Isn't it a bit of motte and bailey? It's a good argument that the program failed (in the sense that it didn't manage to take off), but it sounds like you're trying say that it failed (in the sense that land ownership programs don't work). If you want the second meaning, you should at least take a look at those 700 that did manage to move through the program and see their outcomes 10 or 20 years later. Though I admit it would be a weak evidence - on one hand, they've been heavily selected simply by being able to go through it, and also the whole point isn't that free land makes people better off, but that if more people own land, it starts all sorts of positive feedback loops that makes things better overall. Maybe communities with the largest percentage of new land owners doing much better than average would be good evidence.
For those that are determined not to know about HBD, the world remains forever mysteriously unpredictable.
Isn't it a bit of motte and bailey? It's a good argument that the program failed (in the sense that it didn't manage to take off), but it sounds like you're trying say that it failed (in the sense that land ownership programs don't work). If you want the second meaning, you should at least take a look at those 700 that did manage to move through the program and see their outcomes 10 or 20 years later. Though I admit it would be a weak evidence - on one hand, they've been heavily selected simply by being able to go through it, and also the whole point isn't that free land makes people better off, but that if more people own land, it starts all sorts of positive feedback loops that makes things better overall. Maybe communities with the largest percentage of new land owners doing much better than average would be good evidence.