Rdi 1

RDI Reports on Foreign Aid and Development #115

Allocating Homestead Plots as Land Reform: Analysis from West Bengal

Tim Hanstad and Lokesh, S.B.

July 2002

This report may be reproduced in whole or in part with acknowledgment as to source.

Copyright Rural Development Institute 2002

ISSN 1071-7099

The Rural Development Institute (RDI), located in Seattle, Washington, USA, is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation. RDI is a unique organization of lawyers devoted to problems of land reform and related issues in less developed counties and in countries whose economies are undergoing transition. RDIs goal is to assist in alleviating world poverty and instability through land reform and rural development. RDI staff have conducted field research and advised on land reform issued in over 35 countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. RDI currently has an office in Bangalore, India staffed by Executive Director Tim Hanstad. The research for this paper was conducted in

collaboration with: Dr. T. Haque (Member, Indias Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices); University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore; National Institute of Rural Development in Hyderabad; and Visva-Bharati, Santinetikan, West Bengal. For more information about RDI, visit the RDI web site at .Tim Hanstad is the Executive Director of Rural Development Institute. He is currently based at RDIs office in Bangalore, India. Lokesh, S.B., MA Agricultural Economics, is a research associate at RDIs Bangalore office. Research for this report was made possible by the generous support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Correspondence may be addressed to the authors at the Rural Development Institute, 1411 Fourth Avenue, Suite 910, Seattle, Washington 98101, U.S.A., faxed to (206) 5285881, or e-mailed to .

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION ... II. LITERATURE ON BENEFITS OF HOMESTEAD PLOTS... III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES. IV. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY ..... V. RAPID RURAL APPRAISAL RESEARCH FINDINGS.. A. Description of Sample. B. Analysis of Homestead Plot Use and Benefits by Plot Size. C. Analysis by Mode of Acquisition of Homestead Plot. D. Other Salient Findings VI. POLICY IMPLICATIONS REFERENCES.... 1 2 5 8 10 14 14 16 19 22 25 27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPoverty and rural landlessness are closely related in India and both stubbornly persist. Land reform at one time appeared to be the answer. Yet land reform efforts in most Indian states have almost completely bypassed the poorest householdsthose who are completely landlessand traditional land reform methods no longer seem economically and politically feasible. One under-recognized component of land reforms in several statesthe allocation of homestead plots to landless laborersmay deserve more attention and consideration. Studies of similar programs from a variety of international settings indicate that very small homestead or garden plots can confer multiple important benefits, in terms of food, income, status, and economic security. The authors research findings from West Bengal document the benefits of homestead plot allocation to the landless and indicate the potential such programs may have for improving the well-being of the rural poor.

Rural Development Institute

Allocating Homestead Plots as Land Reform: Evidence from West Bengal

Page 1

I.

INTRODUCTION

Poverty imposes an enormous toll on India and its citizens, especially in rural areas where almost three out of four Indians and close to 80% of the Indian poor live.1 Despite decades of poverty alleviation efforts, the absolute number of poor has doubled since Independence in 1947. India today retains the dubious distinction of having the largest number of poor people on the planet. India also has the largest number of landless rural households on the planet. Plaguing tens of millions of households, rural landlessness is closely associated with poverty. A recent World Bank study shows that landlessness is, by far, the greatest predictor of poverty in India, finding the incidence of poverty to be 68% among landless wage earners. By comparison, the incidence of poverty was found to be 51% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; and 45% for households where no one was literate.2 The problem of rural landlessness in India and its close connection to poverty have not gone entirely unnoticed in policy dialogues. In the decades following independence, most Indian states passed land reform laws aimed at broadening access to rural land. The two most common methods or land reform components were: (1) redistributing land exceeding a state-declared land ownership ceiling; and (2) strictly regulating or prohibiting landlord-tenant relationships. These measures, aimed at both alleviating poverty and improving agricultural productivity, have fallen substantially short of their goals in most Indian states due to poor design, lack of political will, less than vigorous implementation, and non-applicability to completely landless households. Today, advancing these traditional land reform approaches are rarely a part of any political agenda. In fact, numerous observers now point to the continuing existence of these land reform laws as a drag on the agricultural economy. A recent journal article called for the dismantling of both landholding ceilings and tenancy restrictions as a precondition for renewed investment in agriculture.3 What then is to be done for the remaining tens of millions of poor, rural landless families? Other development strategies involving education, and non-agricultural employment, etc. must be part of the answer. However, given the importance of land and the close connection between landlessness and poverty in India, the central issue of land access cannot be ignored in attacking rural poverty. This article focuses on a small and often ignored component of land reform programs the allocation of homestead plots to landless laborers and concludes that this1 2 3

W ORLD BANK, INDIA: A CHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES IN REDUCING POVERTY (A World Bank Country Study 1997) at xii-xiv. Id. G. Thimmaiah, New Prospects on Land Reforms in India, JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3 (July-December 2001).



Page 2

concept should be an integral part of rural poverty alleviation strategies. Land reform in some Indian states has included measures aimed at providing homestead plots to landless laborers and other marginalized groups. Sometimes such measures regularized the existing residential occupancy of landless laborers and sometimes they involved allocation of new sites. It has been estimated that, India-wide, as many as 4 million rural households have received free allotments of homestead land.4 Many of these households also received assistance in constructing houses from governmentfunded rural housing schemes. These measures to provide homestead plots have received very little attention from researchers. They also tend to be ignored in ongoing debates and policy dialogues about the future of land reform in India. Yet, in the current era where little political will appears to exist to address Indias substantial problem of landlessness through further ceiling-surplus or tenancy reforms, further allocation of homestead plots to landless laborers may be an incremental reform that is both politically and economically feasible. The objectives of past measures to allocate homestead plots in India appear to have been related to housing only. However, recent research in India and a review of evidence from other countries indicates that such plots have provided and can provide access to other significant economic and social benefits, such as supplemental nutrition, income, fuel wood, and credit. The core of this paper describes new research findings from West Bengal. West Bengal is one of the exceptional Indian states where land reform was vigorously implemented and achieved substantial success.5 However, even in West Bengal, the problem of rural landlessness remains substantial. National Sample Survey statistics suggest that there are still approximately 1 million rural households in the state that are completely landless, not even owning a house plot.6 India-wide, there are at least 15 million rural households that are completely landless.7 These households almost certainly comprise the bulk of those living in poverty. What are the potential benefits of allocating homestead plots? What benefits have been achieved to date from past allocation of homestead plots? How might the central and state governments revive such programs in a way that provides substantial benefits to4 Sukumar Das, A Critical Evaluation of Land Reforms in India (1950-1995) in LAND REFORMS IN INDIA VOL. 5: A N UNFINISHED A GENDA (B.K. Sinha and Pushpendra eds., 2000) at 38.

In terms of ceiling-surplus distribution, West Bengal is the overwhelming leader of Indian states. West Bengal has redistributed 1.04 million acres (7.8% of the states arable land) to 2.54 million households (34% of the states agricultural households). Despite West Bengals success in redistributing above-ceiling land (with much of it being distributed to landless or near-landless households), the tenancy reform component of West Bengals land reforms, commonly known as Operation Barga, is even more widely known and recognized. The tenancy reforms (Operation Barga) have covered 1.1 million acres (8.2% of arable land) and provided permanent land rights to 1.49 million sharecroppers (or bargadars) (20.2% of agricultural households). Tim Hanstad and Jennifer Brown, Land Reform Law and Implementation in West Bengal: Lessons and Recommendations (RDI Reports on Foreign Aid and Development No. 112, 2001) at 8.6 7

5

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NIRD), INDIA RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT 1999 (2000) at 34. Id.



Page 3

the 15 million rural families throughout rural India (or the 1 million rural families in West Bengal) who remain completely landless? This report is a modest attempt to focus on these issues.



Page 4

II.

LITERATURE ON BENEFITS OF HOMESTEAD PLOTS

A handful of studies and abundant anecdotal evidence from a variety of international settings indicate that very small homestead or garden plots can confer multiple important benefits, in terms of food, income, status, and economic security. The evidence confirming the potential benefits of homestead plots comes from a variety of diverse settings, including Indonesia8, Russia 9, Cuba10, and South India.11 Plots of land that are large enough to sustain a small garden or even a few trees have been shown to increase the quantity and quality of food consumption, resulting in better overall family nutrition and health. Gardens, by providing a supply of diverse fresh fruits and vegetables, provide nutrition (especially vitamins A and C) that is absent from field agriculture crops, which are mainly grains.12 Households with gardens often obtain more than 50% of their supply of vegetables, fruits, medicinal herbs and protein (for those with animals) from them.13 Homestead and garden plots can also significantly contribute to a familys supply of fuel wood. In Bangladesh, research indicates that rural homestead plots provide almost 90% of all fuel wood consumed by rural households.14 In addition to providing a place for a garden and fruit or wood trees, small pieces of land can be used to shelter animals and store fodder. Animals, in turn, can improve a familys supply of protein through eggs, milk and meat. They can also benefit a family by providing them with saleable commodities, producing manure that can be used on their own land as fertilizer or sold to others, and through their usefulness as draft animals to be used on the familys own land or to be leased to other farmers. Homestead and garden plots can also provide an important safety net through their value as a source of food, income and capital for families in times of drought, unemployment, or other hardships.15 Homestead plots have the potential to enhance8

ROBERT NETTING, SMALLHOLDERS, HOUSEHOLDERS: FARM FAMILIES AND THE ECOLOGY OF INTENSIVE , SUSTAINABLE A GRICULTURE (1993) at 55.9 V.Y. Uzun, Organizational Types of the Agricultural Production in Russia (paper prepared as part of joint Russian-American BASIS program research) (2001). 10

M INOR SINCLAIR & M ARTHA THOMPSON, CUBA: GOING A GAINST THE GRAIN: A GRICULTURAL CRISIS AND TRANSFORMATION (Oxfam America 2001) at 18. See e.g ., RICHARD W. FRANKE & BARBARA H. CHASIN, KERALA: RADICAL REFORM AS DEVELOPMENT IN AN INDIAN STATE (1994) at 57.

11 12

See e.g., R. Marsh, Building on Traditional Gardening to Improve Household Food Security, FOOD, NUTRITION AND A GRICULTURE , No. 22 (FAO 1998) at 1.13 14

Id. at 4.

FAO, W OODFUEL IN BANGLADESH PRODUCTION AND M ARKETING (Regional Wood Energy Development Program Report No. 38, 1998) at 159, citing J.J. DOUGLAS, CONSUMPTION AND SUPPLY OF WOOD AND BAMBOO IN BANGLADESH (Field Document No. 2 UNDP/FAO Project BGD/78/010/ Planning Commission, Dhaka 1982).15

See e.g., Otto Soemarwoto et al., The Javanese Home Garden as an Integrated Agro-Economic System, FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN, Vol. 7, No. 3 (UN University Press, Sept. 1985) at 4.



Page 5

family income and economic security as they can produce a surplus for sale at market and provide something for the family to fall back on in times of need. One researcher surmised that upwards of 20% of household income can be attributed to house plots through the sale of surplus vegetables and animals products, combined with savings on amounts spent to purchase food in the market and medicinal expenses.16 Such plots can also improve a familys economic position through their use as collateral, which increases a familys ability to access credit either for investment purposes or in times of distress. The status and self-image of rural households can also be increased by the ownership of land, even a very small plot of land. Such status is important for overall well-being, for its ability to increase a familys involvement in village politics, and for helping households to access informal sources of credit in the village. It has also been shown to increase agricultural laborers ability to bargain for higher wages (or sharecroppers ability to bargain for a greater share), as they are no longer dependent on their employer for a place to live.17 Many of the important benefits from small homestead and garden plots can accrue specifically to women. Such plots provide women with a place close to home to garden and undertake other economic activities (tending animals, cottage industries, etc.) that can provide them with an important source of independent income.18 This is especially important in places where custom does not readily permit womens participation in the labor market, as the homestead plot can become a production site for womens economic activities. However, even in places where women are able to participate in the labor market, household plots can reduce the time necessary for regular chores and provide women an opportunity for a more reasonable balancing of domestic and nondomestic tasks. Where homestead plots are an important source of fuel wood and household water, women are spared the trouble of having to travel long distances to obtain water and fuel wood. In sum, adequate household plots often: (1) provide women the potential to play a more significant economic role, thus improving their status and bargaining power within the household; and (2) reduce the hours women are required to spend on regular chores. A recent RDI study indicates that significant non-housing benefits of owning homestead plots may only accrue if the plot is of some minimum size and that increasing the area of the plot above this size may provide substantial additional benefits. This study of government-allocated homestead plots in Karnataka found that the economic and social benefits derived by land-poor households from such plots16 17 18

Marsh, supra note 12, at 4. Keith Rosenn, Puerto Rican Land Reform: The History of an Instructive Experiment, YALE LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 73, No. 2 (1963) at 344.

See e.g., DAVID BORNSTEIN, THE PRICE OF A DREAM: THE STORY OF THE GRAMEEN BANK AND THE IDEA THAT IS HELPING THE POOR TO CHANGE THEIR LIVES (1996) at 152-154.



Page 6

increase significantly as the plot size increases beyond 1200 square feet, and again increases significantly as the plot size increases beyond 1800 square feet. The study analyzed the benefits by size of the homestead plot and found that plots ranging in size from 1800 square feet to 6,540 square feet (0.06-0.15 acre, or 6-15 cents19) provided substantially more benefits (in terms of nutrition, income, access to credit, and capital formation) than plots smaller than 1,800 square feet (6 cents).20

19 20

One cent = 1/100 of an acre.

Tim Hanstad, Jennifer Brown and Roy Prosterman, Larger Homestead Plots as Land Reform?: International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL W EEKLY, Vol. 37, No. 29 (July 20, 2002) at 3053.



Page 7

III.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The authors conducted field research in West Bengal to explore the extent to which land-poor rural households were or might be deriving non-housing benefits from homestead plots and if such benefits were related to plot size. West Bengal was selected because: (1) West Bengal has achieved some success in re-distributing land assets to the rural poor; and (2) one component of West Bengals land reform was a program to distribute house sites to landless persons having no homestead of their own. West Bengal government data indicates that approximately 500,000 rural households have received homestead plots. The authors research focused on households that owned a homestead plot, but owned little or no agricultural land. Within this category, two types of households were sought: (1) households who had received their homestead land through government allocation, either through the land reforms or other schemes; and (2) households who had received benefits from rural housing schemes. For this sample, the authors research objectives were: 1. To determine the extent to which these households had developed their homestead plot: Were they using the homestead plot as a source of nutrition, fuelwood, or income? Were they using the homestead plot to raise animals? Were they using the homestead plot for other economic activities such as post-harvest activities, storage, or non-agricultural work? Had they made non-housing improvements to the homestead plot to increase its use and market value?

2. To explore the relationship between size of the homestead plot and the benefits derived from the plot. 3. To explore the ability of such poor rural households to construct or selffinance the construction of a house on their homestead plot. 4. To examine the benefits derived from government rural housing schemes for such households. Two field research methods were employed in West Bengal to gather information about homestead plots: questionnaire surveys and rapid rural appraisal interviews. This report will summarize the homestead plot findings from the questionnaire survey, butRural Development Institute Allocating Homestead Plots as Land Reform: Evidence from West BengalPage 8

will concentrate on the more comprehensive findings from the rapid rural appraisal research. The methodology and findings for each method are described in the following two sections.



Page 9

IV.

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

The Rural Development Institute, in collaboration with Dr. T. Haque,21 Visva-Bharati,22 and the National Institute of Rural Development conducted a questionnaire survey of 500 rural households in five districts of West Bengal during November-December 2000. The five districts were Barddhaman, Birbhum, Dakshin Dinjapur, Midnapur, and Purulia. A small portion of the questionnaire included questions about homestead plots. Moreover, the sample of 500 rural households included a sub-sample of 97 households that had received government-allocated homestead plots and otherwise owned either no or very little agricultural land. Before turning to the primary focus of this report the findings from the March 2002 rapid rural appraisal fieldwork we will briefly summarize relevant findings obtained from these 97 questionnaire survey respondents who had received homestead plots through the land reform or some other government scheme. Those findings relate to: (1) the proportion of households that were keeping large animals on their homestead plot; (2) the average number of large animals the households were keeping on the homestead plot; (3) the proportion of households that had planted trees on their homestead plots; (4) the average number of trees they had planted on the homestead plot; and (5) the number and types of benefits from the homestead plot as reported by the respondents. The findings may be summarized as follows: 1. Most households accrued important non-housing social and economic benefits from their homestead plots. 2. Those benefits increased with small increases in homestead plot area beyond the footprint of the house, but then several benefits stopped increasing or even decreased as plot size increased beyond about 3,000 square feet (0.07 acre or 7 cents). 3. The likelihood that a household kept animals or had planted trees on the homestead plot and the average number of those animals and trees was higher for those who had owned their homestead plots for more than 10 years.

21 22

Currently a Member of Indias Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices. Survey Field Coordinators were Professor S. Pal and Dr. Kazi M.B. Rahim.



Page 10

The size of the homestead plots analyzed ranged from 435 square feet to 13,939 square feet.23 For purposes of analysis, we divided the 97 households into five categories based on the size of their homestead plot. Table 1 shows some basic findings concerning animals kept on the homestead plot, trees planted on the homestead plot, and other beneficial impacts reported from the homestead plot for the five size categories. The portion of the sample that owned large animals24 (and kept them on their homestead plot) and the average number of animals owned increases as plot size moves from the smallest category (below 1,000 square feet) to the second category (1,000-1,999 square feet). Both the portion owning animals and the average number of animals owned continues to increase, but less substantially, as plot size moves from 1,000-1,999 square feet to 2,000-2,999 square feet. Interestingly, the percentage of households owning animals and the average number of animals owned decreases slightly as plot size moves from 2,000-2,999 to 3,000-3,999 square feet and then decreases more dramatically as plot size increases above 4,000 square feet. A similar pattern is observed for the portion of households having trees on their homestead plot and the average number of trees on the plot. Both numbers increase as plot size increases until the plot size is greater than 3,000 square feet, after which the numbers decrease. The finding that the number of animals and trees increases with increasing plot size only until plot size reaches about 3,000 square feet is different from findings in Karnataka. In the Karnataka study, the number of animals and trees continued to increase as plot size increased, although the rate of increase was much slower after plot size increased beyond about 6,540 feet (0.15 acre or 15 cents). 25

23 24 25

There are 43,560 square feet in an acre. We counted only large animals: cows, bullocks, oxen, yak, sheep, goats, etc., but not poultry.

A possible explanation for this difference in West Bengal is that the enumerators for the West Bengal questionnaire survey may have undercounted the number of trees and animals on the larger homestead plots. In the subsequent rapid rural appraisal research in West Bengal (see discussion in Section V, below), we found that respondents often under-reported the number of trees on their homestead plot, and a thorough inspection of the plot after interviewing a respondent frequently revealed that the plot contained more trees than reported by the respondent. This under-reporting became much more significant as plot size increased. This finding, together with the fact that the rapid rural appraisal research (conducted in two of the questionnaire survey districts) found substantially more trees on larger homestead plots than did the questionnaire survey in the same districts, leads us to believe that the enumerators in the questionnaire survey may have relied more on respondents answers than an inspection of the plot.



Page 11

Table 1: Questionnaire Survey Findings by Homestead Plot Size 10001999 sq ft 31 1,510 1,306 2.1 58% 1.3 42% 1.2 65% 2000- 2999 sq ft 18 2,371 2,178 2.4 67% 3.9 67% 1.7 56% 3000- 3999 sq ft 19 3,461 3,484 2.3 63% 3.0 58% 1.2 58%

0-900 sq ft Number of Respondents Avg. Size of the Plot (sq ft) Median Size of the Plot (sq ft) Avg. Number of Animals % with Animals Avg. Number of Trees % with Trees Avg. # of Impacts % with Impacts 15 821 871 0.9 27% 1.0 27% 0.8 53%

>4000 sq ft 14 7,187 5,881 1.9 50% 2.1 36% 1.5 64%

Respondents were also asked whether receiving their homestead plot had resulted in a series of beneficial impacts on their household livelihood. Specifically, households were asked if receiving the homestead plot had resulted in increases to: (1) household income; (2) quantity of household food consumption; (3) quality of household food consumption; (4) households status in the village; and (5) households ability to access credit. The respondents were also presented with an open-ended question concerning any other beneficial impacts resulting from receipt of their homestead plot. All reported beneficial impacts were tallied and the summary results are shown in the last two rows of Table 1. The average number of impacts and the portion of households reporting any impact is lowest for those respondents with the smallest homestead plots. Fifty-three percent of these households reported a beneficial impact from their homestead plot and the number of impacts averaged 0.8 for these households with plots less than 1,000 square feet. There is no consistent pattern between impacts and increasing plot size, but the general trend shows a slight and uneven increase in the number of impacts as plot size increases.Rural Development Institute Allocating Homestead Plots as Land Reform: Evidence from West BengalPage 12

An increase in status was the most common beneficial impact reported (mentioned by 45% of the respondents). An increase in household income was the second most popular answer (mentioned by 19% of the respondents). Those having the smallest homestead plots reported this impact least often. The third most commonly cited beneficial impact was increased quality of food consumption, cited by 15% of all respondents. This was followed closely by increased quantity of food consumption, cited by 13% of respondents. Very few respondents (only 7%) mentioned increased access to credit. This may be related to the later RRA finding that many households who received homestead plots through the land reform have not received pattas (the most important land document) for those plots (see RRA finding in Section V, below). The results also show a positive relationship between the length of possession of ownership rights to the homestead plots and the extent of the benefits reported. The number of animals owned, the number of trees planted, and the number of those reporting credit-enhancing benefits was significantly higher for those who received their plots in the 1980s than for those respondents who received their plot after 1990, even though the latter group had larger plots (averaging 27% larger).



Page 13

V.

RAPID RURAL APPRAISAL RESEARCH FINDINGS

Following up on the basic homestead plot findings of the questionnaire survey, and to delve deeper into the topic, the authors used rapid rural appraisal methods26 (RRA) to obtain information from 45 rural households27 in Birbhum and Barddhaman districts of West Bengal in March 2002. The information obtained from these 45 respondents is the primary focus of this report. The interviewees were selected randomly, although not using scientific methods. The authors did, however, take care to select average or poorer-than-average villages from differing regions throughout each district. Unlike the survey questionnaire methodology, these rural interviewees were not respondents to a questionnaire, but active participants in a semi-structured interview. We used a checklist of issues as a basis for questions, and did not necessarily address all questions in each interview. We also sometimes departed from the checklist of issues to pursue interesting, unexpected, or new information. Our method for selecting interviewees was to enter a village and attempt to identify one of four different categories of households in preferential order. First, we attempted to identify and find a household that had received homestead land from the land reforms. Second, if there were no such households in the village or if none could be found, we then attempted to identify and find a household that had received homestead land through some other government scheme. Third, if none of the first two categories of households could be identified or found, we attempted to identify and find a household that had received benefits from a rural housing scheme. Fourth, if none of the above could be identified or found, we would find an agricultural laborer household that owned a homestead plot, but no agricultural land. A. Description of Sample

We visited 24 villages in 14 blocks 28 of Birbhum and Barddhaman (see Box 1, below). Twenty-five respondents were from Birbhum and 20 from Barddhaman.

26

The rapid rural appraisal research involved individual interviews with poor rural residents, some group discussions, brief discussions with several local government officials, and homestead plot inspections.27 28

None of the specific respondents from the survey questionnaire were repeated in the rapid rural appraisal fieldwork. A block is an administrative unit above the village-level and below the district-level.



Page 14

BOX 1: Villages Visited in RRA Field ResearchBirbhum Villages Chitoo Udaypur Lahadda West Sahapur Colony Pariharpur Bhawanipur Hatikra Kumudda Pratappur Nelegar Ramnagar Colony Daronda Kamarpara Rajatpur Ballaupurdanga Gwalpara 5) Raina Painta Gopalpur Barddhaman Villages Anuragpur Sasaranga Charpataibut Colony Pataihat Colony Sumulcha

Blocks 1) Nanoor

Blocks 1) Galsi II

2) Labpur 3) Sainthia

2) Katwa I 3) Katwa II 4) Mangalkot

4)Rajnagar 5) Purandarpur II 6) Mayureswar I 7) Rampurhat II 8) Illamabazar

9) Bolpur Santinikatan

A substantial majority of the respondents (67%) were members of a Scheduled Caste (SC) community. Of the remaining respondents, 16% were members of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) community, 9% were Muslim, 7% were General Caste Hindus, and one respondent described himself as a member of an Other Backward Caste. The majority of the respondents had not completed any formal education. We obtained information concerning the level of schooling completed from 44 respondents. Thirtyfour (77%) had not attended school. Of the remaining 10 who had completed some schooling, the final year completed ranged from 3rd to 12th, and the average year completed was 7th. Twelve of the 45 respondents (27%) were female, and the age of respondents ranged from 25 to 65 years.Rural Development Institute Allocating Homestead Plots as Land Reform: Evidence from West BengalPage 15

The great majority of the respondents (76%) earned all or most of their income from agricultural wage labor. Some of these also had other sources of income, primarily cultivating their own smallholdings. Four respondents (9%, and all females) earned most of their income working as domestic helpers. Three (8%) earned most of their income from cultivating their own holdings. Of the remaining four respondents, the primary sources of household income were masonry, shepherding, making beedi cigarettes, and repairing cycles. The respondents owned either no or very little agricultural land. Twenty-one respondents (47%) owned no agricultural land. Of the 24 who owned some agricultural land, the average holding was 0.27 acre. Seventeen of the 24 landowners (71%) had received their agricultural land through the land reforms; four (17%) had purchased their holdings; two (8%) had received the holding through ancestry. All of the respondents owned homestead plots. The homestead plots ranged in size from 436 to 21,870 square feet. The average size was 2,362 square feet and the median size was 1,742 square feet. The homestead plots were obtained through 4 different methods: land reform (20 respondents or 44%); purchase (10 respondents or 22%); ancestry (10 respondents or 22%); and other government schemes (5 respondents or 11%). In the later category, three of the respondents obtained their plots through refugee resettlement schemes and two were allocated plots by the gram panchayat.29 B. Analysis of Homestead Plot Use and Benefits by Plot Size

For purposes of analysis, we divided the sample of 45 respondents into four size categories: (1) 0-999 square feet; (2) 1,000-1,999 square feet; (3) 2,000-2,999 square feet; and (4) above 3,000 square feet.30 The first three size categories have roughly the same number of respondents (12-14), while the largest plot-size category has only six respondents. The quantitative data from the RRA survey relating to animals owned and kept on the homestead plot is generally consistent with the questionnaire survey data. Table 2 shows that the percentage of households with animals increases as the size of the homestead plot increases until the plot size increases beyond 3,000 feet. From the group with the smallest plots to the next two largest plot-size categories, the percentage of households with animals increases from 54% to 79% to 92%, respectively. Then the

29 30

Gram panchayats are democratically elected village councils.

We used one less size category than that used for the questionnaire survey data, because we had only six RRA respondents with plots 3,000 square feet or larger.



Page 16

percentage decreases to 67% for the largest size category (although this category includes only six respondents). Table 2: RRA Findings: Animals by Homestead Plot Size0 999 sq ft Number of Respondents Avg. Size of the Plot (sq ft) Median Size of the Plot (sq ft) Percentage with Animals Avg. Number of Animals 13 753 762 54% 1.6 1,000 1,999 sq ft 14 1,447 1,307 79% 3.5 2,000 2,999 sq ft 12 2,420 2,397 92% 5.6 Above 3,000 sq ft 6 7,870 4,878 68% 1.8

Similarly, the average number of animals per household follows the same pattern. Those households with the smallest plots (less than 1,000 square feet) have the fewest number of animals, averaging only 1.6. The average number of animals increases substantially for those with plot sizes ranging from 1,000-1,999 square feet (average of 3.5 animals) and again for those with plots ranging from 2,000-2,999 square feet (average of 5.6 animals). The six respondents with plots larger than 3,000 square feet, however, average only 1.8 animals each. We also analyzed the portion of households with trees on their homestead plot and the average number of trees by plot size. The results are shown in Table 3. Both the portion of families with trees and, particularly, the average number of trees increased as plot size increased. The average number of trees continued to increase as plot size increased above 3,000 square feet, differing from the questionnaire survey findings. Those with the smallest plots were less likely to have planted trees on their plot and had the smallest average number of trees. From the group with the smallest plots to the group with the largest, the average number of trees increased from 2.3 to 4.2 for the smallest, and 13.5 to 36.5 for the largest.



Page 17

Table 3: RRA Findings: Trees by Homestead Plot Size0 999 sq ft Avg. size of the plot (sq ft) Percentage with Trees Avg. Number of Trees 753 62% 2.3 1,000 1,999 sq ft 1,447 71% 4.2 2,000 2,999 sq ft 2,420. 100% 13.5 Above 3,000 sq ft 7,870 100% 36.5

We also obtained information about vegetable gardens on the homestead plot and other non-housing improvements (such as cattle sheds, storage facilities, compound walls, etc.) made to the homestead plot. These results are shown below in Table 4. We asked respondents whether they planted vegetable crops on their homestead plots and examined their plot for evidence of such vegetable gardens.31 We obtained such information from most, but not all respondents. The portion of households growing annual vegetable crops increased as homestead plot size increased. Only 10% of respondents in the smallest plot-size category reported (or were found to be) growing annual vegetable crops. The percentage increased to 31% for the second group, 58% for the third group, and 83% for the largest plot-size group. Overall, we were surprised by the low number of respondents who reported growing some annual vegetable crops (only 41%). Table 4: RRA Findings: Vegetable Gardens and Non-Housing Improvements by Homestead Plot Size0 999 sq ft Avg. Size of the Plot Percentage with Annual Vegetable Crops Percentage with Improvements 753 10% 50% 999 1,999 sq ft 1,447 31% 100% 2,000 2,999 sq ft 2,420 58% 100% Above 3,000 sq ft 7,870 83% 83%

We asked respondents during our RRA research whether they had made any significant non-residential structural or other improvements to their homestead plot since31

Because we conducted the fieldwork in March during the dry season, it is quite possible that an examination of the plot would not reveal whether the respondents did grow annual vegetable crops in the rainy season. We did not attempt to obtain the quantity of such crops from those who grew them because of the time-consuming nature of such an exercise.



Page 18

receiving or occupying the plot. An overwhelming majority of households had made such improvements. The most typical improvements reported and/or observed included construction of cow sheds, kitchen structures (which existed separate from the house), storage sheds or bins, compound walls or fencing, latrines, wells, and raising the level of the land (to prevent drainage and run-off problems). These improvements not only improved the livelihood of these families, but also increased the value of their plots and, thus, total asset portfolio. We found that, apart from those households in the smallest plot-size category (less than 1,000 square feet), virtually all households had made such improvements. It is likely that for those in the smallest plot-size category, the small amount of land beyond the footprint of the house limited the scope for non-housing improvements. C. Analysis by Mode of Acquisition of Homestead Plot

We also analyzed the entire sample of 45 respondents by the mode in which they acquired their homestead plot. Four modes of homestead plot acquisition were reported: (1) (2) (3) (4) land reform (20 respondents); other government scheme (5 respondents); purchase (10 respondents); and ancestry (10 respondents).

Table 5, below, summarizes the results. Two observations are noteworthy here. First, the homestead plot allocation scheme of West Bengals land reform appears to have achieved success, both in targeting the benefits to the most needy and in providing those recipients with an opportunity to improve their livelihood. Second, most of these land reform beneficiaries report they have not yet received pattas to their homestead plot.



Page 19

Table 5: RRA Findings by Mode of Homestead Plot AcquisitionLand Reform Number of Respondents % SC or ST % without any Formal Education % Agricultural Laborers Avg. Homestead Plot Size (sq ft) Median Homestead Plot Size (sq ft) Avg. Year Homestead Plot Acquired % Reporting Patta Received % Receiving Rural Housing Benefits % Owning Agricultural Land Avg. Area of Agric. Land Owned (acres) % owning animals Avg. Number of Animals % Planted Trees on Home Plot Avg. Number of Trees on Home Plot % Planting Vegetable Gardens 20 90% 75% 85% 3,270 1,960 1987 25% (4 of 16) 25% 60% 0.20 75% 4.6 80% 21.2 53% Other Govt Scheme 5 100% 100% 100% 1,322 1,307 1968 100% (3 of 3) 40% 80% 0.28 40% 3.6 100% 6.2 40% Purchased 10 80% 70% 60% 1,786 1,815 1991 83% (5 of 6) 20% 50% 0.34 70% 3.4 90% 7.9 50% Ancestry 10 60% 78% (7 of 9) 60% 1,644 1,525 NA 86% (6 of 7) 40% 70% 0.23 90% 3.2 70% 2.3 20%



Page 20

1. The homestead plot allocation component of West Bengals land reform appears to have achieved success in terms of both targeting beneficiaries and bestowing benefits. We interviewed 20 agricultural laborer households that had received homestead plots through the land reform program. All were or had been very poor and deserving beneficiaries. Nearly all were using the plot intensively and deriving substantial nonhousing economic and social benefits from the plot. This highlights the important benefits of the homestead plot component of West Bengals land reform program. This homestead plot component tends to get ignored because of the success of the more widely-known land reform components: Operation Barga and the distribution of vested agricultural land. Based on our sample of 20 recipients of homestead plots from the land reform, the program has provided benefits to poor and marginalized populations. Ninety percent of our sample who had received homestead plots from the land reforms were members of SC or ST communities. Three-quarters did not have any formal education. Eightyfive percent were agricultural laborer households (and of the remaining three respondents, one was a shepherd and one, a woman, was a domestic helper). Forty percent owned no agricultural land, and of the twelve respondents who did own agricultural land, ten had received that land in small parcels (averaging 0.5 acre) from the land reforms. The allocation of these homestead plots through the land reforms has also provided an opportunity to these previously homestead-less families to improve their livelihood. Three-quarters of these families now own large animals which they keep on their homestead plots; and the average number of such animals owned is 4.6. Eighty percent of these families have planted trees on their homestead plots that are providing some nutrition, fuelwood, and/or some other useful economic function to the household. On average, these 20 families have planted more than 21 trees on their homestead plot. Moreover, more than half of these families are also growing annual vegetable crops on their homestead plot that are providing supplemental nutrition for the household. 2. Most land reform recipients report they have not yet received pattas (land documents) for their homestead plots. We received information concerning patta from 16 land reform respondents. Twelve respondents (75%) reported that they had not received a patta , despite the fact that these respondents have possessed their plots for an average of 15 years. Some of these respondents volunteered that the credit-enhancing impacts of the homestead plot distribution would be realized only after they received their patta. This apparent failure or at least tardiness in the governments implementation process has limited the full potential of benefits for recipients.Rural Development Institute Allocating Homestead Plots as Land Reform: Evidence from West BengalPage 21

D.

Other Salient Findings

1. Even very poor rural households are able to find the means to provide for their own housing. Thirty-two of the 45 respondents (71%) had constructed a house on their homestead plot on their own, without the assistance of a government scheme. The remaining had received some assistance from a rural housing scheme, although all had contributed some of their own resources towards the house construction. The costs for house construction were significantly lower than we found in rural Karnataka, primarily due to the common use of locally available materials (mud, bamboo, and straw). Housing costs ranged from Rs 1,500 to Rs 60,000 and averaged Rs 13,300 per respondent. 32 Not all respondents who had obtained their homestead plot through means other than ancestry had built their existing house immediately after obtaining the plot. Relevant data was collected from 33 of the respondents. Fifteen (45%) built their current house almost immediately after obtaining the plot. Of the remaining 55%, the time period between obtaining the plot and building the existing house ranged from one to 43 years, and averaged about 7 years. Of these households, most had first built a more primitive hut, which served as the dwelling until the existing house could be built. In some cases, these huts were still standing and now served as a kitchen or cow shed. These rural housing findings are consistent with our findings from rural Karnataka and the rural settings of many other developing countries: even very poor households, if they have secure legal rights to a plot of land, find a way to construct a house on their own. They often start with a very simple dwelling and accumulate resources over time that allow them to either gradually improve the initial dwelling or build a new and improved dwelling. Such findings have implications for the way in which rural housing schemes are designed and funded. One must question whether using scarce public resources to fund housing construction is a wise allocation given that even the poorest rural households possess the motivation and the means to construct their own house if they have secure legal rights to a house site). 2. One enterprising gram panchayat had creatively used rural housing scheme resources to purchase a parcel of land and distribute it in homestead plots to poor ST families. The gram panchayat in Mangalkot Block, Bardhaman District used rural housing scheme funds to purchase a 0.36 acre parcel of land that was allotted to 12 tribal (ST) families. The remaining funds were given to the families to help with housing construction (about Rs 2,000 per family). All families constructed houses, using primarily their own resources. Nearly all families appeared to be making intensive use of their homestead plots, within the limits imposed by their very small size, for keeping animals and growing trees and/or vegetables.32

There are roughly Indian 48 rupees per U.S. dollar.



Page 22

This example might provide a model for other gram panchayats in West Bengal concerning the use of rural housing scheme resources (although we would suggest the allocation of slightly larger plots). It seems clear that gaining secure legal rights to a house site is a much more challenging obstacle for house-less rural families than is house construction itself. Thus, public assistance aimed at providing house sites will prove more beneficial than public assistance for rural housing construction. Unfortunately, it appears that existing maximum plot-size rules for the centrally-sponsored rural housing scheme used (Indira Awaas Yojana)33 may have prevented this gram panchayat from allocating larger plots. We have seen in other settings that beneficiaries of this rural housing scheme cannot have plots of larger than 1200 square feet, the approximate size of the plots distributed in this village. Such plot-size maxima are also common for other rural housing schemes (other schemes have even lower maxima) and limit the potential non-housing benefits from such schemes. 3. None of the government-allocated homestead plots we encountered have been given to married women, either independently or jointly with their husbands, despite the apparent benefits. Numerous studies indicate there are social and economic advantages to giving governmentallocated land in the joint names of husband and wife or independently to women and few, if any, disadvantages. 34 These advantages for women include drastically enhanced security, increased and dependable income, ability to access credit and government programs, and more leverage and respect within their households and communities. In 1992, the West Bengal government issued a circular instructing that government allocated land be given in the joint or independent names of women. 35 Most of those households we interviewed who had received government-allocated homestead plots reported that they had not received a patta. Of the seven respondents who had received pattas, none were in the independent or even joint names of women. Unfortunately, it appears from our study and from more comprehensive studies on the subject that the state government policy of giving land in the names of women is not routinely implemented. 36

33

This program of the Ministry of Rural Development provides construction assistance of up to Rs 20,000 for Below Poverty Line (BPL) rural households.34

See e.g., BINA A GARWAL, A FIELD OF ONES OWN: GENDER AND LAND RIGHTS IN SOUTH A SIA (1994) at 27-44 (especially promoting the benefits of individual ownership of land by women) and Ruth Meizen-Dick et al., Gender, Property Rights, and Natural Resources, W ORLD DEVELOPMENT , Vol. 25, No. 8 (August 1997) at 1303-1315 (suggesting that property ownership increases a womans bargaining power within the household and her status as a citizen in the community).35

West Bengal Board of Revenue Policy Circular No 4/4868-98/C/92 dated Sept. 14, 1992 cited in Jayoti Gupta, Women Second in the Land Agenda, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL W EEKLY (May 4, 2002). Jennifer Brown and Sujata Das Chowdhury, Womens Land Rights in West Bengal: A Field Study (RDI Reports on Foreign Aid and Development No. 116, November 2002).36



Page 23

4. Productivity of homestead plots of sufficient size might be further enhanced with government extension advice and other support for homestead plot gardening. We did some probing on the availability of government extension advice and other support (availability of seedlings or seeds) for growing trees and annual vegetable crops on homestead plots. We found no examples of a household receiving any such assistance. We did not make a systematic inquiry into the potential impact of support for farming on homestead plots in West Bengal, but did receive the clear impression that many, if not most households in our sample would benefit from such technical assistance and other support. One author has witnessed that even higher homestead plot productivity has been achieved in other countries, such as Indonesia, when support for micro-irrigation, extension advice, or other modest assistance is available to the homestead plot holder. Given the distribution of homestead land of sufficient size and quality to allow some agricultural use, this would appear of special relevance for those homestead plot recipients in West Bengal and other parts of India who are otherwise landless and below the poverty line.



Page 24

VI.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Poverty and rural landlessness are closely linked in India. Land reform programs in most Indian states ostensibly have attempted to address this link by increasing the land assets of Indias rural poor. The general experience of most states is that the reforms were poorly designed and/or have not been seriously implemented, and thus have not provided the potential benefits. West Bengals land reform experience is an exception, and a few other states have also achieved some level of success. However, even where land reforms have achieved some level of success, they have largely bypassed the poorest of the rural poorthose who are completely landless. One minor component of some land reform programsthe allocation of homestead plots to landless agricultural laborersdeserves more notice from policy makers for its potential in providing meaningful benefits to the growing numbers of poor, landless laborers in India. Adequately-sized homestead and garden plots have often provided multiple and substantial benefits to poor, rural households around the world. The findings from West Bengal outlined in this report demonstrate the important role that homestead plots playand could further play for the poor rural households who receive them. This role of homestead plots goes well beyond a place to build a house. The findings in West Bengal, against the background of earlier findings in Karnataka and comparative land reform experience in numerous other countries, lead us to offer the following five recommendations: 1. The West Bengal government should allocate additional homestead-cum-garden plots of approximately 6-7 cents in size (0.06-0.07 acre, or approximately 2,600 to 3,000 square feet) to the approximately one million rural households in West Bengal who are completely landless. West Bengals past efforts to allocate homestead plots to landless laborers has provided substantial economic and social benefits to more than 300,000 families. This program could be expanded to include most, if not all of the remaining rural families who are completely landless. It would require approximately 70,000 acres of landonly one-half of one percent of West Bengals arable land. West Bengal has about 240,000 acres of ceiling-surplus land that has vested, but has not been redistributed and another 90,000 acres that have been declared ceilingsurplus but not yet vested. Wherever possible, this land should be used to distribute homestead plots to landless laborers. The availability of existing vested land is not likely to prove sufficient to provide homestead plots for all landless households because of spatial factors. Such land of sufficient quality and location will not always exist where landless laborers exist. In such cases, the government should consider using other available government land. Where that does not exist, the government should consider obtaining land by either direct purchase or using the governments land acquisition powers (and paying market value). Available data on rural land prices in West Bengal suggests that non-irrigated arable land could be acquired and distributed in 7-cent homestead plots for about Rs 3,500 per household. 37The data on land prices are from our 500-household rural survey in West Bengal that showed the average price of non-irrigated arable land in the survey villages to be Rs 46,975 per acre.37



Page 25

Non-irrigated land in parcels of at least one-half acre and situated within relatively short walking distance of current village habitations should be targeted. This land could be transformed into new colonies by dividing the land into approximately 7-cent homestead plots and providing some minimal infrastructure such as a simple road (if needed), an electricity line, and a handpump well(s) for household water.

2. Consider re-allocating some or all of the government resources for rural housing construction toward the purchase of adequately-sized homestead-cum-garden plots. Experience in India and other countries indicates that: (1) even the poorest rural households, if they have secure tenure on a land plot, will find their own way, over time, to construct a suitable house; (2) such households have more difficulty obtaining secure rights to land than they do obtaining the materials and labor to construct a house; and (3) public resources used to obtain amply-sized homestead plots (0.06-0.07 acre in West Bengal) will result in greater economic and social benefits than if they are used to fund housing construction

3. Distribute pattas to all land reform beneficiaries who have not yet received them. Very few land reform recipients of either homestead plots or agricultural land that we encountered during our study reported receiving pattas to such land. The lack of such pattas decreases tenure security, provides greater potential for future disputes, and decreases the potential for using the plots to access credit. The government should make aggressive efforts to distribute pattas to all land reform recipients as soon as possible. The government should also consider conducting sample surveys of land reform recipients to check on the distribution of pattas.

4. Provide legal rights to homestead plots in the joint names of husband and wife. Several good reasons exist for providing legal rights to such plots and all government-allocated plots, in the joint names of husband and wife (where both exist). We encourage the West Bengal government to implement existing state policy to distribute such land to women and, further, to transform the policy into law.

5. Provide extension advice and other assistance to homestead plot recipients to enable them to maximize use of homestead plot for trees and annual vegetable crops. Such advice and assistance does not appear to be readily available for these poor households who are likely to be highly motivated to make more productive use of their limited assets. This is an area that might benefit from NGO as well as government intervention.



Page 26

REFERENCESBINA AGARWAL, A FIELD OF ONES OWN: GENDER AND LAND RIGHTS IN SOUTH ASIA (1994). Yevgenia Borisova, Land Ownership Remains Russian Privatizations Final Frontier, THE S T. PETERSBURG TIMES (April 11, 2000).THAT IS HELPING THE POOR TO CHANGE THEIR LIVES

DAVID BORNSTEIN, THE PRICE OF A DREAM: THE STORY OF THE GRAMEEN BANK AND THE IDEA (1996).

Jennifer Brown and Sujata Das Chowdhury, Womens Land Rights in West Bengal: A Field Study (RDI Reports on Foreign Aid and Development No. 116, November 2002). LESLIE BROWNRIGG, HOME GARDENING IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: WHAT THE LITERATURE SHOWS: INCLUDING AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND INVENTORIES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN HOME GARDENING PROJECTS (League for International Food Education 1985). Sukumar Das, A Critical Evaluation of Land Reforms in India (1950-1995), in LAND REFORMS IN INDIA VOL. 5: AN UNFINISHED AGENDA (B.K. Sinha and Pushpendra, eds., 2000). FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING (Regional Wood Energy Development Program Report No. 38, 1998). RICHARD W. FRANKE AND BARBARA H. CHASIN, KERALA: RADICAL REFORM AS DEVELOPMENT IN AN INDIAN STATE (1994). Tim Hanstad and Jennifer Brown, Land Reform Law and Implementation in West Bengal: Lessons and Recommendations (RDI Reports on Foreign Aid and Development No. 112, 2001). Tim Hanstad, Jennifer Brown and Roy Prosterman, Larger Homestead Plots as Land Reform?: International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, Vol. 37, No. 29 (July 20, 2002) at 3053. PATRICK HELLER, THE LABOR OF DEVELOPMENT: WORKERS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALISM IN KERALA (1998). Ronald J. Herring, Abolition of Landlordism in Kerala: A Redistribution of Privilege, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, Vol. 15, No. 26 (1980). R. Marsh, Building on Traditional Gardening to Improve Household Food Security, FOOD, NUTRITION AND AGRICULTURE, No. 22 (FAO 1998). Joan P. Mencher, The Lessons and Non-Lessons of Kerala: Agricultural Labourers and Poverty, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, Vol. 15, No. 41-43 (October 1980) at 1781. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES, STATUS OF RURAL WOMEN IN KARNATAKA (1998). ROBERT NETTING, SMALLHOLDERS, HOUSEHOLDERS: FARM FAMILIES AND THE ECOLOGY OF INTENSIVE, SUSTAINABLE A GRICULTURE (1993). Vera Ninez, Introduction: Household gardens and small-scale food production, FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN, Vol. 7, No. 3 (UN University Press, Sept. 1985).



Page 27

Mario Gonzalez Novo & Catherine Murphy, Urban Agriculture in the City of Havana: A Popular Response to a Crisis, in GROWING CITIES, GROWING FOOD: URBAN AGRICULTURE ON THE POLICY AGENDA--A READER ON URBAN AGRICULTURE (Nico Bakker et al., eds., 1999). Roy L. Prosterman & Jeffrey M. Riedinger, Indonesian Development and U.S. Aid (RDI Monographs on Foreign Aid and Development No. 3, January 1987). Keith Rosenn, Puerto Rican Land Reform: The History of an Instructive Experiment, YALE LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 73, No. 2 (1963) at 344. MINOR SINCLAIR & MARTHA THOMPSON, CUBA: GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN: AGRICULTURAL CRISIS AND TRANSFORMATION (Oxfam America 2001). Otto Soemarwoto et al., The Javanese Home Garden as an Integrated Agro-Economic System, FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN, Vol. 7, No. 3 (UN University Press, Sept. 1985). Anne Stoler, Garden Use and Household Economy in Java, in AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDONESIA (Gary E. Hansen ed., 1981). G.J.A. Terra, Mixed-Garden Horticulture in Java, in MALAYAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY, Vol. 3 (October 1954). William Thiesenhusen, Tim Hanstad, Robert Mitchell, and Erman Rajagukguk, Land Tenure Issues in Indonesia (prepared for U.S. Agency for International Development 1997) at 38. G. Thimmaiah, New Prospects on Land Reforms in India, JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3 (July-December 2001). WORLD BANK , INDIA: ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES IN REDUCING POVERTY (A World Bank Country Study 1997) at xii-xiv. K.E.VERGEHESE, SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGE IN K ERALA (1986). U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Share of Private Sector in Agricultural Output by Commodity, Russia, INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND TRADE: NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES AND THE BALTICS (1997). V.Y. Uzun, Organizational Types of the Agricultural Production in Russia (paper prepared as part of joint Russian-American BASIS program research) (2001).



Page 28

Rdi 1

Documents

Transcript of Rdi 1