Farm structure change in New Zealand and implications for policy

Abstract

Two broad arguments are employed to justify proposals for a government sponsored closer settlement policy. The first argument involves testing three different theories of social policy against the pattern of New Zealand land policy history. The social democrat position appears most relevant to New Zealand land policy and offers one way of achieving justice in land ownership distribution using an active government role. The second argument involves an analysis of property rights and the costs and benefits of farm enlargement. It is concluded that non land owners may be able to make a justifiable claim against land owners who enlarge and generate adverse economic and social consequences for the surrounding community. It is also concluded that land policy should have as a major objective the goal of distributing land ownership among many people. Finally, a range of policy options is presented which involve both positive steps to achieve closer settlement and restrictions which would prevent land aggregation.