graydon.blog

Tag: scotland

  • The Abolition of Private Land Ownership

    The Abolition of Private Land Ownership

    The abolition of private land ownership has been one of the most radical economic and social transformations undertaken by various nation states throughout the 20th century. This comprehensive analysis examines the countries that have completely or substantially eliminated private land ownership, exploring the political contexts, methods of implementation, and long-term consequences of these policies. The research reveals that at least 15 major nation states have implemented comprehensive land nationalisation policies, primarily under communist and socialist governments between 1917 and 1975.

    Timeline of Nation States That Abolished Private Land Ownership (1917-1975)
    Timeline of Nation States That Abolished Private Land Ownership (1917-1975)

    Timeline of Nation States That Abolished Private Land Ownership (1917-1975)

    The Soviet Union: The Pioneer of Land Nationalisation (1917)

    The Soviet Union established the precedent for complete abolition of private land ownership through the Decree on Land issued by Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik government in 1917, followed by the Fundamental Law of Land Socialisation in 1918. These revolutionary decrees declared that ‘private ownership of land is totally abolished’ and that all land – whether state, crown, monastery, church, factory, private, public, or peasant – would be confiscated without compensation and become ‘the property of the whole people’.1,2

    The Soviet approach was uncompromising in its scope. The legislation specified that land ‘may not be sold, purchased, leased, mortgaged, or otherwise alienated’. This created a system where the state maintained absolute control over all land resources, with individuals and collectives granted only use rights rather than ownership. The policy formed the foundation for subsequent collectivisation efforts throughout the Soviet sphere of influence.3,4,5

    The implementation involved massive social disruption as kulaks (prosperous peasants) were ‘liquidated as a class’ during Stalin’s intensive collectivisation campaign from 1929-1933. By 1936, the government had collectivised almost all peasantry, though this came at an enormous human cost, including widespread famine that killed millions of peasants. The forced collectivisation represented one of the most comprehensive examples of state control over land in modern history.6

    China’s Systematic Land Reform Movement (1950-1952)

    China implemented one of the world’s largest land expropriation programs through the Land Reform Movement between 1950-1952. This campaign redistributed between 200-240 million acres of arable land to approximately 75 million peasant families, making it ‘one of the largest examples of land expropriation in world history’. The Chinese approach differed from the Soviet model by initially redistributing land to individual peasants before subsequently collectivising it.7,8

    The process was systematically violent, with landlords subjected to mass killing by Communist Party forces and former tenants. Death toll estimates range from hundreds of thousands to millions. The campaign served both economic and political purposes, as it ‘linked the interests of north and northeast Chinese peasants to the party’s success’ and proved decisive in the Chinese Civil War.9

    Following initial redistribution, China moved toward collective ownership through Agricultural Production Cooperatives beginning in 1953. This created the current system where all land in China remains under either state ownership (urban areas) or collective ownership (rural areas), with no private land ownership permitted under Chinese law. Even today, individuals and corporations can only obtain land use rights rather than ownership, maintaining the state’s ultimate control over all territory.10,11,12,13,14

    Cuban Agrarian Transformation (1959)

    Cuba’s approach to land nationalisation began with the First Agrarian Reform Law signed by Fidel Castro on May 17, 1959. This law was ‘the most transcendental of the Revolution’s measures in its first stage’ and represented a more graduated approach compared to the Soviet or Chinese models. The Cuban reform initially set a maximum landholding limit of 30 caballerías (402 hectares) and created the National Institute for Agrarian Reform (INRA) to implement the measures.15,16,17

    The reform was strategically motivated by the extreme concentration of land ownership, where 1.5% of landowners controlled more than 46% of the national territory. The law nationalised millions of acres of large plantations owned by foreign (primarily American) and Cuban capitalists, guaranteeing land use to those who worked it and abolishing the debt slavery system that had oppressed the peasantry. Over 100,000 peasant families received land deeds.18,19

    Cuba’s land reform also had significant geopolitical implications, as it ‘annulled the right of foreign companies and individuals to own land in Cuba,’ directly challenging American economic interests and contributing to the deepening conflict with the United States. The reform represented what Castro described as ‘crossing the Rubicon’ – a point of no return that sealed both the alliance between Cuban workers and peasants and the opposition of landowners and imperialism.20,21

    Eastern European Communist Transformations

    Albania’s Three-Wave Transformation

    Albania underwent three distinct waves of land reform that completely transformed its agricultural system. In 1946, the communist government expropriated land from estates and large farms, redistributing it among small peasants. This initial reform redistributed 155,000 hectares from 19,355 relatively large farms to 70,211 small farms and landless households.22,23

    The second phase in the 1950s reorganised this land into large-scale collective farms, with the 1976 constitution establishing ‘state and collective ownership over most of agricultural land’. By 1970, more than 95% of agricultural land was cultivated by cooperative or state farms, with private ownership limited to a maximum of 1,100 square meters per household. After 1991, following the fall of communism, land was again redistributed among private smallholders.24,25

    East Germany’s Bodenreform

    East Germany implemented the Bodenreform (land reform) beginning in 1945 under Soviet military administration. This program was ‘in line with the land reforms which had been implemented in all states in Central and Eastern Europe conquered by the Soviet army’. The reform expropriated all farms cultivating 100 hectares or more, with owners forced to leave their farms entirely and relocate at least 20-50 kilometres away.26,27

    The implementation was swift and harsh, with expropriated families given only hours to leave and allowed to take only personal items in a rucksack. The process was accompanied by ‘heavy political pressure and reprisals,’ and all cadastral register files were destroyed to prevent future property claims. The reform redistributed land to agricultural workers, small-scale farmers, and refugees, fundamentally altering the social and economic structure of rural East Germany.28

    Southeast Asian Communist Programs

    North Korea’s Comprehensive System

    North Korea established one of the most complete systems of state land control through its Land Reform Law of March 5, 1946. Initially, the law expropriated land from Japanese and Korean landlords possessing more than 50,000 square meters, distributing it free to tenant farmers. However, between 1954-1958, collective farming was implemented, ending individual land ownership entirely.29,30

    Today, North Korea maintains absolute state ownership of all land. The country’s socialist system ensures that ‘all land is owned by the state’ with ‘private ownership of land not permitted’. Individuals or organisations may be granted land use rights, but these can be revoked or altered by the state at any time. This represents one of the most enduring examples of complete land nationalisation.31,32

    Vietnam’s ‘Entire People Ownership’

    Vietnam developed a unique concept of land ownership through ‘entire people ownership’ where land is ‘owned by the entire people, managed by the State’. This system makes ‘the entire people of Vietnam collective landowners and the Vietnam State their representative’. The system was first implemented in North Vietnam in 1954 and extended to the entire country after reunification in 1975.33,34,35,36

    Unlike other socialist systems, Vietnam maintains this collective ownership model even today, though it allows marketable land use rights within a ‘robust market economy’. The system represents a theoretical attempt to maintain public ownership while permitting market mechanisms for land use.37

    Cambodia Under the Khmer Rouge

    Cambodia experienced perhaps the most extreme example of property abolition under the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975-1979. The Khmer Rouge completely ‘abolished the right of individuals to possess land, nationalised the entire agricultural domain and collectivised all means of production’. The regime destroyed all land records and property documentation, creating lasting confusion about land ownership that persists today.38,39,40,41

    The Khmer Rouge’s approach was totalitarian, involving forced urbanisation where city dwellers were relocated to rural collective farms and all private property was eliminated. This radical transformation contributed to the death of an estimated 1.7 million people and left Cambodia with a legacy of land conflicts that continue decades later.42,43,44

    African Socialist Experiments

    Tanzania’s Ujamaa Villagisation

    Tanzania implemented the Ujamaa policy under President Julius Nyerere beginning in 1967, which involved comprehensive land reorganisation through forced ‘villagisation’. The program moved 80-90% of the rural population into collective villages, with at least five million Tanzanians forcibly relocated in ‘the largest forced resettlement scheme undertaken in independent Africa up to that time’.45,46,47

    The Ujamaa villages were structured with homes arranged in rows around a central complex of school and town hall, surrounded by communal agricultural farms. Each household received about an acre for individual crops, but the majority of land was organised into collective production units. The policy had mixed results – achieving high literacy rates and improved access to healthcare and education, but causing agricultural production to decline significantly.48,49,50

    Ethiopia’s Derg Land nationalisation

    Ethiopia implemented comprehensive land nationalisation in 1975 under the military socialist Derg regime. The policy involved ‘seizure of land holdings over 10 hectares and subsequent redistribution of the property to peasant farmers’. This ‘breakthrough land reform’ dismantled the landholding aristocracy and aimed to liberate tenants from feudal constraints.51,52

    The Ethiopian approach was radical even by socialist standards, as it ‘nationalised all rural land, abolished tenancy and put peasants in charge of enforcing the whole scheme’. The policy was implemented according to the slogan ‘Land to the Tiller’ and was considered ‘unequivocally radical, even in Soviet and Chinese terms’. However, like many forced collectivisation programs, it led to decreased agricultural productivity and contributed to widespread famine.53

    Implementation Methods and Common Patterns

    The research reveals several common patterns in how nation states abolished private land ownership. Most programs were implemented through decree or revolutionary law rather than gradual legislative processes. The Soviet Decree on Land (1917), Chinese Land Reform Movement (1950-1952), and Cuban Agrarian Reform Law (1959) exemplify this approach of rapid, comprehensive transformation.54,55,56

    Violence and coercion were common features of implementation. The Chinese Land Reform Movement involved mass killings of landlords, while Stalin’s collectivisation led to millions of deaths during the Ukrainian famine. The Khmer Rouge’s implementation was perhaps most extreme, involving complete social reorganisation and mass killings. Even less violent programs like Tanzania’s Ujamaa involved forced relocation and destruction of existing communities.57,58,59,60,61

    Ideological justification typically centred on eliminating feudalism, achieving social equality, or advancing socialist development. The Soviet approach emphasised creating ‘property of the whole people’, while China focused on breaking landlord power and supporting peasant interests. Tanzania’s Ujamaa was presented as returning to traditional African communal values.62,63,64

    Economic outcomes were generally negative in the short to medium term. Most programs experienced significant declines in agricultural productivity. Tanzania went from exporting surplus maize to requiring imports, while Soviet collectivisation contributed to widespread famine. Only a few countries like Cuba managed to maintain reasonable agricultural output during the transition.65,66,67

    Contemporary Status and Reversals

    The majority of countries that abolished private land ownership have since restored it, typically during democratic transitions in the 1980s and 1990s. The Soviet Union, Eastern European communist states, Albania, and Tanzania all re-established private land markets after regime changes[data analysis]. However, several countries maintain state or collective ownership systems today.

    China continues its state/collective ownership model, though it permits marketable use rights. Vietnam maintains ‘entire people ownership’ while allowing market mechanisms for land use. North Korea preserves complete state ownership with no private land rights. Cuba operates a mixed system combining state farms, cooperatives, and limited private holdings.68,69,70,71,72,73,74

    Ethiopia represents an interesting case where state ownership persists despite regime change, with the 1995 Constitution reiterating that land ‘is exclusively vested in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia’ and ‘shall not be subject to sale or to other means of exchange’.75

    Conclusion

    The abolition of private land ownership has been attempted by at least 15 major nation states, primarily under communist and socialist governments between 1917 and 1975. These experiments represent some of the most comprehensive social and economic transformations in modern history, affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide. While most were justified as means to achieve social equality and economic development, the implementation typically involved significant violence, coercion, and short-term economic disruption.

    The long-term legacy of these programs is mixed. Most countries have returned to private land ownership systems, suggesting that complete abolition of private property rights faces substantial practical challenges. However, a few countries like China and Vietnam have developed hybrid systems that maintain state ownership while permitting market mechanisms. The historical record demonstrates that while land nationalisation can be implemented through state power, sustaining such systems over time requires either continued authoritarian control or adaptation toward mixed ownership models that accommodate both public and private interests.

    767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222

    ⁂
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country ↩
    2. https://www.britannica.com/money/collectivisation ↩
    3. https://www.britannica.com/money/collectivisation ↩
    4. https://www.thecollector.com/collectivisation-ussr-how-did-it-work/ ↩
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country ↩
    6. https://www.britannica.com/money/collectivisation ↩
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement ↩
    8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_law_in_China ↩
    9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement ↩
    10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_law_in_China ↩
    11. https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/global-corporate-real-estate-guide/asia-pacific/china/topics/real-estate-law ↩
    12. https://hic-net.org/chinas-land-law-an-overview/ ↩
    13. https://www.lehmanlaw.com/resource-centre/faqs/real-property/is-it-correct-that-china-does-not-allow-private-ownership-of-real-property.html ↩
    14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement ↩
    15. https://cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news/article/4232/the-agrarian-reform-the-first-law-of-the-revolution ↩
    16. https://themilitant.com/2022/06/04/cuban-farmers-celebrate-1959-agrarian-reform-revolution/ ↩
    17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_reforms_in_Cuba ↩
    18. https://themilitant.com/2022/06/04/cuban-farmers-celebrate-1959-agrarian-reform-revolution/ ↩
    19. https://cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news/article/4232/the-agrarian-reform-the-first-law-of-the-revolution ↩
    20. https://cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news/article/4232/the-agrarian-reform-the-first-law-of-the-revolution ↩
    21. https://themilitant.com/2022/06/04/cuban-farmers-celebrate-1959-agrarian-reform-revolution/ ↩
    22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Albania ↩
    23. https://www.irwirpan.waw.pl/angielski/conference2014/8_Qineti_When_land_markets_do_not_work_and_status-quo_agrarian_structures_persist_A_case_study_from_rural_Albania.pdf ↩
    24. https://www.irwirpan.waw.pl/angielski/conference2014/8_Qineti_When_land_markets_do_not_work_and_status-quo_agrarian_structures_persist_A_case_study_from_rural_Albania.pdf ↩
    25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Albania ↩
    26. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/83981/1/766253864.pdf ↩
    27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Germany ↩
    28. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/83981/1/766253864.pdf ↩
    29. https://www.dailynk.com/english/collective-or-farmer-land-ownershi/ ↩
    30. https://www.nkeconwatch.com/category/policies/1946-land-reform-law/ ↩
    31. https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/transfer-of-property-act-at-north-korea ↩
    32. https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/property-law-in-north-korea ↩
    33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_farming ↩
    34. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4666344 ↩
    35. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/alr/vol19/iss1/1/ ↩
    36. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=alr ↩
    37. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4666344 ↩
    38. https://news.trust.org/item/20161129150343-7435k/ ↩
    39. https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cambodia0.htm ↩
    40. https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/25/world/asia/cambodia-property-development-controversy ↩
    41. https://www.foncier-developpement.fr/wp-content/uploads/Country-profile-6_Cambodia_VF.pdf ↩
    42. https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cambodia0.htm ↩
    43. https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/25/world/asia/cambodia-property-development-controversy ↩
    44. https://news.trust.org/item/20161129150343-7435k/ ↩
    45. https://retrospectjournal.com/2024/10/27/hector-le-luel-legacies-of-ujamaa/ ↩
    46. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujamaa ↩
    47. https://africanarguments.org/2020/12/tanzania-remembering-ujamaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-buried/ ↩
    48. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujamaa ↩
    49. https://africanarguments.org/2020/12/tanzania-remembering-ujamaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-buried/ ↩
    50. https://retrospectjournal.com/2024/10/27/hector-le-luel-legacies-of-ujamaa/ ↩
    51. https://www.iss.nl/en/media/2023-10-28-sept-2023-moges-banti-rrushes5-working-paper-final ↩
    52. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derg ↩
    53. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derg ↩
    54. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country ↩
    55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement ↩
    56. https://cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news/article/4232/the-agrarian-reform-the-first-law-of-the-revolution ↩
    57. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement ↩
    58. https://www.britannica.com/money/collectivisation ↩
    59. https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cambodia0.htm ↩
    60. https://www.foncier-developpement.fr/wp-content/uploads/Country-profile-6_Cambodia_VF.pdf ↩
    61. https://africanarguments.org/2020/12/tanzania-remembering-ujamaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-buried/ ↩
    62. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujamaa ↩
    63. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country ↩
    64. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_Movement ↩
    65. https://www.britannica.com/money/collectivisation ↩
    66. https://cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news/article/4232/the-agrarian-reform-the-first-law-of-the-revolution ↩
    67. https://africanarguments.org/2020/12/tanzania-remembering-ujamaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-buried/ ↩
    68. https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/transfer-of-property-act-at-north-korea ↩
    69. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4666344 ↩
    70. https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/property-law-in-north-korea ↩
    71. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/alr/vol19/iss1/1/ ↩
    72. https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/global-corporate-real-estate-guide/asia-pacific/china/topics/real-estate-law ↩
    73. https://cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news/article/4232/the-agrarian-reform-the-first-law-of-the-revolution ↩
    74. https://hic-net.org/chinas-land-law-an-overview/ ↩
    75. https://ukgreencitiesandinfrastructure.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ICED-Ethiopia-land-administration-background-paper.pdf ↩
    76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13533312.2017.1358621 ↩
    77. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.5367/sear.2012.0102 ↩
    78. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bc1d1e0ad9a2d5b2bf9cc3d684bc5c782495d5c4 ↩
    79. http://choicereviews.org/review/10.5860/CHOICE.49-2841 ↩
    80. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joac.12155 ↩
    81. https://cdri.org.kh/publication/an-investigation-of-land-cover-and-land-use-change-in-stung-chrey-bak-catchment-cambodia ↩
    82. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d9e9e8796f70af40ae4ceb9870de47873aa6c0bd ↩
    83. https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/preview/5685494/LAWRENIUK A War of Houses EPD AAM.pdf ↩
    84. https://www.asianetworkexchange.org/article/id/7893/download/pdf/ ↩
    85. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/122/pdf ↩
    86. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/5/482/pdf ↩
    87. https://escholarship.org/content/qt8194188h/qt8194188h.pdf?t=p2otc5 ↩
    88. https://publishing.escholarship.umassmed.edu/jgr/article/id/577/download/pdf/ ↩
    89. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/76C4079B79EC17C7F9EA02CD23422F29/S0003055423000382a.pdf/div-class-title-state-terror-and-long-run-development-the-persistence-of-the-khmer-rouge-div.pdf ↩
    90. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244013491951 ↩
    91. https://www.mdpi.com/2313-5778/5/2/33/pdf ↩
    92. https://newmedit.ciheam.org/share/img_new_medit_articoli/574_11shundi.pdf ↩
    93. https://littera-scripta.com/land-reform-after-1945-the-inception-of-the-unsuccessful-collectivisation-in-the-german-democratic-republic/ ↩
    94. https://communistcrimes.org/en/erosion-private-property-albania-1943-1961 ↩
    95. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_East_Germany ↩
    96. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge ↩
    97. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People’s_Socialist_Republic_of_Albania ↩
    98. https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/munitions-of-the-mind/2016/11/23/propaganda-in-soviet-occupied-germany/ ↩
    99. https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/cambodia/origins-of-the-khmer-rouge ↩
    100. https://www.agter.org/bdf/en/corpus_chemin/fiche-chemin-75.html ↩
    101. https://www.deutschlandmuseum.de/en/history/calendar/1960-04-14-the-collectivisation-of-east-german-agriculture/ ↩
    102. https://asiapacificcurriculum.ca/learning-module/rise-and-fall-khmer-rouge-regime ↩
    103. https://memorie.al/en/unknown-documents-agrarian-reform-of-enver-hoxhas-government-in-the-46th-made-by-yugoslav-specialists-who-took-the-land-from-the-owners/ ↩
    104. https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/ilrev/vol9/iss1/4 ↩
    105. https://slamultitechpublisher.my.id/index.php/ijla/article/view/25 ↩
    106. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/47395ebe70b04f8397f7d3eac0f564e874b7714a ↩
    107. https://ijsr.internationaljournallabs.com/index.php/ijsr/article/view/903 ↩
    108. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03068374.2012.682771 ↩
    109. http://mcfarland.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.3172/NKR.5.1.75 ↩
    110. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/647792 ↩
    111. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3299849 ↩
    112. https://read.dukeupress.edu/journal-of-asian-studies/article/60/1/240/338371 ↩
    113. https://online.ucpress.edu/as/article/24/1/100/22003/North-Korea-in-1983-Transforming-The-Hermit ↩
    114. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/7/1301/pdf ↩
    115. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9276/pdf?version=1659323591 ↩
    116. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23311886.2024.2367259?needAccess=true ↩
    117. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/45EB595BD89540934AD849E2DA467945/S0026749X24000404a.pdf/div-class-title-cotton-capital-and-colonialism-in-southern-korea-1910-1945-semi-governmental-organisations-in-the-construction-of-imperial-agriculture-div.pdf ↩
    118. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/2A2F0406E417EC3F8807860F8487230E/S1744137423000188a.pdf/div-class-title-divergence-before-the-division-the-colonial-origins-of-separate-development-paths-in-korea-div.pdf ↩
    119. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/28FC775B81201EFE73F57028F575B86C/S1598240820000338a.pdf/div-class-title-embedded-and-autonomous-markets-in-north-korea-s-fishing-industry-resource-scarcity-monitoring-costs-and-evolving-institutions-div.pdf ↩
    120. http://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/ownership-regime-in-vietnams-post-1945-law-4382.html ↩
    121. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Derg ↩
    122. https://www.asiapress.org/rimjin-gang/2025/02/society-economy/farm/ ↩
    123. https://emerhub.com/vietnam/buying-property/ ↩
    124. https://www.britannica.com/place/Ethiopia/Socialist-Ethiopia-1974-91 ↩
    125. https://www.kjis.org/journal/view.html?uid=322&vmd=Full ↩
    126. http://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/land-ownership-and-land-use-rights-in-vietnams-contemporary-legislation-from-1945-to-the-present-4410.html ↩
    127. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/africa-since-1800/ethiopia-under-the-derg ↩
    128. https://sand.or.kr/kr/opinion/opinion.php?bgu=view&idx=23157 ↩
    129. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Vietnam ↩
    130. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/9/1746 ↩
    131. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/14/7/1998 ↩
    132. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150.2016.1197909 ↩
    133. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/25076f74d776c83d23cded551a73728d836d59e5 ↩
    134. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137421000746/type/journal_article ↩
    135. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/3985086 ↩
    136. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/af768825904a9827051825bc2a24a50321603f87 ↩
    137. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/187e41575e7c17f8cd92436fa851201ed2dc10ab ↩
    138. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781316658925%23CT-bp-8/type/book_part ↩
    139. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/36ea521b513bb619473bf2538a069aca85a8fd72 ↩
    140. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/7/pdf?version=1513857202 ↩
    141. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/123/pdf?version=1484556689 ↩
    142. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/888/pdf?version=1629875037 ↩
    143. https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/8/10/456/pdf?version=1571050168 ↩
    144. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/2/51/pdf ↩
    145. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0308518X231212974 ↩
    146. https://www.dlapiperrealworld.com/law/index.html?t=sale-and-purchase&s=ownership-of-real-estate&c=CN ↩
    147. https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/06/30/land-as-a-source-of-life-a-continental-reckoning-with-dispossession-and-struggle/ ↩
    148. https://cubaplatform.org/land-reform ↩
    149. https://d.lib.msu.edu/ajps/137 ↩
    150. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/cuba-begins-expropriating-foreign-property ↩
    151. https://www.roedl.com/insights/china-civil-code/part-2-property-law ↩
    152. https://www.lowimpact.org/posts/more-details-of-the-ujamaa-collective-village-system-in-tanzania-from-first-hand-experience/ ↩
    153. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution ↩
    154. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837717304593 ↩
    155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772655X25000151 ↩
    156. https://ppl-ai-code-interpreter-files.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/a5bf14cd14048f7e45b0f59dddc1c2d4/e5eb6f12-a748-4e2d-bea5-f2cfac934ca5/2f6d4602.csv

    157. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00213624.2018.1495989 ↩
    158. https://www.e3s-conferences.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346009022 ↩
    159. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-024-10590-3 ↩
    160. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b5d6f9c9e53938423f1d9df545ef6bf5a895e03b ↩
    161. https://knepublishing.com/index.php/KnE-Social/article/view/12936 ↩
    162. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/088ad32ca9ca88610233b9aea70665a0314376a4 ↩
    163. http://kgau.editorum.ru/en/nauka/article/85375/view ↩
    164. https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/economics-of-fish-farming-in-concrete-ponds-private-ownership-of-fish-farms-in-developing-countries-the-case-of-nigeria.pdf ↩
    165. https://www.ijrte.org/portfolio-item/C4405099320/ ↩
    166. http://jazindia.com/index.php/jaz/article/view/1862 ↩
    167. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/5/2/8/pdf?version=1459419386 ↩
    168. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/2/68/pdf ↩
    169. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/5/2/11/pdf?version=1461911475 ↩
    170. https://jwsr.pitt.edu/ojs/jwsr/article/download/487/499 ↩
    171. http://www.randwickresearch.com/index.php/rissj/article/download/214/145 ↩
    172. https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/2183 ↩
    173. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/4/773/pdf?version=1424776854 ↩
    174. https://www.bio-conferences.org/10.1051/bioconf/202411304014 ↩
    175. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/12/9114/pdf?version=1424779203 ↩
    176. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12055670/ ↩
    177. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalisations_by_country ↩
    178. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/land-reforms-by-country ↩
    179. https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S722-1.htm ↩
    180. https://explaininghistory.org/2023/03/28/stalins-policy-of-collectivisation-and-the-soviet-famines-a-historical-overview/ ↩
    181. https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/43v893/countries_where_land_cant_be_held_as_private/ ↩
    182. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1938/dec/14/land-nationalisation ↩
    183. https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/year-10/collectivisation/ ↩
    184. https://iea.org.uk/whose-land-is-it-anyway-land-ownership-and-property-rights-protection-in-albania/ ↩
    185. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsd68mn/revision/6 ↩
    186. https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch25.htm ↩
    187. https://www.britannica.com/money/nationalisation ↩
    188. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/collectivisation_in_the_Soviet_Union ↩
    189. https://fullfact.org/online/agenda-21-2030-edward-griffin/ ↩
    190. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nationalisation ↩
    191. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/land-reform-property-markets-russia/ ↩
    192. https://thenextsystem.org/history-of-nationalisation-in-the-us ↩
    193. http://dergipark.org.tr/tr/doi/10.32003/igge.1244859 ↩
    194. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S089765462300014X/type/journal_article ↩
    195. https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/ajis/article/view/7155 ↩
    196. https://wnus.edu.pl/ais/file/article/view/18683.pdf ↩
    197. http://journals.euser.org/index.php/ejes/article/view/430/419 ↩
    198. https://zenodo.org/record/4049706/files/jsp0624 ziyi .pdf ↩
    199. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11409089/ ↩
    200. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/2/51/pdf ↩
    201. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/1/166/pdf?version=1546567947 ↩
    202. http://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/download/17828/15433 ↩
    203. https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/ijrlp/article/download/6156/7129 ↩
    204. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/535/516 ↩
    205. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/2/88/pdf?version=1675942726 ↩
    206. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Soviet-law/Property ↩
    207. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8883011/ ↩
    208. https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/o4vxe5/what_exactly_does_the_abolition_of_private/ ↩
    209. https://www.savemyexams.com/igcse/history/cie/18/revision-notes/russia-1905-41/what-was-the-impact-of-stalins-economic-policies/why-did-stalin-introduce-collectivisation/ ↩
    210. https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uploads/2024/04/2225_1557_Ran_WP13TR1.pdf ↩
    211. https://www.cpusa.org/interact_cpusa/the-father-of/ ↩
    212. https://www.socialismrealised.eu/1950s-collectivisation-of-agriculture/ ↩
    213. https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/EAP/China/Urban-China-SRs4-7.pdf ↩
    214. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm ↩
    215. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716306706 ↩
    216. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism ↩
    217. https://www.chinalegalexperts.com/news/chinese-land-management-law ↩
    218. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/famine-and-oppression/ ↩
    219. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275118311922 ↩
    220. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03066150.2014.919265 ↩
    221. https://bsssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sum.13128 ↩
    222. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b8f26d8d41ba3ccd060791d90fb88d8971343a56 ↩
  • The Trial of Mungo Campbell

    The Trial of Mungo Campbell

    247-year-old murder case re-examined

    On the 26th February 1770, Mungo Campbell (57), Excise Officer from Saltcoats, was found guilty of the murder of Alexander Montgomerie, 10th Earl of Eglinton. Now, 247 years later, a Kilwinning historian who has spent forty years investigating the evidence surrounding the Earl’s death, may have uncovered new evidence that throws a different light on the actual events.

    Speaking at a public presentation last Wednesday, Jim Kennedy gave a detailed account of his investigations to an audience of around forty people at the Abbey Church Hall. And it’s not only local history buffs who share Jim’s interest in the murder of the Earl—Jim has recently been interviewed by Belgian TV for a programme about the life and death of the Earl. This is another sentence

    The popular version of the case is that on 24th October 1769, the 46-year-old Earl was shot in cold blood by Mungo Campbell when he had been caught poaching on Eglinton’s lands at Montfode adjacent to Ardrossan’s North Shore. Jim displayed a wooden panel painted on one side with part of the Eglinton coat of arms, and on the other side the words: ‘This was the panel of the coach that Alexander Earl of Eglinton stepped out of in the year 1769 and was instantly shot by Mungo Campbell, Gauger’.

    According to Jim, Campbell was certainly a Gauger (an Excise Man), but the plaque simply perpetuates a myth: “The Earl was not in his carriage and the incident had nothing to do with poaching; nor had it been a random meeting between the two men.”

    Jim described how there had been bad blood between the pair as a result of Campbell having arrested the Earl’s favourite servant, Alexander Bartleymore, when he had caught him smuggling rum ashore some months earlier. Bartleymore had escaped punishment—most likely as a result of the Earl’s intervention. It was Bartleymore who informed the Earl that he had seen Campbell carrying a gun on the Earl’s land and urged the Earl to action.

    Campbell was not alone that morning; he was in the company of John Brown, the Tide Officer at Saltcoats. The pair had gone hunting on the grounds adjacent to the Earl’s estate with the permission of the owner. They had caught nothing and so made their way to the beach where the Montfode Burn joins the shore, briefly crossing Eglinton’s land on the way. It was there that the Earl, mounted on his horse, and accompanied by five servants, confronted Campbell and demanded that he hand over his rifle.

    Campbell declined and argued that he had the right to carry a gun and that he had not been poaching on the Earl’s land. The Earl persisted in his demands while repeatedly nudging his horse forward forcing Campbell to back up towards the sea. Eglinton ordered a servant to bring him a pistol, and now armed, dismounted and pointed the gun at Campbell saying: ‘So you would shoot me? I’m as good a shot as you’.

    Campbell, ignoring his friend John Brown’s pleas to give in to the Earl, continued to retreat backwards before tripping over a rock and falling to the ground. The Earl saw this as his chance to seize Campbell’s gun, but before he could grab it Campbell pulled the trigger and hit the Earl in the bowels.

    The Earl died of his wounds early in the following morning. Campbell was incarcerated, badly beaten, in Irvine before being transferred to Edinburgh to stand trial on the charge of murder.

    Jim revealed that during his research he had found a witness statement mentioning that Campbell had been heard stating in a Saltcoats tavern a few weeks before the incident that he ‘…would never give up his gun to Eglinton’. If the Earl had had knowledge of this it would perhaps explain why he was so keen to challenge Campbell, and certainly, such a statement repeated at Mungo’s trial would be damning. But Jim went on to warn that this may mislead us into believing that the two men were simply spoiling for a fight when in fact it should help us understand the level of civil unrest that was simmering amongst ordinary Scots at that time. Jim explained that only 46 people in Ayrshire had the vote in those days and that there was enormous dissatisfaction at this lack of representation. Campbell’s overheard comment was most probably typical of the thoughts of many people at the time who resented the injustices of the feudal system and the game laws. Eglinton and the rest of the landowning class would have been highly sensitive to any signs of rebellion in the community.

    During his research Jim has discovered that Mungo Campbell had received a surprising level of support from several influential people of the time. As well as being represented by three of Scotland’s top lawyers, he also had the support of James Boswell the biographer of Samuel Johnson. Boswell’s support is all the more surprising since he himself was a close friend of the Eglinton family. Jim suggested that the unusual mix of allies Campbell had found around him might show that the sense of injustice felt by the common man also extended into the educated middle classes.

    As comforting as all this influential support may have been for Campbell it was to be of little help in the end. On the day of the verdict the, the courtroom candle which had been lit at the start of the trial was snuffed out, and Mungo Campbell was sentenced to death by hanging, his body to be dissected. When asked if he had anything to say, Campbell replied: ‘I have never thought that the outcome should be other than it is’.

    But Campbell was to cheat the hangman. Before the day of his execution he was found hanging from a silk scarf tied to the rafters in his cell. His body was taken away and buried only to be dug and mutilated by an angry mob who felt they had been cheated out of a show.

    Jim says: “Discussion of the Earl’s murder the community persisted both within Ayrshire and beyond for many years to follow.

    “It was the equivalent of ‘where were you the day JFK was shot?’ for our generation.”

    For years afterwards there were rumours that Campbell had not hung himself but had escaped, or had been helped to escape. Some people even claimed to have seen him alive and well in Saltcoats some time after the trial.

    Jim will soon be publishing his book The Earl and the Excise Man in which he presents his findings in much greater detail than he was able to during his talk. The presentation was organised by Kilwinning Heritage who are keen to recruit new members and anyone who may be interested in joining can find out more by visiting their website: kilwinningheritage.org.