thesis
Transformation after two decades of agrarian reform program
Pamela Crosby
MSc in Geography Candidate
Department of Geography
University of the Philippines Diliman
Introduction
In the Philippines, a large proportion of the population is involved in the agricultural sector. According to the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS), an office under the Department of Agriculture (DA), about 12.03 million were employed in the agriculture sector. It represents about 35 percent of the country 's employment in 2008. In terms of wage, an agricultural worker earns on average Php325 (7.3 US dollars)* daily, if employed in agricultural lands within the National Capital Region, the political and economic center of the Philippines or between Php185-257 (4.2-5.8 US dollars), if employed outside NCR (National Wages and Productivity Commission, 2008). Comparing these figures to earnings from non-agricultural employment, Php325-362 (7.3-8.1 US dollars) in NCR and Php183-287 (4.1-6.5 US dollars) outside NCR, the difference is quite significant.
Oftentimes the terms “agricultural” is often equated to “rural” although they are not necessarily so. These words in turn are associated with poverty, backwardness, and underdevelopment. The bleak characterization of the rural-agricultural areas is attributed to landlessness, or more aptly, to unequal access to land, which in turn, maintains the dependency of the landless on landed entities, be they traditional landlords or huge commercial companies. In both cases, tenant farmers and farm workers are treated as mere tillers of land and have no decision-making power over the utilization of the land and the resources in it.
For rural developers, the way then to correct stagnation and poverty in the rural areas is to redistribute land, which is tantamount to redistributing wealth and power (Thiesenhusen, 2001; Borras, 2008b). By having access to land, tillers are no longer forced into an iniquitous sharing system with
Pamela Crosby
MSc in Geography Candidate
Department of Geography
University of the Philippines Diliman
Introduction
In the Philippines, a large proportion of the population is involved in the agricultural sector. According to the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS), an office under the Department of Agriculture (DA), about 12.03 million were employed in the agriculture sector. It represents about 35 percent of the country 's employment in 2008. In terms of wage, an agricultural worker earns on average Php325 (7.3 US dollars)* daily, if employed in agricultural lands within the National Capital Region, the political and economic center of the Philippines or between Php185-257 (4.2-5.8 US dollars), if employed outside NCR (National Wages and Productivity Commission, 2008). Comparing these figures to earnings from non-agricultural employment, Php325-362 (7.3-8.1 US dollars) in NCR and Php183-287 (4.1-6.5 US dollars) outside NCR, the difference is quite significant.
Oftentimes the terms “agricultural” is often equated to “rural” although they are not necessarily so. These words in turn are associated with poverty, backwardness, and underdevelopment. The bleak characterization of the rural-agricultural areas is attributed to landlessness, or more aptly, to unequal access to land, which in turn, maintains the dependency of the landless on landed entities, be they traditional landlords or huge commercial companies. In both cases, tenant farmers and farm workers are treated as mere tillers of land and have no decision-making power over the utilization of the land and the resources in it.
For rural developers, the way then to correct stagnation and poverty in the rural areas is to redistribute land, which is tantamount to redistributing wealth and power (Thiesenhusen, 2001; Borras, 2008b). By having access to land, tillers are no longer forced into an iniquitous sharing system with
References: Adriano, F.D. (2008). CARP institutional assessment in a post-2008 transition scenario: Toward a new rural development architecture. Discussion Paper Series 2008-06. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S. (1962). “The Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56, 941-52. Ballesteros, M Ballesteros, M. & de la Cruz, A. (2006). Land reform and changes in land ownership concentration: Evidence from rice-growing villages in the Philippines. Discussion Paper Series 2006-21. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Bernstein, H. (1994). Agrarian classes in capitalist development. In L. Sklair (Ed.), Capitalism and development. New York and London: Routledge. Bernstein, H. & Byres, T. (2001). From peasant studies to agrarian change. Journal of Agrarian Change, 1 (1), 1-56. Borras, S., Jr. (2008a). Competing Views and Strategies on Agrarian Reform, Volume I: International Perspective. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Borras, S., Jr. (2008b). Competing Views and Strategies on Agrarian Reform, Volume II: Philippine Perspective. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Borras, S., Jr. (1998). The bibingka strategy in land reform implementation : autonomous peasant movements and state reformists in the Philippines. Quezon City : Institute for Popular Democracy Connelly, J Dahl, R. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science 2, 201-15. Department of Agriculture-Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Service (DA-AMAS) .(1999). Coconut industry situationer report, accessed at Eder, J Franco, J. & Borras, S., Jr. (Eds.) (2005). On just grounds: Struggling for agrarian justice and citizenship rights in the rural Philippines. Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy. Geron, M.P. (1994). The impact of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) on the crop sector. Discussion Paper Series 1994-14. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Hart, G., Turton, A. & White, B. (1992). Agrarian transformation, local processes and the state in Southeast Asia. Berkeley and Loas Angeles: University of California Press. Hutchcroft, P.(2002). Colonial masters, national politicos and provincial lords: central authority and local autonomy in the American Philippines 1900–1913, Journal of Asian Studies, 59, 277–306. Kerkvliet, B. (1991). Everyday politics in the Philippines: class and status relations in a Central Luzon Village. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. Lactao, Ernesto Leonen, M. (2008). CARP institutional assessment in a post-2008 transition scenario: Reforms for the agrarian justice system. Discussion Paper Series 2008-10. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Llanto, G. & Ballesteros, M. (2003). Land issues in poverty reduction strategies and the development agenda: Philippines. Discussion Paper Series 2003-03. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Llanto, G. & Dingcong, C. (1991). Impact of agrarian reform on landowners: A review of literature and a framework. Discussion Paper Series 1991-14. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Llorito, D.L. (2002). Quezon 's feudal system blamed for insurgency. Accessed at Maunahan, M.V.; Huelgas, Z.M.; Sardido, M.L.; Alino, J.B.; Deomampo, N.R McCoy, A.W. (ed.). (1998). Anarchy of families: state and families in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Morales, H., Jr.; Putzel, J., Lara, F., Jr. &Quitoriano, E. (Eds.) (2001). Agrarian reform, rural politics, institutional change and globalization. Quezon City: Project Development Institute. Park, Seung Woo and Green, Gary P. (1995). Agricultural restructuring and capitalist industrialization: the cases of South Korea and the Philippines, Kasarinlan, 11 (2), 103-148. Putzel, James. (2002). A captive land : the politics of agrarian reform in the Philippines. London: Monthly Review Press, 1992. Reyes, C. (2002). Impact of agrarian reform on poverty. Discussion Paper Series 2002-02. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Rigg, J. (2001). More than the soil: Rural change in Southeast Asia. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Rigg, J. (1997). Southeast Asia: The human landscape of modernization and development. London: Routledge. Roseberry, W. (1983). From peasant studies to proletarianization studies. Studies in Comparative International Development, 18(1/2), 69-89. Scott, J Scott, J. (1985). Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Scott, J Scott, J. & Kerkvliet, B. (1973). The politics of survival: peasant response to ‘progress’ in Southeast Asia”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 4 (2), 241-268. Shanin, T Thiesenhusen, W. (2001). Poverty amidst plenty. In H. Morales et al (Eds.). Agrarian reform, rural politics, institutional change and globalization. Quezon City: Project Development Institute. Thorner, D., Kerblay, B. & Smith, R.E.F. (eds.). (1966). A.V. Chayanov on the Theory of Peasant Economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Tiglao, R. (1980). The political economy of the Philippine coconut industry. Third World Studies. Commodity Studies No. 1, December 1980. United Coconut Association of the Philippines, Inc Zoleta-Nantes, D. B. Z. (2001). A process-documentation of the community managed agrarian reform program. An unpublished report submitted to the Department of Agrarian Reform, Quezon City, Philippines.