This paper provides a set of hypotheses to explain differences in the procedures and progress of land refirms among FSU countries. The first factor is the historical legacy of the countries and their institutions. Demand for land privatization was weak except in countries and regions where collectivization was imposed only after the second World War. Another factor is technology: countries with labor-intensive agricultural systems are characterized by more radical land refirms and decollectivization. The domination of nomadic pastoral grazing systems in Central Asia reinforces the technology factor. The last factor is politics: further political refirms may be needed as a prerequisite for progress in land refirms in the countries lagging far behind in land refirms.