ABSTRACT

Two explanations were put forward which reflected different interpretations of the dynamics of the agrarian reform. The first hypothesis was that the access of semi-proletarians to land and credit removed the need to seek harvest wage income to survive, in other words, that a process of 'peasantisation' was taking place. Indeed between 1981 and 1983 this analysis was used to justify the slow process of land distribution. The second hypothesis was that the problem lay in the relatively low wages, for in real terms they were much the same as before 1979, even though the social conditions had improved considerably. The removal of coercive labour discipline had caused the low labour productivity and no new system of incentives — either moral or material - had been established. However, by 1983, the second view had become dominant and led to both land distribution and the establishment of strong wage incentives for piece-work in 1984; by 1985 the rural basic wage had been brought up to its urban equivalent. The solution had recognised the fundamentally proletarian nature of the rural workforce.