Слике страница
PDF
ePub

competition of the vast Canadian surplus of cereals, unless protection shall be afforded to our producers.

Such protection now exists nominally, but it appears to be of little more than local significance. In a comparatively short period of time I believe we shall be forced to make the same fateful choice that confronted England in the middle of last century, and which resulted in the repeal of the Corn Laws. Shall we have free trade in farm products with the resulting advantage of cheap food as a basis for further industrialization of our national life, but at

[ocr errors]

the expense of subordinating still further our agriculture to our industry? Or, on the other hand, shall we give sufficient protection to agriculture to insure at least the maintenance of its present relative position in our economic polity? What answer will be given to these questions I shall not endeavor to predict. Nor do I pretend to be wise enough to foresee what answer will best subserve our national welfare. But no one here will disagree with me in the assertion that the answer will be fateful for the future welfare and stability of the Republic.

European Agricultural Policies

By FRANK M. SURFACE
U. S. Department of Commerce

HOSE of us who live in countries which produce an agricultural surplus, where the rights of acquiring and holding property are adequately guaranteed and where the pangs of "land hunger" have not been felt, have oftentimes but little appreciation of the strikingly different conditions which prevail in countries where economic conditions for the masses are more

severe.

LAND POLICIES IN ENGLAND

In England the development of manufacturing industries towards the end of the 18th century and afterwards had a marked effect upon agriculture. With an increasing class of non-agricultural wage earners, prices began to rise and both landlords and tenants began to see a way of becoming wealthy by getting control of more land. The movement for enclosing more of the common lands into estates and holdings gained new impetus. By taking this common land, both arable and grazing, nto the large estates, thousands of

poorer families were deprived of their livelihood and were forced to find new homes either in the budding industrial centers or as farm laborers on large estates. The seventy years prior to 1850 was a period of great industrial unrest with new adjustments between classes. During this period, also, England was at war with France more or less constantly for over twenty years. During this war period prices of farm products rose to extraordinarily high levels. The average price of wheat for this period was eighty shillings per quarter, or about $2.40 a bushel.

After the end of the war in 1815 landlords and farmers who had adjusted their operations to the high prices were not willing to allow these to fall to lower levels. Since they were in control of Parliament, they passed the famous Corn Law, which, among other things, prohibited foreign grain from being brought into British markets when the price for native grain was less than eighty shillings a quarter. The object was to maintain the price

of wheat at this figure, but like many other attempts to overthrow economic laws by legislative action, the attempt failed miserably. In less than a year the price had fallen as low as fiftythree shillings. In the twenty years that followed no less than five separate committees from the House of Commons collected evidence and attempted to devise remedies, but without avail. This was a period of intense distress among the British farmers and readjustments were made slowly. The Corn Law was the cause of bitter strife and political rivalry between the agricultural and industrial classes. It was not finally repealed until 1846, or thirty years after its passage, and then only after a bitter struggle. An intense and conscientious study of this period of English history would undoubtedly be enlightening to those who are now actively advocating government price fixing. In many respects conditions were parallel to those which exist today.

Under the necessity for greater home production of food during the World War, England again adopted a minimum price for wheat and oats. This was in 1917 and was to last for five years. In December, 1920, another act was passed fixing prices of wheat and oats as well as farm wages. The Government agreed to pay the difference between the price received by farmers and the price fixed. Although this act stated that four years' notice of repeal was to be given, it remained on the statute books just seven months, being repealed in June, 1921. The Government compromised with the farmers by paying a straight bounty for every acre of wheat and oats grown in 1921.

The present system of land tenure in England, while hardly to be regarded as ideal, has worked rather satisfactorily for English conditions. It is the

result of a long series of interactions between the landowners and tenants. It has resulted in guarantees to the tenant that he shall have the benefit of improvement made during his tenancy and has obviated many of the difficulties of tenant farming in other countries.

Through a long series of reactions England before the war had settled to a policy of importing her chief cereal supply from areas of cheaper production in the western hemisphere and Australia. Her agriculture tended largely to animal husbandry including dairying and sheep raising. Owing to the pressure of the war, large areas of permanent grass lands were ploughed and planted to cereals. There is every indication that England is going back to her former policy and cereal production in the future is likely to occupy no more important place than it did before the war.

LAND OWNERSHIP IN FRANCE

Reference has already been made to the revolution in France by which the peasants came into ownership and control of their land. During the last century there has been a marked tendency towards an excessive subdivision of French land. One of the marked characteristics of the thrifty French peasant has been his desire to own a bit of land, however small. The extent to which this subdivision had proceeded is shown by the fact that out of a total of 5,300,000 land holdings before the war, 4,500,000 or 85 per cent were less than twenty-five acres in area and more than 2,000,000 of these were less than one hectare or two and one-half acres in extent. In the north of France, the region which later became the "devastated territory," approximately 50 per cent of the holdings were less than two and one-half acres, and many were extremely small. As a

rule a single hectare was divided into three or four plots. Usually several of these plots belonged to the same peasant, he having from time to time invested his savings in scattered plots of land.

In the devastated regions the terrible destruction obliterated many of the original boundaries of the small plots. In the work of restoration it has been found less expensive and more satisfactory to consolidate many of these holdings, thus giving a peasant all of his land in a single tract. A law passed early in 1919 provided for this under certain restrictions and up to April of last year, in thirty communes the total number of holdings had been reduced from 45,560 to 9,463 and the average area per plot increased from nine-tenths of an acre to four and fourtenths acres. This movement will undoubtedly increase the efficiency of French agriculture in these regions.

The French Government has done much in recent years to encourage individual peasant ownership of land. Among the more important of these are the measures providing agricultural credits which have been greatly amplified since the war.

LAND POLICIES IN SOUTHWEST

EUROPE

Turning to the countries of Eastern and Southeastern Europe-agriculture is in a much more primitive state of development than it is in the countries farther west.

The history of all major wars shows that the returning soldiers, who are very largely drawn from the peasant classes, demand reforms and in particular they demand to share in land holdings. A returning army is in a particularly advantageous position to force its demand upon a government. So following the World War far-reaching agrarian reforms have been insti

tuted in all of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe with the possible exception of Russia, where perhaps the end of the upheaval has not yet been

seen.

All reforms in these countries have aimed at a more democratic land ownership by strengthening peasant proprietorship and by dividing up the large estates. In the different countries the methods have not been the same. In carrying out any agrarian reform the first requisite is for the state to secure a reserve of land. This can be accomplished in some countries by utilizing land already in the possession of the state and additional lands can be bought from voluntary sellers. This is the method which has been pursued in eastern Germany, Austria and Hungary. In these countries no class of land ownership has been attacked and no lands expropriated. Expropriation, however, has been provided for in some instances and under certain restrictions if it should prove necessary in carrying out the reforms. In this group of countries the right to large estates is still recognized.

In a second group of countries, including Czechoslovakia, Poland, Roumania and Lithuania, an entirely different method has been adopted. Large scale ownership in these countries has been condemned and provision made for the expropriation of all lands above a certain area. The amount of land which may be retained by the former owners differs in different countries and also according to whether it is arable, forest or mountainous land. In general, the amount which may be retained runs from one hundred to five hundred acres.

Roumanian Land Policies

In Roumania the peasants were held in absolute serfdom under the feudalistic system prevailing until 1864.

[ocr errors]

When they were freed they did not receive sufficient land either to support their families or to make payments on their holdings. Hence they had again to turn to the landlords either for work on shares or for wages or else to rent land from them. At almost every turn the landlord was able to take advantage of the peasant. The results led to very complicated and unsatisfactory conditions, often leaving the peasants little better than slaves. The peasant revolt in 1906 instituted some reforms with regard to credit and common lands, but left the peasant still at the mercy of the landlord. The situation is clearly revealed in the fact that more than half of the arable land was held by less than one per cent of the population.

It was not until December, 1918, after the close of the World War, that a genuine reform was put into effect. By the decree of Ferdinand I approximately 5,500,000 acres of land were expropriated from large estates, institutions and state domains and made available to the peasants. The peasants are given twenty years to pay for the land and have to pay only the capital sum. The Government has given the former owners bonds payable in full at the end of twenty years. The change in ownership is shown by the fact that in 1864 only 20 per cent of the nearly 20,000,000 acres of farm land was in small holdings. At the end of the war in 1918 about 52 per cent of the total acreage was in small holdings, while when the present reforms shall have been carried out nearly 90 per cent of the land will be held by the peasants.

The actual distribution of the land has proceeded rather slowly and is by no means complete. During the process of transfer a considerable portion of the land is not being cultivated either by the estate owners or by the

prospective peasant owner. When the transfer has been completed it will no doubt have considerable effect upon the agriculture of the country. It is believed that more corn and less wheat will be grown because the peasant has always been forced to plant wheat against his will by the landlords who desired an export product. Animal husbandry will receive more attention than in the past. The Roumanian peasant lives largely on corn and dairy products. It is also probable that under more prosperous economic conditions he will eat more wheat. In any event, it is probable that even after conditions become thoroughly settled, Roumania will produce less wheat for export than formerly. If the economic condition of the peasant improves sufficiently, he will become a better farmer and with more modern methods he can undoubtedly increase the yield from his land. This, however, will require education and time.

The Roumanian peasant has just gained what the peasants of Western Europe secured more than a century ago. Probably in no other countries have the nobility and upper classes struggled harder to hold their advantages over the peasant than in these countries of Southeastern Europe. The trend of human progress has at last proved inexorable and they have succumbed. Perhaps from a purely economic point of view the old system was temporarily more efficient, but it transgressed principles of social welfare which were inevitably bound to win out just as they have done in the countries of the West.

Czechoslovakia

In Czechoslovakia, while the amount of land expropriated is rather large (nearly 28 per cent of the total area), the proportion of arable land which is changing hands is considerably smaller.

Furthermore, before the war the land in the western portion of the present republic was handled in a much more scientific manner than the lands in Roumania ог other more eastern states. Consequently, the change in ownership is likely to have a much less profound effect upon its agriculture.

Land Reform in Bulgaria

As in most other countries of Eastern Europe, a land reform is taking place in Bulgaria. However, before the war the proportion of land held in large estates was much smaller than in Roumania for example. The pre-war peasant holdings were also larger than in the other Balkan countries. Furthermore, the large estates differed in character from those in other parts of the Danube basin in that they consisted of scattered farm tracts instead of large centralized units as in Russia and Roumania where one estate might consist of as much as 125,000 acres in a single tract. The Bulgarian large estates were usually operated by peasants on shares so the land reform will consist only in a change of ownership and it is not likely that this will materially affect agricultural production.

Russian Land Policies

Reference has already been made to the condition in Russia. It is of interest to note the situation there in a little more detail. When Alexander II liberated the peasants from serfdom in 1861 a system of communal property was established. The peasants were not given the land but it was parceled out to them according to the size of their families. Since both the total communal population as well as the size of families varied with time, it was necessary to redistribute the land at intervals. This usually took place every ten or twelve years. The families lived in separate houses all placed

near each other, close to the center of the commune. Since the whole scheme was based on equality within the commune, each family must share in the good and poor land and in that close to and distant from the village. This resulted in a system of strip farming, anywhere from eight to forty of these narrow strips being assigned to a family. The attempt to farm land split up in this fashion resulted in a vast amount of wasted energy. Further, since the peasant was not assured of the permanent possession of a given strip he had little incentive to improve it. Again, almost from necessity, he had to follow the same rotation of crops as his neighbors, because only in this way could he secure needed help in cultivating and unless his strip was in grass or stubble when the neighbors' flocks were pastured he had no protection. It is easy to see the evil effects of this system, especially when coupled with an absolutely illiterate peasantry.

Little or no progress was made under this system. Following the first revolution in 1905-1906 the Government instituted an agrarian reform, and in 1906 made provision for individual peasant ownership of land. Because of the illiterate character of the peasant and his utter lack of initiative, little progress was made. An attempt was made to give the peasant his land in a compact farm on which he could have his home, but the transfer of some twenty million peasants, often against their wishes, was a colossal task. Considerable progress was being made and a progressive ministry of agriculture was making some headway against the inertia of the peasant when the Bolshevist revolution undid all that had been accomplished. According to accounts, they have gone back to the old communal life to a large extent.

After the revolution the Soviet Government nationalized all the lands and

« ПретходнаНастави »