Land is more than an economic asset; it has historically shaped social structures and power dynamics. Across the world, land ownership has been a critical factor in defining economic stability, political power and social mobility. However, land reforms have often faced resistance from elites, loopholes in legislation and poor implementation. Past policies continue to influence present land governance, making meaningful reforms difficult to achieve. Analyzing land policies in the United States, Nepal, India and England reveals recurring challenges such as institutional failures, demographic pressures and agrarian struggles that obstruct fair land distribution.
Land is also an instrument of social control, often manipulated by ruling classes to maintain economic dominance. In countries where land reforms have been attempted, the most significant obstacles have been corruption, elite influence and the challenge of balancing modernization with traditional land rights. The experiences of different nations provide important lessons for Nepal as it attempts to navigate its own land reform policies.
Reforms amid controversy
The Government of Nepal recently introduced an ordinance amending multiple land-related acts, including the Land Act (2021), National Parks Act (2029) and Forest Act (2076). The ordinance aims to regulate real estate development, public land use and forest management while addressing encroachment and ownership disputes. The key provisions focus on allowing licensed real estate companies to develop and sell land within specified limits, protecting public and indigenous lands, and legalizing certain settlements for landless communities. It also revises land classifications, including religious forest areas, and reclassifies encroached lands under national park and forest regulations without affecting local ownership rights, among others.
The government has argued that the ordinance is necessary to bring structure and clarity to Nepal’s chaotic land governance system. The ordinance, it says, is intended to prevent illegal land encroachment, promote responsible development and ensure fair land distribution. However, the ordinance has sparked intense political debate. Opposition parties have criticized its provisions, leading to delays in tabling for parliamentary approval. Critics argue that the ordinance prioritizes commercial interests over the rights of landless communities and marginalized groups. There are also concerns about its implementation, as previous land laws have often been undermined by bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption.
The ministry holds the authority to issue directives for the ordinance’s implementation, but concerns remain over its potential misuse and long-term impact on land distribution. If not managed carefully, there is a risk that the ordinance could deepen existing inequalities rather than resolve them. The government must ensure transparency in enforcement and address the concerns of those who stand to be affected by the reforms.
Federal vs state conflicts
The US land policies, as analyzed by Paul W Gates (1976), show how land privatization shifted from federal control, enabling monopolization and speculation. The Land Ordinance of 1785 established structured ownership, but Alexander Hamilton’s 1790 policies allowed large-scale speculation. The Homestead Act of 1862, meant for small farmers, was misused by elites to amass land. Similar conflicts between federal and state land management in the US reflect Nepal’s current struggles in implementing fair land policies.
The lessons from the US show that without stringent enforcement, well-intended land policies can lead to unintended consequences. The dominance of wealthy landowners and real estate speculators can stifle opportunities for small farmers and vulnerable populations. Nepal’s government must be cautious in ensuring that the ordinance does not enable similar trends.
Population Growth and Land Pressure in Nepal
The research by Hrabovszky and Miyan (1987) highlights how rapid population growth has increased land fragmentation, resource depletion and deforestation in Nepal. The population doubled from 8.3m in 1951 to 16.7m in 1985, intensifying competition for limited arable land. The ‘Great Turnabout’ migration, where people moved from the mountains to the Tarai plains, led to increased land-use conflicts and encroachment. This demographic pressure remains a central issue in Nepal’s land governance today.
As Nepal’s population continues to grow, the pressure on land resources is expected to escalate. Unchecked migration and informal settlements are likely to increase unless there is a comprehensive strategy to balance population distribution and land development. The land ordinance must consider long-term demographic trends to prevent further degradation of natural resources and ensure sustainable land use.
India’s struggle with reforms
Koshy (1974) discusses how India’s land reform efforts were undermined by legal loopholes that allowed landlords to evade land ceilings. Nayak (2013) examines the National Land Records Modernization Program (NLRMP), which improved transparency through digitization but shifted the focus away from redistribution toward market efficiency. This led to increased commercialization of land, leaving small farmers vulnerable. Nepal faces similar risks if land reforms prioritize market forces over equitable distribution.
The Indian experience serves as a warning for Nepal, demonstrating that modernization without addressing fundamental inequalities can worsen land-related disparities. Nepal must be careful in ensuring that legal loopholes do not allow wealthy landowners to consolidate even more land under the new ordinance.
Influence of absentee landlords
Melton (1978) explores absentee land ownership in 17th century England, where estates were managed remotely by financial trustees. The case of the second Duke of Buckingham demonstrates how non-residential landowners influenced agricultural wealth distribution. Nepal faces comparable challenges, with corporate landowners exerting control over vast areas, often at the expense of local farmers.
Absentee land ownership weakens local economies by diverting wealth away from agricultural communities. If Nepal’s land ordinance does not address this issue, it may perpetuate a system in which rural farmers remain economically disadvantaged while landowners benefit disproportionately from land-related profits.
Gender disparities and landlessness
Rajuladevi (2000) highlights the struggles of female agricultural laborers in Tamil Nadu, showing how caste and gender deepened economic marginalization. Dalit women faced lower wages and seasonal unemployment, reinforcing cycles of poverty. Nepal mirrors this trend, where women and marginalized groups often lack secure land rights, worsening their economic vulnerability.
Women’s land rights in Nepal remain a significant issue, as land inheritance laws and societal norms often prevent them from owning land. The new ordinance must actively promote gender-inclusive land policies to ensure women are not further excluded from land ownership opportunities.
Future of land reforms in Nepal
A global comparison of land policies illustrates challenges in achieving equitable land distribution highlighting that land governance remains a contentious issue. This comparative study reveals how historical institutionalism, agrarian transition theory and political ecology provide critical insights into the persistence of land inequalities
Nepal must learn from these experiences and implement a balanced approach that prioritizes fair land distribution, sustainable development and inclusive policies. The land ordinance must be carefully structured to prevent elite capture, promote rural development and address the needs of marginalized groups. Without a transparent and just system, the risk of perpetuating land inequality remains high.
Given land’s sensitive and historically contentious nature, the government must consult all stakeholders before proposing reforms. Such measures should be introduced as parliamentary bills, not ordinances, allowing full legislative debates before they become laws.
The government must ensure the ordinance’s effective enforcement and introduce mechanisms to monitor its long-term impact. Sustainable land management, community engagement and fair policies must be the foundation for Nepal’s land reforms. Only then can the country achieve a more just and equitable land distribution system for future generations.
