Reforms or structural changes?
From
Havana
By
Manuel Alberto Ramy
Idle
land, land invaded by the marabú weed, or land deficiently
exploited can be turned over to new and/or producers. So says
Decree-Law No. 259, which regulates the transfer of land for
usufruct, and which has been published in all of the nation’s media.
The
condition of usufructuary is personal and cannot be transferred,
except when the land holder becomes incapacitated; he can then
propose a new usufructuary from among the people who have worked with
him.
From
Havana Read Spanish Version
Reforms
or structural changes?
By
Manuel Alberto Ramy
Idle
land, land invaded by the marabú weed, or land deficiently
exploited can be turned over to new and/or producers. So says
Decree-Law No. 259, which regulates the transfer of land for
usufruct, and which has been published in all of the nation’s media.
The
condition of usufructuary is personal and cannot be transferred,
except when the land holder becomes incapacitated; he can then
propose a new usufructuary from among the people who have worked with
him.
The
granting of land is applied to the different forms of property and
production — state farms, cooperatives and individual producers
benefit from the decree.
For
natural persons, possession of the land granted in usufruct will
initially last 10 years, with successive extensions of 10 years each,
in other words, practically for life. In the case of judicial persons
(state farms and cooperatives), the usufruct period is 25 years, with
a subsequent extension of 25 years.
One
of the articles of the decree-law stipulates that "the area to
be delivered to each usufructuary, either a natural or legal person,
is determined by the possibilities for a labor force, resources for
production, the type of farm production to which the land will be
put, and the productive capacity of the ground." The law
establishes 13.42 hectares as the maximum limit for natural persons;
those who already own land "of their own or in usufruct, can
expand [that land] up to 40.26 hectares."
After
a first reading, and speaking as an amateur on the topic (I shall
soon interview an expert), the delivery of land does not seem to be
intended for any specific type of production directed from above,
i.e., "verticalism." The legal jargon says that the land
"shall be used in a rational and sustainable manner, according
to the land’s suitability for agricultural production." Note the
decisive presence of specialized technical opinion.
Another
interesting aspect, which raises a question, appears in Article 11,
dealing with who can obtain land in usufruct. Item (d) refers to
"other legal persons, constituted according to law, who are
authorized as an exception […]" What legal persons are
referred to in this exceptional authorization? Does item (d) open a
window to likely foreign investments in the farm sector? This is not
a specious question, because the national
legal persons are already contemplated in the decree-law.
The
decree-law inaugurates the payment of taxes by national producers,
which until now was applied only to the so-called "self-employed
workers." For years, the payment of taxes was a topic for
profound meditation in the political leadership of this country, but
it was always discarded. Earlier this year, Cubans who work in joint
ventures and receive bonuses in hard currency were told to pay taxes
in accordance with a graduated scale. Now, it’s the farmers’ turn.
Surprised?
Raúl
Castro had suggested tax collection and had defined it as a
regulative element. The imposition of taxes is within sight;
presumably will be gradual and will be associated with gradual
increases in wages and income from overproduction.
On
July 26, 2007, then-provisional president Raúl Castro in a
speech announced modest structural changes, as well as changes in
mentality and style of work. He emphasized the farm sector, which he
defined as an issue of national security, and told of measures such
as the granting of land, which now becomes law. First, however, the
municipalities must be turned into the axis, or pivot, for farm
production, a measure that is certainly a decentralization. This
experience (which is still too recent for proper assessment) will be
applied in the drafting of housing plans, which hereafter will be the
task of the municipalities. The reality lies in the productive bases
— the people whose incentive will be the wages paid according to
productivity — and in the primary nuclei of the administrative
organization — the municipalities. Obviously, these are realistic
proposals.
The
preceding shows an economic corollary based on administrative and
planning rationality. By including the bases, it tends to limit (like
it or not) the political power of the bureaucracy and must have a
positive influence on the ranks of government structure.
We
should not be surprised — and I repeat what I said in previous
writings — that by the end of 2008 the restructuring of the State’s
Central Administration (ministries and other autonomous
organizations) is carried out on the basis of rationality in the
quest for greater agility and efficiency.
Reforms?
Structural changes?
We
mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the changes, apparently isolated,
respond to an integral concept and that the decentralization measures
in one area have an impact on other areas. More specifically (and
this is a concern that I have noticed in many people, especially
among intellectuals) are these reforms or structural changes? I am
not an expert on the subject, but the existing reforms and the
structural changes are intimately related. What happens in one will
resound in the other. The rest consists of deciding where to begin,
whether with structural changes or reforms, whether in the complex of
relationships that sustain the institutions or by making sensible
alterations in the institutions, which after all are the visible body
of the relationships.
Both
options show deficits and benefits that would either increase or
decrease according to how wise the decision was. And the decision
will always be political and obviously takes into account the
delicate situation of the domestic economy and the criticism that
will come from the rest of the world. What’s inescapable is that the
transformations must be made from, by, and for socialism and for the
specific benefit of all Cubans.
So
far, and I say this based on the actions and decisions made, the
process has begun with a structural change in the farm sector, but
the primary element is the aggregate of reforms that have been
implemented and other reforms that evidently will come, such as the
imposition of taxes.
Is
a full structural turn — something some outstanding specialists
favor, whose benefits and possible repercussions would be gradual —
the most opportune step? Or would it be more appropriate to gradually
apply reforms that — departing from an integral vision of this stage
and with long-range previsions — modify the structures until a
complete changeover occurs? I have always said that we’re looking at
a process that, like rockets, moves in stages and has been launched
by the nation’s political leadership.
I
am not a specialist and don’t have the information that is required
for a full answer. But the actions taken by the leadership in
accordance with their perception of reality and the relative
importance of the pressing issues tell me that the road leads from
reforms to structural changes, not the opposite.
Manuel
Alberto Ramy is Havana bureau chief of Radio Progreso Alternativa and
editor of Progreso Semanal, the Spanish-language version of Progreso
Weekly.
