Files
Abstract
This work analyzes the retrospective assessments of East German farmers
about their experiences during the transition of collective farms in the German
Democratic Republic (GDR). This work focuses on how they performed the
re-organization of their respective farms and on the role of external advisors in
this process. Consequently this work is aimed at drawing lessons for transition
of the North Korean collective farms after unification of Korea (in particular
for the organization of advisory support) from these assessments.
A basic task in transition of the collective farms in the GDR consisted in setting
up basic institutional and legal conditions. However, the different positions and
opinions among the individual beneficiaries concerning the choice of organizational
forms (legal form) and the distribution of assets caused severe difficulties
in the transformation process.
The reconstitution of the private property rights in land was regarded as a
necessary prerequisite for agricultural development in East Germany. Although
this process was realized relatively smoothly due to available land registers,
about 20% of the former owners had difficulties in recovering their property
rights. On the other hand the regulation of the distribution of assets in collective
farms was introduced relatively late. The conflicts were thereby deepened
in the process of privatization of assets.
The rapid introduction of the market economic system exerted considerable
pressure on both collective farms and new private (family) farms. They had to
learn to operate in this new system quickly. Lack of knowledge concerning
the new market economic system was substantial. Therefore, advisory support
was much needed at the beginning of the transformation. The collective farm
managers needed even more knowledge than the new private farmers. Public
meetings, discussion forums and their study tours in West Germany satisfied
these needs. It was highly valued that the different variations were explained
in an unbiased and unprejudiced way. A regional preference made up with respect
to external advisors on which the agricultural producers finally listened to
when deciding on the transformation process. The East German farm managers
preferred East German advisors because the latter understood their historical
backgrounds well and paid attention to social aspects. On the other
hand, the farm managers were reluctant to listen to West German advisors and
to lose thereby influence on their companies. While the managers of transformed cooperatives preferred lawyers and advisors from East Germany, the farm managers
of business companies relied on West German advisors.
After the transformation most agricultural producers suffered from difficulties
like capital shortage, a reduction of employment, old debts, etc. Meeting these
difficulties required external support and, above all, the financial support of the
government.
With the help of the German experiences about the transition of collective
farms one can derive important lessons for the transformation of North Korean
collective farms. Although the North Korean transformation as well as the
reunification of Korea are not realized yet, the German experiences indicate
the measures that should be prepared for the future transformation of the
North Korean collective farms and particularly concerning the external advisory
support.
The reconstitution of the private property rights in land is necessary to overcome
the negative effects of the collective agriculture. But beyond that, success
of agricultural enterprise also depends on the active role of the farm management
and the social policy for the farmers.
With respect to the distribution of assets of the North Korean collective farms,
conflicts will be inevitable. So the suitable guidelines should be developed in
detail in order to decrease conflicts between the concerned persons.
Since the process of transformation of collective farms calls for considerable
advisory support, appropriate schemes of advisory activity should be developed.
The German experiences point to the fact that these activities should not ignore
the socialist character of the North Korean agriculture. No specific model for
the transformation of collective farms should be given priority. All options
must be offered within the scope of transformation. The agricultural advisory
system of South Korea will not be suitable for North Korean large-scale farm
structure. Therefore, a new system that is suitable for North Korean situation
should be introduced. At the same time new consultation facilities must be set
up in North Korea. The regional and cultural preference of advisors in Eastern
Germany show, how a quick establishment of an advisory system in North
Korea will matter. In North Korea farmers will suffer after the transformation
from similar difficulties like in Germany. Hence, it is important to outline
efficient support measures or a suitable aid program.
The German experiences of collective farms transition highlight the fact that
advice or support of the respective partner state should not serve the purpose
to transfer the agricultural structures of the stronger partner of the reunification
on a "one to one" basis. Instead, the available structures, priorities and the
wishes of the North Korean farmers should be taken into consideration.