File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Compulsory land redistribution from the perspective of the theory of price control

TitleCompulsory land redistribution from the perspective of the theory of price control
Authors
KeywordsAgrarian reform
Compulsory purchase
Land redistribution
Land use change
Market-led agrarian reform
Price control
Issue Date1-Aug-2023
PublisherElsevier
Citation
Land Use Policy, 2023, v. 131 How to Cite?
Abstract

Philippine agrarian reform involves compulsory purchase of private farmlands. Several landowners were suspected of either using land use conversions (LUCs) to pre-empt expropriation, or choosing market-led agrarian reform (MLAR) options to retain effective control of their farmland. However, there has been no statistically-tested empirical evidence to support anecdotal claims that these were adopted by landowners to protect private property rights. Before testing whether LUCs have been used solely to avoid land redistribution, this article provides a theoretical framework that treats the reform as a price intervention policy since compensation is usually below market value. This article's novelty lies in its application of Cheung's theory of price control to explain how land redistribution could change the use of productive asset through LUC, or the contractual arrangement of involved parties through MLAR. Afterwards, this study employs feasible generalized least squares regression, where the effect of compulsory land redistribution on MLAR and LUC are tested to investigate the hypothesis that LUC was largely induced by agrarian reform. The results show that some LUC and MLAR were induced by the risk of expropriation, although in the case of former only when the risk of expropriation is high. Based on Cheung's theory of price control, the response choice should depend on the transaction costs associated with each of the alternatives. The theoretical framework suggests that some landowners may have preferred MLAR first before considering LUC, which is posited as one reason why the proportion of expropriation-induced LUC may not have been as high as some might like to claim.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/338370
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 6.0
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.847
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDy, Kenneth Bicol-
dc.contributor.authorChau, Kwong Wing-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T10:28:21Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T10:28:21Z-
dc.date.issued2023-08-01-
dc.identifier.citationLand Use Policy, 2023, v. 131-
dc.identifier.issn0264-8377-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/338370-
dc.description.abstract<p>Philippine agrarian reform involves compulsory purchase of private farmlands. Several landowners were suspected of either using land use conversions (LUCs) to pre-empt expropriation, or choosing market-led agrarian reform (MLAR) options to retain effective control of their farmland. However, there has been no statistically-tested empirical evidence to support anecdotal claims that these were adopted by landowners to protect private property rights. Before testing whether LUCs have been used solely to avoid land redistribution, this article provides a theoretical framework that treats the reform as a price intervention policy since compensation is usually below market value. This article's novelty lies in its application of Cheung's theory of price control to explain how land redistribution could change the use of productive asset through LUC, or the contractual arrangement of involved parties through MLAR. Afterwards, this study employs feasible generalized least squares regression, where the effect of compulsory land redistribution on MLAR and LUC are tested to investigate the hypothesis that LUC was largely induced by agrarian reform. The results show that some LUC and MLAR were induced by the risk of expropriation, although in the case of former only when the risk of expropriation is high. Based on Cheung's theory of price control, the response choice should depend on the transaction costs associated with each of the alternatives. The theoretical framework suggests that some landowners may have preferred MLAR first before considering LUC, which is posited as one reason why the proportion of expropriation-induced LUC may not have been as high as some might like to claim.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherElsevier-
dc.relation.ispartofLand Use Policy-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectAgrarian reform-
dc.subjectCompulsory purchase-
dc.subjectLand redistribution-
dc.subjectLand use change-
dc.subjectMarket-led agrarian reform-
dc.subjectPrice control-
dc.titleCompulsory land redistribution from the perspective of the theory of price control-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106726-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85158902273-
dc.identifier.volume131-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:001008792300001-
dc.identifier.issnl0264-8377-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats