There is a need, especially in a number of the developing countries, for extensive agrarian reforms because there are such great discrepancies between the existing agrarian structures and what is required for socioeconomic development to take place that comprehensive and radical measures would be necessary in order to bridge the gap. This is why the subject "agrarian reforms" is usually discussed in connection with developing countries.

This, however, should not lead to the belief that the industrial countries have no agrarian problems. If despite this fact agrarian reforms are hardly ever mentioned in the context of industrial countries, it is mainly due to two factors. Firstly, the problems are not primarily such as would demand a change in land ownership and thus call for an agrarian reform in its narrow sense. Moreover, the instruments and institutions that are available in the industrial countries often make it possible to take the necessary measures step by step without necessitating sweeping reforms. It is true that such adaptions are in some cases either undertaken only hesitatingly, or not at all; However, the fact that the agrarian sectors are generally quite small makes it possible for the industrial countries to neglect undertaking the necessary measures on the basis of political or other grounds because the overall economy is in a position to pay the cost of this, sometimes, irrational behaviour.

This cannot cover up the fact that the agrarian question has led, in some cases, to considerable and constantly growing problems in the industrial countries and that the measures undertaken to solve them have an influence on the conditions in the developing countries. For these reasons, an outlook will be drawn up here without any claim to being complete and comprehensive in order to show a few essential problems in the relationship between man and land in the industrial countries.

One very important difference in comparison to the developing countries is the fact that, most cases, the agricultural sector in the present industrial countries developed after industrialization had taken place. This was possible because at the beginning of industrialization the population density was comparatively low, food imports were available to meet any deficiencies, and, finally, emigration overseas functioned as a blowoff valve when the pressure became too strong. At the beginning of industrialization, economic and psychological factors led to an exodus of labour from agriculture that in Germany, for example has continued until today. Agriculture tried to compensate for the shortage of manpower, whichhbad always existed in a few overseas countries, with migrant workers and, soon thereafter, mechanization. This process which had already taken place in other countries and on the large farms before the Second Warld War also spread to the small farms after the war. Thus agriculture was faced with a new obligation; it had to pay the cost of mechanization. Furthermore, the exodus from agriculture could only be stopped by satisfying not only the income expectations of the agricultural labourers (which were based on industrial wages), but of the farmers' sons as well.

The way to do this was to increase production and productivity in the process of commercializing agriculture. To be a farmer was no longer a way of life, but an occupation. Rational considerations determined the management of the farm and resulted in a division of labour, specialization, and cooperation among the farms, or even in the decision to give up agriculture if the farm area was too small. In addition to mechanization, intensifying agriculture brought about increased utilization of new, technologies, especially fertilizers, pesticides, and high quality seeds, etc. These farm inputs are of industrial origin and must, therefore, be purchased. This results in an increases interlacing of agriculture and the non agricultural sectors and, thus, increased dependence. Those farms,in particular, with highly qualified managers, good soil conditions, and a favourable market position achieved astounishing increases in productivity and income in this process.

The process, however, did not take place without having side effects that caused problems, or at least raised some questions. In the course of this process of adaption, quite a few farms were ruined. A lack of land, unfavourable natural conditions, disadvantageous market positions, and inadequate managing abilities forced some farm managers to give up, or impelled the successors to turn to another occupation. Thus, between 1950 and 1980 the number of farms in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 50%. Other industrial countries went through a similar development In particular, a large number of farms with less than 20 hectares of land at their disposal stopped operations and, thus, made it possible for other farms to increase the size of their cultivable area. All in all, this process was taken in step fairly well as it took place at a time when industry was booming. Still, this should not hide the fact that the process caused a great deal of suffering and misery in concrete, individual cases.

The increases in farm size made it possible, on the average, to meet the growing income expectations. Considerable differences, however, developed within agriculture itself. In some regions-particularly mountainous regions-the unfavourable natural conditions set narrow limits to efforts to increase productivity and incomes. Since there are only few non- agricultural job opportunities in some of these regions, large sections of the population migrated to urban centres, which resulted in entire regions becoming depleted. As it was usually the young, active sections of the population that migrated, whereas the old people remained, this also led to further deterioration of the economic and social structures.

Likewise, the price-cost ratio made it possible for some types of farms to earn astoundingly high incomes, wheras others conversely earned only way below average incomes. Individual performance, market position, and varying effects of government price and subsidizing policies have led to considerable disparities with agriculture in other words, to large differences in income among the farms.

Finally, among the forms of unsuitable agrarian structures that should also be mentioned are, in particular, the widespread types of tenancy found in the countries of Southern Europe as well as the employment of inexpensive alien employees and migrant workers in agriculture in Europe and the USA.

Despite all of the structural changes and intensification of agriculture, the income earned in large sections of agriculture was unsatisfactory and was raised by state subsidies to promote income. These measures, which can be found in one form or another in nearly all industrial countries (in Germany, agriculturists had at one time a legal right to compensation that raised their income to the level of comparative non-agricultural wages) improved the incomes of many farmers, it is true; however, at the same time they created new problems. Agriculture has became a dependent section of the overall economy which regards demands for price increases as a nuisance. Many of the subsidies have furthermore led to unintended sideeffects. The most important in this context is overproduction. The subsidized prices were so attractive to many producers that they resulted in production increases that surpassed the demand. The outcome was additional expenses for storing these products and, in some cases, further subsidies in order to promote marketing outside the country. Larger surpluses, especially in cereals, led to the development of a systematic policy of cereal exports and food aid to the countries of the Third World. This is, in some cases, often a blessing and prevents hunger in countries that do not produce an adequate supply of food. Too often, though, the food deliveries cause a decline in the recipient countries' efforts to raise their own production. Certainly, this would mean a long, costly process in concrete cases. But wouldn't the production in some of the developing countries also be higher if they were granted the same arount of aid to use to increase their production that is otherwise given in the industrial countries? At least there is the danger that price subsidies granted for the purpose of raising agricultural income in the industrial countries might in the end prevent the desired domestic production in the developing countries from taking place.

On the other hand, pressure to continue high production policies in the industrial countries also comes from another side. To an increasing extent, maximum yields are not only the product of efforts made in agriculture itself, but also the result of prior and subsequent services performed by industry and the service sector. These sectors apply pressure to increase the employment of inputs and services in order to enhance their own econanic success. This can easily be too much. Exaggerated usage of pesticides and weed killers has detrimental effects an the environment and health. Additives in feed may have negative effects on quality or even endanger health. Breeding cannot only increase susceptibility and, thus, risk, but also reduces the variety of types. Peasant agriculture has indeed proved its sense of responsibility, but regarded globally and particularly in the case of commercial forms of agriculture, the dangers cannot be denied.

The increased interdependence between the sectors not only makes agriculture dependent, but it also reduces the amount of land available to agriculture. The necessary transport network and industrial sites, dwelling places and recreational areas for the non-agricultural population reduce agricultural land to a considerable extent In the Federal Republic of Germany, the area of land under cultivation shrank between 1949 and 1976 by 900,000 hectares. It should be mentioned, however, that this includes substandard land first cultivated during the war.

The new functions the rural areas fulfil in an industrial society also create new tasks. More and more townspeople prefer a home in the country and commute to their place of work. Furthermore, the rural areas are becoming recreation areas for the urban population, a role that can only be fulfilled as long as the countryside is protected and preserved. These tasks also have consequences for the agrarian structure and farming.

Recently, an additional question has arisen. To a considerable extent, the great increases in production are dependent upon the utilization of fossil fuels. Tractors, fuel, fertilizer, and pesticides would not be available without oil. Even if there is enough oil in the future, the prices will increase drastically. This will lead, without fail, to considerable increases in the price of agricultural products. It will be possible in the industrial countries to burden the consumer with these price increases. Is this also true of the surplus production that is marketed commercially in, subsidized,or granted as aid to the developing countries? From what point on is it sensible and desirable to invest the same means in the developing countries?

Under the right conditions, the same amount of capital could lead to a greater increase in production, while at the sane time being produced where it will be consumed. What consequences would this have for the domestic food supply in times of crisis?

The goal of this short outlook is not to say that all of the circumstances described above must, can, or should be changed. The aim is just to raise questions and, thus, indicate that in the industrial countries as well, the constant changes in the economic, social and political conditions necessitate continual reconsideration of the relationships between man, land, capital and technology.