Taiwan and the "Land to the Tiller" Program
John C. Médaille
[Chapter 14 from the book, The Vocation of
Business: Catholic Social Teaching for the Business Person, a work
in progress, copyrighted by the author and reprinted here by
permission. July 2005The author is adjunct instructor of Theology at
the University of Dallas and a Real Estate Agent.]
Land Monopoly and Labor Markets
We have seen that Catholic Social Teaching has made wider ownership
of the means of production a keystone of its idea of justice. She has,
of course, based this on her authority as a moral teacher, but that
moral teaching would be suspect if it could not be shown to have a
sound economic base. It is not that the Church makes her moral
decisions based on some economic system, but rather that a true
morality will eventually be shown to be consistent with economic
theory. If She is correct in this view, then redistribution of land
will be shown to be the basis of a just and stable economic order.
Further, this should be shown be both theoretically and in actual
historical circumstances.
To some degree, we have already done this. We have seen how,
theoretically, the law of rents is mitigated or abolished in the
presence of a frontier or a commons. In such circumstances, wages
stabilize at rates far above subsistence; when the frontier is closed
and the commons enclosed, the law of rents takes over and the wages
tend towards subsistence. We have verified these purely theoretical
conclusions by noting the experience of America while she still had a
frontier, and of England in the 15th and 16th centuries. In the later
case, we noted that by the end of the 15th century, wages had reached
nearly 4 times subsistence and attempts to enforce a "statute of
laborers" were futile. But after all the land was "privatized"
and the commons lost, wages dropped to bare subsistence levels and the
statute of laborers became redundant. However, we do not need to look
to colonial America or 16th century England for all of our data; we
have enough examples in the 20th and 21st centuries; we have enough
data from our own time, both positive and negative. Examples of
monopolistic land ownership are, alas, all too common and present
themselves for our analysis.
The case for land redistribution can be made in pure neo-classical
terms. Where there are few owners, and especially when the few combine
to control the market, a monopoly in land is created which in turn
creates a monopsony for the labor market; land owners become "price
makers" rather than "price takers."[1] Further, the
economic control of the labor market is often reinforced by a series
of institutional controls, such as the difficulty tenants or laborers
have of obtaining credit, use of police power to prevent protests or
unions, lack of education in rural areas, discrimination, etc. All of
these things leave sharecroppers or farm laborers at a disadvantage in
wage or rent negotiations, making these contracts leonine. The effect
is that the landowners can arbitrarily lower the cost of labor with
the results that the marginal costs are higher than the average costs,
reversing the situation in a "normal" labor market; to
increase the amount of labor would require them to raise wages rather
than lower them.[2] This has four consequences from a purely
neo-classical perspective.[3] One, the cost of labor is lower than
what it would be in a competitive environment resulting in
exploitation of the farm worker. Indeed, the low wages make marginal
costs higher than average costs. Two, total employment on the farms is
lower than what it would be because the higher marginal costs make it
inefficient (in terms of profit) to fully utilize the land, resulting
in surplus labor. The combination of surplus labor and lowered labor
costs in turn lowers the "reservation wage" in urban areas,
accentuating urban poverty. The third point follows from the second:
since marginal costs are higher than average costs, total output is
lower than what it could be, resulting in production inefficiencies.
Whenever labor costs are artificially controlled through monopoly or
monopsony power, average labor cost is likely to be lower than
marginal cost, meaning that optimal returns to capital are reached
before full utilization of the resource. Which leads to four, although
the farm is less efficient, the total profits are higher, which
results in an inequality of income distribution and widespread
poverty. In other words, the farm is made "efficient" not in
terms of total output, but in terms of total profit.
The implications are that wider ownership of land would raise total
output and average income by breaking the monopsony over the labor
market. There would be a more equal distribution of income and a
reduction in both urban and rural poverty. This in turn would broaden
the market in the non-agricultural sectors, allowing for more secure
investment opportunities and hence advance the broadening of the
economy away from the purely agricultural. However, there is a
question of how to break up land monopolies. Three solutions have been
put forward, a
market-based solution, favored by the World Bank; a
re-distributive solution, in which land is simply expropriated; or by
a combination of the two. All three have been tried extensively since
the 1950's, when land reform achieved a high priority on the
development agenda; the first two have been shown to have extensive
problems. The World Bank solution hasn't worked for reasons which
Belloc laid out in The Servile State.[4] In a market solution,
by which landowners are simple given the market price for their land,
nothing really changes. This is because the "market price"
for anything is simply the same thing in a different form. The
ownership of land or money is a claim on the output of society; the
market price merely converts that claim from one form to another, from
land to capital. The practical effects are that the oppressive rents
are merely converted into oppressive interest payments. Nor is this
effect mitigated by having the national governments pick up the debt,
since governments can only pass on the cost to their citizens in the
form of taxes. The market solution simply does not change the power
relationships involved, which need to be changed, simply because that
is not the function of the market; indeed, a free market depends on
leaving power relationships exactly in place before and after a market
trade. The World Bank solution has therefore merely saddled the
so-called Third World with unmanageable debts, crippling interest
payments, and even less of a prospect of being properly developed than
they would have without the misguided "help" of the Bank.
But outright expropriation has it problems as well. This is because
there is an immediate moral difficulty. It is certainly true that
monopoly power is both morally repugnant and economically inefficient,
and given that land ownership is a social convention society
certainly does have the power to limit it. However, it is a stretch to
then claim that the current owners have no rights whatsoever
that society is bound to respect. Certainly, their monopoly rights
ought to be terminated, having neither a moral nor an economic root.
But neither can they be reduced to penury without creating as great an
evil, both moral and economic, as the one expropriation intends to
correct. Outright expropriation turns to outright criminality, as it
did in the Communist nations or in places like Zimbabwe, because it
begins in criminality, that is, with a denial of justice.
The "Land to the Tiller" Programs
That would seem to leave the third solution, a combination of market
buy out and expropriation. Like expropriation, this solution actually
changes power relationships within a given society; like market based
solutions, it recognizes, partially, the rights of existing land
owners. In such solutions, there is no magic formula as to the
allocation of rights and power; it is arrived at on an arbitrary basis
and is purely a matter of judgment. The primary examples of this form
of land redistribution are Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. The
circumstances in which the redistributions took place are somewhat
remarkable, involving three historical circumstances. The first was
the explication of Chinese nationalism given by Sun Yat-sen
(1866-1925), head of the Chinese Nationalist Party (the Kuomintang)
which overthrew the Manchu dynasty in China and was in turn overthrown
by the Chinese Communists. The second was American ascendancy over the
east after World War II. And the third was the imperative to effective
action given by the fear of a communist victory in all three places
and the need to break the power of an oppressive land owning class
whose very existence had been the biggest practical argument in favor
of communism.
Sun Yat-sen had made "land to the tiller" a foundation of
Chinese state, but the Kuomintang, at war with the Communists, then
the Japanese, and then the Communists again never had sufficient
control of China to implement any actual reforms. Further, they
depended to a large degree on warlords and large landowners, so that
real reforms were politically impossible in any case. In 1949, the
Nationalists were defeated by the Communists and fled to the island of
Formosa, now called Taiwan. The Taiwan that greeted the refugees was
an agricultural and feudal society. The war had devastated production,
which was at half its pre-war levels. Mostly it was a nation of small
sharecroppers with most holding about 2.5-3 acres. Rents were from
50-70% of the crop and there was no security of tenure; the farmers
could be evicted at will. Most of the land was owned by members of 20
families. Further, since the returns on land were so high, there was
little interest in investing in anything but land. In addition, Taiwan
had to absorb 2 million refugees from the mainland and bear the costs
of defense. It was expected that Taiwan would soon fall to the
Mainland communists, as the Kuomintang had never proved very effective
in controlling China. It was necessary to act quickly to reform
Taiwan; it was the very failure to enact reforms which had made the
Kuomintang unpopular in China and led to the victory of the
Communists. They could not make the same mistake twice.
Land reform was based on a program initiated in Japan by General
Douglas MacArthur, who after the war was the virtual ruler.
MacArthur's plan had both a political and economic purpose:
politically, it weakened the landowning class that had supported
Japanese militarism; economically, it distributed both income and
incentives to innovate among the people. The success of the program in
Japan encouraged its application to both Taiwan and Korea. Most of
what we say here could apply to all three countries, but mostly we
will take the case of Taiwan.
Taiwan's land reform took place in three phases. In the first phase,
starting in 1949, rents were reduced to 37.5% and landlords were
required to give 6 year leases. Further, the tenants were no longer
required to pay rents in advance. The farmers now had an improved
income and at least some security of tenure. This also had the
immediate effect of lowering land prices since the returns were now
lower, which later facilitated the process of land redistribution.
Further, during times of crop failure, tenants could apply for a
reduction in the rents. The tenant also acquired the right of first
refusal if the landowner attempted to sell the land.[5]
In the second Phase (1951), public lands were sold to the farmers at
a fixed rate of 2.5 times the average yield. These were lands which
had been abandoned by the Japanese and taken over by the government
and represented 20% of the arable land. Each farmer could buy .5-2.5
hectares of paddy land and 1-4 of dry land. The farmer was loaned the
money and could repay in kind over 10 years. 266,000 families received
land in this phase. The third phase (1953) was the "land to the
tiller" proper. The landowners were forced to sell all their land
over a small amount at the same terms the government had sold its own
land, a price of 2.5 times the yield. 166,000 families received land
under this phase. So in total, about 432,000 families came into
possession of their own land. The tenancy rate dropped from 64% to 17%
and the farmers were now paying 25% for 10 years rather than 50%
forever.
Note that 2.5 times revenue is a very low price to pay for any asset.
Further, no account was taken of the externalities of any piece of
land, which in a free market is usually a critical portion of the
price. Land prices are normally set not by the productivity of the
land, but by the externalities; things such as how close a piece of
land is to a population center, what are the off-site improvements
(such as roads or utilities), and so forth, are normally the major
determinants of price; all of these were ignored. Thus the program can
be considered a partial compensation and partial expropriation of the
land. As such, it actually changed the power relationships within the
economy and the government.
The results were dramatic. Farm production increased as farmers used
more fertilizer, went to multiple cropping with as many as four
crops/year and diversified production to higher value but more labor
intensive crops. Production increased at an annual rate of 5.6% from
1953 thru 1970. The farmers suddenly had something they never had
before: relatively large amounts of disposable income. Now they needed
some place to spend it.
The owners were paid with 10% cash, 30% in stocks from four
government-owned companies, and 60% in industrial revenue bonds. In
other words, the government simply printed the money to buy the farms.
Normally, when governments merely print up so money to accomplish some
project, the result is merely an inflationary spiral. But this did not
happen.
Why no inflation? This is where the Taiwanese strategy really
becomes clever. The bonds that the landowners received were negotiable
industrial bonds which they could then invest in any light industry
they choose;[6] indeed, there was nothing else they could do with the
bonds; it was a case of "invest or die." The strategy was
two fold: get capital, in the form of land, into the hands of farmers;
get capital, in the form of industrial investment, in the hands of
entrepreneurs. Note that the strategy provided both goods to buy and
purchasers to buy them; it was a binary strategy, giving equal
weight to production and consumption. A tremendous number of
capitalists were created overnight; the former landowners, who
previously had no interest in manufacturing, were converted into
instant urban capitalists and had to find places to invest the
proceeds from the lands sales; the landless peasants became
proprietors. By this method, the government provided support to
Taiwan's fledgling industrial base. But the fact that the actual
companies to invest in were picked by the former landowners meant
better investment decisions than if the government had tried to pick
the winners itself. Industrial production expanded, giving the newly
empowered peasants some place to spend the money buying locally
produced goods.
We can see the Taiwanese experiment for the conjuring trick it was:
the government sold land it didn't own, bought with money it didn't
have and managed to expand both the consumer market and to provide the
industrial production necessary to serve that market and serve it from
local resources. There was no inflation because the money supply
expanded at the same rate as production by a sort of automatic method.
Redistribution allowed for expansion of the consumer base which
allowed for expansion of the industrial base. It is not often in
business and economics that one gets to see solutions which are
elegant and beautiful, but certainly the land to the tiller program
qualifies. We can also note that all of this was accomplished with
relatively little "foreign aid" or development assistance;
the United States provided the 10% cash that the landowners received,
but the rest was pure monetary "magic."
The story in Korea was much the same. In 1945, the American military
government reduced the rents from 50-60% down to 33%. Later the
provisional government forced the larger landlords to sell their land
at a price of three times the annual output to be repaid in 15 years.
However, the actual price was in reality only 1.8 times the produce,
since the price was set using the depressed post war averages.[7] In
1949 and 50, there were further forced sales, the owners being
compensated in bonds that could be used to buy the industries left
behind by the departing Japanese, which represented 80% of Korea's
industrial base.[8]
Industrial Policy
The benefits of land distribution would not have been half so great
had it not been coupled with an intelligent industrial policy. The
monetary conjuring trick which provided land to the peasants and
capital to the entrepreneurs worked in concert with the industrial
policy that began where Taiwan actually was: in a very primitive
state. The "light industries" in which the bonds were
invested were very light indeed. Few had more than 25 employees and
the average number was just eight. But a business-any business-always
depends on a network of other businesses. To set up shop, one first
needs land, then a building, office supplies, telephones, delivery
services, furniture, machinery no matter how primitive, etc. Business
breeds business. But the Kuomintang was especially interested in a
particular kind of business: Import substitution. Since Taiwan's own
industrial capacity was limited, most manufactured goods had to be
imported. The government encouraged import substitution industries,
first in such things that were easy to make, such as shoes, clothing
and textiles.[9] Import substitution is a key part of development
strategy; local resources were used to produce what had previously
been imported and a judicious but limited use of tariffs were designed
to give an edge to local businesses.
Taiwan was still a low labor cost state and hence there were
transplant factories, what we now call "outsourcing."
Manufacturers in Hong Kong and Japan contracted out some work to
Taiwan. This gave the Taiwanese valuable experience in setting up
factories and managing production. In learning how to make things
cheaply for others, they learned how to make the same things for
themselves. But the skills learned were then used to set up their own
factories.
To encourage efficient use of the land, a
Georgist tax policy was followed. Georgism was a 19th century
theory developed by Henry George (1839-1897). George was probably the
most well-known and popular economist of his day; some measure of his
popularity can be gleaned from the fact that at his death, over
100,000 people filed past his coffin, while thousands more were unable
to get in. His major work, Progress and Poverty, was a best
seller for many years, and his ideas had a tremendous influence up
until recently. Basically, George noted that while the law of rents
allocated all values above subsistence to the landlord, the landlord
did not actually do anything to earn those values. George also noted
that the claim to the land the landlord held was based not on any
natural right, but on government power alone. Further, the rent of
land was due totally to the external factors: population and off-site
improvements. In other words, the landlord added no values to the land
per se. Yet, land tends to be taxed lightly while the
improvements on land tend to be taxed heavily. For George, this
reversed the logical order. Land should be taxed to its full rental
value, while improvements should not be taxed at all; land after all
was pure gift, while what a man made of the land was his alone. Thus
Georgism is often called the single-tax theory, since there
would be only land taxes. George believed that the single tax would
force down the price of land by making it unprofitable to hold parcels
for speculation, while encouraging development by leaving both labor
and improvements to the land untaxed. One can say that George socialized
the land while privatizing its development; it is an
interesting view of the questions of the social and the private values
of land that we have previously examined. Sun Yat-sen was an admirer
of Henry George and made his ideas a part and parcel of Chinese
nationalism; hence George's theories were spread through the East. In
fact, both Singapore and Hong Kong are based on Georgist principles.
In Hong Kong, all the land is owned by the government and leased to
developers (which is equivalent to a 100% tax rate), while in
Singapore, the government owns 65% of the land. Needless to say, both
are very prosperous states. Georgism deserves a lot more space then
this.[10] But for our purposes we can note that Taiwan followed a
Georgist policy to encourage development while keeping other taxes
relatively low.
Equality and Development
Taiwan followed an import replacement scheme right up the industrial
scale from cheap cloth shoes to shipbuilding, steel making, and
electronics, to become a great trading nation. At the same time, she
was able to create an economy with greater equity, in complete
contradiction of the
Kuznets curve. The Kuznets curve states that development and
inequality first rise together before falling in later stages of
development to form an inverted "U". Despite the lack of
empirical evidence for this thesis, it is standard development
dogma.[11] It is often used as an excuse for development programs
which seem only to widen the gap between rich and poor without any
discernable benefits to the people. But in Taiwan, along with Korea
and Japan, rapid development and increased equality went hand in hand.
One of the standard measures of inequality is called the Gini
Coefficient, which measures the distance from a "perfect"
equality; a Gini score of zero would indicate "perfect"
income equality and 100 would indicate a situation where one person
had all the income. Taiwan measures .33 on this scale; the U.S., by
comparison, measures .41. The ratio between the earnings of the top
20% with the bottom 20% declined from 15 to one in 1950 to 5 to one by
the 1970's. Taiwan has managed 50 years of high growth rates,
increased equality, and low tax rates (comparatively). Unemployment
was low to non-existent through most of Taiwan's post war history.
Before 2000, it rarely exceeded 3% and usually was less than 2%. Since
2000, the rate has risen as high as the low 5's before dropping back
to the 4% range as Taiwan struggles to adjust to outsourcing to
mainland China. Further, Taiwan and the other "Asian Tigers"
were able to achieve these successes despite having population
densities among the highest in the world, a fact which contradicts the
prevailing dogma that population density is an impediment to growth.
Taiwan is, of course, far from utopia. For one thing, its very
success has brought with it a corrosive consumerism which threatens
the very roots of the social order and cohesion upon which these
decisions were made. For another thing, the ownership was that was
granted to farmers was not often extended to industrial workers. It is
likely that coping with the challenge from China will require the same
redistributive will require the same kind of redistributive programs
for urban workers that were extended to farm workers. Nevertheless,
Taiwan, Korea, and Japan have demonstrated the great effectiveness of
redistributive policies in providing development with equity. In only
a single generation, Korea and Taiwan were able to transform
themselves from feudal and highly unequal societies into industrial
powerhouses while overcoming poverty and inequality. As such,
redistribution of productive assets should provide a model for
development. This is an especially important question, given the
destabilizing inequality and lack of development that exists in the
world today; moreover the question is made more important today by
both the phenomenon of "globalization" and the precarious
security situation in the world. But despite the evident success of
these models, they are not the models that have been followed by the
World Bank and other development institutions; these have followed
different dogmas, with tragically different results.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
- Keith Griffin, Azizur Rahman
Khan and Amy Ickowitz, "Poverty and the Distribution of Land,"
Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 2, No. 3, p. 289.
- Griffin, p. 289.
- Griffin, pp. 289-91.
- Belloc, "Appendix on
'Buying Out'", pp. 163-170.
- Griffin, p. 304.
- Jane Jacobs, Cities and
the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life, (New York:
Vintage Books, 1985), p. 100.
- Griffin, p. 306.
- Griffin, p. 306.
- Jacobs, p. 100.
- See Henry George, Progress
and Poverty, originally published in 1880 and available in
many editions. As a sidelight, one element at least of Georgism
remains in popular culture, the board game "Monopoly."
It was originally developed by Georgists as a teaching tool.
- Klaus Deininger and Lyn
Squire, "Economic Growth and Income Inequality: Reexamining
the Links," Finance and Development, (International
Monetary Fund, March, 1997), available at
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1997/03/pdf/deininge.pdf.
|