|
Four major land reforms have taken place in Romania: in 1864, 1921, 1945 and 1991. The first sought to undo the feudal structure that had persisted after the unification of the Danubian Principalities in 1859; the second, more drastic reform, tried to resolve lingering peasant discontent and create social harmony after the upheaval of World War I and extensive territorial expansion; the third, imposed by a mainly Communist government, did away with the remaining influence of the landed aristocracy but was itself soon undone by collectivisation (considered by some as yet another land reform〔Verdery, p.45.〕), which the fourth then unravelled, leading to almost universal private ownership of land today. ==1864 reform== The 1864 land reform was the first of its kind in Romania, taking place during the reign of Alexandru Ioan Cuza. It came on the heels of the secularization of monastery estates, achieved in December 1863 on Mihail Kogălniceanu's initiative and taking over a quarter of the country's area away from the Orthodox Church. The question of land reform was an essential point of Cuza's political programme, and he and Kogălniceanu had wider aims: the abolition of compulsory labour and the establishment of private small holdings.〔Koehler, p.77.〕 Conservative landowners expressed opposition in Parliament, leading to a bitter political struggle culminating in its dissolution in the coup of 2 May 1864. The draft law was written by the Council of State, amended by the Government and promulgated by the prince on 14/26 August 1864. His proclamation announced to the peasants: "The ''corvée''〔''Claca'' in Romanian: "A characteristic form of feudal income, consisting of free labour that the landless peasant was obliged to perform for the landowner's benefit". ''DEX''〕 is forever abolished and you are henceforth free proprietors in the places subjected to your control".〔Stoica, p.286.〕 The law freed peasants from feudal tasks: the ''corvée'', the tithe,〔''Dijma'', here a secular term: "Levy that represented a tenth of the main products, taken by feudal masters from the producers; later a form of feudal landed income which consisted of the cession by the peasant to the landowner of a part of the production obtained from the piece of land received from the latter for cultivation". ''DEX''〕 the transport tax〔''Podvada'': "Obligation to which dependent peasants were subjected in the Middle Ages for the owner's benefit (especially in wartime), which consisted of short-term labour (transport, carting) or in temporary requisition of pack animals". ''DEX''〕 and maintenance days;〔''Zile de meremet''〕 it did away with feudal monopolies in the villages, at the same time specifying that compensation would be paid to the owners.〔 Thus, for 15 years,〔Koehler, p.77 gives 35 years.〕 in order to defray the cost of their no longer performing the ''corvée'' and the other feudal duties, peasants were required to pay into an indemnity fund that issued bonds redeemable in instalments an annual fee of 51-133 lei, depending on their category and region; this was a heavy burden for the majority and ruined the poorest.〔Hitchins 1996, p.311〕 They also had to pay for the land they now owned, albeit at a price below market value. The quantity of expropriated land was not to exceed ⅔ of the domains' area (the boyars kept the best third, taking advantage of a provision calling for the consolidation, wherever possible, of pastures, hayfields and arable plots scattered by successive inheritances in order to get rid of their poorest quality land〔) and selling or mortgaging the lots was forbidden for 30 years, after which the village commune could exercise its right of pre-emption. This reform gave 1,654,965 ha (6,389.86 mi²)〔Koehler p.77 gives over 2,000,000 ha. Hitchins 1996 p.310 gives 1,810,311 hectares to 463,554 families (or about 4 ha per family), about 60,000 of which only received land for a house and garden (including childless widows, minors and non-''corvée'' labourers.〕 of land to 406,429 peasants; another 60,651 received lots only for a house and garden. Later, 48,432 additional families of newlyweds (who did not come under the law's provisions but were permitted to settle on state-owned lands near their village) received 228,329 hectares.〔Hitchins 1996, p.310〕 Implementation of the law was by and large complete by 1865 but was slowed by a lack of comprehensive regulations concerning both general procedures and special cases; moreover, friction between landlords and peasants ensued because the latter had no confidence in the private surveyors hired by landlords to delimit their new holdings from the rest of the estate.〔 In the year following 1864, agricultural production stagnated or even fell in some regions, partly because many owners had done nothing to compensate for the loss of the ''corvée'', and also because many peasants did not know what land would be theirs and were reluctant to raise crops that might not be theirs, but by the spring of 1866 production once again rose.〔 After the reform, land owned by peasants (that is, former ''corvée'' members,〔''Clăcaşi''〕 free peasants〔''Răzeşi'': "Free peasants, organised in communes, who together worked the land of the village where they lived, but worked independently (as families) the agricultural lot assigned to them". ''DEX''〕 and small proprietors〔''Moşneni'': "Free peasants, joint possessors of land property inherited from a common ancestor". ''DEX''〕) covered around 30% of the national territory, with 70% still in state or landlord hands. The reform had important social consequences, giving the peasants a civic motivation and assuring them a means of subsistence;〔 it was also enshrined in the 1866 Constitution.〔Article 20 read: "Property given to the peasants through the rural law and the compensation guaranteed to owners through that law can never be touched". (1866 Constitution ).〕 Nevertheless, three factors undermined the reform. First, too little land was assigned to too many candidates even though many farmers were excluded from the redistribution and went on working in semi-serfdom on the boyars' estates. Second, demographic increase caused devastating rural overpopulation. Third, inheritance practices based on equally divided portions led to deep property fragmentation. Thus, the new landowners quickly ran into debt and because of the inadequate banking system had to borrow from boyars, large tenants or usurers at exorbitant interest rates. Instead, some peasants transferred the land back to the former owners and continued working it essentially as before.〔Koehler, p.77-8.〕 This new system of dependency prompted by the lack of arable land and pasture was dubbed "neo-serfdom" (''neoiobăgie'') by the Marxist theorist Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea.〔Hitchins 1994, p.167.〕 Moreover, forests, essential for many households' economic well-being, were excluded from distribution; peasants could use them for fifteen years, after which the landlord could reclaim his property rights to them.〔 The reform also gave rise to political clash: the Liberals saw it as a starting point for dynamic, reasoned change, while the majority of Conservatives tried to use the 1864 law to defend their property against further expropriation, believing the social question had been resolved.〔Hitchins 1994, p.25.〕 By 1913, Romania was the world's fourth-largest wheat exporter, but the issue of inequitable land distribution became persistently troublesome (and indeed was exacerbated that year when Romanian peasants fought in the Second Balkan War, witnessing first-hand the far more equitable land distribution scheme in place in Bulgaria〔Phinnemore, David. ''The EU and Romania: Accession and Beyond'', p.5. 2006, The Federal Trust for Education & Research, ISBN 1-903403-79-0.〕). In the late 19th century about 2,000 landowners controlled over half the land while peasants (with little representation in government as well as limited access to land and ownership rights) had just a third. In 1888 peasant discontent with inequitable land distribution resulted in bloody confrontations that brought about partial and ineffective agrarian reforms. The unequal system continued to drive the peasantry into bankruptcy and seemed to lead increasingly toward a system of absentee ownership. Almost two decades later, a second, more violent episode took place: the 1907 Romanian Peasants' Revolt, which almost caused a full-blown revolution and led to the deaths of several thousand peasants once the army intervened. As a consequence, the government introduced new legislation in 1907-08 to benefit the peasants, including a new law on agricultural contracts and a law establishing a rural credit bank (Casa Rurală) intended to facilitate purchases and leases, transferring property from large landowners to peasants. However, these laws (influenced by the ''poporanist'' trend of Constantin Stere〔Psalidopoulos, Michalis. ''Economic Thought and Policy in Less Developed Europe'', p.114. 2001, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-25820-0.〕) were poorly enforced, a wholly inadequate amount of land was made available for purchase and the vast majority of the peasantry did not even qualify for most of the assistance made available.〔Sabates, p.9.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Land reform in Romania」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|