IndexAbstractIntroductionLand reforms under the US military government (1945-48)Did land reforms improve the socioeconomic condition of peasants?Impact on capitalImpact on technologyWhat were the contributions of land reforms in laying the foundations of democracy Korean?Impact on Procedural DemocracyImpact on Substantive DemocracyConclusionReferencesAbstractThe Republic of Korea (South Korea) is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Its GDP per capita was $39,400 in 2017, unlike North Korea, where GDP per capita was only $1,700. Much of this difference can be attributed to the different economic policy approaches pursued by the new nation-states when the peninsula was split 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay A key component of the South's liberal democracy was the land reform program undertaken in the early 1950s, which laid the foundation for economic equality for a democratic society. South Korea's land reform is highly celebrated around the world for being one of the few successful examples where land reform was done through Parliament and ownership was actually handed over to the farmer, unlike many other cases in which the State became the new landowner. It was touted as laying the foundation for an egalitarian democratic society. But as South Korea saw unequal opportunities – both social and economic – and a military dictatorship in subsequent decades, democratic and egalitarian expectations were dashed. In this context, this article seeks to examine: (1) What were the various forces involved in the land reform process? (2) Have Korea's land reforms changed the socioeconomic conditions of farmers? (3) What was the contribution of land reforms in laying the foundation of Korean democracy? Introduction After the end of the Second World War, the radical reorganization of property relations and the creation of a democratic national state were the pre-eminent demands of the populations throughout the new country. decolonized world. Because the World War was fought as a decisive battle between democracy and fascism, the victorious Allied Powers undertook to create democratic nation states in the Axis Powers' colonies before granting them independence and sovereignty. Likewise, the Allies were convinced that cartelized industries and decentralized landholdings threatened domestic stability and international peace. Therefore, they sought to demolish all vestiges of colonial rule and create independent democratic nation-states capable of governing themselves. In this process, the Korean Peninsula came under the occupation of Allied forces. However, Korea became a victim of Cold War dynamics. The two superpowers were divided on the central question of whether to maintain or abolish the institution of private property. Ideological differences between the USA and the USSR led to the division of the peninsula along the 38th parallel, with the North under the Soviet zone of influence and the South under the American zone of influence. Both superpowers have cultivated diverse political groups on the peninsula in order to strengthen and expand their ideological system. Korea thus became the ideological battlefield for the victors of World War II. Radical land redistribution was an important demand of the Korean people, which was accepted by both the Norththan from 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 Korea's history. For the first time in history, Korean tenants and farmers could claim ownership over a piece of land. It led to the complete annihilation of the centuries-old landowning aristocracy and laid the foundation for a modern nation-state in Korea. He promoted rural egalitarianism and made farmers more participatory in Korea's new political framework. Land reforms under US military rule (1945-48) Korean territory south of the 38th parallel came under the US zone of influence. The United States established a military occupation government, the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK), and proceeded to create a liberal democracy with private property in the South as opposed to a socialist democracy without private property in the North. The Communist North had undertaken radical land reforms in early 1946. It had redistributed all agricultural land owned by both Japanese and Korean landowners free of charge to tenants. In the South, the first phase of land reforms was carried out by USAMGIK in March 1948, in the final part of its rule. In this policy USAMGIK had only redistributed Japanese-owned land, which amounted to approximately 18% of total agricultural land. USAMGIK did not touch land owned by Korean landowners, and by early 1949 nearly 63 percent of rural families were involved in leasing. Scholars have argued that this uncertain and partial land redistribution made by the United States reflects that their intention was limited to preventing a communism. takeover in the South. Southern communists were greatly influenced by the radical redistribution of land in the North in 1946. Under the tremendous pressure of Northern influence, USAMGIK carried out the partial redistribution of land and would not have done so in the absence of a communist threat. Their claim is that USAMGIK could not emulate land reforms in the North due to the reluctance of conservative Korean landowners, upon whose support USAMGIK claimed legitimacy. This view suggests that the United States was not interested in raising the farmers' standard of living or creating true democracy, but only in preventing communism in the South. This view is further supported by the fact that reforms were not enacted in the early stages of USAMGIK's reign in 1945, due to the presence of a strong communist movement. Only after the communist movement had significantly weakened did USAMGIK implement land reforms in the final months of its rule in March 1948. But this widely held view has been called into question by recent studies that highlight the genuine intention of the United United to create a liberal democracy with the institution of private property. For such a liberal democratic system to survive, ownership of land ownership by the masses was a necessity, but without alienating Korea's landowning elites. The United States believed that true democracy could not thrive in a society based on inequality. Therefore, the United States undertook political and economic reforms, similar to those undertaken in Japan and Germany. The goal was to decartelize industries and reduce the concentration of land ownership to create more equitable and just societies, as well as limit appealscommunist revolutionaries. The Southern state took care of the interests of both landowners and farmers. The state charged farmers for the lands they received, thus establishing private property. The redistribution of only Japanese-owned land is explained by Korean landowners' reluctance to give up their properties and USAMGIK's reliance on landowning elites to justify their rule. The clause to reform land relations was also incorporated into South Korea's constitution, thus making it irreversible. . Thus, the partial land reforms under the USAMGIK served as precursors to the comprehensive land reforms undertaken later in 1950. The completion of the land reforms attests to the claim that the partial land reforms had been a conscious strategy by the USAMGIK to begin the process for the creation of a true liberal democracy and capitalist system. The fact that it was not possible to carry out the redistribution of all agricultural land is explained by the constraints created by the 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 purpose of land reforms in Article 121 as follows: “The State shall endeavor to realize the principle of land to cultivators with respect to agricultural land. Tenant farming shall be prohibited” (Korean Constitution of 1948). Under the land reform, the maximum size of farm owned by a family was set at 3 chungbo (7.35 acres). The land was sold to the tenant buyer at 150% of the total value of each year's crop. The tenant had to pay 30% of the harvest over five years. The landowner was granted bonds with redemption limited in one year to 30% of the value of the crop estimated as the average yield and was granted this 30% over a period of five years. The planned land redistribution was expected to affect approximately 40% of the total arable land in South Korea, including both Japanese-owned lands and lands subject to land reform. The implementation of land reforms was undertaken under a highly authoritarian and centralized administrative system created by the Syungman Rhee regime. To assist the local government in implementing the reform, “land committees” were established throughout the country. The composition of these committees was established by presidential decree. (Seong Bo 2013: 60) Rhee appealed to all sectors of Korea – farmers, landowners, and capitalists – to cooperate and mutually benefit from the process. He appealed that all sections of society should be equal citizens and should work together to develop the nation. Thus, the reformist and democratic credentials of land redistribution were replaced by nationalist appeals. Class differences were attenuated by calls for class cooperation. This was in the context of Syungman Rhee's broader agenda of promoting “one people” (ilminjuui). (Seong Bo 2013: 60) Have land reforms improved the socioeconomic status of farmers? Reforming the distribution of agricultural land is an important step in creating a modern nation-state. But it is only the first step, and there is still much to be done to further modernize agriculture, to make it more productive so as to empower the masses who depend on agriculture for their livelihood. The success or failure of Korean land reforms must be seen from this perspective, that is, whether they have actually empowered peoplefarmers and revolutionized Korean agriculture. The impact of land redistribution on agricultural productivity, and therefore the substantial improvement of farmers' living conditions, can be seen in terms of 3 factors of production: land, capital and technology. According to the statistical report produced by the Korean Reconstruction Bank, the number of small farms (less than 1.22 acres) had increased by nearly 3% from 1947 to 1953. But, according to the study conducted by Ki Hyuk (1956) of 360 farm families, changes in farm size between 1950 and 1955 were as follows: Moderately large farms (more than 2.45 acres) had increased by up to 3% Medium-sized farms (from 1, 23 acres to 2.45 acres) decreased 4%Small farms (less than 1.22 acres) decreased 7%. Thus, land reforms appear to have done little to reduce the size of large agricultural holdings. Limited progress has been made towards distributing landholdings to tenant farmers. Impact on capitalAfter the land reform, tenant farmers became independent owners of the farm. Consequently, the responsibility of providing the operating capital for cultivation fell on them. Previously, they got their operating capital from the owners. Now they had to depend on other sources of credit, which was the new problem for the state to solve. Access to agricultural credit was particularly difficult for small farmers, as lenders perceived too much risk in lending money to small farm owners. Agricultural cooperatives were not organized and do not enjoy legal protection from the state. Lacking access to agricultural credit from formal sources, smallholder farmers turned to informal sources that provided credit at high interest rates. Many of these farmers were caught in the debt trap and eventually had to sell their lands on the black market and become tenant farmers again. Without an adequate credit financing instrument, land reforms can hardly be described as a success. Impact on technology Improving agricultural productivity requires efficient 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, the state has made little investment 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 substantially improved. But this was not achieved in the case of South Korea. What was the contribution of land reforms in laying the foundations of Korean democracy? According to a thesis that compared land reforms in eight countries: “non-competitive systems” are more effective than “non-competitive systems” in operationalizing land reforms. “Non-competitive systems” are characterized by extreme centralization of power, which is necessary to implement a radical policy such as land reform. In a “competitive system,” the landowning class diversifies its interests across multiple political parties and creates obstacles in its implementation by reducing the speed, effectiveness, and degree of reform. Therefore, successful land reforms may not directly translate into the creation of a successful democracy. Every country has i