* This paper constitutes Part 2 of a two-part article, the first instalment of which was published in the previous issue of The China Quarterly.

1. “Su-nan t'u-ti kai-ko kung-tso ti pao-kao” (“ Report of land reform work in South Kiangsu”) Su-nan jih-pao (South Kiangsu Daily) (Su-nan) (Wusih), 1 January 1952, pp. 2–3.

2. “San-nien-lai Su-nan nung-ts'un kung-tso ti wei-ta ch'eng-chiu (“The great achievements of rural work in South Kiangsu during the past three years”), ibid 30 September 1952, p. 2.

3. This figure is based on a total arable area of 25,680,000 moufor South Kiangsu (see “Agrarian Reform Exhibition in Shanghai,”in Survey of the China Mainland Press (SCMP)(Hong Kong), No. 206 (31 October 1952), pp. 26–28), appropriately adjusted for the exclusion of K'un-shan, Tan-t'u and Wu hsien.

4. “Report on land reform work in South Kiangsu.“ Note also that Kuang-tan, P'an and Wei-t'ien, Ch'üan in Su-nan t'u-ti kai-ko fang-wen chi (Investigations into Land Reform in South Kiangsu) (Peking: San-lien, 1952), p. 1, cite material from 41 hsiangof 23 hsiento show that landlords owned about 40% of all land in the region.Google Scholar

5. Given a rural population of 10,290,000 (“Agragarian Reform Exhibition”) and a total household figure of 2,495,544 (“The great achievements of rural work in South Kiangsu”), the average household size must have been 4·12 persons.

6. “Hua-tung i-nien–lai ti t'u-ti kai-ko yün-tung'(“The land reform movement in East China during the past year”), Hsin-hua jih-pao (New China Daily)(Hsin-hua),1 December 1951, p. 2.

7. 25,680,000 mou÷10,290,000=2495 mou.

8. 85% of 2·495 is 2·12 mou. Multiplying this by the average number of persons per household gives a farm size of 8·73 mou.

9. “Speeches by various representatives “ at the Second Plenum of the first session of the Conference of People's Representives from All Levels of South Kiangsu, Su-nan,15 September 1950, p. 5.

10. “Su-nan–ch'ü t'u-kai chi-pen wan-ch'eng” (“Land reform basically completed in South Kiangsu”), Hsin-hua, 21 March 1951, p. 2.

11. “Wu-hsi Wu hsien t'u-kai ta-pu wan-ch'eng (“Land reform largely completed in Wusih and Wu hsien”), Su-nan,2 December 1950, p. 2.

12. “Ch'e-ti fei-ch'u feng-chien t'u-ti suo-yu–chih” (“ Thoroughly eliminate feudal landownership”), Hsin-hua,12 May 1952, p. 3. On Nanking's experience see also “Liang-nien–lai Nan-ching shih ti chien-she kung-tso kai-k'uang”(“Reconstruction work in the suburbs in the past two years”), ibid.1 October 1951, p. 4; and “Kung-ku t'u-ti kai-ko ch'eng-chi, fa-yang nung-min ai-kuo–chu-I ching-shen”(“Consolidate the success of land reform and promote the patriotic spirit of the peasants ”), ibid. 5 October 1951, p. 2.

13. “Total victory in land reform in the suburbs of Shanghai,”Ta kung pao(Impartial Daily), 19 December 1951.

14. Ch'ang-chiang jih-pao (Yangtze River Daily),16 December 1952, p. 2, gives the following data on per capita holdings of poor peasants relative to the per capita average arable area after land reform: Honan, 92·8%; Hupeh, 91·4%; Hunan, 92·6%; Kiangsi, 91·5%; Kwangtung, 99·2%; and Kwangsi, 87·6%.

15. The relevant observations will be found in Su-nan,23 January 1950, p. 1,3 March 1951, pp. 1 and 3; and 9 February 1952, p. 2. The yield of 285 chin has also been checked by extrapolating backwards from data available for the later 1950s.

16. See Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Food Grain Production, Shui-tao sheng-ch'an chi-shu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao (Materials Relating to the Investigation of Techniques of Paddy Rice Production)(Peking, 1956), p. 323.Google Scholar

17. Lu-yen, Liao, “On the basis of co-operativlzation, go all out to fulfil the draft plan for China's agricultural development,” Hsueh-hsi (Study), No. 2 (1958), pp. 2–8.Google Scholar

18. The difference in farm size before and after land reform (assuming an average household of 4·12 persons) was as follows:

19. This will not seem so unlikely an assumption if one bears in mind that the dietary standards shown in earlier tables in no way represent maxima. Remember too the extra-consumption requirements which had to be met.

20. The Agrarian Reform Law of the People's Republic of China and Other Relevant Documents (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1950), p. 1.Google Scholar

21. Actually, the landlords were permitted to own some land. Thus, Article Ten of the Agrarian Reform Law: “Landlords shall be given an equal share[of land] so that they can make their living by their own labour and thus reform themselves through labour.” “Land reform largely completed in Wusih and Wu Hsien ”states that of 144,384 mouconfiscated, 9,326 mouwere redistributed to landlords.

22. “Report on land reform work in South Kiangsu.”

23. See Part I, pp. 274–6 and pp. 289–90 respectively.

24. “Report on land reform work in South Kiangsu“implies that some of the land in this category was requisitioned.

25. “Land reform basically completed in South Kiangsu.”

26. “Land reform largely completed in Wusih and Wu hsien” reported that of 144,384 mou of land confiscated in 74 hsiang of Wusih hsien,113,112 mouhad been owned by landlords. The 22% of land not in their hands might serve as another proxy for encroachment on rich peasants' holdings.

27. “The great achievements of rural work in South Kiangsu.“

28. Including an estimate for the three hsien not included in the original figure.

29. There are obvious objections to such simplistic assumptions: for example, presumably middle peasants did benefit from the confiscation of the newly discovered land. And the figure of 1·68 mouis a simple unweighted average (1·68+1·10÷2=1·39), whereas the greater number of poor peasants (relative to middle) would have depressed the average amount of land available to the former. But at least such restrictive assumptions will serve to strengthen the argument in the text.

30. See, above, Table 5.

31. Su-pei-;ch'ü i-nien-lai t'u-ti kai-ko yün-tung ti pao-kao”(“Report on land reform work in North Kiangsu during the past year”), Su-pei jih-pao (North Kiangsu Daily) (Su-pei)(Yang-chou), 28 December 1951, p. 1.

32. The problem of equating land confiscation and reallocation is also present in the data for North Kiangsu. However, because of the less varied pattern of land use in the North one would expect “special land ”to have been of less importance. It is interesting, for example, that the North Kiangsu land reform regulations contained no section on the treatment of special land problems.

33. This is slightly higher than the yield of 139·29 chinwhich can be obtained from information given in “Su-pei, ch'ü i-chiu–wu-i nien nung-yeh sheng-ch'an chi-hua kang-yao ” (“Summary plans for agricultural production in North Kiangsu in 1951“), Su-pei,20 February 1951, p. 2.

34. “Tsai t'u-ti kai-ko sheng-li ti chi-ch'u shang yin-tao nung-min chi-hsÜ ch'ien-chin!” (“On the victorious foundation of land reform lead the peasants to continue their advance!”), Su-pei30 June 1952, p. 2.

35. Ibid.

36. The phrase is used by Wong, John in his Land Reform in the People's Republic of China (New York: Praeger, 1973), p. 173et seqGoogle Scholar

37. Agrarian Reform Law, p. 1.

38. The shortage of grain in South Kiangsu is indicated by the government's relief operation in sending 93–2 million chin of rice to the area. See“Mu-ch'ien Su-nan sheng-ch'an chiu-tsai ti ch'ing'shih ho jen-wu” (“The current situation and the tasks of production relief in South Kiangsu”), Su-nan,11 April 1950, p. 1.

39. The figure is taken from “The great achievements of rural work in South Kiangsu.”Data for North Kiangsu are not available.

40. “Report on land reform work in South Kiangsu.” Seed requirements were about 365 chin per person per year.

41. The number of confiscated draft animals is taken from “The great achievements of rural work in South Kiangsu” and the 1,663,779 households are simply those to which land was redistributed. It is true of course, that the confiscated animals represented only a relatively small proportion of the total supply and to this extent the calculations that follow exaggerate the true situation. However, as I shall show below, even when this is taken into account, a grave draft animal deficiency still existed.

42. Since agriculture was still family-based at this time, the household figure is the more useful.

43. See above, Table 1.

44. Walker, K. R., “Organisation of agricultural production”in Eckstein, A., Galenson, W. and Liu, T. C. (eds.), Economic Trends in Communist China (Chicago: Aldine, 1968), p. 413.Google Scholar

45. “Mobilize the Kiangsu Party and strive to fulfil the Twelve Year Plan for agricultural development ahead of time,” Hua-tung nung-yeh k'o-hsüeh t'ung-pao(East China Agricultural Scientific Bulletin), No. 2 (February 1958). Notice that the figure of 30 mouoverestimates the capacity of animals in the south, where the cropping system made the burden heavier.

46. “The role of Kiangsu agriculture in the development of the Great Leap,“Ti-li chih-shih (Geographical Knowledge), no. 6 (1959), p. 247.

47. “Tsu-chih jen-li la-li”(“Organizing manpower to pull ploughs”), Hsin Su-chou pao (New Soochow Daily),24 May 1950, p. 2.

48. See “Keng-niu szu-wang sheng-ping hsien-hsiang yen-chung” (“Draft cattle deaths and animal disease reach serious proportions”), Su-nan,13 June 1951, p. 2. Also“ Chin-tsai keng-niu fang-chin ch'u-ping ”(“Prevent the slaughter of draft cattle and animal disease”), Hsin-hua,20 March 1951, p. 2, which stated that in the Nanking suburbs the slaughter of cattle rose five-fold between March and September.

49. “The great achievements of rural work in South Kiangsu.”

50. “Report by Jao Shu-Shih at the second plenary session of the ECMA Commission,”Shanghai, 14 July 1950, translated in Current Background(HongKong), No. 10 (29 September 1950). Jao was chairman of the ECMA at this time.

51. Kuan was director of the South Kiangsu's People's Administrative Office until November 1952 and chairman of the conference. His report can be found in “Kuan-yu i-chiu–wu-ling nien nung-yeh sheng-ch'an ti chi-pen tsung-chieh yü i-chiu–wu-ling nien nung-yeh sheng-ch'an kung-tso ti pao-kao” (“Report summarizing agricultural production in 1950 and concerning agricultural production work in 1951”), Su-nan,3 March 1951, p. 3.

52. Similar tendencies were noted in the more general context of East China. Thus, rich peasants were reported to have commented (revealingly) that “…the cadres arranged loans but do not arrange repayment.”See SCMP, No. 141 (24 July 1951), p. 25.

53. “Report summarizing agricultural production in 1950.”It is interesting that Jao Shu-shih's July 1950 speech contained some prophetic remarks about the difficulties that might arise in hiring labour after land reform: “Disputes between mployers and farm labourers who continue such labour should be solved according to the measures adopted in solving labour-capital disputes in cities and on the principle of benefiting labour and capital and developing production. We must constantly keep in mind the interests of farm labourers, look after their livelihood and…raise their political consciousness and cultural standard. On the other and, we must patiently educate the farm labourers to prevent ‘leftist’ sentiment and deviation. No demand must go beyond the scope permitted by the present economic situation. If they exceed the scope, nobody will employ farm labourers…”(“Report at ECMA Commission”).

54. Concern over similar problems was echoed in reports coming out of North Kiangsu. See, for example, “Liang-nien–lai Su-pei nung-yeh sheng-ch'an ti ch'eng-chiu” (“The achievements of North Kiangsu in agricultural production during the past two years”), Su-pei,10 October 1951, p. 3. Also “Report on land reform work in North Kiangsu during the past year,” Ibid. 28 December 1951, p. 1.

55. “Many problems are still arising in production,” Chieh-fang jih-pao, 1 June 1951, p. 7. The investigation was conducted by representatives of the South Kiangsu Land Reform Committee in 25 hsiangthroughout the region.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid.