Is Nominal Public but de Facto Private Land Ownership Appropriate? A Comparative Study among Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam; Japan; Taiwan Provice of China; South Korea; China; Myanmar; and North Korea

J.M. Zhou

Economics Working Papers from European University Institute

Abstract: In the transition from the centrally planned economy to a market-oriented rural development, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam established a nominal state - but de facto private - land ownership. As a result, both new landlessness and inefficient land-holding immediately appeared. How to prevent these problems while still achieving market-oriented rural development? The Chinese model - a third way between the centrally planned economy and free market system - provides a useful example, which may be relevant not only to these three countries as well as Myanmar and North Korea, but also to many other economies.

Keywords: LAND OWNERSHIP; PUBLIC SECTOR; PRIVATE SECTOR (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: H80 K11 Q15 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 25 pages
Date: 1998
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eui:euiwps:eco98/12

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Economics Working Papers from European University Institute Badia Fiesolana, Via dei Roccettini, 9, 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Cécile Brière ().