95
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      From January 2024, all of our readers will be able to access every part of ROAPE as well as its archive without a paywall. This will make ROAPE accessible to a much wider readership, especially in Africa. We need subscriptions and donations to make this revolutionary intiative work. 

      Subscribe and Donate now!

       

      scite_
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Land reform in South Africa

      research-article
      a
      Review of African Political Economy
      Review of African Political Economy
      Bookmark

            Abstract

            The newly‐elected South African government began in 1994 to make laws and implement a programme for land reform. It consisted of three dimensions: redistribution (transferring white‐owned commercial farm land to African users); restitution (settling claims for land lost under apartheid measures by restoration of holdings or compensation); and land tenure reform (to provide more secure access to land in the former bantustans). Only a few restitution claims have been so far resolved. After much rethinking a revised draft of a land tenure bill is to be presented to Parliament in late 2000, but as one stated aim is to give ‘land to tribes’, it remains to be seen whether it will bring increased democratisation, allowing for common resource management, or will entrench ‘decentralised despotism’.

            This article concentrates on the most actively pursued dimension of land reform: redistribution. Under the diverse influences of rights‐based activism of earlier years and of World Bank advice about a ‘market‐led’ approach, the government has set up mechanisms to help finance and facilitate ‘community’ initiatives to acquire land, to settle on it and, if possible, to make productive use of it. What was advocated as a more rapid and less bureaucratic approach than a government agency acquiring and administering resettlement has instead spawned a sprawling edifice, some of it out‐sourced to an array of consultants, often with little experience and few credentials, and has led to a protracted process of transfer of a much smaller amount of land in five years than, say, Zimbabwe managed in the same period. The reasons for this are examined.

            A policy rethink during 1999 has led to changes in emphasis which, hopefully, will speed up the redistribution of land, provide more back‐up to those resettled, and prioritise future grants for more productive agricultural use. This latter formula, however, is constricted by old‐fashioned ‘modernist’ (and often implicitly colonial) orthodoxies still current in South Africa, not least in the ANC and government. These are fixated on ‘commercialisation’ ‐ which usually translates into larger‐scale and high‐tech ‐ and the promotion of the interests of a would‐be black agrarian entrepreneurial class, rather than those of the propertyless. Some hope may derive from the inclusion of experiments in the new programme to chart an alternative to the ‘market‐led’ formula which would instead allow redistribution of land as an element within district‐level planning.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Journal
            crea20
            CREA
            Review of African Political Economy
            Review of African Political Economy
            0305-6244
            1740-1720
            June 2000
            : 27
            : 84
            : 273-286
            Affiliations
            a Institute of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds , UK
            Article
            8704459 Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 27, No. 84, June 2000, pp. 273-286
            10.1080/03056240008704459
            0cc359f4-3367-4fb9-bc29-bd8c92535511

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            History
            Page count
            Figures: 0, Tables: 0, References: 13, Pages: 14
            Categories
            Original Articles

            Sociology,Economic development,Political science,Labor & Demographic economics,Political economics,Africa

            References

            1. Bernstein Henry. , ed. 1996. . The Agrarian Question in South Africa . , London : : F Cass. .

            2. Bernstein Henry. . 1998. . ‘Social Change in the South African Countryside? . Land & Production, Poverty & Power & Journal of Peasant Studies . , Vol. 25: 4 July;: 1––32. .

            3. Brown Marj. . 1997. . Land Restitution in South Africa: An Independent Evaluation, Institute for Development Policy & Management . , University of Manchester. .

            4. Deininger Klaus. . 1999. . ‘Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Initial Experience from Colombia, Brazil and South Africa’. . World Development . , Vol. 27((4)): 651––672. .

            5. Department of Land Affairs (DLA). . 1998. . White Paper on South African Land Policy . Pretoria :

            6. Kepe Thembela. . 1998. . “‘The Problem of Defining “Community”: Challenges for the Land Reform Programme in Rural South Africa’. ”. In Land Reform and Agrarian Change in Southern Africa . , School of Government, University of Western Cape. .

            7. Levin Richard and Weiner Daniel. , eds. 1997. . “‘No More Tears ... Struggles for Land in Mpumalanga, South Africa’. ”. Trenton , NJ : : Africa World Press. .

            8. Mclntosh Xaba Associates. . 30 November. 1999 . “‘Review of the Land Reform Support Programme’. ”. In Report to Department of Land Affairs . 30 November. , Pretoria :

            9. Ministry of Agriculture & Land Affairs. . 1998. . “‘Agricultural Policy in South Africa: A Discussion Document’. ”. Pretoria :

            10. National Land Committee (NLC). . 1999. . “‘A Report on the National Land & Agrarian Reform Conference’. ”. Pretoria :

            11. Ntsebeza Lungisile. . ‘South Africa's Land Tenure Reform Programme in the former Bantustans: The example of the Eastern Cape Province’. In: . paper for NLC Conference; .

            12. Van Zyl J, Kirsten J and Binswanger H P. , eds. 1996. . Agricultural Land Reform in South Africa: Policies, markets and mechanisms . , Cape Town : : Oxford University Press. .

            13. Wildschut Adele and Hulbert S. . 1998. . “‘A Seed not Sown: Prospects for agrarian reform in South Africa’. ”. Deutsche Welthungerhilfe & Interfund. .

            Comments

            Comment on this article