Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Inter-War Land Reforms in Estonia, Finland and Bulgaria: A Comparative Study

2006; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 54; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/03585520600594596

1750-2837

Hans Jörgensen,

Urbanization and City Planning

Abstract *This study compares the development and performance of the interwar land reforms in Estonia, Finland and Bulgaria: three countries within the so-called Agrarian Reform Zone, which constituted previous parts of the Russian and Ottoman Empires heavily influenced by the Russian revolutions. In spite of their different scope and outlook these land reforms aimed at solving similar problems of an agrarian and socio-economic developmental character. Finland and Estonia underwent wars of liberation when seceding from revolutionary Russia: Finland also had to go through civil war before the land redistributions took place. In Bulgaria, however, land redistribution had been an ongoing theme since the late 1870s when autonomy from the Ottoman Empire was achieved. The interwar land expropriation and redistribution was most profound and radical in Estonia. The gradual Finnish reforms were also radical from the perspective of the precarious political situation they aimed at solving. Bulgaria's less thorough reform was nevertheless radical from the perspective of its agrarian ideological aspirations. These land reforms must therefore be seen as a part of the interwar state-building process and struggle for independence: peasant movements were influential in all three cases and geographical proximity to revolutionary Russia had impacts on their outcomes. The study emphasises that by exploring and comparing the profound interwar land redistributions, we can gain a better understanding of current problems, such as those resulting from the post-socialist de-collectivisation: e.g. the return to small-scale family farming by means of restitution, in countries that were subjugated to a command economy after World War II. For this reason interwar Finland's different road and sustained national independence makes an interesting comparison, since Finland shared several features with the land reform zone countries before the Russian revolution of 1917 and not least during the 1920s and 1930s. In the case of Estonia and Bulgaria, however, the development path was interrupted by Soviet expansion. Notes 1Warriner, Doreen, Economics of Peasant Farming, London: Oxford University Press, 1939, 27. 2Kõll, Anu-Mai, The Agrarian Question in Eastern Europe-Some Answers From the Baltic Region, Uneven Development in Europe 1918–39, Ed. J. Batou & T. David, Geneva: International Economic and Social History Publications, 1999, 206. 3Berend, Ivan T., Agriculture, The Economic History of Eastern Europe 1919–1975, Vol. I, Eds. M. C., Kaser, & E. A., Radice, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985, 152. 4Eckstein, Alexander, Land Reform and Economic Development, World Politics, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1955, 650. 5Seton-Watson, Hugh, Eastern Europe between the Wars 1918–41, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1967, 79–80. 6A prevalent opinion among Baltic-Germans and proponents of large-scale farms in Estonia in 1919 was that the break-up of estates would jeopardise both agricultural output and developmental potential. Revaler Zeitung, August 14, 1919. 7The Agrarian Reform Zone included Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece. See Roszkowski, Wojciech, Land Reforms in East Central Europe after World War One, Warsaw: Institute of Political Studies Polish Academy of Science, 1995, 5. 8In Poland and Hungary a dwarf holding was below 2 ha. In Estonia it was less than 5 ha. Warriner, Economics of Peasant Farming, 143 and Konjunktuur. Monthly Review of the Estonian Institute of Economic Research, No. 64/65, 1939, 229. 9See Warriner, Doreen, Land Reform in Principle and Practice, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969, 11. 10Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe between the Wars, 79. See also Tuma, Elias H., Twenty-Six Centuries of Agrarian Reform, A Comparative Analysis, Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965, 233. 11Restitution implies a repossession of previously expropriated land and property, aiming at reinvigorating private farming and market economic relations in agricultural production. 12The statistical data used are collected from European agricultural statistics, periodicals and literature. 13Tuma, Twenty-Six Centuries of Land Reform, 8. 14Jonsson, Ulf, Komparation: en strategi för att fånga breda samhälleliga förändringsmönster och processer, Från vida fält. Festskrift till Rolf Adamsson, 25.10 1987, Eds. U. Jonsson & J. Söderberg, Stockholm: Ekonomisk-historiska inst.: 1987, 134. 15Mouzelius, Nicos, Greek and Bulgarian Peasants: Aspects of their Sociopolitical Situation During the Interwar Period, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1976, 85. 16This concerns the long subjugation to landlordism (Baltic-Germans in Estonia and Latvia and Poles or Russians in Lithuania); two hundred years as Tsarist provinces; short interwar independence; Soviet annexation in 1940; and regained independence in 1991. See e.g. Hiden, John, & Salmon, Patrick, The Baltic Nations and Europe. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the Twentieth Century, London and New York: Longman, 1994, or Misiunas, Romuald, & Taagepera, Rein, The Baltic States-Years of Dependence 1940–1990, Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993, or Rauch, G. von, The Baltic States-The Years of Independence 1917–40, London: Hurst & Company, 1995. 17See Roszkowski, Land Reforms in East Central Europe, 201–207; Warriner, Economics of Peasant Farming, 115 & 131; Moore, Wilbert E., Economic Demography of Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, Geneva: League of Nations, 1946, 239; Warriner, Economics of Peasant Farming, 1939, 20. 18Roszkowski, Land reforms in East Central Europe, 162 & 211–12. 19Jakobsson, Max, Finlands väg. Från kampen mot tsarväldet till EU-medlemskap 1899–1999, Atlantis, 1999. 20Even though they might disagree on the profundity of the crofter issue as such, none of the above-mentioned Finnish scholars claim that the lease question as such had a direct impact on the war. See Jutikkala, Bonden I Finland genom tiderna, Helsingfors, 1963, 461. Rasila, Viljo, The Finnish Civil War and Land Lease Problems, Scandinavian Economic History Review, Vol. XXVI, No. 1, 1969, 118–19. Peltonen, Matti, Från osäkerhet till hat. Torparfrågans moraliska ekonomi i sekelskiftets Finland', Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift, Vol. 35, 1998, 97. 21"Economic strains caused by the depression caused strains in the social structure. It should have been the role of the political forces to mediate these strains. Instead, the democratic parties were ineffectual in doing so and allowed the strains to reverberate to the political order itself, leading to the latter's collapse." See Parming, Tõnu, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy and the Raise of Authoritarianism in Estonia, London/SAGE, 1975, 64. 22Bulgaria under the leadership of Alexander Stamboliski 1920–23 was an example of the agrarian ideology, in which class conflicts were not recognised. But the promotion of corporate or etatist organisations for rural development was a major ambition. See Bell, Daniel, Peasants in Power, 59–61. 23 Denmarkisation refers to a strategy based on export-oriented agricultural production for which the Danish development from the 1870s onwards is the model. It was made by the application of both specialisation and diversification in agricultural production with strong emphasis on processing. This meant a shift from grain production towards dairy farming and the expanding co-operative processing industries became the means for agricultural modernisation linked to an agriculture-based industrialisation. See Senghaas, Dieter, The European Experience: a historical critique of development theory, Berg Publishers, New Hampshire, 1985, 82–84. 24Kõll, Anu-Mai, Peasants on the World Market. Agricultural Experiences of Independent Estonia 1919–1939, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994, 69–72. 25See Siaroff, Alan, Democratic Breakdown and Democratic Stability: A comparison of Interwar Estonia and Finland, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1999, 107–08, 113. 26Tuma, Twenty-Six Centuries of Agrarian Reforms, 8. 27Governments undertaking land reform should also support improvements that facilitate production: e.g. the conditions of tenancy, credits, co-operative associations, and education and advisory services. Warriner, Land reform in Principle and Practice, xiv–xv, quotation: xiv. 28Agrarian reform 'has partly been an outgrowth of the increasing awareness of the need for economic development and planning, especially in the underdeveloped countries where reform is most needed'. See Tuma, Twenty-Six Centuries of Agrarian Reforms, 10–11. 29Schickele, Rainer, Agrarian Revolution and Economic Progress-A Primer for Development, New York: Fredrik A Praeger Publishers, 1968, 203. 30Schickele, Agrarian Revolution and Economic Progress. 167–70. 31See Byres, Terence J., Introduction: Contextualizing and Interrogating the GKI Case for Redistributive Land Reform, Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 4, Nos. 1 and 2, January and April 2004, 2–4. 32Roszkowski, Land reforms in East Central Europe, 5 & 225–226. See also Moore, Economic Demography, 79–80. 33Rauch, G von, The Baltic States, 1995, 87–88. 34The basis for discussing these concepts derives from Kõll Anu-Mai, Peasants on the World Market, 50–58; Warriner Doreen, Land Reform and Economic Development, Agriculture in Economic Development, Ed. C. Eicher & L. Witt, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964, 273ff. 35For this discussion, see e.g. Dumont René, Agriculture as Man's Transformation of the rural Environment, Peasants and Peasants Societies, Ed, T. Shanin, Penguin Books, 1984, 144–45. 36Roszkowski, Land Reforms in East Central Europe, 33. 37Kõll, Peasants on the World Market, 52–54. 38Borras Jr, Saturnino M., The Philippine Land Reform in Comparative perspective: Some Conceptual and Methodological Implications, Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 6, No. 1, January, 2006, 73. 39Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe between the Wars, 80–83. 40Borras Jr, The Philippine Land Reform, 74–75. 41Tuma, Twenty-Six Centuries of Agrarian Reforms, 185. 42Eckstein, Alexander, Land Reform and Economic Development, 650–51. 43'But when they [the peasants] spoke about historical rights to land, they did not presuppose the rights of individual peasants to concrete pieces of land, so much as the status and rights of Estonians more generally with regard to their country'. Kahk, Juhan, in Abrahams, Ray, & Kahk Juhan, Barons and Farmers – Continuity and Transformation in Rural Estonia (1816–1994), Gothenburg: Faculty of Arts, 1994, 20. 44Kõll, Peasants on the World Market, 31–32. 45Alenius, Kari, The Cultural Relations between the Baltic Countries and Finland, Relations between The Nordic Countries and the Baltic Nations in the XX Century, Ed, K Hovi, Turku 1998. 46Jörgensen, Hans, Lantbrukskooperationen I Estland. Framväxt och problembild i Baltikum med utblickar till Norden och Östeuropa under mellankrigstiden och idag, Jordbrukarnas kooperativa föreningar och intresseorganisationer i ett historiskt perspektiv, Ed. R Rydén, Skogs- och lantbrukshistoriska meddelanden nr 32, KSLA 2004, 95. 47Increased returns from exports of wheat and barley convinced the central Ottoman government to introduce a more efficient tax system. Land sales transformed large numbers of Muslim estates into small peasant properties. See Palairet, Michael, The Balkan Economies 1800–1914. Evolution without development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 75. 48At this time a general opinion among Bulgarian landholders was that they would be better off without the Turks since most of the tax revenues were spent outside the province. Lampe, John R., The Bulgarian Economy in the 20 th Century, London: Croom Helm Ltd, 1986, 21–23. 49Lampe, The Bulgarian Economy, 1986, 26–29. 50Hjerrpe, Rita, The Finnish Economy 1860–1985. Growth and Structural Change, Bank of Finland, 1989, 96, 192–93 51Raun, Toivo, Estonia and the Estonians, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1997, 246. 52The manifesto aimed at a full merger of Finland with Russia. See Hentilä, Seppo, et.al., From Grand Duchy to a Modern State. A Political History of Finland Since 1809, London: Hurst & Company, 1999, 74–78. 53Raun, Toìvo, The Estonians, Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland, 1855–1914, Ed. M. H., Haltzel, et. al, Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, 290ff. 54The Estonian intelligentsia saw the administrative Russification before 1905 as a means to break with Baltic-German hegemony. But with the escalation of Estonian political goals this was regarded as insufficient. Raun, The Estonians, 340. 55Jörgensen, Lantbrukskooperationen i Estland, 2004, 93–95. 56The aspiration was to establish a nation based on peasant farms. For this purpose and for the sake of competition the agricultural co-operative associations were to become the means for efficiency without sacrificing the individual nature of peasant farming. Bell, Daniel, Peasants in Power-Alexander Stamboliski and the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union, 1899–1923, Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1977, 71f. 57 Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, 1932, No. 5, 120–21. 58Kahk, Barons and Farmers, 31. 59Dovring, F., Land and Labour in Europe in the Twentieth Century, Nijhoff, The Hague, 1965, 63–64. 60Since most tenants paid rents in goods and services it came close to feudal servitude. But even if peasants could afford the high price for land the landlord retained hunting, fishing, milling, and similar rights.' See Moore, Economic Demography, 215. 61Peltonen, Från osäkerhet till hat., 92–94. 62Three larger revisions plus a few minor changes to the legal designs were made before the end of 1918. In general, these changes were due to the transfer of money paid, for instance between the old crofter and the new one, for the reparations and investments made by the old crofter. In addition, money was also to be paid to the landowner for the lease of land. By the turn of the century, however, these two payments had been mixed up. Landowners demanded a share of the transfer payments as well. Since most crofters did not possess the necessary capital, the payments became labour duties. Peltonen, Från osäkerhet, 91–93. 63Evictions were in use not only on the larger estates but were also a common feature in most farm villages. A Tsarist decree from 1910 stipulated that evictions were to be prohibited for a period of six years. Peltonen, Från osäkerhet, 94–95. 64In 1910 there were 62,849 farm units of less than 0.5 ha covering 13,541 ha of land. It is reasonable to assume that most of these units were gardens, but some crofters or cotters may have been found within this group. See Appendix A. 65Pool, T., Maaunendus Eestis ja selle tulemusi, Tallinn, 1939, 4–7 and Kahk, Barons and farmers, 40. 66Lipping, Imre, Land Reform Legislation in Estonia and the Disestablishment of the Baltic-German Rural Elite, 1919–1939. Ann Arbor Michigan, Diss., University of Maryland, 1980, 32–35. 67Lipping, Land Reform Legislation, 42. 68The Chairman of the Assembly, the Socialist August Rai, had 40 per cent of the delegates on his side. 25 per cent of the delegates were Radical Democrats and 25 per cent were Liberal Democrats. The Agrarians held only 6.5 percent of the seats. See Rauch, The Baltic States, 76f. 69 Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, 1932, No. 5, 124. 70Kahk, Barons and Farmers, 40. 71Lipping, Land Reform Legislation, 278. 72The notion of a viable holding can be traced back to the late 19th century when peasants were given the right to buy land. During the 1920s this meant an average farm size of 24 hectares. See Kõll, Peasants on the World Market, 25 & 43f, and Kõll, The Agrarian Question, 209–10. In comparison, a so-called family subsistence holding was generally considered to be 10–12 ha of cultivable land or a farm that could be cultivated with one horse. See, 'The Agrarian Reform in Estonia from 1919 to 1930', in: Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, 1932, No. 5, 130. 73Taagepera, R, Inequality Indices for Baltic Farm Size Distribution, 1929–1940, Journal of Baltic Studies, No. 3, 1972, 26–28. 74See. Kõll, Peasants on the World Market, 42–46. 75See UD:s arkiv, 1920 Ârs dossiersystem, Vol. 3053 a. RA, Agrarreformen i Estland, Kungliga Svenska Konsulatet, September 12, 1919. 76Kõll, Peasants on the World Market, 43–45. 77 Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, 1932, No. 5, 134. 78Kahk, Barons and Farmers, 42–43. 79There were five categories of farms. Dwarf farms of 1–5 hectares were primarily purchasers of agricultural products. Most of their earnings were not farm-related and this category was in general oversupplied with labour and under-supplied with horses. Small farms of 5-20 hectares produced mainly for the needs of the family with the help of one horse. Occasionally work outside the farm brought incomes to the household. Medium-sized farms, of 20–50 hectares, kept two horses and produced for the market with the help of additional summer labourers. Large farms of between 50 and 100 hectares produced for the market only. They were run basically by seasonal and annual employees, and possessed more than two horses. The largest farms, of more than 100 hectares, were totally dependent on hired labour. Here, tractors were used, supplemented by three or four horses. Konjunktuur, 1939, No.64/65, 229. 80 Kooperatören, Vol. 1, No.10, October 1914, 244. 81Johansson, E. & Kuusterä, P., Utvecklingslinjer och problemer i finländskt jordbruk, Helsingfors: Institute of Political History University of Helsinki, 1977, 44. 82Peltonen, Från osäkerhet till hat, 97. 83Rasila, The Finnish Civil War, 115–21. 84Rasila, The Finnish Civil War, 134–35. 85Jutikkala, Bonden I Finland genom tiderna, 461. 86Regional differences were of course influential. In the East and northern parts of Finland households in possession of land constituted between 28 and 44 per cent of the total. In the best-cultivated departments in the South the corresponding figures were only between 11 and 13 per cent while the share of land rented was as much as 78 to 79 per cent. The Agrarian Reform I, Austria, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rome: International Institute of Agriculture, 1930, 15–16. 87Most studies of the Finnish lease agreements and crofters refer to this vast survey: Gebhard, Hannes, Jordbruksbefolkningen, dess förhållande til andra yrkesgrupper och dess sociala sammansättning, Subkomitén för den obesuttna befolkningen. Statistisk undersökning af socialekonomiska förhållanden i Finlands landskommuner 1901, Helsingfors 1913. 88Jutikkala, Eino, Bonden i Finland, Helsingfors, 416–17. 89Peltonen, 1992, Talolliset ja Torparit, Vuosisadan vaihteen maatalouskysynys Suomessa, Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura, 420–21, Peltonen, Från osäkerhet, 1998, 91–92. 90Peltonen, Från osäkerhet, 1998, 97. 91This created numerous new entities of between 10 and 20 hectares plus a maximum of 20 hectares of forests. The calculation on redemption payments was based on the price of land in 1914 and this was to be at least half of the current value. But due to the rapid rate of inflation and failed expectations of a return to pre-war price levels the value of actual redemption payments was only one-eleventh of what had been stipulated. Jutikkala, Bonden I Finland, 461–62. 92See Takolander, G., Lex Kallio, Helsingfors, 1922, 9–13, or further criticism delivered by: Born, Ernst von, Den finländska lagstiftningen om anskaffande av jord för kolonisationsändamål: Lex Kallio, Helsinki, 1923, 11ff. 93In my discussion with M. Peltonen in Helsinki on May 29, 2000, he claimed that the Lex Kallio was not formally put in force until the Karelian refugees were to be given land after 1944. Up to this moment he suggested regarding the Finnish land redistribution as a continuation of the solution to the crofter issue. 94While crofters received the same piece of land that they had cultivated for centuries, the Lex Kallio was different. It implied not only confiscation but also a transfer of legal property into the hands of people who had no links to the efforts and savings that had been spent on the actual land. The law therefore violated the same kind of legal rights as it was supposed to create. See, Born, Den finländska lagstiftningen, 6–7.Another issue was that the politicians had not considered the actual changes taking place, which from 1901 up to 1920 had implied the creation of more than 132,000 new farm units and another 17,000 that were about to become registered. Takolander, Lex Kallio, 9–10. 95 The Agrarian Reform. Austria – Finland – Latvia –Lithuania –Poland, 24. 96Jutikkala, Bonden I Finland, 1963, 467. 97"Land Settlement in Finland', Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, 1939, no 2, 62–63, 67. 98Roszkowski, Land Reforms, 1995, 27. 99Bell, Peasants in Power, 14. 100The ideas of Stamboliski were anti-urban and based on certain virtues reacting on unproductive labour, the bureaucracy, the church, the monarchy and the army. See: Crampton, R.J., A Concise History of Bulgaria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 126–28. 101Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe between the Wars, 71. 102'Stamboliski's dream was a peasant-dominated state 'in which all members of the dominant group would be offered a rich and fulfilling life. This would involve an equitable distribution of property (land) and the provision of cultural and welfare facilities in the villages'. Crampton, R.J, Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, New York: Routledge, 1994, 120–21. 103Bell, Peasants in Power, 164. 104Bell, Peasants in Power, 165. See also Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural economics and Sociology, 1934, 453–54. 105Crampton, A Concise History of Bulgaria, 152–57. 106Land expropriated from private landowners constituted 48,982 ha, from village governments 20,252 ha, from monasteries 2397 ha, from the state 8286 ha, from litigation in village governments 1020 ha and forest owned by village governments 106 ha. Bell, Peasants in Power, 163, 166–67. 107The weak changes made in terms of maximum limits for land and the misuse of capital within the co-operatives after Stamboliski's death expressed a state of crisis. Lampe, The Bulgarian Economy, 56–59. 108 Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural economics and Sociology, 1934, 470–71. 109Lipping, Land Reform Legislation in Estonia, 33. 110 Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, 1932, No. 5, 121–22. 111Alanen, Ilkka, Finland as a peasant society and the agrarian reforms, in: Granberg Leo and Nikula Jouko, The Peasant State. The state and the rural question in 20 th century Finland, Rovaniemi: University of Lapland, 1995, 44. 112Peltonen, Från osäkerhet, 1998, 94. 113Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe between the Wars, 81. 114During the years 1920–23 the Bulgarian communists developed fairly good relations with Moscow and gradually improved relations with the Stamboliski cabinets. Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe between the Wars, 241–42. 115Even though it could be argued that most British observers saw the rationale of the reform as a means of weakening Bolshevik support in rural areas, a general British view of the land reforms was that they were 'nevertheless liberally sprinkled with red'. Hinkkanen, M-L, British Trade and Enterprise in the Baltic States 1919–1925, Helsinki: Diss., University of Helsinki, 1984, 181–83. 116The Estonian Press Attaché in Helsinki, G. E. Lugia, claimed in 1920 that: 'it was impossible for any outsider to understand the profound bitterness that was spread within the Estonian society when Hindenburg revealed his plans for a large German resettlement in 1918'. This hatred was not new. From the Estonian point of view it was directed not only towards Germans but also towards Russians since they constituted the surety of the Baltic-Germans' supremacy. Luiga, G. E., Agrarreformen i Eesti. Dess tillkomst och innebörd, Helsingfors: Hufvudstadsbladets Nya Tryckeri, 1920, 14–16. 117Bell, Peasants in Power 181–82. 118Bell, Peasants in Power 158–62. 119There were 61.4 head of cattle per 10 hectares in Bulgaria in 1937. Corresponding figures for Romania were 17, Hungary 12.4 and Yugoslavia 10.3. Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe between the Wars, 89. 120Warriner, Economics of Peasant Farming, 143. 121Johansson & Kuusterä, Utvecklingslinjer och problemer i finländskt jordbruk, 71–74. 122Jörgensen, Hans, (2000), Restitution och jordbruksförändring: Ägande och marknad i de baltiska staterna i ljuset av 1900-talsutvecklingen, med tonvikt på fallet Estland, Ed. G. Hoppe, Öster om Östersjön, Motala: Svenska sällskapet för geografi och antropologi, 2000, 160–61. 123Csaki, Csaba, et. al., Food and Agriculture in Bulgaria: The Challenge of Preparing for EU Accession, World Bank, May 17, 2000, xix–xxii.