In China, Vietnam, and central Asian republics, communist revolutionary governments introduced the collectivization of agriculture reforms. This was the better step as most of the distribution of the land was assigned to the farming families, which resulted in the maximum contribution in the production of agriculture product in the respective countries (Ghose, 2013). Hence, success is very much clear from the reform by the emerging market economies including Vietnam and china. The dominant structure or dominant agrarian structure of these counties is usually labelled as Type 2 (emerging market economies).
In china, people communes system was introduced in 1950, which achieved significant success between the years 1978 to 1989. China started implementation of the reform gradually by first introducing the household contract responsibility system, which authorized the farmers the rights over the land they cultivated. Second the abolition of the organisational system of the people's commune and finally the new rural economic organisations' development. As the result the overall 88.3 percent was recorded as the value of gross agricultural output. Similarly, 601 Yuan was the number of per capita income from the earlier 134 Yuan. According to the OECD report the poverty rate of China has decreased significantly over the past 20 year (Ghose, 2013). Hence, the reform pushed the farmer and investment to the greater extent.
On the other hand, similar productivity gains were also reported in the Vietnam. The reform broke up large collective farms into tiny family units. The reforms increased the incentives of individual farmers and acknowledged the rights over land of individual household. Overall the country shifted the production form food-deficit country to food-surplus. East Asian countries including Japan, Taiwan, and South Korean ceiling over the land use were imposed so to distribute the land to the maximum number of individuals, and this also resulted in the significant growth in these countries.
Question #2
Urban migrants move to cities in search of better job opportunities, advanced education for their children, improve their living conditions and to live a healthy life style. Cities provide all the opportunities to them in terms of employment, education and better health facilities. People who live in rural areas move to urban cities to change their life style and to adopt social change. Some people move to cities to open their own business as cities provide a very lucrative business environment in which a person can prosper and flourish. The political system is affected as most of the people keep themselves aloof from politics (Waldinger, 2001). Urban migrants feel satisfied in the cities because all their needs are satisfied.
Question #3
Karl Marx view of peasantry political potential believes that there should be the equal distribution of resource among the people living in the global world. The exploitation of labour (peasantry) must be avoided. This means that the farmers needed their due right, in other words most of the work related to the food production is done by the farmers but t they are not getting the enough of what they ...