Editing Land reform (section)

===Arguments against===
Many of the arguments in support of land reform speak to its potentially positive social and economic outcomes. Yet, as mentioned previously, land reform is an intensely political process.<ref name="Boone, Catherine 2007" /> Thus, many of those opposed to land reform are nervous as to the underlying motivations of those initiating the reform. For example, some may fear that they will be disadvantaged or victimized as a result of the reforms. Others may fear that they will lose out in the economic and political power struggles (especially in under developed countries) that underlie many land reforms.<ref>[http://www.economist.com/node/16703331 "A chance to improve how Kenya is run." ''The Economist''. July 29, 2010]</ref>

Other groups and individuals express concerns about land reforms focused on formalization of property rights. While the economic and social benefits of formalized land rights are often touted, some research suggests that such reforms are either ineffective or may cause further hardship or conflict.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Deagle |first1=Joanna Emily |title=Land Regularisation in Vidigal, Rio de Janeiro - Was de Soto right? |journal=Brasiliana: Journal for Brazilian Studies |date=23 March 2015 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=264–296 |doi=10.25160/bjbs.v3i2.19857 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Musembi |first1=Celestine Nyamu |title=De Soto and Land Relations in Rural Africa: Breathing Life into Dead Theories about Property Rights |journal=Third World Quarterly |date=2007 |volume=28 |issue=8 |pages=1457–1478 |doi=10.1080/01436590701637334 |jstor=20455012 }}</ref>

Additional arguments against land reform focus on concerns over equity issues and potential [[elite capture]] of land, particularly in regards to reforms focused on greater land formalization. If improperly or inadequately implemented, critics worry that such reforms may further disadvantage marginalized groups such as indigenous communities or women.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Drimie |first1=S. |title=The impact of HIV/AIDS on land: case studies from Kenya, Lesotho and South Africa |journal=HSRC Review |date=18 May 2016 |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3 |hdl=20.500.11910/9657 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Varley |first1=Ann |title=Gender and Property Formalization: Conventional and Alternative Approaches |journal=World Development |date=October 2007 |volume=35 |issue=10 |pages=1739–1753 |doi=10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.06.005 }}</ref> These concerns also lead to questions about the institutional capacity of governments to implement land reforms as they are designed. Even if a country does have this capacity, critics worry that corruption and patrimonialism will lead to further [[elite capture]].<ref>{{cite book |title=Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook |date=2008 |publisher=World Bank Publications |isbn=978-0-8213-7588-4 }}{{pn|date=January 2025}}</ref>

In looking at more radical reforms, such as large-scale land redistribution, arguments against reform include concerns that redistributed land will not be used productively and that owners of expropriated land will not be compensated adequately or compensated at all. Zimbabwe, again, is a commonly cited example of the perils of such large-scale reforms, whereby land redistribution contributed to economic decline and increased food insecurity in the country.<ref>[http://www.economist.com/node/1201137?story_id=1201137 "From breadbasket to basket case." ''The Economist''. June 27, 2002]</ref> In cases where land reform has been enacted as part of [[socialism|socialist]] [[collectivization]], many of the arguments against collectivization more generally apply.