抄録
The Farmland and Rural Improvement Project (FRIP) system had met socioeconomic needs during the time the Agriculture Basic Law (ABL) was enacted. 440 publications and revisions of project execution guidelines between FY 1960 to 1995 addressed the need to modify the LRIP systems. They were remarkable in number in the early 1970's when the Comprehensive Agricultural Policy began and in the early 1990's when the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculturel was accepted.
The FRIP can be evaluated as follows. On the one hand it had been associated as productivity improvement and selective enlargement in agriculture. On the other hand, it also had seen the to preservation and converstor of agricultural resources including farmland and irrigation water in the process of urbanization, as well as to improvements in living conditions in rural areas during the process of farmers and non-farmers living side by side. The FRIP can also senn from vienpoint consist of the Farmland Improvement Project (FIP) mainly to improve agricultural productivity and the Rural Improvement Project (RIP) to improve living conditions as well as to prevent rural areas.
This is very important to view the FRIP history and to analyze the structure and movement of the FRIP budget in ABL times. When we divide the FRIP budget between the LIP budget and the RIP budget, we can find out the several principles of annual FRIP budgets and understand the significance of structural changes as follows.
The FIP budget share in annual public works budgets had decreased in close correlation with percentages of Gross Agricultural Product in GDP. The RIP budget share, however had increased in close correlation with percentages of non-farmers living in rural villages. Consequently there had been little change of the FRIP budget share.
These changes in FRIP budget structure had brought a certain level of FIP investment per hector, with no increase since FY 1980. In addition the RIP investment had played a role in narrowing the gap of the living infrastructure investment per capita between urban and rural areas.
