Allocation of authority in land reform programs; a comparative study of administrative process and outputs

MANY STUDENTS OF DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY IN AGRICULTURE, HAVE OVERLOOKED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ADMINISTRATION MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN THE SOCIAL OUTCOMES OF GOVERNMENT ACTION. THE OUTCOME OF LAND REFORM PROGRAMS IS STRONGLY AFFECTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. EVIDENCE FROM TWENTY-FIVE COUNTRIES SHOWS THAT ARRANGEMENTS FOR DEVELOPING ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS TO LOCAL NONCAREER OFFICIALS PRODUCED SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER RESULTS FOR PEASANT WELFARE THAN ARRANGEMENTS USING PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, WHETHER IN A CENTRALIZED OR DECENTRALIZED BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEM. THESE PROGRAMS HAD MORE EFFECT ON PEASANT INCOME THAN PROGRAMS OF AGRARIAN REFORM PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND THE EXTENSION OF CREDIT. THE STUDY ASSESSES OTHER FACTORS WHICH MIGHT EXPLAIN THESE OUTCOMES, AND CONCLUDES THAT THE CHOICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING THE USE OF DEVOLVED FORMS, IS OPEN -- OR AT LEAST NOT DETERMINED BY KNOWN POLITICAL, SOCIAL, OR ECONOMIC FORCES. THESE FINDINGS HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND FURTHER RESEARCH.