Premium
In Defence of Neo‐Classical Neo‐Populism
Author(s) -
GRIFFIN KEITH,
RAHMAN KHAN AZIZUR,
ICKOWITZ AMY
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of agrarian change
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.63
H-Index - 56
eISSN - 1471-0366
pISSN - 1471-0358
DOI - 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2004.00083.x
Subject(s) - populism , proletariat , mainstream , economics , transaction cost , china , land reform , distribution (mathematics) , political economy , productivity , control (management) , economic system , political science , law , economic growth , politics , microeconomics , agriculture , geography , mathematical analysis , mathematics , management , archaeology
This paper is a response to the discussion in the special issue of this Journal on Redistributive Land Reform Today (Vol. 4, Nos. 1 and 2). We begin by attempting to clarify the methodological debate, differentiating our approach, which our critics call neo‐classical neo‐populism, from mainstream neo‐classical economics and historical materialism. We then distinguish between land tenure reforms and redistributive land reforms, and argue that it is the latter that really matter. Next, we address the issue of the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity. Fourth, we discuss cases in which systems of labour control are used to transform the peasantry into a landless rural proletariat and challenge the view that systems of labour control can usefully be reduced to a problem of transaction costs. We end with discussions of reform in the transition economies, China and Bangladesh, where we defend the view that it is the distribution of landownership rather than operational holdings that largely determines the extent of poverty.