傳統以來，對於臺灣土地改革的實施原因大抵皆會描述當時不公平的租佃制度，及佃農遭受地主嚴重剝削的情況，並且假設當時業佃之關係相當不和諧，地主非佃農之間的階級衝突是一觸即發，因此為了改善這種狀況，國民政府才積極推動土地改革。對於這樣的論述，本文於田野調查及文獻檢閱之後，提出下列質疑：即當時的業佃關係真的是那麼不和諧嗎？佃農們是否有透過一些實際的行動，積極的想對地主進行抗爭？如果答案為否（即業佃關係是和諧的），那麼是否有什麼證據來給予證明？而我們又該如何來解釋這個現象？這是本文的主要研究課題。 土地私有權的確立及租佃制度的執行在臺灣已有二、三百年的歷史，長久以來，佃農即受到許多不公平的待遇，如口頭短期契約、高額地租、預繳高額押租、鐵租規定等，但是由於歷史因素使然，除了在日治時期的一九二七年至一九二九年發生農民運動外，佃農鮮少對地主發動抗爭。究其根本原因，乃是由於權力關係不對等所致，地主可以輕易的撤佃起耕，使得佃農不敢輕舉妄動。然而，在田野調查之中，本文作者發現佃農不僅無反抗之心，對於地主更是發展出一種父慈子孝的意識型態，並深受其影響。在這種情境之下，業佃關係自然是相當的和諧，也看不見彼此之間的衝突景像。這種情況也可由土地改革之後，多達二萬九千多起的自動退耕案例來作為證明。也就是說，在政府協助之下，雖然許多佃農已經可以取得耕地之佃耕權或土地所有權，但是內心仍然無法脫離上述意識型態的掌控，而自原的把耕地歸還給原地主。 本文欲透過權力關係之相關理論來描述這種現象，並由此來顯示佃農生活雖然困苦，但是其根本的生計倫理並未被地主忽視。然而，值得注意的是，業佃關係的和諧並不表示佃農沒有受到地主的剝削，佃農及其家人仍然是生活於飢餓的邊緣，土地改革的實施，對於佃農的生活確實帶來了助益，但由於共有出租耕地的一律徵收，及政府對於地主定義的大幅度擴張，使得一些中小地主或土地所有權人的生活陷入困境。

The discourse on the implementation of Taiwan’s land reform traditionally puts effort on the inequality of landlord-tenant institution and the serious exploitation by landlords toward tenants. Class differentiation between a landlord and tenant is obvious, and rebellion from a tenant is also imminent. In order to prevent social unrest and resolve disputes between them, the KMT-state did not have any choice but to perform land reform policy in the 1940s and1950s. This research would like to explore the relationship between landlords and tenants. Is their relation really inharmonious just as the state proclaims—landlords’ exploitation? Do tenants execute protest activities against their landlords? If the answer is no, then how can we explain this kind of situation? These are the major research questions the paper would like to investigate. The privately-owned land institution and the tenancy system have lasted for more than three hundred years in Taiwan. Even though tenants receive very unequal treatment due to high rental rates, uncertainty of tenure, etc., a tenant protest movements had seldom emerged in Taiwan’s history. The reason is probably because of the inequality of the power relation between them since landlords can easily expel their tenants. However, based on the field study, this research finds that a paternalistic ideology has been formed in landlords’ and tenants’ minds. The landlord and tenant relation is recognized as being like a farther and son; therefore, with the deep belief in Chinese filial piety, it is very impossible to have protest activities. The tenants are in a situation of being powerless, because of the shaping of ideology. The tenants are in a situation of being powerless, because of the shaping of ideology. The relation between them is really harmonious, and it can explain why there were around 29,000 cases, whereby the tenants wanted to return their received land to their landlords after the first stage of land reform policy between 1949 and 1951. It is because tenants did not release themselves from this ideology that on the other hand, landlords also abided by the subsistence ethic to support their tenants. This does not mean there is no exploitative relation. Tenants and their families did survive on the borderline of hunger. Nevertheless, while the implementation of land reform policies brought great benefit toward the tenants, both the eminent domain of common ownership-leased farmland and the great expansion of the landlord’s definition caused serious hardship to small landholders.