近年來，本土論述逐漸成為台灣社會的支配性論述，該論述認為國民政府為一外來的軍事威權政權，具有強大鎮壓能力，因此台灣戰後長期呈現「強國家—弱社會」、「強中央—弱地方」的局面。戰後初期國府推動的農村土地改革則在此論述中佔有重要位置︰一方面國府土改的動機被認為是要弱化地主以穩固政權，另一方面，國府之所以能夠成功推動土改也被認為是因為地主早已「弱體化」而無法反抗土改，推動土改因此更是進一步弱化本省菁英。土改成為支配性論述的基礎，也意味著該論述採取了「本省地主」的立場。本文主要探討當時《實施耕者有其田條例》的擬定與施行過程，發現歷史事實並不符合上述主流說法。在此立法過程中，本省地主絕非被動接受，反而是高度動員設法阻擋土改，其與國府高層及土改派進行的博弈，成功迫使國府及土改派在土改的範圍與作法上做出大幅度的讓步，因而土改實為一高度妥協的方案，並種下日後都市平均地權改革失敗的種子。本文將指出台灣土改實為「兼顧地主的土地改革」，亦即，國府其實國家能力不足，而本省地主菁英並非全盤弱勢，更何況還有美國因素的介入。因此以往「強國家—弱社會」及「強中央—弱地方」的說法亟需修正。再則，保守的國民黨在推動此重大社會改革時，處處顯現出其動機與決心實源於國共競爭，其保守性格也表現在其土改「必須兼顧地主」的立場上。支配性論述接收了當年以地主立場反對土改的論述來反對國府，影響所及，不單無法從現代化進程角度去理解土改，難以對過去農村與都市土地政策進行檢討，更無法進而建構新的土地政策與發展願景。在重新回顧這段土改歷史中也可瞭解兩岸分斷體制的影響。

The current dominant discourse in Taiwan, which grew out of the democratic movement since the late 1980s, argues that the Nationalist Party- State with its unrivalled governing power was able to impose its authoritarian rule unchallenged from the early postwar years. The fact that the Nationalist government successfully undertook land reform in that early period is central to the argument. Supposedly successful implementation of land reform shows that the landlord class was too weak to resist the reform and was further weakened by it. This study examines the historical process in which the “land-to-the-tiller”program was legislated into law in 1952-1953. The findings are contrary to the aforementioned thesis about land reform. It is found that, during the legislating process, the landlord class not only did not accept the reform passively, but formed an alliance and actively lobbied against it. As a result, the landlords were able to greatly limit the extent of the reform. In contrast to the radical reform on the Chinese mainland, land reform in Taiwan took a middle-of-theroad path, in which the government also took the landlord’s interests into consideration. The reform took this route because the Nationalists had to accede to the US interventions, were conservative by nature, and lackedadequate state capacity. By using land reform this way in the fight against the Nationalists, the democratic movement actually has adopted the stance of the landlord class in formulating the current dominant discourse. As a result, it cannot affirm the progressive element in land reform, and be helpful in the formulation of a progressive land policy.