An analysis of the basis for and consequences of carrying out land reform in Russia.

摘要

Both ownership and tenancy of agricultural land have a range of advantages and disadvantages. In the Russian context, lifetime tenancy on the basis of annual rent payments should provide new farmers with security and independence without the need toinvest major capital. However, the recent privatization of most agricultural land means that public funds are not receiving the income which a predominantly tenanted system would generate. Land shares in privatized enterprises vary considerably in quality and value. Assuming a system of lifetime tenancies, farm size should be determined by the area needed to make best use of equipment and other resources. Inclusion of land shares in free market turnover has the potential to ruin both large and smallerfarms through fragmentation. The question of ground rent, suppressed during the Soviet period, has still to be satisfactorily resolved. Land share allocation has not improved the economic situation of rural people, whose incomes are falling. There is instead a tendency to concentration of land in the hands of those with major capital. In addition, revenues from agriculture are being directed to urban rather than rural investment.