DEVELOPMENT DEBATES AND ISSUES
DVA4801
ASSESSMENT 05
CRITICALLY DISCUSS SOUTH AFRICA’S LAND REFORM POLICY AND ITS
IMPACT IN THE EFFORTS MEANT TO REDRESS THE INJUSTICES OF THE
PAST
INTRODUCTION
Land reform is a purposeful change in the way agricultural land is held or owned, in
the methods of cultivation that are used, or in the relationship of agriculture to the
rest of the economy. Reforms such as these can be announced by a government, by
interest groups, or by a revolution. Land reform in South Africa is a promise of “land
restitution” to empower agricultural workers (who now have the opportunity to
become farmers) and reduce inequality (Lahiff and Li, 2012). It also refers to aspects
such as property, possibly white-owned businesses. Proponents say this will allow
previously unemployed people to participate in the economy and improve the
country's economic growth. It also concerns restitution in the form of land claims
settlements of people who were forcibly evicted from their homes in urban areas that
were declared white under the apartheid government's Segregationist Group Areas
Act: such areas include Sophiatown, Fietas, Cato Manor, District Six and Greyville;
as well as restitution for people forcibly evicted from rural land due to apartheid
policies.
The South African government has demonstrated its determination to eradicate the
inequalities and injustices of the past and has embarked on a comprehensive land
reform program with a strong constitutional foundation - a program that has not yet
been concluded - a program consisting of three pillars, namely: restitution, land
redistribution and security of tenure.
ARGUMENTS FOR GENERALLY INCLUDE:
, There is a moral argument that since Africans have been forcibly dispossessed of
their land in a more extreme manner (short of genocide) than anywhere else in the
world, that this injustice should be alleviated by land reform. The main
counterargument is that history cannot be undone and the hoarding that historically
preceded white settlers will not be replicated. Land cannot be expected to
compensate for generations of dispossession, repression and exploitation
(Binswanger-Mkhize, 2014).
There is an inequality argument. Around 30,000 white farmers currently hold the vast
majority of agricultural land (around 10% has already been redistributed).
Meanwhile, several million Africans live in former Bantustans on small plots of land
averaging around 1–4 ha (and generally access to communal grazing). The main
counterargument is that agriculture is too competitive, specialized and requires farms
of large size and scale to provide a decent income for all these people. Deracializing
agriculture (say replacing 30,000 whites with 30,000 blacks) would have little impact
on socioeconomic inequality (Cousins, 2016).
There is a widespread argument about self-employment. Of these several million,
there are several hundred thousand black farmers who are already producing some
produce for the market on a micro- to small scale.They should be encouraged to
increase their incomes (especially in a country with over 30% widespread
unemployment).The main counterargument is that supporting small farmers is very
difficult and the reward for the work will always be very small.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST LAND REFORM USUALLY INCLUDE:
It would undermine national food security / increase food prices. The
counterargument is that agricultural prices are already largely determined by import
price parities, so such impacts would not be massive.
White farmers have specialized agricultural skills that cannot be replaced. The main
counterargument is that blacks are often already effective farm managers, and land
reform is a prerequisite for starting to gain experience. Other skills gaps need to be
overcome through extension services and training (Gumede, 2014).
Private property rights should not be interfered with. The main counterargument is
that you can't cry 'private property rights' after millions have been taken away.
DVA4801
ASSESSMENT 05
CRITICALLY DISCUSS SOUTH AFRICA’S LAND REFORM POLICY AND ITS
IMPACT IN THE EFFORTS MEANT TO REDRESS THE INJUSTICES OF THE
PAST
INTRODUCTION
Land reform is a purposeful change in the way agricultural land is held or owned, in
the methods of cultivation that are used, or in the relationship of agriculture to the
rest of the economy. Reforms such as these can be announced by a government, by
interest groups, or by a revolution. Land reform in South Africa is a promise of “land
restitution” to empower agricultural workers (who now have the opportunity to
become farmers) and reduce inequality (Lahiff and Li, 2012). It also refers to aspects
such as property, possibly white-owned businesses. Proponents say this will allow
previously unemployed people to participate in the economy and improve the
country's economic growth. It also concerns restitution in the form of land claims
settlements of people who were forcibly evicted from their homes in urban areas that
were declared white under the apartheid government's Segregationist Group Areas
Act: such areas include Sophiatown, Fietas, Cato Manor, District Six and Greyville;
as well as restitution for people forcibly evicted from rural land due to apartheid
policies.
The South African government has demonstrated its determination to eradicate the
inequalities and injustices of the past and has embarked on a comprehensive land
reform program with a strong constitutional foundation - a program that has not yet
been concluded - a program consisting of three pillars, namely: restitution, land
redistribution and security of tenure.
ARGUMENTS FOR GENERALLY INCLUDE:
, There is a moral argument that since Africans have been forcibly dispossessed of
their land in a more extreme manner (short of genocide) than anywhere else in the
world, that this injustice should be alleviated by land reform. The main
counterargument is that history cannot be undone and the hoarding that historically
preceded white settlers will not be replicated. Land cannot be expected to
compensate for generations of dispossession, repression and exploitation
(Binswanger-Mkhize, 2014).
There is an inequality argument. Around 30,000 white farmers currently hold the vast
majority of agricultural land (around 10% has already been redistributed).
Meanwhile, several million Africans live in former Bantustans on small plots of land
averaging around 1–4 ha (and generally access to communal grazing). The main
counterargument is that agriculture is too competitive, specialized and requires farms
of large size and scale to provide a decent income for all these people. Deracializing
agriculture (say replacing 30,000 whites with 30,000 blacks) would have little impact
on socioeconomic inequality (Cousins, 2016).
There is a widespread argument about self-employment. Of these several million,
there are several hundred thousand black farmers who are already producing some
produce for the market on a micro- to small scale.They should be encouraged to
increase their incomes (especially in a country with over 30% widespread
unemployment).The main counterargument is that supporting small farmers is very
difficult and the reward for the work will always be very small.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST LAND REFORM USUALLY INCLUDE:
It would undermine national food security / increase food prices. The
counterargument is that agricultural prices are already largely determined by import
price parities, so such impacts would not be massive.
White farmers have specialized agricultural skills that cannot be replaced. The main
counterargument is that blacks are often already effective farm managers, and land
reform is a prerequisite for starting to gain experience. Other skills gaps need to be
overcome through extension services and training (Gumede, 2014).
Private property rights should not be interfered with. The main counterargument is
that you can't cry 'private property rights' after millions have been taken away.
