Agrarian reform is not a new concept.

In the second century before Christ, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, a Roman politician, proposed a law known as lex Sempronia agraria for the government to confiscate huge tracts of land being held by the latifundia, the wealthy upper class owning large estates, for homeless soldiers. In those times, Roman soldiers were required to serve the long duration of a military campaign and left their farms in the hands of their wives and children, who would lead a life of bankruptcy and forced to sell their lands to the latifundia. Upon their return, these soldiers joined the mob of thousands of unemployed roaming around the city of Rome because they had nowhere to go. This advocacy of Tiberius eventually led to his death after a violent confrontation with the conservative faction of the Roman Senate.

Many advocates hold the view that agrarian reform is a condition sine qua non for the development of successful economies.

And Taiwan is almost always seen as an ideal model. They say that Taiwan’s progress was greatly influenced by land reforms (agrarian reform followed by urban land reform) that led to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

In his article entitled: “Five Lessons for Land Reformers: The Case of Taiwan”, author Fred Harrison enumerated the factors that led to the country’s agrarian success.

Harrison first pointed out the proper allocation of land resources combined with the diligence of hard working population. With the reform, Taiwanese farmers began to plant second and intervening crops that doubled their income. In ten years, houses were rebuilt with tile roofs and cement floors and electricity extended to the countryside. The means of transport also improved from the rusty bicycles to motorcycles to automobiles. With each change, new industries were born.

The second lesson, according to Harrison, is not to displace agricultural labor until the industrial sector has developed enough to begin to demand it. At the start of the reform, Taiwan banned the importation of large farm tractors. Agriculture experts argue that mechanized equipments that were only meant to save man-hours in production are not needed in a country with manpower surplus. Harrison said that large landowners can make more money by displacing tenants and mechanizing. But displaced farm tenants have no place to go but to the edges of cities where they cluster in urban slums and where they have to be fed on the bounty of those working.

The third lesson, Harrison relates, is that a land reform which upgrades the economic condition of the peasantry provides an important political power base for the government that engineers the reform. At the time agrarian reform was introduced, majority of the country’s population were peasants. He observed that in Taiwan the central government enjoys much political authority but below this level the regime is quite democratic.

Akin to the third, Harrison pointed out that land reform was imposed on the landowners, who naturally opposed it, by a central government strong enough to do it.

And to make land reform permanent, Harrison noted that facilities for marketing, supply, and credit were adequately supplied and extended so that farmers are not driven back into the clutches of the former landlords. Taiwan did this through the cooperative system and peasant organizations to do away with the influence of the landlords who were also controlling or connected to rice mills, banking, farm input supplies and marketing. Tax systems were made conducive to the farmers.

The Philippine agrarian reform experience is far from this.

The land distribution scheme of Republic Act No. 6657 is set to expire in 2008.  Between the years 1972 to 2005, 3.7 million hectares were distributed to more than 2 million agrarian reform beneficiaries. And the combined agriculture, fishery and forestry production growth rate is only 1.8% in 2005 as reported by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). In terms of employment creation in the same year, the agriculture sector had only a 35.6% of the total pie

While agrarian reform is openly declared as a center-piece program of government, there is no showing that it would perform as an engine of economic growth for the country. Even with their own lands, small Filipino farmers remain to be among the poorest of the poor.

And it seems it would never be, simply because government has a thousand and one priorities.