This paper, with the perspective of the agricultural adjustment problem proposed by Yujiro Hayami, discusses the relationship between the structural adjustment of Japanese agriculture and technological progress, price policies, and farmland policies. The following three conclusions are obtained. First, while biological and chemical technology progress has stagnated owing to inelastic demand, the scale economies derived from mechanical technology progress have not led to a decline in the labor-land ratio because of the constraints on farmland liquidation. Second, current price policies such as the acreage control of rice production have been inefficient in transferring income to farmers and have prohibited the structural adjustment of agriculture. Third, farmland policies are central to promoting structural adjustment, and formal and informal institutions should be adequately considered when regarding the transaction costs of farmland. Japan, the first country in Asia entering the high-income stage, should propose positive empirical analysis and policy recommendations for addressing the agricultural adjustment problem.

This paper identifies features of agricultural development in Korea, focusing on Korea’s rice productivity through comparison with Japan’s rice productivity. In addition, contributing factors to rice productivity growth in Korea are also investigated, with particular attention to technological progress, economies of scale and farmland liquidation. It is found that the direction of rice varietal improvement has shifted from high-yield to high-quality orientations in Korea as well as Japan, given the excess supply of rice due to a decrease in rice consumption per capita with economic growth. Largescale production of rice per household was barely observed in either Japan or Korea, in spite of the existence of economies of scale from mechanization in rice farming. In consequence, rice productivity has stagnated since the 1990s in both countries, whereas, income disparity between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors in Korea has been growing, in contrast to Japan. Furthermore, it seems anomalous that farmland liquidation did not significantly advance in Korea, although regulation of farmland property right was less rigorous in Korea than in Japan.

The driving force that lies behind China’s economic growth is undoubtedly market mechanisms, which at the same time deprives Chinese agriculture of an international competitiveness. It is obvious that small farm size is the major factor that explains the increasing comparative disadvantage of Chinese agriculture. Thus, the long-term policy objective should be focused on consolidation of farmland to large-scale farms, through which efficient land use is realized. Meanwhile, the agricultural program should be well designed so that rural poverty may be alleviated, wherein we can find a significant difference between Japan and China. The two policy goals pose a serious challenge to the Chinese government, because the domestic support program for agriculture is instrumental in narrowing the urban-rural income gap, whereas not only does it distort the product market, but it also affects the land rental market adversely, and thereby prevents the production structure from improving.

The development process of Thai agriculture since the 1960s is scrutinized based on quantitative information, dividing it into three stages from macroscopic level to farmer level. The study indicates its characteristics as an export-oriented agriculture linked to overseas markets through agribusiness. The S-shaped growth pattern represents the changes in agricultural production and production factors. The income inequality between agriculture and non-agricultural industry has persisted and the income level of farmers is still low. The rice price support policy of the government in recent years, however, went bankrupt in a short period of time since it was not designed properly for a country exporting rice. The intervention policy for the rice market should be carefully designed based on the constraints of an exporting country.

The purpose of this article is to show the expected actions of the South Korean government for rice tariffication from the point of the view of income compensation and structural policy. In South Korea, because of the high full-time farmer ratio and large income gap between agriculture and manufacturing, the government tends to focus on income compensation for small-scale farmers rather than structural reform. Though recently “Turunyoku management bodies” (new agricultural organizations) have been introduced as a part of structural policy, to address the lack of cooperating factors, these organizations have failed to realize scale economy and cost-reduction effects as a result. However, there remains the possibility that efforts of these organizations seeking to improve the high value-added production of rice and sales promotion might lead to the development of cooperative agricultural production.

This paper is based on the following studies to supplement the presenter’s contentions. Firstly, it analyzed how the change from a labor surplus economy to a labor shortage economy affected agriculture in China. Secondly, it illustrated the decreasing agricultural competitiveness from the late 2000s by the increasing disparity between domestic and foreign prices and net import of agricultural products. Thirdly, it demonstrated that in response to the decreasing agricultural competitiveness, the price supports of grains, soybean and cotton started to be reconsidered from 2014. Fourthly, it showed that land-use right transfers increased from the late 2000s, and introduced the recent reformation of farmland-related policy and promotion of large-scale family farms.

Sotaro Inoue defined the salient feature of Thai agriculture as its export-orientation. He argued that even though the market mechanism worked well in the adjustment process at the macro-economy, industry, and farm levels, the government has recently started to intervene in the rice market, ending a sharp decline in rice exports and a heavy fiscal burden. The intervention was necessary because the economic disparity between farmers and urban dwellers became the cause of political and social instability. This paper explores why farmers’ incomes had been staying very low compared with those urban sector households through the economic adjustment process at the three levels. It argues that off-farm income and newly introduced cash crops did not improve farm income dramatically. It also identifies some obstacles that hindered rice farmers from expanding their farm size.