Reconsidering Land Reform and
Agricultural Policy in Japan
This essay seeks to add land relations with a particular emphasis on the consequences of Japan’s post-1945 land reform program to the more recent discussion on ‘human security’ (or non-traditional security concerns) in East Asia. There are four reasons for developing this perspective, two of general importance and two of specific relevance to the ideas outlined here. First, Japan’s comprehensive security policy since the 1980s under the initiative of then Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki has included food security as one of its non-traditional elements (Akaha, 1991). Second, food security for major food importing countries was negatively affected by the 2007-2008 global economic crisis, compounded as it was by a commodity supply shock in food staples, among other resources. South Korea and China, as a result, were convinced to seek access to primary arable land resources outside of their sovereign territories, which included South Korea’s ill-starred attempt to procure half of Madagascar’s available farmland (Deininger, 2010; Zoomers, 2011; Alden Wily, 2011).
In other words, given climate change predicaments and global population projections, resources and thinking will rapidly have to be dedicated to squaring the circle on food production and supply as a factor in peace and human security. This is made all the more imperative in Asia given that food security is treated as a national rather than a regional locus of responsibility, and that several East Asian countries are experiencing rapid and unprecedented population decline, while others are as yet steadily growing.
The two specific reasons relevant to the ideas outlined here are that Japan’s land reform program has been widely described as a success and as a model to be emulated by other countries with skewed land relations, such as the Philippines (Hayami et al, 1990; Fuwa, 2000). What puts this into perspective is the final point, one that was presumably not closely considered in the 1980s and 1990s. Japan’s existing rate of farmland abandonment and the advanced average age of the farming population predicate the possibility of a crisis for which there is no obvious solution, conditions that shortly will affect Taiwan, South Korea and parts of China, among potential others. The idea here is that Japan’s land reform phenomenon was constitutive not of a real solution in ‘human security’ terms but as an element in long term calcification with respect to arable land resources and agricultural society. New ways of looking at the issue and considering alternative strategies are more urgently required than they might seem.
The first point regarding Japan’s land reform program is that an original reform initiative, passed in the Diet in early 1946, was deemed insufficiently rigorous by the external occupying authority, the GHQ because it had entailed only 900,000 hectares owned by 100,000 landlords. The second action, an independently formulated GHQ initiative, was imposed on October 11, 1946 on a society still struggling under adverse post-war conditions. These measures were universal in coverage; they made few exceptions (except, for example, in bigger-sized allotments in Hokkaido); the purchase terms were crude, unfair, and took full advantage of post-war inflationary conditions (one hectare of rice paddy could be obtained for 13 packs of U.S. cigarettes); and the program made extraordinary use of over 400,000 unemployed bureaucrats to administer the program and ensure that it was fully implemented with immediate effect. In practice, the program decreed the compulsory acquisition by the state of a) lands owned by absentee landlords; b) tenanted lands in excess of roughly one hectare; and c) owner-occupied lands in excess of three hectares (except for Hokkaido). Local agricultural committees empowered to process and implement the system were significantly weighted in favour of the new owner-beneficiaries, and it is in this point that the seeds for the long term calcification of Japanese agriculture become apparent (see, for example, Kawagoe, 1999; Shoji, 2011; Ramseyer, 2012; Kusumoto, 2008; Kiyohide, 2008).
Although by 1949, 1.76 million farms had been transferred to 4.7 million new owners, the process was deemed not fully secured. Additional legislation in the form of the 1952 Agricultural Land Law concreted particular terms in order to prevent a return to landlordism. It fixed both the definition of owner-cultivator and the market terms for the transfer of farmland. Farmers could sell to other farmers but not to corporations. Mobility of agriclutural proprietors was hampered because residence relocation automatically invoked absenteeism and hence mandatory purchase by the state. In addition, the Law entrenched the administrative powers of the local agricultural committees.
This would in time prove significant for what Mulgan (2005) describes as the “iron triangle” nexus of the LDP, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) and the agricultural cooperative federation. In other words, voting behavior, subsidies and official protection and marketing were mutually assured, beneficial and reliable. To some degree, this relationship helped keep the LDP in power in Japan for over 55 years until 2009 despite the increasingly serious distortions to incentives in the sector as a whole (see Kawagoe, 1999; Shoji, 2011; Lipscy & Scheiner, 2012; Nakato, 2011; Anderson, 2009).
Akaha, T. (1991). Japan’s Comprehensive Security Policy: A New East Asian Environment. Asian Survey 13(4).
Alden Wily, L. (2011). Nothing New Under the Sun or a New Battle Joined? The Political Economy of African Dispossession in the Current Global Land Rush. Paper presented at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, 6-8 April 2011. Land Deals Politics Initiative: University of Sussex.
Anderson, K. (2009). Five decades of distortions to agricultural incentives. Agricultural Distortions Working Paper No. 76. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Deininger, K. (2010). Large-scale land acquisition: What is happening and what can we do? Presentation at the Land Day event, Global Donor Platform for Rural Development and FAO/SDC/IFAD, January 24, 2010. Retrieved on January 10, 2013 from http://www.donorplatform.org/content/view/332/210/
Fuwa, N. (2000). Politics and Economics of Land Reform in the Philippines: A survey. MPRA Paper No. 23394. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/23394/1/MPRA_paper_23394.pdf
Hashizume, N. (2009). New Movements of Farmland Use and the Regional Characteristics in Japan – Analysis of the 2005 Agricultural Census. “What should agriculture be?”. Proceedings of the Japan Agricultural Law Association. Journal of Research on Agricultural Law 44(1): 194.
Hayami, Y.; Quisumbing, M.A.; Adriano, L. (1990). Toward an Alternative Land Reform Paradigm: A Philippine Perspective. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Higuchi, O. (2009). Challenges and Issues of Land Reform. National Diet Library Issue Brief No. 632. Prepared for the Agriculture, Forestry and Environmental Research Office, 2 March, 2009.
Kawagoe, T. (1999). Agricultural Land Reform in Postwar Japan: Experiences and Issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2111. Washington: The World Bank.
Kiyohide, M. (2008). Land Reform Issues. What are the prospects for real change: rationales and specific measures. NIRA 2008 Working paper No. 23, March 2008. University of Japan.
Kusumoto, M. (2008). Agricultural Policy Reform and Small Family farm-system: an analysis in Yamagata pref. Journal of Research On Agricultural Law 43(1): 190.
Lipscy, P.Y. & Scheiner, E. (2012). Japan Under the DPJ: The Paradox of Political Change Without Policy Change. Journal of East Asian Studies 12(3): 311-322.
Matsubara, S., Hakkaku, H., Izumi, M., Nogami, A., & Iwasaki, A. (2010). Systemic reform to promote the use of farmland: registration of agricultural land information. Material presented for the Inter-university Seminar for the Future of Japan (ISFJ). Public Policy Forum 2010, 11-12 December, 2010
Mitsuyoshi, H. (2010). The Law which amends in Part such as the Agricultural Land Law. Journal of Research On Agricultural Law 45(1):114-127.
Mulgan, A. G. (2005). Japan’s Interventionist State: The Role of the MAFF. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.
Nakato, R. (2011). An FTA with the US: Comparison between South Korea and Japan. Unpublished manuscript prepared at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD.
Ramseyer, J. M. (2012). The Fable of Land Reform: Expropriation and Resdistribution in Occupied Japan. Paper prepared for Harvard Law School. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Shoji, S. (2011). Rural Land Reform and Agricultural Land Committee in Post War Japan. Presentation paper for “Fourth Kyujanggak International Symposium on Korean Studies” at Seoul National University, 25-26 August, 2011.
Takahashi, J. (2009). Die Landwirtschaftliche Bodennutzung, das Agrarrecht und das Städtebaurecht in Japan. Journal of Research On Agricultural Law 44(1): 188-189.
Zoomers, A. (2011). Introduction: Rushing for Land: Equitable and sustainable development in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Development (2011) 54(1), 12–20; published online 11 February 2011. Retrieved on January 15, 2013 from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v54/n1/abs/dev201097a.html