The Distribution of Land Reform Benefits in Colombiat
研究了哥伦比亚土地改革对农村收入分配的影响，发现改革可能使小农受益，但无地工人和城市消费者可能受损，且产出增长存疑。
Until recently it has been assumed that land reform would naturally contribute to a reduction in rural income inequality by transferring capital assets (land) from the rich to the poor farmer. This conventional wisdom is now subject to challenge because it neglects entirely the existence of an important subset of the rural population, workers who remain landless upon completion of the reform program.' Under certain circumstances land reform may have a mixed impact on income distribution in that the incomes of small farmers are enhanced while those of large farmers and poor landless workers are diminished. The existence of conditions which would permit this outcome to occur is examined for Colombia and it is concluded that, unless reform creates unusually small farms, both small farmers and landless workers are likely to gain if land is redistributed to small farmers. An entirely separate distributional concern is whether land reform will promote higher levels of agricultural output and increase the supply of food to urban consumers. This issue involves both the size of the anticipated gain in total output and the induced consumption response of land reform beneficiaries. Using a simple, highly aggregated model, estimates of these consumption and output responses are derived for the Colombian case. It appears doubtful that output will increase to the extent indicated by other studies and that urban food consumers will share in the benefits of reform. In fact, it is much more probable that the latter group will become somewhat worse off compared to their pre-reform situation. These estimates of the impact of land reform should be considered as short run in character and in some sense incomplete. There are few facets of rural economic behavior that would be unaffected over time by a fundamental land reform. In the long run one could argue, for example, that savings rates and the level of rural investment would be higher with reform and that farmers' organizations would be strengthened and made more effective in the marketing of output and the purchase of inputs. Moreover, certainly the form of new technology and perhaps the pace at which it is assimilated into the rural economy will be different under a new regime of a more equal structure of farm sizes. Probably more emphasis would be placed in this setting on achieving yield increases,