Land Redistribution in South Africa : A Critical Review
This paper provides an overview of land reform in South Africa from 1994 to 2011, with the focus on the land redistribution. The government policies and associated implementation since 1994 have not generated expected social and economic results fo...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Working Paper |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/525981468302460916/Land-redistribution-in-South-Africa-a-critical-review http://hdl.handle.net/10986/27168 |
| Summary: | This paper provides an overview of land
reform in South Africa from 1994 to 2011, with the focus on
the land redistribution. The government policies and
associated implementation since 1994 have not generated
expected social and economic results for a number of
reasons. Even where land has been transferred, it appears to
have had minimal impact on the livelihoods of beneficiaries,
largely because of inappropriate project design, a lack of
necessary support services and shortages of working capital,
leading to widespread underutilization of land. There is no
evidence to suggest that land reform has led to improvements
in agricultural efficiency, income, employment or economic
growth. Therefore, the current approach, based on
acquisition of land through the open market, minimal support
to new farmers, and bureaucratic imposition of production
models loosely based on existing commercial operators, is
unlikely to transform the rural economy and lift people out
of poverty. The paper argues that there are two important
missing aspects in the land reform program. First, there is
an absence of any viable small-farmer path to development,
which could enable the millions of households residing in
the communal areas and on commercial farms to expand their
own production and accumulate wealth and resources in an
incremental manner. Making this happen would require
radical restructuring of existing farm units to create
family-size farms, more realistic farm planning, appropriate
support from a much-reformed state agricultural service, and
a much greater role for beneficiaries in the design and
implementation of their own projects. Second, what is
clearly missing from the governance tradition is the
sustained focus on implementation, resource mobilization,
and timely policy adjustment. Much more will be required for
land reform program to contribute significantly to economic
growth and to the redistribution of wealth and opportunities
to the majority of the population. |
|---|