Land Reform and Export-Oriented Agriculture in the
Philippines and Taiwan Under Colonial Rule
Michael Jolly
Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario
Land reform is generally regarded as a prerequisite for economic development but is
difficult to achieve in traditional societies dominated by landowning elites. Consequently it has
frequently been implemented only as a result of external intervention, the most obvious example
of which is rule by a foreign power. The fact of foreign rule does not, however, guarantee a
successful reform since colonial rulers may seek to win over the support of local landowners by
maintaining or even extending their economic dominance. The purpose of this paper is to
analyze the importance of land reform through a comparative analysis of the colonial
experiences of Taiwan and the Philippines. In Taiwan the Japanese authorities implemented a
successful land reform which was later extended by their Guomingdang successors. In the
Philippines, on the other hand, attempts at land reform in the early twentieth century (and since)
have been considerably less successful. The paper also provides some empirical support for the
importance of land reform to industrialization by drawing upon census data for the Philippines
during the first two decades of U.S. rule. 1
Since the 1960s Taiwan has been much more successful than the Philippines in achieving
export-led industrialization. In the first half of the twentieth century, however, the two countries
possessed a number of similarities. Both were subject to colonial rule and had achieved relatively
high rates of export growth through the sale of agricultural products to their relevant
metropolitan countries (Japan in the case of Taiwan and the United States in the case of the
Philippines). In both cases the colonial rulers provided a relatively good infrastructure and both
countries performed well in terms of growth in real GDP per capita during the first two decades
1
For the effectiveness of land reform in Taiwan see Amsden (1979) and Ho (1982). Kohli (1994)
compares the land reforms of the Japanese administrations in Korea and Taiwan in the early
twentieth century.
1
1
of the twentieth century. 2 The apparent similarities, however, were balanced by significant
differences in the agricultural sector, particularly with respect to land tenure systems. These
differences, dating from the period of colonial rule in the early part of the twentieth century,
were to play an important part in explaining the different experiences of the two countries since
World War II.
Land reforms in Taiwan during the period of Japanese rule (1895-1945) had both
immediate impacts on the agricultural economy and longer-term effects on the development of
that country’s distinctive industrial structure, with its prevalence of small and medium-sized
manufacturing firms. The full impact of the Japanese reforms can only be understood if they are
considered as a prerequisite for subsequent land reforms undertaken by the Guomingdang
government after World War II, the end result of which was the emergence of a high
productivity agricultural sector dominated by numerous small producers. This sector provided
both a market for domestically manufactured goods and a localized labour force available to
small, geographically dispersed firms. In contrast, the U.S. administration of the Philippines
between 1898 and 1941 largely failed to achieve a successful land reform, in part because
American rule depended on the cooperation of local elites. This had implications not only for
agriculture in the Philippines but also for the structure of manufacturing, which was (and is)
more geographically concentrated than was the case in Taiwan.
This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the structure of landholding in Taiwan
and the Philippines during the period in which both were subject to colonial rule. In the case of
the Philippines census data for 1903 and 1918 is used to analyze some of the major changes
introduced into the agrarian economy during the earlier part of the U.S. administration and their
impact on the structure of manufacturing and the distribution of wealth and income.
The paper is organized as follows:
Section 1 discusses agricultural policy in Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule and its
implications for the later development of agriculture and manufacturing. The land reforms of the
2
Between 1900 and 1929 GDP per capita increased by 42.6% (1.2% per annum) for Taiwan and
by 51.4% (1.5% per annum) for the Philippines. Taiwan, however, performed better than the
Philippines during the depression years between 1929 and 1938, achieving an increase in GDP
per capita of 19.3% during this period, compared with a fall of 4% for the Philippines. See
Maddison (1995), table D-1e.
2
2
Japanese and Guomingdang periods and their contribution to the prevalence of small and
medium-sized businesses in Taiwan are analyzed.
Section 2 discusses the failure of land reform during the period of U.S. rule in the
Philippines. Census data for 1903 and 1918 is used to analyze regional variations in land tenure
and farm size and to analyze regional shifts in the distribution of industry. It will be seen that
regional variations in the structure of landholding affected the extent to which manufacturing
was geographically concentrated.
Section 3 provides the conclusion.
1. Taiwan
Agriculture and Land Reform
As a result of its victory in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95) Japan acquired control of
Taiwan (then called Formosa). As was the case with other colonial powers Japan developed its
new acquisition as a complement to itself. Taiwan, which already had a flourishing export sector
based on rice, tea, sugar, and other goods, would provide agricultural products, especially sugar
and rice to Japan. 3 In some respects, however, the experience of Japan’s new possession differed
from that of other Asian colonies. Firstly, in British, French, and Dutch colonies there was often
a sharp division in the agricultural economy between rice production for local consumption and
an export sector with limited spillover on subsistence agriculture, while in Taiwan many small
rice farmers produced both for local subsistence and for export to Japan. Secondly, sugar cane,
while certainly being grown on large tracts owned by Japanese sugar producers, was also grown
by small farmers. As a result, the production of both rice and sugar were generally
commercialized. Thirdly, the Japanese administration undertook a land reform which contributed
to high productivity in agriculture. 4
When Japan assumed control of Taiwan much of the colony operated under a three-tier
3
R Howe (2001) provides an account of Taiwan’s economy at the time of the Sino-Japanese
War.
4
See Amsden (1979) for a more detailed account of the successive land reforms in Taiwan.
3
3
tenancy system, consisting of great landlords, tenant landlords, who paid a fixed rent, and
subtenants, who paid in kind to the tenant landlords. Property rights were often unclear under
this system, which made it difficult to collect taxes or make land transactions. In order to
increase agricultural productivity and allow for the more efficient collection of taxes the
Japanese administration undertook a land reform which ended the three-tier tenancy system. The
great landlords were removed and the tenant landlords became the legal owners of the land with
responsibility for taxes. These landlords paid a flat tax rather than the previously levied
proportional tax on output, which was considered a disincentive to agricultural improvement.
Removal of the great landlords was made easier by the fact that they were generally based on
mainland China so that, in contrast with the situation in Korea, its other colonial possession,
Japan gained no benefit from cooperation with the great landowners. From the point of view of
the tenants (previously subtenants) the system remained very oppressive, with ground rents often
amounting to 50% or more of the tenant’s main crop yield. This did not, however, prevent them
from improving crop yields through the application of better technology, fertilizers, and other
inputs. In doing this they were assisted by agricultural associations, supported by the government
and rich landlords, which provided them with technical education and assistance in the
cooperative purchase of fertilizers.
The effect of the Japanese land reform was not limited to the period of Japanese rule
since it was the prerequisite for subsequent land reforms introduced by the Guomingdang
government after its relocation from mainland China in 1949. The Guomingdang land reforms
took place in three stages. Firstly, in 1949 farm rent was limited to a maximum of 37.5% of the
main crop yield. Secondly, in 1951 public land previously owned by Japanese nationals was
redistributed, mostly to tenants. Finally, in 1953 landlords were forced to sell all their
landholdings above a minimum size to their tenants under the Land-to-the Tiller Act. This
marked the end of the landlord class and the emergence of a large number of small but efficient
cultivators. As was the case with the Japanese land reform half a century earlier the expropriation
of the landlords was made easier by the fact that the government had no interest in gaining their
support. Guomingdang leaders, coming as they did from the mainland, felt no obligation to the
local elite. An important consequence of the reform was that income distribution in Taiwan
became much more equal than in most less developed countries, a fact which had implications
for the pattern of industrial development.
4
4
Manufacturing
After World War II cut off traffic between Taiwan and Japan there was some
development of local manufacturing to produce goods previously imported from Japan but
generally there was little industrial development under Japanese rule. It was only after World
War II and particularly from the 1960s that rapid industrialization occurred. When
industrialization eventually did occur the existence of high productivity small-scale agriculture
benefitted the manufacturing sector in a number of ways:
(1) An efficient agricultural sector produced an adequate food supply for domestic
consumption, which was a major factor in promoting price and wage stability.
(2) High agricultural exports enabled the country to import inputs for export oriented
manufactures.
(3) The agricultural sector provided a market for consumer goods and for domestically
manufactured agricultural inputs, such as chemicals.
(4) Farm households acted as a dispersed source of labour for manufacturing firms. Most
of the increase in incomes of farm households since 1960 has come from non-farm sources. The
share of off-farm work in farm household income increased from 13% in 1952 to 25% in 1962
and 43% in 1975. 5
Thus the existence of small-scale agriculture was a factor contributing to the emergence
of a pattern of widely dispersed small manufacturing firms in Taiwan. 6
2. The Philippines Under U.S. Administration
During their colonial periods Taiwan and the Philippines had some features in common.
Both relied on agricultural exports to the countries of their respective colonial rulers for foreign
exchange and in both countries the majority of small farmers depended on rice production.
5
The interrelationships between agriculture and manufacturing in Taiwan since World War II are
discussed in more detail by Amsden (1979) and Ho (1982).
6
It was by no means the only factor responsible for this pattern. The establishment of rural
infrastructure by the Japanese and, later, the Guomingdang played a role, as did the laoban
tradition of small and medium-sized businesses, as discussed by Numazaki (1997).
5
5
There were, however, two major differences between the two countries:
(1) Though both exported sugar, Taiwan was also a major rice exporter, as a result of
which small rice farmers participated in international trade and benefitted from increases in
international rice prices. In the case of the Philippines rice was imported as a means of
suppressing domestic prices.
(2) The Japanese authorities successfully implemented a land reform in Taiwan. In the
case of the Philippines the American authorities and their Filipino associates made attempts at
land reform but, as will be seen below, these were inadequate and largely unsuccessful.
Despite a respectable record of economic growth the Philippines was characterized by
small farms and low agricultural productivity compared to some of its neighbours. The secretary
of agriculture reported in 1931 that in that year Java produced yields of 240 piculs of sugar per
hectare as compared with the Philippines production of only 85 piculs per hectare. 7 It was also
pointed out that there were 21,000 planters occupying 260,000 hectares of sugar lands. Not
surprisingly, a major cause of inefficiency in the Philippines sugar industry was the prevalence
of small estates with few resources available for infrastructure or research. The situation was
different in the neighbouring Dutch, British, and French colonies where large estates were
common and both the government and the private sector invested considerable resources into
research. Advanced technology was also frequently promoted in rice production. In the
Philippines, by contrast, rice prices were kept low through a policy of cheap imports, which
discouraged research by benefitting consumers at the expense of farmers. Any improvement in
Philippines agriculture would have required a land reform and the allocation of substantial
resources to research. Unfortunately too little was achieved in either area.
Land Reform
When the United States took control of the Philippines it inherited the chaotic land tenure
system of the Spanish era. Over 70% of farm holdings in 1896 were untitled to the families that
cultivated them. Responsibility for correcting this situation fell to the Philippines Commission,
7
One picul is equivalent to 63.26 kilos.
6
6
which was appointed to exercise both executive and legislative power in the Philippines until the
election of an assembly in 1907. The Commission duly enacted a land law, which came into
force in July 1904. Effectively this law placed within the public domain not only unoccupied
land but also extensive land parcels already occupied, though this was intended to be a temporary
measure. These parcels included lands occupied by persons who had not perfected their titles
under the Spanish laws and lands to which their occupiers had no legal claim at all. Under the
law free patents were to be issued to Filipinos who had occupied, or whose ancestors had
occupied, public lands before 13 August 1898, the date at which the United States had taken
possession of Manila. It was also indicated, however, ‘that no patents of award could be issued
for homesteads, sales, leases, grants, and certification of title without land surveys conducted ot
recognized by the government’. 8 As Corpuz notes, the government’s failure to undertake the
necessary land surveys prevented small farmers from obtaining title to their small fragmented
fields. These farmers were ‘unschooled and poor, unable to cope with the titling requirements of
the law; engaged in low-value one-crop cultivation; disqualified from bank credit; vulnerable to
usury, and often lost their landholdings to big landowners.’ 6
By 1910, after seven years of operation, the land registration court had certified only
3,902 registered titles and, as pointed out by the Governor-General, William Cameron Forbes,
the registered lands were mostly those of persons who had some title under Spanish law. These
individuals generally held medium to large-sized tracts and could afford to comply with the
requirements of registration by hiring private surveyors to conduct surveys which would enable
them to obtain certified titles in the land registration court. Two million small farmers, on the
other hand, were unable to obtain titles and ‘continued, as they did under the Spanish regime, to
cultivate land they did not own; their fields were small; they could not qualify for bank credit;
but they were subject to the land tax just as much as the large landowners’. 9 The slow pace of
land registration is indicated by the fact that by 1918 decrees in land registration cases since
1903 totaled 88,077 parcels of land with a total area of 894,875 hectares. This compares with an
actual total of 1,955,273 farms and a total farm area of 4,563,727 hectares. 10 The inability of the
8
Corpuz (1997), p.275.
Ibid, p.278.
10
Annual Report of the Governor-General, 1933, p.71; Census of 1918.
9
7
7
government to cope with the need to register land was at least partly due to the fact that from
1916 it depended on a Filipino legislature. Large landowners, who were influential in the
Philippines legislature, both during the period of U.S. rule and since the achievement of
independence have generally obstructed attempts at land reform. Thus the failure to implement
effective reform during the period of U.S. rule in the Philippines was in part due to the fact that
the administration felt constrained to cooperate with a local landowning elite.
An indication of the limited extent of land reform in the Philippines during the early
period of the U.S. administration can be obtained from an analysis of the censuses of 1903 and
1918, using average farm size and the proportion of cultivated land farmed by owners as
indicators of land reform. For the Philippines as a whole total cultivated land increased by 62%
between 1903 and 1918, from 2,821,661 hectares to 4,563,727 hectares. During the same period
the total number of farms increased by 140% and average farm size fell by 33% from 3.47 to
2.33 hectares, though there were significant provincial variations, as will be seen below. While
the total number of farms increased by 140% the increase in the number of farms held by a form
of tenancy increased by 174%, so that the proportion of farms cultivated by their owners fell
slightly from 81% in 1903 to 78% in 1918. Therefore the average Filipino peasant not only had a
smaller farm in 1918 than in 1903 but was less likely to own the land on which he worked.
In the case of Taiwan land policies had effects not only on agricultural productivity but
also on the development of manufacturing. That this was also true for the Philippines becomes
apparent when we look at the provincial or regional as opposed to national situation. The
regional data shows a clear relationship between farm size and land tenure on the one hand and
the geographical distribution of manufacturing on the other.
Land Use
The Philippines censuses of 1903 and 1918 break down statistics of farm size, land
tenure, crop production, and manufacturing output by province. As will be seen from Appendix
2, the provinces of 1918 did not always coincide with those of 1903. Partly for this reason and
partly because some of the provinces were very small, the relevant statistics are here broken
down by region rather than province, with the exception of statistics relating to Mindanao. Since
the regions had unequal populations in both 1903 and 1918 statistics are presented on a per
8
8
capita basis throughout. 11
Table 1 indicates average farm size and (as a proxy for land reform) the proportion of
agricultural land farmed by owners in 1903 and 1918.
1. Farm Size and Farm Ownership by Region
(1903, 1918)
1903
1918
Proportion of
Proportion of
Average
Farmed Area
Average
Farmed Area
Farm Size
Farmed by
Farm Size
Farmed by
(hectares)
Owners (%)
(hectares)
Owners (%)
Ilocos
1.49
46.58 12
0.78
62.01 12
Cagayan Valley
6.62
87.16
2.09
59.91
Central Luzon
5.09
57.46
3.44
69.61
City of Manila
1.37
47.43
1.17
44.21
Calabarzon
3.50
73.19
2.52
70.77
Cordillera
3.81
19.16
2.83
94.49
Mimaro
6.45
83.60
4.38
80.64
Bicol
5.07
92.68
3.24
80.87
Mindanao
3.79
94.59 13
3.78
78.21 13
Region
Luzon
11
The provinces of the Philippines were organized into eleven regions in 1972. By May 2005 the
number of regions had been expanded to seventeen, incorporating 81 provinces plus the National
Capital Region (Manila). In this paper the regions defined in 2005 are used except in the case of
Mindanao. Since it had a relatively small population between 1903 and 1918, the island’s six
current regions are amalgamated into one.
12
For Ilocos the data on the proportion of farmed area farmed by owners omits the province of
La Union since the relevant information for this province was not reported for 1918. If La Union
is included the proportion for 1903 would be 51.07.
13
Omits Cotabato since land tenure data for this province was not reported for 1918. If Cotabato
Footnote continued
9
9
Visayas
Western Visayas
6.15
81.62
4.23
67.46
Central Visayas
1.58
95.47 14
1.65
90.59 14
Eastern Visayas
3.77
89.00
2.77
94.11
Philippines
3.47
76.70
2.33
75.44
(Source: Calculated from information in the 1903 and 1918 censuses of the Philippines.)
It can be seen that in general for the regions in which there was a relatively low
proportion of ownership (high proportion of tenancy) average farm sizes also tended to be small,
while in regions which exhibited a high proportion of ownership average farm size tended to be
above the average for the Philippines as a whole. 15 The varying patterns of farm size and land
ownership were associated with different crop specializations as can be seen from table 2, which
indicates per capita production by region of the six major crops produced in the Philippines in
1918.
is included the proportion for 1903 becomes 94.79.
14
Omits Bohol, for which land tenure data was not reported for 1918. If Bohol is included the
proportion for 1903 becomes 98.06.
15
Ilocos and Cagayan Valley both exhibited low proportions of owner occupied farms and small
average farm sizes in 1918, while Cordillera and Eastern Visayas had high proportions of owner
occupation and above average farm size. Central Visayas was something of an anomaly in being
characterized by small owner occupied farms.
10
10
2. Crop Production by Region
(Production per capita)
(1918)
Region
Rice
Sugar
Tobacco
Copra
Abaca
Corn
(cavans)
Cane
(kilos)
(kilos)
(kilos)
(cavans)
(tons)
Ilocos
13.07
0.35
16.04
2.70
0.00
0.42
Cagayan Valley
3.56
0.01
77.50
0.66
0.00
3.22
Central Luzon
9.90
1.13
1.85
0.51
0.00
0.20
City of Manila
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Calabarzon
2.26
0.50
0.07
64.30
8.08
0.11
Cordillera
1.99
0.04
21.90
0.00
0.00
0.96
Mimaro
2.59
0.38
1.27
44.02
26.82
0.16
Bicol
1.92
0.02
0.25
23.28
16.35
0.12
Mindanao
0.95
0.01
0.24
6.44
33.65
0.53
Western Visayas
3.41
0.72
1.95
5.57
8.24
0.37
Central Visayas
0.49
0.05
2.93
25.98
4.93
4.27
Eastern Visayas
1.03
0.02
0.84
22.75
13.15
0.59
(Source: Calculated from information in the 1918 census of the Philippines.)
A comparison of tables 1 and 2 suggests the following:
(1) The predominantly rice producing regions, Ilocos and Central Luzon, exhibited high
proportions of tenancy.
(2) The abaca plant (Manila hemp) was a major crop in Mindanao, Mimaro, Bicol, and
Eastern Visayas. Abaca growing was very labour intensive and in all of these regions a relatively
large proportion of the land was farmed by owners.
(3) It is difficult to establish any simple relationship between land tenure or average farm
size and the production of copra, sugar cane, tobacco, or corn since they were grown in
11
11
association with rice or abaca. Copra production, for example, predominantly occurred in
Calabarzon, Mimaro, Bicol, and the Central and Eastern Visayas. Of these regions Mimaro,
Bicol, and Eastern Visayas were also major producers of abaca and, as noted above, were
characterized by a predominance of owner occupied farms. It was common in the second and
third decades of the twentieth century to mix coconuts and abaca. Calabarzon, with long
established coconut plantations, contained the two most important copra producing provinces
(Laguna and Tyabas).
In summary, rice production was associated with tenant farming, while production of
abaca was associated with independent farmers.
Manufacturing
Of greater interest, from the point of view of this paper, is the relationship between
manufacturing and land ownership. In the period since World War II the Philippines has been
characterized by a pattern of manufacturing which is more centralized geographically than is the
case for Taiwan. The dispossession of landlords by the Japanese resulted in the growth of a class
of independent farmers in Taiwan, who provided a market for small and medium-sized local
manufacturing firms. Failures in land reform in the Philippines provide a possible explanation for
the different pattern of industrialization in that country. As has been shown there were regional
variations the pattern of land holdings in the Philippines during the colonial period. Therefore
some indication of the impact of land reform or its failure may be achieved by analyzing regional
variations in manufacturing output and landholding patterns.
Table 3 shows the value of manufactured output per capita by region for 1903 and 1918
and the annual rate of growth of this variable between those dates.
12
12
3. Manufacturing Output Per Capita, 1903-1918
Output per Capita
Output per Capita
Annual Increase
Region
(1903) (pesos)
(1918) (pesos)
(%)
Ilocos
1.84
1.68
-0.6
Cagayan Valley
0.31
1.66
12
Central Luzon
2.04
5.99
7
City of Manila
130.00
517.21
10
Calabarzon
5.66
8.59
3
Cordillera
0.10
6.13
32
Mimaro
0.50
1.00
5
Bicol
1.69
10.41
13
Mindanao
0.37
2.05
12
Western Visayas
1.14
3.95
9
Central Visayas
0.75
9.62
19
Eastern Visayas
0.23
33.00
39
(Source: Calculated from information in the 1903 and 1918 censuses of the Philippines.)
From the table it is obvious that in both 1903 and 1918 Manila was by far the most
industrialized region of the country. When 1903 and 1918 are compared it is also apparent that
three regions, Cordillera, Central Visayas, and Eastern Visayas, saw relatively rapid growth in
manufactured output per capita, while Ilocos saw a decrease. When the agricultural sector is
brought into the picture it becomes clear that these shifts are associated with regional differences
in land ownership and land use.
As is apparent from table 2, Ilocos had the highest production of rice per capita of any
region in 1918. Since rice was produced for the domestic market at prices which the
administration kept at a low level by means of imports, government policies tended to depress
incomes in this region. Ilocos was also the region with the lowest average farm size and one of
the highest rates of tenant farming in the Philippines. In contrast, the three regions with the
13
13
highest proportion of farms cultivated by owners in 1918 were Cordillera (94.5%), Central
Visayas (90.6%), and Eastern Visayas (94.1%). These were also the regions which saw the most
rapid growth in industrial output between 1903 and 1918, with manufactured output per capita
growing by 32% per annum in Cordillera, 19% per annum in Central Visayas, and 39% per
annum in Eastern Visayas. Widespread land ownership may have contributed to a rapid growth
in manufactured output in the following two ways:
(1) Since farmers who owned their own farms had greater incentives to innovate, there
was more efficient land use and therefore a higher per capita income, creating greater local
demand for manufactured output.
(2) Regardless of productivity, because of evenly distributed land ownership the
distribution of wealth and income was more equal than in other regions, resulting in a local
demand for basic manufactured consumer goods. Consequently labour was be drawn off the land
into manufacturing.
These effects are not mutually exclusive but the census data suggests that it was greater
equality of income and wealth rather than higher productivity that determined the regional
distribution of manufacturing. If higher productivity of land was the primary determinant we
would expect a correlation between changes in land prices and per capita increases in
manufactured output. If, on the other hand, labour was being drawn into manufacturing because
a region showed more than average equality of income and wealth there need be no such
correlation. We might even see a decrease in land values over time because of reduced labour
input per hectare. The 1903 and 1918 censuses provide provincial data on real property values,
which are given in table 4.
14
14
4. Real Property Per Capita, 1903-1918
Real Property per
Real Property per
Annual Increase
Capita (1903)
Capita (1918)
(%)
(pesos)
(pesos)
Ilocos
57.49
60.91
0.4
Cagayan Valley
45.31
94.44
5.0
Central Luzon
135.60
117.18
-1.0
City of Manila
437.54
602.12
2.2
Calabarzon
96.07
122.93
1.7
Cordillera
64.84
47.39
-2.1
Mimaro
46.63
47.70
0.2
Bicol
79.94
108.74
2.1
Mindanao
16.67
48.28
7.3
Western Visayas
74.31
64.46
-0.9
Central Visayas
42.56
47.43
0.7
Eastern Visayas
76.61
55.03
-2.2
Region
(Source: Calculated from information in the 1903 and 1918 censuses of the Philippines.)
It can be seen that the regions (apart from Manila) which saw the most rapid growth in
manufacturing saw a decrease in the value of real property between 1903 and 1918. If the growth
of local manufacturing was driven by local demand a more even distribution of income and
wealth must have outweighed lower overall levels per capita.
3. Conclusion
Export-based agriculture is possible with an agricultural sector which exhibits low
productivity and a highly unequal pattern of land ownership. Land reform does, however, seem
to be necessary if a less developed country is to accomplish the transition from a low-income,
agriculturally based economy to one based on manufacturing. This then gives rise to two
15
15
questions. Firstly, how is land reform to be achieved in the face of opposition from landlords
and, secondly, how is it related to the development of manufacturing?
This paper seeks to answer the first of these questions through a comparative
study of Taiwan and the Philippines during the earlier part of the twentieth century, when both
were subject to colonial rule. In the case of Taiwan the Japanese administration was able to force
through a land reform with little difficulty since it had no interest in placating the great landlords,
who were mostly resident in mainland China. For similar reasons the Guomingdang government
was later able to complete the work begun by the Japanese because, coming as it did from the
mainland, it felt no obligation to Taiwanese landlords. Land reform in the Philippines during the
period of American rule was much less successful than was the case in Taiwan despite, or
perhaps because of, the fact that the American government was generally more benevolent in its
attitude to the local population than the Japanese administration in Taiwan. The U.S.
administration sought the cooperation of the Filipino population, which effectively meant the
local elite of landlords and wealthy merchants. It therefore failed to force through land reform
and successive governments of the Philippines since independence have lacked the strength or
will to do so. Thus the experience of these two Asian countries suggests that land reform is
unlikely to be achieved without some foreign authority or strong external pressure to overcome
the obstruction of local landowning elites.
Answers to the second question were suggested through an analysis of regional variations
in land tenure and manufacturing concentration by making use of the Philippines censuses of
1903 and 1918. It was found that manufacturing growth occurred most strongly in those regions
in which the agricultural sector was characterized by small, independent farmers, such as those
who were to emerge in Taiwan after World War II. In the Philippines, however, this pattern of
land ownership was to remain localized. More typical was a pattern of impoverished peasants,
often tenants, producing rice for subsistence or for sale on the domestic market at prices kept low
by imports.
16
16
Appendix 1
Population by Region (1903, 1918)
Region
1903
1918
Increase (%)
Ilocos
974,897
1,262,676
29.5
Cagayan Valley
295,211
347,141
17.6
Central Luzon
868,086
1,047,974
20.7
Manila
219,928
285,306
29.7
Calabarzon
896,762
1,192,241
32.9
Cordillera
74,605
116,499
56.2
Mimaro
128,126
205,594
60.5
Bicol
643,901
840,004
30.5
Mindanao
670,833
1,106,159
64.9
Western Visayas
1,083,474
1,347,249
24.3
Central Visayas
1,124,444
1,485,976
24.3
Eastern Visayas
655,159
977,525
49.2
17
17
Appendix 2
Regions and Provinces
Modern Region
Ilocos
Provinces and Comandancias
Provinces and Sub-Provinces
(1903)
(1918)
Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union,
Amburayan, Ilocos Norte,
Pangasinan
Ilocos Sur, La Union,
Pangasinan
Cagayan Valley
Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya
Batanes, Cagayan, Isabela,
Nueva Vizcaya
Central Luzon
Bataan, Bulucan, Nueva Ecija,
Bataan, Bulucan, Nueva Ecija,
Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales
Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales
Manila
Manila City
Manila City
Calabarzon
Batangas, Cavite, La Laguna, Rizal, Batangas, Cavite, Laguna,
Tayabas
Rizal, Tayabas
Cordillera
Abra, Benguet, Lepanto-Bontoc
Abra, Benguet
Mimaro
Marinduque, Mindoro, Paragua,
Marinduque, Mindoro, Palawan,
Paragua Sur, Romblon
Romblon
Bicol
Albay, Ambos Camarines, Masbate, Albay, Ambos Camarines,
Sorsogon
Catanduanes, Masbate,
Sorsogon
Mindanao
Basilan, Cotabato, Dapitan, Davao,
Agusan, Bukidnon, Cotabato,
Jolo, Misamis, Surigao, Tawi Tawi,
Davao, Lanao, Misamis, Sulu,
Zamboanga
Surigao, Zamboanga
18
18
Western Visayas
Central Visayas
Antique, Capiz, Iloilo, Negros
Antique, Capiz, Iloilo,
Occidental
Occidental Negros
Bohol, Cebu, Negros Oriental
Bohol, Cebu, Oriental Negros,
Siquijor
Eastern Visayas
Leyte, Samar
Leyte, Samar
References
Amsden, A.H. (1979), Taiwan’s Economic History: A Case of Etatisme and a Challenge to
Dependency Theory, Modern China, 5 (3), Symposium on Taiwan, 341-379
Birdsall, N., and Jasperson (eds.) (1997), Pathways to Growth: Comparing East Asia and Latin
America, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D.C.
Corpuz, O.D. (1997), An Economic History of the Philippines, University of the Philippines
Press, Manila
Cumings, B. (1984), The Origins and Development of Northeast Asian Political Economy:
Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles, and Political Consequences, International
Organization, 38 (1), 1-40
Gage, E. (1950), Industrial Development in Formosa, Economic Geography, 26 (3), 214-222
Ho, S.P.S. (1982), Economic Development and Rural Industry in South Korea and Taiwan,
World Development, 10 (11), 973-990
Howe, C. (2001), Taiwan in the 20th Century: Model or Victim? Development Problems in a
Small Asian Economy, The China Quarterly, 37-69
Hsiao, F.S.T. and Hsiao, Mei-Chu (2003), “Miracle Growth” in the Twentieth Century International Comparisons of East Asian Development, World Development, 31 (2), 227257
Hymer, S., and Resnick, S. (1969), A Model of an Agrarian Economy with Nonagricultural
Activities, American Economic Review, 59 (1), 493-506
Kohli, A. (1994), Where do high growth political economies come from? The Japanese lineage
19
19
of Korea’s “developmental state”, World Development, 22 (9), 1269-1293
Kohli, A. (1997), Japanese Colonialism and Korean Development: A Reply, World
Development, 25 (6), 883-888
Koone, H.D., and Gleeck, L.E. (1970), Land Reform in the Philippines, Agency for International
Development Spring Review, 1-92
Lall, S. (2001), Competitiveness, Technology and Skills, Edward Elgar
Maddison, A. (1995), Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992, Development Centre Studies,
O.E.C.D., Paris
Numazaki, I. (1997), The Laoban-led Development of Business Enterprises in Taiwan: An
Analysis of Chinese Entrepeneurship, The Developing Economies, XXXV (4), 440-457
Philippine Islands. Census Office, Census of the Philippine Islands Taken Under the Direction of
the Philippine Commission in the Year 1903
Philippine Islands. Census Office, Census of the Philippine Islands Taken Under the Direction of
the Philippine Legislature -1918
Resnick, S.R. (1970), The Decline of Rural Industry Under Export Expansion: A Comparison
among Burma, Philippines, and Thailand, 1870-1938, Journal of Economic History, 30
(1), 51-73
Wu, Tsong-Min (2004), Economic History of Taiwan: A Survey, Australian Economic History
Review, 44 (3), 294-306
20
20