ABSTRACT

However, the other four factors limiting the redistributive effects of the reform still hold some force, and it would appear, therefore, that in aggregate terms, the one-off redistributive gains for the poorer sections are unlikely to have been anywhere near the 50 per cent figure first adopted. No doubt a substantial number gained significantly; yet the reform must also have bypassed, or improved only marginally, the incomes of an equally large number. In general, it could be stated that the benefits would be greater where the land ownership and operational distributions diverged most, and where high proportions of the owned holdings belonged to size classes greater than ten hectares. In so far as this reduction in inequality occurred, localised poverty would no doubt be eradicated. Yet it must be remembered that rural poverty in many parts of Ethiopian is not a localised but a general phenomenon. The scattered cultivation pattern in many parts is in itself an indication of the absence of any real economic surplus. In such areas, the reduction of poverty cannot depend on such a redistribution; it has to rely upon the dynamic growth advantages of the new institutional structure in conjunction with other state policies designed to achieve this goal.