Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.com) -- The earth is not just the territory on which we live. It is the basis of our existence, a source of food, water, energy and other vital resources.

But land is also a limited resource that must be used wisely and fairly.

How should we use this priceless gift?

How to distribute land among people so that it brings maximum benefit to everyone? What factors should be taken into account? And how can we distinguish successful land reforms from those that are doomed to failure? The answers to these complex questions are not always simple.

That is why the Institute of Macroeconomic and Regional Studies began researching the experience of countries around the world.

We will study different models of land distribution, analyze their advantages and disadvantages, and develop recommendations that will help you make the right choice.

Experience of land reforms in Egypt and Hungary.

The main goal of land reform in Egypt was the elimination of the layer of large landowners.

In 1952, the country passed Law No. 178, which established limits on land ownership and limited rents. At the same time, large landowners received compensation for excess land in the form of government bonds.

The government has created cooperatives for farmers with less than 5 feddans (2.1 hectares).

As a result, the reform led to a reduction in the rural poverty rate in Egypt from 56.1% in 1951 to 23.8% in 1965. In addition, access to education, which is seen as an important asset (human capital), has improved.

In 1945, Hungary introduced a reform designed to disperse land previously owned by large landowners. The expropriation of estates allowed the redistribution of about 3 million hectares of land to small farmers and landless workers.

Cooperatives and state farms took control of most agricultural land, reaching 86% by 1966. However, in Hungary, socialist reform did not lead to the complete elimination of private ownership of agricultural land.

In 1991, the Compensation Act was passed, providing for payments to former landowners in the form of vouchers.

In addition to compensation to former landowners, land was distributed to current user groups, such as landless members of cooperatives and workers (employees) of cooperatives and state farms.

In Hungary, land reform resulted in a highly fragmented ownership structure, often with relatively small plots divided into long, thin strips.

Land leasing has become widespread; 59% of agricultural land in 2005 was rented.