I felt like discussing this issue in three parts: the original idea, need for alteration, and proposed (and rejected ) solution..
1. Early espousal of the idea – collective ownership: dates back to majority of social reforms in Africa (a prominent example is Nyere’s Ujamaa villages in Tanzania..) and China. grounded on the fact that peasants with fragments of land can reap fruits of collective effort in organized farming. Encourages consolidation and increase overall land productivity/output.
2. Changing economic and social scene: shift in the economy from being mainly agrarian to manufacturing complicates the collective ownership threshold. Development requires land..leads to indiscriminate land grabs by govt. officials for starting SEZs, tourist spots, etc.
3. Proposed solution: allow free trade in non-arable land? collectivism ensures stable yield from agriculture because people are forced to cultivate, they can’t sell land since they don’t own it. permission to sell non-cultivable land is already partially allowed in Guandong (Southern China). Complication from this imposition though arises from farmlands being re-designated as non-arable in order to sell. If that happens, food production goes down?