. Their limited ability to cope with risk could offset the cost advantage that small family farms enjoy. For example, in the Sudan, capital market imperfections led to a positive relationship between farm size and productivity (Kevane 1996), while Burkina Faso recorded an inverse farm size- productivity relationship (Udry 1996), and in other contexts an optimum farm size emerged (Carter and Mesbah 1993). To the degree that imperfections in those mar- kets, rather than an inherent productivity advantage of large farms, are at the source of differences in the shadow price of land across categories of farm size, improve- ments in these markets through regulation, better information, or cooperatives to reap economies of scale or input supply could lead to productivity gains. The Importance of Land Market Transactions That well-functioning land markets can promote efficiency-enhancing land transfer is well recognized. The extent of such land transfers is affected by government poli- cies, informational constraints, and incomplete credit markets and their impact on land prices, producers' ability to access financial markets, and transaction costs asso- ciated with land rentals and sales. Land Price Formation Mortgaged land cannot be used as collateral for working capital. Thus the borrower would not reap the production credit advantage and would be unable to repay a loan from the income generated from the land. In addition, the value of the ability to use unmortgaged land as collateral in formal credit markets would be capitalized into land prices, and the equilibrium price of land at given credit costs would exceed die present discounted value of the income stream that can be produced from the land (Binswanger and Elgin 1988; Just and Miranowski 1988). Credit subsidies, tax ad- vantages, and the use of land as an inflation hedge would have the same effect. The only income stream available to the poor for consumption is the imputed value of family labor. The remainder of the profits would have to be used to pay for the loan, reducing the purchaser's utility below what could be achieved in the labor market and implying that land purchases would normally have to be financed out of house- hold savings. Even if credit access were perfect, mortgage-based land acquisitions would be unlikely to lead to redistribution in favor of landless households (Binswanger and Elgin 1988). Any additional subsidies, tax advantages, and other factors that The World Bank Research Observer. voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) further increase land prices above the net present value of agricultural profits would, of course, further reduce the scope for participation of the poor (Gunjal, Williams, and Romain 1996). Credit Market Imperfections The same credit constraints that make it difficult for landless farmers to finance the purchase of land also affect their ability to pay for land in the rental market. Credit rationing reduces their ability to make productive use of land, possibly outweighing the advantage of owner-operated farms, reducing their reservation price for land, and possibly leading to (relatively inefficient) rentals to large producers. One outcome of these difficulties is that smallholders are forced to adopt costly (and relatively inefficient) insurance substitutes to enable them to deal with unex- pected productivity and idiosyncratic shocks, such as adjusting their crop and asset portfolios to a low-return, low-risk combination that reduces their vulnerability. Another possibility is to replace land with a more liquid asset such as grain, which even though less productive, would provide them with greater security in case of subsistence risk (Zimmerman and Carter 1999). Indeed, for India, Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1993) show that the lack of insurance substitutes affects farmers' invest- ments. Despite this less-than-optimal allocation of assets, small farmers are still more productive than large farmers (Rosenzweig and Binswanger 1993). Dercon (1996) and Dercon and Krishnan (1996) find that in Africa the levels of liquid assets and capital available to the household determine its ability to enter into high-risk but high-return activities. The market for land is also affected by credit market imperfections that deny smallholders insurance against shocks, such as bad harvests or accidents, and may force them to sell off land in periods of distress. Where the covariance of weather risks would imply wide fluctuations of land prices over time, it is hard or impossible for smallholders to recover from those asset losses because they would have to sell at low prices during disaster (when there is little effective demand) and buy during normal times, when prices are high again (Bidinger and others 1991). In research on Bangladesh and India, Cain (1981) illustrates this view that transactions in the land sales market are driven by credit and insurance limitations rather than by cultivators' productive efficiency. He finds that in villages that had access to a safety net pro- gram, farmers generally sold land in response to shocks and to obtain cash for major investments such as drilling wells, purchasing pumps, and educating and marrying their children. By contrast, where such consumption-smoothing devices were ab- sent, the majority of sales were prompted by distress (to obtain food and medicine). Whether or not households were able to buffer consumption during crisis situations had a significant impact on whether markets helped to equalize or disequalize land endowments. Indeed, distress sales have not only played a major role historically but AZtu Deininger and Ham Bimwanger 2 S3 also are linked in the literature to the elimination of traditional mechanisms for coping with risk (Kranton and Swamy 1997). Transaction Costs and Incentive Issues Because land is immobile, land markets are localized, with several important conse- quences. As Balcazar (1990) and Carter and Zegarra (1995) note, land sales markets are normally highly segmented, especially in countries with a dualistic distribution of ownership and where sales by large farmers to smallholders are virtually absent. One explanation is that it is costly to subdivide large farms so as to make them suitable for smallholder cultivation. Similarly, as noted earlier, transaction costs ei- ther discourage small land transactions or drive them into the informal market. Further, even though land rental markets do not permit perfect adjustment to the desired size of operation (Skoufias 1995), the transaction costs incurred are smaller than in land sales markets. There has, however, been long-standing con- cern about the scope for incentive issues to lead to efficiency losses in rental mar- kets. Under a land rental arrangement, tenants have few incentives to undertake long-term investments unless they receive the value of the investment back during the rental term or at its end (in the form of compensation). Moreover, with share tenancy, that is, in situations where the landlord receives a share of the harvest as rent, tenants receive only a fraction of their marginal product. It is therefore diffi- cult to motivate tenants to work hard enough, a phenomenon that is known as "Marshallian inefficiency." Share tenancy arrangements are still more efficient than wage labor, however. They may be an "optimal choice," given the constraints faced where markets for credit and insurance are incomplete. For risk-averse tenants (where risk aversion can arise out of the need to satisfy a minimum subsistence constraint), a share contract can provide insurance against fluctuations of output and income (Cheung 1969). For landlords, share tenancy insures against rent de- fault by tenants whose wealth is insufficient to pay the rent or who, because they are credit constrained, underuse inputs (Shetty 1988). Thus the poorest tenants often receive wage contracts, while richer individuals (who have a lower risk of default) cultivate under share contracts with progressively increasing tenant shares; fixed-rent contracts are limited to wealthy farmers (Laffont and Matoussi 1995; Lanjouw 1995; Shaban 1991). The degree to which policymakers need to be concerned about preventing effi- ciency losses from share tenancy contracts depends on the magnitude of this ineffi- ciency. Although different methodologies produce widely diverging results, Shaban (1991) indicates that the losses may be relatively modest—about 16 percent. Thus even if the government imposed regulations to replace the tenancy system with more efficient forms of production, the impact is likely to be modest. The case for govern- ment intervention is further reduced because inefficiency decreases with monitoring SS4 The World Bank Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) and social control, that is, by embedding share contracts in long-term social or kin- ship relationships. In fact, Sadoulet, de Janvry, and Fukui (1997) find that share tenancy contracts between kin (but not between others) were not associated with any disincentive effects. The study of the efficiency implications of contracts should there- fore be complemented by a focus on the contracting parties' opportunities outside their specific contract and on possible changes in the economic environment that might lead to the adoption of different types of contracts (Mookherjee 1997). Implications for Land Sales and Rental Markets When the 1975 land reform paper was written, policy advice focused on land sales markets to achieve efficiency-enhancing transfers of property and took a decidedly negative stance toward rental markets for land. If other markets are imperfect, how- ever, as noted above, sales may be less efficient and less equitable than rentals. Even where attempts to liberalize markets for land sales are embedded in a well-sequenced program of integrated factor market development, land sales may not be the most important constraint on higher productivity, and their liberalization may not be an immediate priority. Consider the effect of land transfers in rental markets. By renting out, landown- ers would not forgo possible benefits from credit access associated with land own- ership (and could even advance the credit thus obtained to a credit-constrained tenant under an interlinked contract) and would at the same time benefit from any efficiency advantage of the tenants' family labor. Credit market imperfections tend to affect rental markets less than they do sales markets; moreover, rental markets are associated with lower transaction costs and generate positive externalities by facilitating the acquisition of agricultural knowledge by the tenant and adaptation to changing labor availability. Thus, rental markets may contribute more to effi- ciency than sales markets (Carter and Olinto 1996). Governments should there- fore aim to create conditions conducive to the development of rental markets, rather than implicitly or explicitly restricting the scope for tenancy, as they have often done in the past. Land Reform The World Bank's 1975 policy paper strongly supported redistributive land reform on equity and efficiency grounds, pointing to the success of Asian land redistribu- tion and the Kenyan "million-acre scheme," which redistributed land from Euro- pean setders to African farmers. The practical difficulties associated with implementing land reform notwithstanding, the conceptual attractiveness of such a policy rests on three pillars. KUus Dciningtr tnd Hans Binswangcr 38S First, in situations where credit and product markets are incomplete, access to land can make a significant contribution to food security, households' nutritional well-being, and their ability to withstand shocks (Bardhan, Bowles and Gintis forth- coming). Evidence from China, where land was distributed largely independently of economic status, suggests that even though access to land insures household income only moderately against shocks, it provides almost complete insurance against mal- nutrition (Burgess 1997). Second, landownership affects economic growth and pov- erty reduction through credit-financed investment. The underlying idea is that the lack of collateral precludes landless individuals from making investments (in educa- tion, livestock, wells, and so on) that would require credit, even though the invest- ments would profit both the individual and society (Eckstein and Zilcha 1994; Galor and Zeira 1993). Poor people who do not have access to assets might remain impov- erished not because they are unproductive or lack skills but because they never get the opportunity to utilize their innate ability (Fafchamps and Pender 1997; Jalan and Ravallion 1997). Andfinally,several studies have argued that a more egalitarian distribution of assets (not necessarily land) would improve political stability. Be- cause this issue does not relate direcdy to land issues, we refer the reader to the literature on this topic.3 The ease of actually implementing land reform has varied considerably between "landlord estates," which had been cultivated by tenants, and "haciendas," whose ten- ants received a small plot of their own in return for working on the landlord's farm. In landlord estates, all that is required is a reassignment of propertyrights;land reform is generally easy to implement, and stable systems of production emerge. Since the end of World War II, landlord estates in Bolivia, large areas of China, Ethiopia, eastern India, Iran, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, China, have been transferred to ten- ants in the course of successful landreforms.The productivity gains associated with these land transfers were modest in cases where security of tenure had already been high, where cash rent (rather than share rent) contracts had prevailed before the re- form, and where landlords had provided tenants with market access (and no substitute was available). Both welfare and productivity increased where investment opportuni- ties were available (Callison 1983; King 1977; Koo 1968), where land ownership en- abled the new owners to access markets for credit and insurance that had previously been beyond their reach (Dorner and Thiesenhusen 1990), and where new technology could be readily adopted (Otsuka, Chuma, and Hayami 1992). By contrast, land reform in hacienda systems has been very difficult, and the "game of Latin American land reform" has been declared lost (de Janvry and Sadoulet 1989). In the great majority of these systems, large landowners responded to the threat of land reform by evicting all hired workers or tenants who could have claimed owner- ship under a reform program. The landlords either switched to livestock production and ranching or—aided by significant credit subsidies—shifted to highly mecha- nized cultivation (Binswanger, Deininger, and Feder 1995). As a result, programs of S56 The World B*nk Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) redistributive land reform reached far fewer people than intended and were often accompanied by a decline in tenant welfare that may have outweighed the benefits of the programs. Several factors account for this lack of success. First, if land is transferred from large to small farmers through government pro- grams, the ability of the latter to make economically productive use of this asset is contingent on a change in the pattern of production, subdivision of the farm, and construction of complementary infrastructure. Second, because the main productiv- ity advantage of land reform is linked to the increased incentives of owner-operators, it is important not only to avoid collective forms of production but also to ensure that owners operate their own farms. Third, beneficiaries are unaccustomed to mak- ing independent entrepreneurial decisions, an ability that is particularly important to make individual family farming a success. In many cases in which the farms ac- quired under a land reform program were not farmed at full capacity, the lack of funds for pastures, fencing, and so on or for startup capital was often the reason for the lack of success. Similarly, programs that were limited to transferring land to existing workers without providing those workers with complementary investment, training, technical assistance, and resources were generally associated with very lim- ited equity and efficiency benefits. Without access to credit markets, land reform beneficiaries may well be worse off than they had been when the landlord provided them with inputs and possi- bly even credit for consumption smoothing (Guinnane and Miller 1997). Re- stricted access to credit together with insecure property rights led beneficiaries of land reform in Nicaragua (Jonakin 1996) and the Philippines to sell off their new holdings—often at prices well below the productive value of the land. The key to avoiding such an outcome is the ability to access output and financial markets (Brooks and Lerman 1994). Arrangements where financial intermediar- ies provide input credit and help with marketing of the farm produce have in some cases helped beneficiaries overcome the obstacles posed by market imper- fections (Deininger 1999). Implications for Policy: Communal Tenure Systems Communal tenure systems are dominant in most countries of Africa, in China, in indigenous areas in Latin America, and in Mexico. When the community rather than the individual owns the land, whatever market exchanges (sale or rental) exist are normally limited to the community. Individuals have very secure and normally inheritable rights to land even after a period of absence, but they do not have perma- nent property rights to a specific plot, a limitation that may reduce investment in- centives. In some cases, communal systems also permit periodic redistribution of land by the village chief to accommodate population growth. KIMUS Deininger tnd Ham Binsuungrr 137 In the past, communal tenure arrangements were often considered economically inferior and equivalent to collective production. The establishment of freehold tide and the subdivision of the commons were proposed to prevent the efficiency losses that were assumed to be associated with communal ownership. More intensive study of communal tenure systems in a broader framework and the recognition that these systems perform multiple functions has led to a reassessment of these recommenda- tions, however. On the one hand, the efficiency losses associated with communal tenure systems may be more modest than generally assumed, for a number of reasons. First, arable land (in contrast to pasture, forest, or fishing grounds) is, in most communal sys- tems, cultivated by individuals who enjoy inheritable rights, which means that the static (and maybe even dynamic) efficiency losses possibly associated with commu- nal tenure may be quite limited. Second, communal resource ownership is often maintained because it either provides public goods or takes advantage of synergies that would be difficult to provide under individual cultivation, including risk reduction through diversification (McCloskey 1991; Nugent and Sanchez 1993), economies of scale to help with seasonal labor botdenecks (Mearns 1996), and in- vestment in community-level infrastructure (Boserup 1965; Dong 1996). Third, when population density is low and the payoffs from land-related investments are limited, die investment disincentives associated with communal tenure are likely to be of little consequence because people do not tend to invest under either system of tenure. With arable land becoming increasingly scarce, many communal tenure sys- tems eidier recognize a user's property rights if the land has been improved or com- pensate the user for improvements when the land is redistributed, thus attenuating tenure-related investment disincentives (Sjaastad and Bromley 1997). Finally, al- though communal systems prohibit land transactions with outsiders, rentals—and often even sales—within the community (and possibly beyond) are normally al- lowed, providing scope for efficiency-enhancing transfers. On the other hand, in environments with low population density and limited access to infrastructure and markets, the costs of delimiting and enforcing bound- aries for individual plots are high, so die economic benefits of formal tiding may not offset the expenses involved. Indeed, in several African countries, tides that were generated at high cost have lost their value as landowners failed to keep them up- dated. Thus, in cases where there is no clear demand for demarcation of individual plots, communal tides that are administered internally in a transparent fashion could provide tenure security at a fraction of the cost of individual tides (Bruce and Migot- Adholla 1994; Heath 1992). Communal tides also might provide a more effective safety net to ensure against risks and substitute for more cosdy redistributive mecha- nisms (Burgess 1997). Thus, instead of reinforcing an often artificial dichotomy between private and communal rights or trying to privatize land rights to "modern- ize" land tenure in an environment where few of the conditions for such moderniza- 3SS The World Bank Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) tion are present, policymakers should focus on ways to increase secure property rights within given constraints. More secure land rights may be highly valued by cultivators even under condi- tions of relatively low population density. For example, in Zambia (with a popula- tion density of 12 people per square kilometer and where 75 percent of the land is suitable for farming), almost 50 percent of farmers feel their land tenure is insecure and would be willing to pay something (US$40, on average) for land titles (Deininger and others 1998). Disputes, efficiency losses arising from limiting transfers and bar- ring certain groups from land rights, investment disincentives, and land grabbing in anticipation of future appreciation are all indicators that existing land rights are inadequate. Clarification and formalization of informal property rights in a process that increases the accountability of local leaders, establishes a transparent and im- plementable legal basis, and provides for adjudication of boundary disputes across communities must precede any effort to award formal tides. Adopting a flexible institutional structure that gives communities freedom of choice in accomplishing these goals is therefore of great importance. The draft land policy adopted by Zim- babwe provides a good example in this regard (Zimbabwe 1998). In countries where land ownership has traditionally been vested in the state, policymakers are concerned that a shift to individual land ownership is likely to lead to an undesirable reconcentration of land ownership. Experience suggests that this concern can be accommodated without forgoing major productivity benefits by giv- ing producers long-term tradable leases rather than full ownership rights. For ex- ample, the household responsibility system in China (which gave 15-year lease rights and at the same time made individuals residual claimants to output) has led to tre- mendous increases in output and productivity. To increase investment incentives, the government has decided to replace the 15-year leases with 30-year contracts (Prosterman, Schwarzwalder, and Ping 1998). Because the degree to which earlier leases were honored varied gready from village to village, inferences can be made regarding the impact of tenure security; studies find that more secure tenure did increase the level of investment 0acoby, Li, and Rozelle 1998). Establishing Formal Tenure Security Land registration and tiding have long been viewed as the main instruments for increasing tenure security, empowering a flourishing land market, and facilitating the use of land as collateral in credit markets. Although numerous studies have con- firmed the positive impact of tiding where the conditions are right, experience with World Bank projects has also demonstrated that tiding is not a panacea for achieving a wide variety of divergent goals at the same time. The objective—whether it is to improve credit access, increase tenure security, or activate land markets—must be Klaus Deininger and Hans Binstuanger 839 dear. In addition, the ways in which individuals gain access to land before titling, whether through collective, communal, or informal means, as well as the broader trajectory of economic development, will affect the costs and benefits of specific tiding instruments, their incidence across population groups, and the scope for pub- lic intervention. Conceptual and Implementation Issues Improved credit access has repeatedly been shown to be one of die major benefits from formal tide. Thus, tiding will confer the highest benefits where informal land transactions are common, a formal credit market that permits use of tide as collateral exists, and profitable investment opportunities are available.4 Tide is unlikely to in- crease die banks' willingness to lend to die rural sector where, for cultural or eco- nomic reasons, land cannot be repossessed or where land sales and mortgages are restricted (Atwood 1990; Ensminger 1997). Even if the above preconditions are satisfied, die effect of tiding may vary across groups of producers, an issue diat is of particular relevance if the initial distribution of land endowments is unequal. If the transaction costs associated widi lending to specific groups of producers exceed die benefits they can derive from die use of credit, title would not be expected to increase credit access. In such cases, die title might make it easier for large producers to access credit but would not make small landowners creditworthy, a situation diat would deepen preexisting inequalities. To prevent this and help tiding contribute to broad-based growdi, concurrent measures to improve access to credit markets, and possibly a differentiated scheme of recover- ing die costs of establishing tide, will be necessary. If a case can be made for formal tiding, it must be systematic and areawide to take advantage of economies of scale in measurement, adjudication, and conflict resolu- tion. Similarly, complementary infrastructure (such as programs to ensure access to credit markets) can be provided more easily and cost-effectively under an area-based program. To achieve equity, tiding needs to be combined widi a mechanism for resolving disputes on die spot and an information campaign explaining die legal background, die tiding process used, die rights of different parties, the rules of evi- dence, and the benefits of die appeal process. If a decision is made to tide on de- mand, die status of individual plots will still have to be investigated on a case-by-case basis, and any reduction in die transaction costs associated widi tiding will dius be minimal. Moreover, tiding on demand has often had disastrous consequences for die poor because individuals widi good political connections can often bypass the land rights of indigenous people, women, or other vulnerable groups (Bruce 1988; Platteau 1996). The tiding process requires a clear legal basis and a streamlined institutional infra- structure that is capable of administering the process efficiendy. Numerous World 36O The WorU Bonk Retard) Observer, voL 14. no. 2 (August 1999) Bank projects have either underestimated die complexity of die technical issues in- volved in tiding or assumed that tiding could be initiated even if agreement over complex policy issues had not been reached. Many countries have a plethora of insti- tutions, programs, and projects—often with overlapping competencies and respon- sibilities, contradictory approaches, and high resource requirements—that make it impossible to administer a tiding program effectively or to instill confidence in the validity of the tides issued. The absence of clear propertyrightsincreases the costs of land transactions and may drive them into the informal sector, but empirical evidence on the magnitude of this eflFect is limited, and government regulation of rental and sales markets appears to have been quantitatively more important. For example, in many Eastern European coun- tries, land rental and even sales transactions emerged long before individuals were able to obtain formal land tide. By contrast, the threat of expropriation of rented lands in Colombia and Mexico appears to have deterred land rental transactions even with a formal tide. Evidence from Mexico suggests that formal individual tide is not always necessary to facilitate operation of rental markets. The codification of property rights through proper procedures significandy reduced the transaction costs and increased the amount of land rentals in the market (Olinto, Davis, and Deininger 1999). Examples In the aftermath of the 1915 revolution in Mexico, about half of the national land area was granted to communities (ejidos) under communal tide. Well-intended restrictions to prevent ejido land from falling into the hands of die wealdiy proved to be highly inefficient. Although farmers invented ingenious ways to circumvent these restrictions (Heath 1992), commercial credit was difficult to obtain, and the transaction costs imposed by the various restrictions were high, involving, among other things, the threat of loss of land. In areas where nonagricultural opportunities had increased and farmers engaged in seasonal migration, communal tenure became increasingly dysfunctional. This issue was addressed in 1992 by legislation that lifted the restrictions on trans- fers of land, subject only to an upper limit, and allowed ejidos to decide on the admis- sion of members and the tenure regime under which they would operate. They can opt for communal tenure, contribute part of the common lands to a corporation or to a joint venture with outsiders, parcel all or part of the land out to members under free- hold tide, or even convert the whole ejidofromcommunal to freehold tenure. Con- trary to some fears, the law has not led to a widespread sell-oflfand pauperization of the majority of ejido members. Instead, allowing communities for which existing regula- tions had increasingly become a constraint the option to shift to a different tenure regime increased the owners'flexibilitywithout giving up the core principles (and the advantages, such as the insurance function provided by joint land ownership) associ- ated with communal types of tenure (de Janvry, Gordillo, and Sadoulet 1997). Klaus Deininger and Hans Binswanger 361 The second example involves a reorientation of Bolivia's legal framework and overall institutional environment. Bolivia had a long history of arbitrary allocation of frontier lands to influential individuals. Corruption within die responsible agen- cies resulted in double titling and conflicting rights, which created considerable ten- ure insecurity. Tiding was highly arbitrary; the process could take more than 12 years. The need to develop a broad consensus on the development of a more condu- cive land policy framework was time consuming, however, and required political support at the highest level, including presidential intervention (Munoz and Lavadenz 1997). Two areas of the resulting legislation are of particular interest. Recognizing the possibility of multiple claims on land, the law established three classes of property rights: private homesteads, communal lands, and land under pri- vate freehold tide. Homesteads are family residences up to half a hectare in size; so long as there are no conflicting claims, families can receive tide to their homesteads merely by showing proof of possession and occupancy in a relatively simple and quick process. Tide to communal lands (those that have been continuously used by a community or indigenous group) will be awarded if the community acquires legal status and specifies the by-laws under which it intends to govern internal matters. 5 Private agricultural properties under freehold can be established on the remainder of the lands. In addition, public lands can be allocated free of cost to indigenous com- munities and landless peasants or, if there is no demand from these groups, sold at market prices through a competitive auction. The legislation declares all land tides that have been acquired illegally to be null and void. Conflicting claims are adjudicated, land rights are regularized, and a legal cadastre is established by a newly founded institution. Areas to be reformed first are selected on the basis of existing land conflicts and demand for regularization. A desk investi- gation based on existing registry information and aerial photography is followed by a field investigation that involves all the claimants. The results of this investigation are then cross-checked with the land records and published in the communities to elicit public comments. Once complaints and objections have been attended to, the re- sults are posted publicly for two months. If no further complaints are lodged, the rights are finally registered. Experience thus far suggests that all but a tiny minority of claims can actually be regularized using this process and that large landowners are happy to cede illegally acquired parts of their "property" in exchange for legally rec- ognized tide to the rest. Improving the Functioning of Land Markets Governments in many developing countries maintain regulations that restrict land use and transfers. In many cases these restrictions have been adopted to avoid an unequal concentration of landholdings under a distorted policy regime or to reduce 263 The WorU Bank Raarcb Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) the political and fiscal cost of implementing land reform. A review of these policies finds diat they have rarely achieved their goals. We examine three main issues: re- strictions on land ownership and use; restrictions on land sales and rentals; and inter- ventions to improve the functioning of land markets. Land Ownership and Use Ceilings on land ownership have been imposed primarily to facilitate the breakup of large farms and the associated sales of land to small producers. Even where such measures have had a strong economic and social justification and where conditions for implementing them should have been favorable, ownership ceilings have had only a marginal impact. In India, for example, 35 years of ceiling laws have, in all except three states, transferred less than 1 percent of the agricultural area to the target group (Appu 1996). Ceiling laws have been expensive to enforce, have imposed costs on landowners who took measures to avoid them, and have generated corruption, tenure insecurity, and red tape. Such ceilings might be justified as a temporary measure in situations such as East- ern Europe if there are large imperfections in markets for credit, inputs, and outputs and if (new) landowners are ill informed about the productive value of their endow- ment. In such a situation, measures to reduce the scope for rapid land accumulation by individuals with better market access or information might be justifiable— although a temporary sales moratorium may be a better way to achieve this than ownership ceilings. Governments may also adopt zoning laws that classify certain land as either agri- cultural or nonagricultural. In rural areas, zoning land for agricultural use provides tax credits, exemption from assessments for urban services, and protection from nui- sance suits and forecloses the option of selling the land as residential property. Zon- ing is justified if negative externalities need to be reduced by more than the cost of zoning enforcement (Brandao and Feder 1995), but the cost of enforcing zoning regulations that run counter to economic incentives should not be underestimated. Especially if the institutional infrastructure for enforcement is weak, zoning may lead to rent-seeking and corruption that reduce the economic benefits to a point where they become negative. Restrictions on Land Rentals and Sales Sales restrictions have frequendy been imposed on beneficiaries of land reform or on settlers on formerly state-owned land to prevent them from selling or mortgaging their land. These measures could be justified to prevent beneficiaries from taking undue advantage of a land reform program or as a temporary measure to prevent land sales based on a lack of information or in response to imperfections in product Klaus Deininger and Hans Binswanger 363 and financial markets. Even temporary restrictions on land sales can be counterpro- ductive, however, because they prevent landholders from accessing credit when it is most needed. Hayami and Otsuka (1993) describe a situation in which farmers were forced to resort to inefficient arrangements such as usufruct mortgaging and wage labor to gain access to credit. Precluding beneficiaries of land reform from renting or selling their land is likely to prevent adjustments that reflect the settlers' abilities and could, if combined with restrictions on rentals, cause large tracts of land to be underutilized. The goal of preventing small landowners from selling out in response to temporary shocks would be better served by ensuring that they have access to output and credit markets and technical assistance and by providing them with safety nets during disasters to avoid distress sales. A moratorium on land sales might be justifiable to discourage speculative purchases, but alternatives such as limiting the amount of land that can be allocated to one individual or requiring that the land be cultivated before tide is granted should be considered instead. Rental restrictions aimed at eliminating the efficiency losses that are assumed to be associated widi share tenancy are not justified. They should be eliminated because rental markets are likely to acquire increased importance with economic develop- ment (in most industrial countries, between 40 and 70 percent of all cultivated agri- cultural areas is rented rather than owned). As noted above, the efficiency gains from rental restrictions are likely to be modest even in the most desirable case, and the danger of less favorable outcomes is high. The historical root of most rental restric- tions in developing countries is in tenancy reforms that sought to improve the status and welfare of the tenant farmer by imposing rent ceilings, awarding permanent rights to tenanted land (subject to landowners' right to retention), and transferring land ownership to lands not claimed by landowners. The inability to implement these reforms swiftly has negatively affected the functioning of rental markets. In most Latin American countries that tried to give tenants secure tenure, landlords thwarted the reforms by undertaking large-scale evictions or shifting to ranching, highly mechanized cultivation, or the use of wage labor. In India, tenancy reforms meant to benefit the poor seem, in the aggregate, to have damaged them. Although the impact varies by state, tenant evictions associated with tenancy reforms have caused the rural poor to lose about 30 percent of the total cultivated area, and, by threatening landowners who lease with the loss of their land, the reforms have com- pletely undermined land access through rental markets (Appu 1996). Even in coun- tries such as Egypt and Uganda where tenancy reforms could be implemented, fail- ure to separate clearly the rights of landowners from those of tenants has led to overlapping claims to the same piece of land, causing uncertainty and inhibiting investment. Landowners (who normally are precluded from raising rents) have no incentive to invest, while tenants' rights cannot normally be used as collateral for formal credit. S64 The World Bank Raamh Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) Replacing rental restrictions with a clear regulatory framework for land rental markets could do much to improve agricultural productivity and the welfare of po- tential tenants. Furthermore, in situations characterized by overlapping property rights resulting from incomplete implementation of tenancy reforms, mechanisms allow- ing the parties to come to a mutually agreeable solution—whereby one party buys out the other or each party receives full property rights to part of the land—could boost investment and productivity. Land Market Interventions Many governments now realize that the social benefits from better-functioning land rental markets far outweigh the advantages of most of the restrictions that have his- torically been imposed on the operation of such markets. The key question, there- fore, is to identify the most important impediments to better development of land markets and to sequence their removal in a way that does not jeopardize the poor. Earlier discussions indicated that the key issues are to enhance investment by clarify- ing property rights and establishing an institutional framework that guarantees the security of these rights; to increase efficiency by facilitating increased transferability of land (use) rights in rental and possibly sales markets; and to improve the integra- tion of land and other (financial) markets. In addition, governments can consider imposing a land tax and establishing land information systems. A land tax that is enforced at the municipal level not only could provide an incentive to large landowners to utilize their land more productively but could also make an important contribution to decentralization. On the one hand, a land tax is one of the few cases of a lump sum tax where—using asset, rather than produc- tion, values—the effective tax rate decreases as the income generated from the land increases, thus encouraging more productive use of the resource. Several countries are currently experimenting with a land tax, either using a flat tax rate as in Nica- ragua, or basing land taxes on self-assessed land values as in Chile (Bird 1974). Land taxes have proven very useful in a wide range of urban contexts in developing countries and—if accompanied by appropriate institutions to help with account- ing and implementation—should be feasible in rural ones as well. Because the value of land tax revenues in any given municipality is linked to land values, how- ever, potential land tax revenues will obviously be meager in poor and remote rural municipalities. Land taxes therefore cannot redistribute wealth from rich to poor neighborhoods, which means that local governments will need additional sources of revenue if the interests of horizontal equity are to be served. Several countries are also attempting to establish market information systems that would reduce transaction costs and improve the availability of information about land prices and markets. These systems would help expand participation in Klaus Deininger and Hans Binswangcr 26S sales and rental markets and thereby improve the acceptance of land as collateral by financial institutions. Such information systems would also help in developing, fine-tuning, and evaluating the broader framework for land policy, particularly in determining the degree to which distortions continue to apply, who exactly par- ticipates in these markets, and whether the interaction between land and credit markets is efficient. Redistributive Land Reform Many of the impediments to a smooth functioning of land, labor, and product mar- kets date from the colonial era; because such longstanding barriers maintain a highly unequal distribution of land, large tracts of productive land lie idle, while peasants have to eke out a living on marginal and often environmentally fragile lands. In addition to reducing productivity, unequal land ownership is also linked to social unrest and violence. But die practical difficulties of implementing a land reform program and the ease with which the economic imperatives might be subordinated to political pressure are daunting obstacles. In the past, instead of aiming to increase productivity and reduce poverty, land reform often aimed at calming social unrest and allaying political pressures by peas- ant organizations (Horowitz 1993). Even where there was a genuine commitment to breaking the power of landed elites, agrarian reforms were generally designed by urban intellectuals with little idea of the realities of agricultural production and a suspicion that small-scale cultivators could not farm on their own—let alone in- crease productivity (Barradough 1970). Moreover, the individuals who were tar- geted to benefit from these programs were often politically powerful and well- connected rather than those who could make productive use of the land or who were the most deserving on poverty grounds.6 Furthermore, the continued existence of implicit and explicit distortions (for ex- ample, the use of land as a tax shelter) raised the costs of land reform by driving land prices above the capitalized value of the agricultural profits the land would produce. Such distortions also reduced the sustainability of land reform and, by encouraging beneficiaries to sell out to large farmers, contributed to a reconcentration of hold- ings. As noted earlier, attempts to impose legal restrictions often made matters worse. A recent census of Brazilian land reform setdements reported that only about 60 percent of land reform beneficiaries were actually tilling their land. Finally, rather than improving the way land markets function and using these markets to complement government efforts to redistribute agricultural land, previ- ous programs often aimed to provide substitutes for these markets, resulting in com- plex regulations that stretched available administrative capacity (Lipton 1974). Cen- tralized government bureaucracies—charged with providing technical assistance and 266 The World Bank Research Observer. voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) other support services to beneficiaries—proved to be corrupt, expensive, and ineffec- tive in responding to beneficiary demands. Land Banks In view of these difficulties, land banks and frontier setdements were seen as alterna- tive mechanisms to land reform. Land banks provide loan financing at commercial rates for small farmers to acquire land, while frontier settlement, or colonization, aims to transfer individuals from congested areas to remote areas where lack of infra- structure means that land is cheap. With hindsight, it can be said that these alterna- tive mechanisms were ineffective. Expecting beneficiaries to repay the full price of land has resulted in widespread default and nonrecoverable loans. Frontier setde- ment is no longer seen as a way to equalize land distribution. In addition to high administrative costs and associated environmental hazards, it has reinforced, ratiier than eliminated, unequal land ownership patterns in many countries (Thiesenhusen 1991). Thus most land reforms have relied on expropriation and have been more successful in creating bureaucratic behemoths and in colonizing frontiers than in redistributing land from large to small farmers, although redistributive land reform was shown to have positive social returns. New Opportunities for Viable Reform The fall in land prices associated with macroeconomic reforms, along with the loss of the privileges that had been conferred on large farms by discriminatory laws, trade protection, and credit subsidies, provides an opportunity to address land reform that is less detrimental to die functioning of markets. Several countries (Brazil, Colom- bia, Guatemala, the Philippines, and South Africa) are experimenting with a new "community-based" model of land reform. In this instance, the government's role is limited to providing groups of poor people with technical and financial assistance to buy land in a way that is similar to demand-driven social investment funds. This approach has a number of advantages. First, because there is an upper limit on the amount of the grant, beneficiaries have an incentive to seek run-down, unproductive farms. This approach also aims to replace the confrontational atmosphere that has characterized land reforms with a more collaborative attitude. In fact, because any- thing that improves the buyer's productivity is likely to increase the land price, the seller will, in a competitive market, have a strong incentive to help buyers improve the quality of their product—for example, dirough technical advice and marketing assistance. Second, in a clear departure from the traditional approach, the new model would stimulate, rather dian undermine, land markets. Finally, by drawing on the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and the community to develop, fi- nance, and administer projects, the approach promises to overcome some of the Klaus Deiningcr and Hans Bimutanger S67 informational imperfections that have plagued the implementation of land reform by government bureaucracies. This also would help to develop a menu of project options more attuned to the specific needs of different groups within the target popu- lation (such as female-headed households). These programs are too new for their impact on productivity and on die poor to be assessed. But initial evaluations underscore both the potential and the importance of the incentive framework and close monitoring. In South Africa the lack of local government structures, the continued existence of the land subdivision act (which was repealed only recendy), and a very centralized and bureaucratic process initially posed limits to private sector participation, die outreach of the program, and the economic viability of the projects. Based on this experience, efforts are under way to reduce die administrative requirements for "livelihood projects" that involve very limited amounts of subsidy, to strengthen incentives for beneficiaries' own contribu- tions, and to decentralize implementation of the entire land reform program. The success of several "share-equity schemes," where beneficiaries form joint ventures with private investors (including former farm owners), together with evidence from land transactions in the market outside of the program (Graham and Lyne 1999), point toward considerable commercial potential for land reform. In Colombia evaluations show tJiat the results of a community-based pilot pro- gram are clearly superior to those of previous programs and that formerly landless cultivators are able to establish highly productive agricultural operations (Forero 1999). The large size of the grant (70 percent of the land value), however, together with the legal requirement that it be used only to purchase land and not for complementary investments, reduces the economic and fiscal viability of the program. In addition to establishing small areas of perennials and vegetables, where productivity actually ex- ceeds expectations, beneficiaries have purchased large tracts of relatively unproduc- tive (pasture) land that often generates less revenue than is necessary to service inter- est on the debt (30 percent of the land value) incurred to purchase the land. Changing the program structure to avoid this problem and allowing each beneficiary family to purchase and invest in an area sufficiendy large to fully occupy the family's labor (about 2 hectares) could gready increase the economic return as well as reduce the fiscal cost. In Brazil, where individual states sought to increase the pace of land reform, a pilot program to allow market-based acquisition of land by beneficiaries has had impressive results, accomplishing the land reform faster than expected. The new approach is now being implemented nationwide. Because of its decentralized nature, tiiere is ample scope for innovative ways to ensure that the program is targeted to the poor, tliat it is economically viable, and that it provides incentives for repayment of die land credit, all issues diat are of critical importance if the program is to be replicated on a broad scale (Buainain, Da Sirveira, and Teofilo 1998; Navarro 1998). 36* The World Bank Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) Conclusion Within the last two decades, considerable advances have been made in understand- ing the principles underlying land relations and in the way in which they might be affected by specific policy interventions aimed at growth and poverty reduction. At the same time, the number of countries where policymakers believe that the issues surrounding land relations must be addressed has expanded. It is now recognized that formal tide, under conditions of low population density, is not necessarily die most cost-effective and desirable way to ensure secure tenure and facilitate land transfers. One alternative is to award property rights to communi- ties, which then decide on the most suitable tenure arrangements. This system not only should reduce transaction costs but also should allow a more flexible evolution of the structure of property rights while at the same time restoring some of the tradi- tional social functions of land through secondary common property uses. Evalua- tions of such approaches, which are in increasing demand all over Africa, would be highly desirable. Another option is to award long-term and transferable leases, which could increase investment and expand the scope for using the rental market to trans- fer land to more productive uses. Experience shows that the undesirable outcomes that have been attributed to the free operation of land markets were caused more by policy distortions and imperfec- tions in other markets than by the operation of land markets per se. The fact that land sales are more affected than rentals by such factors suggests that the liberaliza- tion of rental markets should be a high priority. Indeed, the plethora of land market interventions has greatly reduced opportunities for the poor to rent land. A number of countries inherited a dualistic landownership distribution that is not conducive either to efficiency and investment or to equity and that has often been at the root of violence and protracted social struggle. After macroeconomic liberalization, some of these countries have started to implement a new model of community-based, market-driven land reform. Additional research is needed to determine whether such programs have affected land access, investment, productivity, and social indicators such as violence. The results of that research not only will allow policymakers to make changes as individual programs evolve but also will provide lessons for coun- tries that are struggling to make land policies more effective. Notes Klaus Deininger is an economist in the World Bank's Development Research Group; Hans Binswanger is sector director in the Rural Development and Environment Department in the Africa Region. The authors would like to thank Michael Carter, Alain de Janvry, Dina Umali-Deininger, Ruben Echeverria, Gershon Fedcr, Gustavo Gordillo de Anda, Isabel Lavadenz, Shcm Migot-Adholla, Pedro Olinto, Klaus Dtininger and Hani Binstumger 269 Elisabeth Sadoulet, and participants at a World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) workshop in Santiago and various World Bank seminars for detailed comments. 1. The breakdown in collective forms of production occurs because members do not receive the full benefits of increased effort (the free-rider problem), because members' ability to benefit from the collective's assets ends with termination of membership, thus diminishing members' investment in- centives, and because there is an incentive to reduce the number of members, often coupled widi government subsidies to embark on a capital-intensive development path—implying that collectives generate much less employment than do small (or even large) farms. 2. Farm management and supervisory skills are of importance not only because farmers with better management skills would operate larger farm units but also because they will generally want remu- neration for their management comparable to what they could obtain in other sectors of the economy. This leads farm operators to substitute capital for labor as nonagricultural wage rates increase (Kislev and Peterson 1982). Such an increase in farm size over time does not necessarily indicate the presence of increasing returns to scale. 3. A positive relationship between asset distribution and growth is ascertained, for example, by Birdsall and Londofio (1997); Deininger and Olinto (1999); Deininger and Squire (1998); Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza (1998); and Rodrik (1998). Besley and Burgess (1998) extend this to land reform legislation. 4. Indeed, some studies have found that in cases where no formal credit markets existed, title had little impact on farm income or investment (Carter and Wiebe 1990; Migot-Adholla and others 1991). 5. As in the case of Mexico, communities can decide to subdivide the communal lands and distrib- ute parcels to individual members underfreeholdtitle if they so wish, subject to an upper size limit on the holding of any individual in the group and adherence to proper processes in doing so. 6. This is in line with evidence from a number of Eastern European countries, where political constraints generally led to a relatively "inefficient" way of implementing land reform—through physical restitution of plots rather than compensation of former owners through fungible cash payments. References The word "processed" describes informally reproduced works that may not be commonly available through library systems. Alston, L. J., G. D. Libecap, and B. Mueller. 1999. Titles, Conflict, and Land Use: The Development of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Amazon Frontier. Ann Arbor University of Michi- gan Press. Alston, L. J., G. D. Libecap, and R. Schneider. 1996. "The Determinants and Impact of Property Rights: Land Titles on the Brazilian Frontier." Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization Appu, P. S. 1996. Land Reforms in India: A Survey of Policy, Legislation, and Implementation. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. Atwood, D. A. 1990. "Land Registration in Africa: The Impact on Agricultural Production." World Development 18:659-71. Baland, Jean-Marie, and Jean-Philippe Platteau. 1996. Halting Degradation ofNatural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? New York: Clarendon Press for the Food and Agriculture Organization. Balcazar, Alvaro. 1990. "Tanafio de finca, dinamica tecnologia y rendimientos agricolas." Coyuntura Agropecuaria 7(3): 107-25. The WorU Bant Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) Bardhan, Pranab, Samuel Bowles, and Herbert Ginris. Forthcoming. "Wealth Inequality, Wealth Constraints, and Economic Performance." In Antony Atkinson and Francois Bourguignon, eds., Handbook ofIncome Distribution. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Barradough, S. L. 1970. "Agricultural Policy and Land Reform." Journal of Political Economy 7 &(A): 906-47. Benjamin, Dwayne. 1995. "Can Unobserved Land Quality Explain the Inverse Productivity Rela- tionship?" Journal ofDevelopment Economics 46:51—84. Berry, R, A., and W. R. Cline. 1979. Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Developing Countries. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Besley, Timothy. 1995. "Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Gham." Journal ofPolitical Economy 103/5:903-37. Besley, Timothy, and Robin Burgess. 1998. "Land Reform, Poverty Reduction, and Growth: Evi- dence from India." London School of Economics. Processed. Bhalla, S. S., and P. Roy. 1988. "Mis-Specification in Farm Productivity Analysis: The Role of Land Quality." Oxford Economic Papers 40:5 5-73. Bidinger, P. D., T. S. Walker, B. Sarkar, A. R. Murty, and P. Babu. 1991. "Consequences of Mid-1980s Drought: Longitudinal Evidence from Mahbubnagar." Economic and Political Weekly 26iA105—14. Binswanger, Hans P. 1989. "Brazilian Policies That Encourage Deforestation in the Amazon." World Development 19:821-29. Binswanger, Hans P., and M. Elgin. 1988. "What Are the Prospects for Land Reform?" In Allen Maunder and Alberto Valdfe, eds., Agriculture and Governments in an Interdependent World: Proceedings ofthe Twentieth International Conference of Agricultural Economists. Aldershot, U.K.: Dartmouth. Binswanger, Hans P., Klaus Deininger, and Gershon Feder. 1995. "Power, Distortions, Revolt, and Reform in Agricultural Land Relations." In Jere Behrman and T. N. Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics. Vol. 3. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Bird, R. 1974. Taxing Agricultural Land in Developing Countries. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni- versity Press. Birdsall, Nancy, and Juan Luis Londofio. 1997. "Asset Inequality Matters: An Assessment of the World Bank's Approach to Poverty Reduction." AEA Papers and Proceedings 87(2):32-37. Boserup, Ester. 1965. Conditions ofAgricultural Growth: The Economics ofAgrarian Change under Population Pressure. New York: Aldine. Brandio, A. S. P., and Gershon Feder. 1995. "Regulatory Policies and Reform: The Case of Land Markets." In Claudio Frischtak, ed., Regulatory Policies and Reform: A Comparative Perspective. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Brasselle, Anne-Sophie, Frederic Gaspart, and Jean-Philippe Platteau. 1997. "Land Tenure Security and Investment Incentives: Some Further Puzzling Evidence from Burkina Faso." Centre de Re- cherche en Economic de Developpement (CRED), Namur, Belgium. Processed. Brooks, Karen, and Zvi Lerman. 1994. Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in Russia. World Bank Discussion Paper 233. Washington, D.C. Bruce, J. W. 1988. "A Perspective on Indigenous Land Tenure Systems and Land Concentration." In R. W. Downs and S. P. Reyna, eds., Land and Society in Contemporary Africa. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the University of New Hampshire. Bruce, J. W., and Shem Migot-Adholla. 1994. Searchingfor Land Tenure Security in Africa. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt. Buainain, Antdnio Mircio, Jose" Maria da Silveira, and Edson Teofilo. 1998. "Reforma agrdria, desenvolvimento e participacao: Uma discussao das transforma^oes necessirias e possfveis." Paper Klaus Deininger and Hans Binswanger %71 presented at the workshop on Reforma Agraria e Desenvolvimento Sustentivel, Fortaleza, Brazil, November (also at http://umnv.dataterra.org.br/DocumentosJdocumentos.htm). Burgess, Robin. 1997. "Land, Welfare, and Efficiency in Rural China." London School of Econom- ics. Processed. Cain, M. 1981. "Risk and Insurance: Perspectives on Fertility and Agrarian Change in India and Bangladesh." Population andDevelopmentReview!':435—/T4. Callison, C. S. 1983. Land-to-the-Tiller in the Mekong Delta: Economic, Social, and Political Effects of Land Reform in Four Villages ofSouth Vietnam. Bloomington, Ind.: University Press of America. Carter, Michael R. 1984. "Identification of the Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Produc- tivity: An Empirical Analysis of Peasant Agricultural Production." Oxford Economic Papers 36:131— 45. Carter, Michael R., and Dina Mesbah. 1993. "State-Mandated and Market-Mediated Land Reform in Latin America." In Michael Lipton and Jacques van der Gaag, eds., Including the Poor. Proceed- ings of a symposium organized by the World Bank and the International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Carter, Michael R., and Pedro Olinto. 1996. "Does Land Titling Activate a Productivity-Promoting Land Market? Econometric Evidence from Rural Paraguay." University of Wisconsin, Madison. Processed. Carter, Michael R., and K. D. Wiebe. 1990. "Access to Capital and Its Impact on Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Kenya." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72:1146-50. Carter, Michael R., and Eduardo Zegarra. 1995. "Reshaping Class Competitiveness and the Trajec- tory of Agrarian Growth with Well-Sequenced Policy Reform." Agricultural Economics Staff Pa- per Series 379. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Processed. Cheung, N. S. 1969. The Theory ofShare Tenancy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Deininger, Klaus. 1995. "Collective Agricultural Production: A Solution for Transition Economies?" World Development 23(8): 1317-34. . 1999. "Making Negotiated Land Reform Work; Initial Experience from Colombia, Brazil, and South Africa." Policy Research Working Paper 2040. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pro- cessed. Deininger, Klaus, and Pedro Olinto. 1999. "Is Broad Asset Distribution Good for Growth? Panel Data Evidence from 60 Countries." World Bank, Development Research Group, Washington, D.C. Processed. Deininger, Klaus, and Lyn Squire. 1998. "New Ways of Looking at Old Issues: Inequality and Growth." Journal of Development Economics 57(2):257—85. Deininger, Klaus, Pedro Olinto, M. Wamulume, and D. Chiwele. 1998. "Agricultural Sector Perfor- mance in a Post-Reform Environment: Implications for Second-Generation Reforms in Zambia." World Bank, Washington, D.C. Processed. de Janvry, Alain, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. 1989. "A Study in Resistance to Institutional Change: The Lost Game of Latin American Land Reform." World Development 17:1397-1407. de Janvry, Alain, Gustavo Gordillo, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. 1997. "Mexico's Second Agrarian Re- form: Household and Community Responses, 1990—1994." University of California at San Di- ego, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, La Jolla, Calif. Processed. De Meza, D., and J. R. Gould. 1992. "The Social Efficiency of Private Decisions to Enforce Property Rights." Journal ofPolitical Economy 100:561-80. Dercon, Stefan. 1996. "Risk, Crop Choice, and Savings: Evidence from Tanzania." Economic Devel- opment and Cultural Change 44(3):485-513. The WorU Bank Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) Dcrcon, Stefan, and Pramila Krishnan. 1996. "Income Portfolios in Rural Ethiopia and Tanzania: Choices and Constraints." Journal ofDevelopment Studies 32(6):85O-75. Dong, Xiao-Yuan. 1996. "Two-Tier Land Tenure Systems and Sustained Economic Growth in Post- 1978 Rural China." World Development 24(5):915-28. Dorner, P., and William C. Thiesenhusen. 1990. "Selected Land Reforms in East and Southeast Asia: Their Origins and Impacts." Asian Pacific Economic Literature 4:69-95. Eckstein, Zvi, and Itzhak Zilcha. 1994. "The Effects of Compulsory Schooling on Growth Income Distribution and Welfare." Journal of Public Economics 54(July):339-59. Ensminger, J. 1997. "Changing Property Rights: Reconciling Formal and Informal Rights to Land in Africa." In John N. Drobak and John V. C. Nye, eds., The Frontiers of the New Institutional Economics. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press. Eswaran, M., and A. Kotwal. 1985a. "A Theory of Contractual Structure in Agriculture." American Economic Review 75:352—67. . 1985b. "A Theory of Two-Tier Labor Markets in Agrarian Economies." American Economic Review 75:162-77. Fafchamps, Marcel, and John Pender. 1997. "Precautionary Saving, Credit Constraints, and Irrevers- ible Investment: Theory and Evidence from Semiarid India." Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 15(April): 180-94. Fajnzylbcr, P., D. Lederman, and N. Loayza. 1998. "What Causes Violent Crime?" World Bank, Washington, D.C. Processed. Feder, Gershon. 1985. "The Relation between Farm Size and Farm Productivity: The Role of Family Labor, Supervision, and Credit Constraints." Journal ofDevelopment Economics 18:297-313. Feder, Gershon, and D. Feeny. 1991. "Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development Policy." The World Bank Economic Review 5(January):135-55. Feder, Gershon, T. Onchan, Y. Chalamwong, and C. Hangladoran. 1986. Land Policies and Farm Productivity in Thailand Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Feder, Gershon, Lawrence J. Lau, Justin Y. Lin, and Luo Xiaoping. 1989. "Agricultural Credit and Farm Performance in China." Journal of'Comparative Economics 13(4):508—26. Forero, Roberto. 1999. "Evaluaci6n de Proyectos Piloto de Reforma Agraria en Colombia." Informe final. Santafe de Bogota1. Processed. Frisvold, George B. 1994. "Does Supervision Matter? Some Hypothesis Tests Using Indian Farm- Level Data." Journal of Development Economics 43:217—38. Galor, Oded, and Joseph Zeira. 1993. "Income Distribution and Macroeconomics." Review ofEco- nomic Studies 60:35—52. Gavian, Sarah, and Marcel Fafchamps. 1996. "Land Tenure and Allocative Efficiency in Niger." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78:460-71. Glover, D. 1990. "Contract Farming and Outgrower Schemes in East and Southern Africa." Journal of Agricultural Economics 41:303-l 5. Graham, Andrew W., and Michael C. Lyne. 1999. "Land Redistribution in Kwazulu-Natal: An Analysis of Farmland Transactions in 1997." University of Natal, Department of Agricultural Economics, Pietermaritzburg. Processed. Guinnane, Timothy W., and Ronald I. Miller. 1997. "The Limits to Land Reform: The Land Acts in Ireland, 1870-1909." Economic Development and Cultural Change 45(3):591-612. Gunjal, Kisan, Sarah Williams, and Robert Romain. 1996. "Agricultural Credit Subsidies and Farm- land Values in Canada." Canadian Journal ofAgricultural Economics 44(March):39—52. KLais Deiningcr and Ham Binauanger S73 Hayami, Yujiro, and Kcijiro Otsuka. 1993. The Economics of Contract Choice: An Agrarian Perspec- tive. New York Oxford University Press. Heath, J. R. 1992. "Evaluating the Impact of Mexico's Land Reform on Agricultural Productivity." World Development 20:695-711. Horowitz, Andrew W. 1993. "Time Paths of Land Reform: ATheoretical Model of Reform Dynam- ics." American Economic Review 83(4): 1003—10. Jacoby, H. G., G. Li, and Scott Rozelle. 1998. "Hazards of Expropriation: Tenure Insecurity and Investment in Rural China." World Bank, Development Research Group, Washington, D.C. Processed. Jalan, Jyotsna, and Martin Ravallion. 1997. "Are die Poor Less Well Insured? Evidence on Vulner- ability to Income Risk in Rural China." World Bank, Development Research Group, Washing- ton, D.C. Processed. Jensen, Michael C , and W. H. Meckling. 1976. "Theory of die Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure." Journal of Financial Economics 3:305—60. Jonakin, J. 1996. "The Impact of Structural Adjustment and Property Rights Conflicts on Nicara- guan Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries." World Development 24(July): 1179—91. Just, R. E., and J. A. Miranowski. 1988. "U.S. Land Prices: Trends and Determinants." In Allen Maunder and Alberto Valdes, eds., Agriculture and Governments in an Interdependent World: Pro- ceedings of the Twentieth International Conference of Agricultural Economists. Aldershot, U.K.: Dartmoudi. Kevane, Michael. 1996. "Agrarian Structure and Agricultural Practice: Typology and Application to Western Sudan." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(February):236—45. Key, N., C. Munoz-Pina, Alain de Janvry, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. 1998. "Social and Environmen- tal Consequences of the Mexican Reforms: Common Pool Resources in die Ejido Sector." Uni- versity of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Processed. King, R. 1977. Land Reform: A World Survey. London: G. Bell and Sons. Kislev, Yoav, and Willis Peterson. 1982. "Prices, Technology, and Farm Size." Journal of'Political Economy 90:578-95 Koo, A. Y. C. 1968. Land Reform and Economic Development: A Case Study of Taiwan. New York: Praeger. Kranton, Rachel E., and Anand V. Swamy. 1997. "The Hazards of Piecemeal Reform: British Civil Courts and the Credit Market in Colonial India." World Bank, Development Research Group, Washington, D.C. Processed Kutcher, Gary P., and Pasquale L. Scandizzo. 1981. The Agricultural Economy of Northeast Brazil Washington, D.C: World Bank Laffont, Jean-Jacques, and Mohamed-Salah Matoussi. 1995. "Moral Hazard, Financial Constraints, and Sharecropping in El Oulja." Review ofEconomic Studies 62(July):381-99. Lanjouw, Jean Olson. 1995. "Information and die Operation of Markets: Tests Based on a General Equilibrium Model of Land Leasing in India." Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper 727. Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Processed. Lin, Justin Y. 1992. "Rural Reforms and Agricultural Growdi in China." American Economic Review 82:34-51. Lipton, Michael. 1974. "Towards a Theory of Land Reform." In D. Lehman, ed., Peasants, Land- lords, and Governments: Agrarian Reform in the Third World New York Holmes & Meyer. Lopez, R. 1997. "Land Tides and Farm Productivity in Honduras." World Bank, Washington, D.C. Processed. S74 The WoHd Bank Raetnb Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999) Malik, A., and R. M. Schwab. 1991."Optimal Investments to Establish Property Rights in Land." Journal of Urban Economics 29:295-309. McCarthy, Nancy, Alain de Janvry, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. 1998. "Land Allocation under Dual Individual-Collective Use in Mexico." Journal ofDevelopment Economics 56:239—44. McCloskey, D. N. 1991. "The Prudent Peasant: New Findings on Open Fields." Journal of Economic History 51(2):343-55. McMillan, J., J. Whalley, and L. Zhu. 1989. "The Impact of China's Economic Reforms on Agricul- tural Productivity Growth." Journal of Political Economy 97:781-807. Mearns, Robin. 1996. "Community, Collective Action, and Common Grazing: The Case of Post- Socialist Mongolia." Journal ofDevelopment Studies 32(3):297-339. Migot-Adholla, Shem, Peter Hazell, B. Blarel, and F. Place. 1991. "Indigenous Land Rights Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Constraint on Productivity?" The World Bank Economic Review 5(Janu- ary): 155-75. Mookherjee, Dilip. 1997. "Informational Rents and Property Rights in Land." In J. Roemer, ed., Property Rights, Incentives, and Welfare. New York: Macmillan. Munoz, Jorge A., and Isabel Lavadenz. 1997. "Reforming the Agrarian Reform in Bolivia." Harvard Institute for International Development Discussion Paper. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Processed. Navarro, Zander. 1998. "O projeto-piloto 'C&lula da Terra' — comentirio sobre as condicoes sociais e polftico-institucionais de seu desenvolvimento recente." Brasilia. Processed (also at http:ll unvw.dataterra.org.br/Documentos/documentos.htm). Newell, Andrew, Kiran Pandya, and James Symons. 1997. "Farm Size and the Intensity of Land Use in Gujarat." Oxford Economic Papers 49:307-15. Nugent, Jeffrey, and Nicolas Sanchez. 1993. "Tribes, Chiefs, and Transhumance: A Comparative Institutional Analysis." Economic Development and Cultural Change 42(October):87-l 13. Olinto, Pedro V. 1995. "Land Quality and the Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Pro- ductivity: A Panel Data Analysis of Paraguayan Farm Households." University of Wisconsin, Department of Agricultural Economics, Madison. Processed. Olinto, Pedro V., Benjamin Davis, and Klaus Deininger. 1999. "Did the Poor Benefit from Land Market Liberalization in Mexico? Panel-Data Estimates of the Impact of Ejido Reforms." World Bank, Development Research Group, Washington D.C. Processed. Otsuka, Keijiro, and Yujiro Hayami. 1988. "Theories of Share Tenancy: A Critical Survey." Eco- nomic Development and Cultural Change 37:31-68. Otsuka, Keijiro, H. Chuma, and Yujiro Hayami. 1992. "Land and Labor Contracts in Agrarian Economies: Theories and Facts." Journal of Economic Literature 30:1965-2018. Plattcau, Jean-Philippe. 1996. "The Evolutionary Theory of Land Rights as Applied to Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Assessment." Development and Change 27:29-86. Prosterman, Roy, Brian Schwarzwalder, and Li Ping. 1998. "China's Breakthrough 1998 Land Man- agement Law: Recommendations for Implementing Regulations." Rural Development Institute, Seattle, Wash. Processed. Rodrik, Dani. 1998. "Where Did All the Growth Go? External Shocks, Social Conflict, and Growth Collapses." Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Processed. Rosenzweig, M. R., and Hans P. Binswanger. 1993. "Wealth, Weather Risk, and the Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments." Economic Journal 103:56-78. Rosenzweig, M. R., and K. I. Wolpin. 1993. "Credit Market Constraints, Consumption Smoodiing, and the Accumulation of Durable Production Assets in Low-Income Countries: Investments in Bullocks in India." Journal of Political Economy 101:223—44. Klaus Deininger and Hans Biwwanger J7S Sadoulet, Elisabedi, Alain de Janvry and Seiichi Fukui. 1997. "The Meaning of Kinship in Share- cropping Contracts." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79:394—406. Shaban, R. A. 1991. "Does the Land Tenancy Market Equalize Holdings?" Working Paper. Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, Department of Economics, Philadelphia, Pa. Processed. Shetty, S. 1988. "Limited Liability, Wealdi Differences, and Tenancy Contracts in Agrarian Eco- nomics." Journal ofDevelopment Economics 29:1-22. Sjaastad, Espen, and Daniel Bromley. 1997. "Indigenous Land Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: Appro- priation, Security, and Investment Demand." World Development 25(4):549-62. Skoufias, Emmanuel. 1995. "Household Resources, Transaction Costs, and Adjustment through Land Tenancy." Land Economics 71(Fcbruary):42—56. Thiesenhusen, William C. 1991. "Implications of the Rural Land Tenure System for die Environ- mental Debate: Three Scenarios." Journal ofDeveloping Arras 26(1):1—24. Udry, Christopher. 1996. "Efficiency and Market Structure: Testing for Profit Maximization in Af- rican Agriculture." Northwestern University, Department of Economics, Evanston, 111. Processed. Yao.Yang. 1996. "Three Essays on the Implications of Imperfect Markets in Rural China." Ph.D. diss. University of Wisconsin, Department of Agricultural Economics, Madison. Processed. Zimbabwe, Ministry of Lands and Agriculture. 1998. "National Land Policy Framework Paper." Harare. Processed. Zimmerman, Frederic J., and Michael Carter. 1999. "A Dynamic Option Value for Institutional Change: Marketable Property Rights in the Sahel." American Journal ofAgricultural Economics 81(May):467-79. 276 The World Bank Research Observer, voL 14, no. 2 (August 1999)