One of the goals of the land reforms in Ukraine is to create a strong class of private landowners.
(DANILENKO, 2002). Supposedly, the presence of these landowners will ensure the irrevocability of the initiated social and economic changes in land relations. Unfortunately, current landowners do not always take an active part in shaping land reforms and do not demonstrate enough support for the introduction of the new forms of ownership.
In our opinion, the absence of nationwide awareness campaign and public education programs is an explanation why the general public in Ukraine, and rural residents in particular, do not know their rights and, on some occasions, do not understand the significance of a full-fledged land market and which benefits it can bring to them.
Until now the government has failed to conduct any nationwide programs that educate rural residents on the basics of land reforms and make them independent and effective decision makers. Two years had already passed as the Parliament adopted the Land Code; however, there
have been no coordinated efforts at the national level to explain to rural residents the Code’s main provisions. As some sociological surveys demonstrate, today there are numerous prejudices and stereotypes among rural residents regarding private land ownership and the right to sell agricultural lands (IFC, 2002). This situation is also the reason of numerous conflicts in the area of land relations.
Now new landowners experience serious difficulties in obtaining reliable information on their legal rights, the scope of land market transactions, and procedures for securing and enforcing their rights. This especially concerns the most vulnerable social groups (pensioners, invalids, and women), which are in a less advantaged position to protect their rights and enjoy a free access to the information. No surprise that such a situation leads to uncertainty and skepticism about positive outcomes of the reform process and promote poor decision making by landowners.
In the situation of government inaction to make stakeholders more informed about their rights and obligations, this task could become an agenda for NGOs. However, the non-governmental organization sector remains weak and lacks the needed funds. Present private associations related to land sales and landowners rights are in their infancy, and need greater support and guidance.
In recent years there have been a number of projects aimed at advancing rural residents’
awareness on land rights. However, the majority of such institutions are funded through international organizations (the United State Agency for International Development, the World Bank, European Union TACIS Program, and other donors organizations). This makes them more financially vulnerable, which, in turn negatively affects their sustainability.
The aforementioned problems are also rooted in the specifics of the policymaking process in Ukraine. This is characterized by the absence of a policy evaluation stage. Only on very rare occasions does the Ukrainian government apply to local constituencies for feedback on a policy initiative. This makes it practically impossible to fine tune and correct implemented policy programs. With no feedback obtained from local constituencies, the government cannot influence public and to shape this opinion in favor of a private land market.
5. The Development of Land Relations at the Regional Level: Empirical Results 5.1. Survey Methodology, Objectives, and Goals
The land reform has brought about significant economic, social and institutional changes in Ukraine. Notwithstanding the existing impediments discussed in previous chapters, the reorganization of the corporate farm sector and the introduction of the right to private land ownership had a significant impact on the attitudes and expectations of land relations participants: private family farmers, members of reformed agricultural enterprises and rural residents as a whole. In order to study the specifics of the development of the land market at regional level and obtain empirical evidence concerning the arguments and reasoning provided in the previous chapters, a field survey was conducted.
The survey had the following objectives:
Obtain first-hand data on the results of land reforms in Ukraine.
Investigate the scope of and significance of particular outcomes of the land reforms, including existing challenges and barriers in the development of the land market.
Develop a better understanding of how land relations issues differ between private family farmers and employees from reformed agricultural enterprises.
To provide data that could then be incorporated in the development of policy recommendations.
The sample consisted of 400 respondents, of whom 293 were managers of private family farms and 107 were employees of reformed agricultural enterprises. The latter included not only those directly involved into farming, but also workers of social institutions such school, hospitals, kindergartens that are kept on the books of the reformed farms. In this way, the survey respondent base was widened to collected information from agricultural producers and the wider rural population. The survey sample structure corresponds to the share of these respondents (private family farmers and agricultural workers from reformed enterprises) in the general population.
The survey is nationwide, covering all regions of Ukraine represented by the following oblasts:
Kherson (South), Zhytomyr (North), Donetsk (East), Ivano-Frankivsk (West) and Poltava (Center). The survey was conducted by means of face-to-face interviews, on the basis of semi-structured questionnaire with both closed and open-ended questions. Based on data from the State Statistical Committee regarding the quantities of the surveyed types of agricultural enterprises as of June 1, 2004, the sample error is +/– 4,9%.
Before analyzing specific survey data, it is necessary to say that this survey reveals significant differences between private family farms and reformed enterprises. This, in particular, concerns the formalization of private land ownership, land use and land lease practices, farmers’ attitudes towards futures prospects of land market development and some other issues.
This can be explained by the existing organizational, socio-economic, and institutional differences of these two categories of respondents. As mentioned earlier, private family farms and agricultural enterprises were assigned different roles in the course of the land reform. On some occasions, lands relations and agribusiness operations of these two types of farms are regulated by different legal regimes. Although individual household plot owners are part of the land relations in the rural areas, the survey did not consider them as a given organizational entity since the majority of household owners are members of reformed agricultural enterprises. In this case, the survey could end up with an overlap in survey participants.