Guiding Principles:
Land Tenure in Development Cooperation

gtz_s.gif (1630 Byte)

Orientierungsrahmen:
Bodenrecht und Bodenordnung

Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Technische Zusammenarbeit
Abt. 45 / Div. 45

 

Julia Eckert, Georg Elwert (1996):
Land Tenure in Uzbekistan

2.4.4 Crop-directives

Apart from the complaint that only the most unproductive land was being distributed, farmers also criticised that the kolkhos decided on the crop which had to be planted. Contrary to the opinion of many Hokhims that the farmers should learn to plan and work self-reliantly, the leasing contracts oblige the farmer to cultivate a certain crop according to the needs of the kolkhozes as well as to the judgement of the surveyor who determines which crop will succeed best on which soil. Tenants complained that they were obliged to plant cotton while they could make much higher profit if they planted maize. [FN 82] (They did admit that they were not able to judge the suitability of the soil for every crop.) Others, though, said that they decided themselves what to plant according to the needs of the kolkhoz. [FN 83]

In both cases the kolkhoz determines which crops will be planted. In one case it was interpreted as an imposition from above; in the other case it was seen as an independent decision to plant what is in demand. In the cases in which it was seen as an imposition by the kolkhoz, markets were accessible and independent marketing feasable. Moreover, those markets had different demands than the kolkhoz and different crops could obtain higher prices than those demanded by the kolkhoz. In the case of the farmer orienting his production at the demand of the kolkhoz, markets were usually not accessible and the kolkhoz was the only buyer. Most profit could be made by selling to the kolkhoz what the kolkhoz most needed.

In both cases the farmers calculated what would serve their interest best and in both cases there was the aspiration to decide independently of directives from above. This counters the assumption of the kolkhoz administration that farmers could not, for the lack of expertise, decide on the best strategy in their interest or, at least, that they would not want to since the socialist mentality had drained them of initiative.