The illusion of 'land to the tiller'

Ha Hyun-ock

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

“The state shall endeavor to realize the principle of ‘land to the tiller’ with respect to agricultural land, and tenant farming shall be prohibited.”

That is the principle enshrined in Article 121, Paragraph 1 of Korea’s Constitution. The idea that only those who farm land should own it became a hot topic over the Chuseok holiday because of the revised Farmland Act, which took effect Aug. 28.

Under the revised law, local governments can issue mandatory disposal orders for fields and paddies that their owners do not cultivate. If owners fail to sell within the one-year disposal period and then ignore an order without legitimate grounds, they can face an annual enforcement fine equal to 25 percent of the appraised value or officially assessed value after six months. In four years, the fines could exceed the land’s value.

President Lee Jae Myung invoked the land-to-the-tiller principle in tightening farmland rules. At a Feb. 24 Cabinet meeting, he called for a comprehensive farmland survey and consideration of forced sales. Just as the government targeted homes not occupied by their owners under an “actual residence” standard, it is now wielding “actual cultivation” against farmland not tilled by its owners.

The government launched a nationwide survey to determine whether farmland was actually being cultivated, the first such inspection since the country’s founding 78 years ago. Thousands of personnel and drones were mobilized to examine 1.95 million hectares (4.8 million acres) nationwide over 2026 and 2027. After inspecting 97 percent of the target, authorities classified 2.84 million plots, or 27 percent, as suspected Farmland Act violations.

Yet the survey intended to catch “farmland speculators” has ironically underscored how far rural reality has diverged from the land-to-the-tiller ideal. Rural populations and the number of farmers are shrinking. Those still farming are aging, inevitably leaving more land idle. When elderly farmers die, their children often inherit farmland they cannot cultivate themselves. Farmland remains, but there are too few people to work it.

That is why nearly half of farms rely on leased land, while more than half of tenant farming reportedly occurs without written contracts. In places unsuitable for mechanized farming, even finding tenants can be difficult. Using the Farmland Bank is often unrealistic. Land is sometimes leased free simply to keep it cultivated. The countryside may be full of technical violations under a strict reading of the law, but that reflects the reality in which the constitutional principle has largely become a dead letter.

Selling unused farmland is no easier. Aging and depopulation mean fewer buyers, and not just anyone can purchase farmland. The revised law is another major blow to an already frozen market. Few will buy fields if leaving them fallow could lead to heavy fines or forced disposal. With sellers multiplying and buyers disappearing, the likely results are plunging prices and a collapse in transactions. That has even prompted accusations that the government is effectively seeking to nationalize farmland.

Facing resistance to a law critics say ignores rural realities, the government and ruling party have stepped back, promising relief and guidance for customary violations unrelated to speculation.

The land-to-the-tiller principle no longer fits the times. Farmers account for only 4 percent of the population, while farmland covers 18.8 percent of Korea’s territory. It is no longer realistic to expect such a small share of the population to own and cultivate all that land.

The goal of curbing speculation is legitimate, but enforcement must distinguish speculative purchases from inherited land, aging farmers and unavoidable fallow periods. Otherwise, a policy intended to restore order could punish rural communities. Reform should begin by recognizing the gap between constitutional aspiration and agricultural reality on the ground.

Rather than clinging to a principle that has largely lost force in practice, policymakers should focus on putting farmland to productive use. Turning ordinary citizens into suspected speculators or lawbreakers because the legal ideal no longer matches demographic and agricultural reality solves little. Korea needs farmland rules built around how its countryside actually works, not around an increasingly unattainable constitutional fiction.