The claims made by Griffin et al. for the impact of land reform in China are
unconvincing. The land reform of 1947–52 did not lead to a pronounced
increase in agricultural output. Nor was it egalitarian; indeed, but for the
deliberate preservation of the rich peasant economy, growth might have been
non-existent. The second land reform of 1981–3 was equally ineffectual.
Agricultural growth had shifted on to a faster growth path before decollectivization,
and the surge of 1980–4 was little more than a temporary response
to decent weather, procurement price rises, the abandonment of the Dazhai
system and a reduction in output under-reporting. Rural income inequality
has been held in check since 1984 because of local government intervention,
not because family farming is intrinsically egalitarian. China’s experience of
land reform is mirrored by those of other East Asian countries. A century of
land reform has not resolved Japan’s deep-seated agricultural problems, nor
those of Taiwan and South Korea.