Table of contentsSummaryIntroductionLand reforms under the American military government (1945-48)Did land reforms improve the socio-economic condition of peasants?Impact on capitalImpact on technologyWhat were they? the contributions of land reforms to laying the foundation of Korean democracy?Impact on Procedural DemocracyImpact on Substantive DemocracyConclusionReferencesSummaryThe Republic of Korea (South Korea) is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Its GDP per capita was $39,400 in 2017, compared to North Korea where GDP per capita was only $1,700. Much of this difference can be attributed to the different political economy approaches adopted by the new nation-states when the peninsula was divided in two. The South created a liberal democracy with a capitalist economic system, while the North created a social democracy with a socialist economic system. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayA fundamental part of Southern liberal democracy was the land reform program undertaken in the early 1950s, which laid the foundation economic equality for a democratic society. . South Korea's land reform is highly celebrated around the world because it is one of the few successful examples where land reform was carried out by Parliament and where ownership was actually vested in the tiller, unlike many others. many other cases where the state became the new land owner. It was presented as laying the foundations for a democratic and egalitarian society. But as South Korea faced inequality of opportunity – both social and economic – and military dictatorship in the decades that followed, democratic and egalitarian expectations were disappointed. In this context, this article attempts to examine: (1) What were the different forces involved in the conflict? agrarian reform process? (2) Have Korean land reforms changed the socio-economic conditions of peasants? (3) What were the contributions of land reforms to establishing the foundations of Korean democracy?IntroductionAfter the end of World War II, the radical reorganization of property relations and the creation of a democratic nation-state were the main demands of the people of all new Korea. decolonized world. Since the World War was fought as a decisive battle between democracy and fascism, the victorious Allied powers pledged to create democratic nation-states in the colonies of the Axis powers before granting them independence and sovereignty. Likewise, the allies were convinced that cartelized industries and the devolution of land ownership threatened domestic stability and international peace. They therefore attempted to demolish all vestiges of colonial rule and create independent democratic nation-states capable of governing themselves. In this process, the Korean Peninsula fell under the occupation of Allied forces. However, Korea fell victim to the dynamics of the Cold War. The two superpowers were divided on the central question of maintaining or abolishing the institution of private property. Ideological differences between the United States and the USSR led to the division of the peninsula along the 38th parallel, with the North falling under the Soviet zone of influence and the South under the American zone of influence. The two superpowers cultivated different political groups on the peninsula in order to strengthen and expand their ideological system. Korea is like thisbecame the ideological battlefield of the victors of the Second World War. Radical land redistribution was an important demand of the Korean people that was taken up by both the North and the South. North Korea's land reforms took place in early 1946. South Korea's land reforms were undertaken by two successive governments, viz. American occupation government in 1948 and South Korea's first elected government in 1950. In the historical context of Korea, the land reforms represent a watershed moment in Korean history. For the first time in history, Korean tenants and farmers could claim ownership of a plot of land. This led to the complete annihilation of the centuries-old landed aristocracy and laid the foundation for a modern nation-state in Korea. It promoted rural egalitarianism and made the peasantry more participatory in the new Korean political framework. Land reforms under the American military government (1945-48) Korean territory south of the 38th parallel came under the American zone of influence. The United States established a military occupation government, the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK), and created a liberal democracy with private property in the south, as opposed to a socialist democracy without property private in the North. The communist North had undertaken radical land reforms in early 1946. It redistributed all agricultural land owned by Japanese and Korean landlords to tenants free of charge. In the South, the first phase of land reforms was carried out by USAMGIK in March 1948, at the end of the year. of his rule. Under this policy, USAMGIK had only redistributed Japanese land, which represented approximately 18 percent of all agricultural land. USAMGIK left land owned by Korean landlords untouched, and by early 1949 nearly 63 percent of rural households were tenants. Scholars have argued that this partial and half-hearted redistribution of land carried out by the United States reflects that its intention was limited to preventing a takeover in the South. Southern communists were heavily influenced by the radical land redistribution in the North in 1946. Under enormous pressure from Northern influence, USAMGIK carried out partial land redistribution and would not have done so in the absence of a communist threat. Their contention is that USAMGIK was unable to emulate land reforms in the north due to the reluctance of conservative Korean landowners, on whose support USAMGIK claimed legitimacy. This view suggests that the United States was not interested in raising the living standards of peasants or creating true democracy, but only in preventing communism in the South. This view is also supported by the fact that reforms were not enacted at the start of USAMGIK rule in 1945, due to the presence of a strong communist movement. It was only after the communist movement had been considerably weakened that USAMGIK undertook land reforms, during the last months of its rule, in March 1948. But this widely held view has been challenged by recent studies which highlight the real intention of the United States to create a liberal democracy with the institution of private property. For such a liberal-democratic system to survive mass land ownership, it was necessary to do so, but without alienating Korea's land-owning elites. The United States believed that true democracy cannot flourish in a society based on inequality. The United States therefore undertookpolitical and economic reforms similar to those undertaken in Japan and Germany. The objective was to dismantle industries and reduce the concentration of land ownership to create more egalitarian and just societies, in addition to reducing communist revolutionary attractions. The Southern state defended the interests of both landowners and peasants. The state made peasants pay for the land they received, thus establishing private property. The redistribution of land belonging solely to the Japanese was explained by the reluctance of Korean landowners to give up their property and the USAMGIK's dependence on landowning elites to justify their power. The clause to reform land relations was also written into the South Korean constitution, making it irreversible. . Therefore, the partial land reforms carried out by USAMGIK served as a precursor to the comprehensive land reforms undertaken later in the 1950s. The completion of the land reforms attests to the proposition that the partial land reforms had been a conscious strategy of USAMGIK to launch the process of creating a territory. true liberal democracy and capitalist system. The fact that he was unable to redistribute all agricultural land was due to constraints created by intransigent Korean landowners. The second phase of land reforms was undertaken under the leadership of Syungman Rhee in 1950. It was carried out by Korea's first elected government, through its National Assembly. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea had set the objective of land reforms is defined in Article 121 as follows: "The State shall endeavor to implement the principle of the land to the cultivators with respect to agricultural land . Tenant farming shall be prohibited” (Korean Constitution of 1948). Under land reform, the maximum size of a household-owned farm was set at 3 chungbo (7.35 acres). The tenant-buyer was sold the land at 150% of the total value of each year's harvest. The tenant had to pay 30% of the harvest over five years. The landowner received bonds limited to reimbursement per year at 30% of the value of the crop estimated as the average yield and he was entitled to this 30% over a period of five years. The expected land redistribution was expected to affect around 40%. of all arable land in South Korea, including Japanese-owned land and land subject to land reform. The execution of land reforms was undertaken under a highly authoritarian and centralized administrative system created by the regime of Syungman Rhee. To help local authorities implement the reform, “land committees” were formed throughout the country. The composition of these commissions was fixed by presidential decree. (Seong Bo 2013: 60) Rhee called on all sections of Korea – farmers, landowners and capitalists – to cooperate and mutually benefit from the process. He called for all sections of society to be equal citizens and must work together to develop the nation. Thus, the reformist and democratic references of land redistribution were replaced by nationalist appeals. Class differences were mitigated by calls for class cooperation. This was part of Syungman Rhee's broader agenda to promote "one people" (ilminjuui). (Seong Bo 2013: 60) Have the land reforms improved the socio-economic condition of farmers? Agricultural land distribution reform is an important step in the creation of a nation statemodern. But this is only the first step, and much more needs to be done to further modernize agriculture, to make it more productive in order to empower the masses who depend on agriculture for their livelihood. The success or failure of land reforms in Korea must be seen in this perspective, that is, whether they truly empowered peasants and revolutionized Korean agriculture. The impact of land redistribution on agricultural productivity, and therefore on the substantial improvement of the living conditions of farmers, can be seen in terms of 3 factors of production: land, capital and technology. According to the statistical report made by the Korean Reconstruction Bank, the number of small farms (less than 1.22 acres) had increased by almost 3% between 1947 and 1953. But according to the study conducted by Ki Hyuk (1956 ) among 360 agricultural households, the change in farm size between 1950 and 1955 was as follows: Medium-sized farms (more than 2.45 acres) had increased to 3% (acres) had decreased by 4%. Small farms (less than 1.22 acres) had declined by 7%. Consequently, land reforms appear to have done little to reduce the size of large farms. Limited progress has been made in its goal of distributing land holdings to farmers. Impact on capital After land reforms, farmers became independent owners of the farm. Therefore, the responsibility of providing operating capital for cultivation fell on them. In the past, they obtained their operating capital from the owners. Now they had to depend on other sources of credit, which was the new problem that the state had to solve. Access to agricultural credit was particularly difficult for small farmers, as lending institutions considered it too risky to lend money to small farm owners. Agricultural cooperatives have not been organized and do not benefit from any legal protection from the state. Lacking access to agricultural credit from formal sources, small farmers turned to informal sources that provided them with credit at high interest rates. Many of these farmers were trapped in debt and eventually had to sell their land on the black market and return to farming. Without adequate credit financing facility, land reforms can hardly be called successful. Impact on Technology Improving agricultural productivity requires effective management of land, labor, capital and modern technology. Serious investments are needed from the state to end the use of primitive tools and facilitate and train farmers in modern agricultural technology. However, little investment has been made by the state in improving irrigation techniques, fertilizers, harvesters, threshers and other means to improve agricultural production. The primary objective of any land reform is the increase in agricultural production, through which the standard of living of the masses of farmers could be significantly improved. But this was not achieved in the case of South Korea. What were the contributions of land reforms to establishing the foundations of Korean democracy? According to a thesis comparing land reforms in eight countries: the "systems non-competitive” are more effective than “non-competitive systems”. competitive systems” in the implementation of agrarian reforms. “Non-competitive systems” are characterized by extreme centralization of power, necessary to carry out a