Land reform in South Africa: what the real debate should be about

Opinions vary on what has gone wrong with land reform and what should be done about it.
Land ownership in South Africa remains skewed towards white farmers. Image: David Silverman/via Getty Images

Land reform in South Africa is an emotive and politically fraught subject. That’s because land was at the heart of the dispossession of Africans by colonial settlers. Successful land reform can help overcome this legacy, making it central to forging shared national bonds. It can also serve as a basis for a cohesive society through a properly managed redistribution programme.

But nearly three decades since the first democratic elections in 1994, South Africa has yet to crack land reform. That’s not for a lack of initiatives. Some communities and individuals have indeed had their land restored. But for every one of these stories there’s another of a “failed” farming project or a small farmer stuck in a remote area without hope of gaining a livelihood.

Opinions vary on what has gone wrong with land reform and what should be done about it.

The first problem is that the topic often rears its head close to election time. As the governing party, the African National Congress (ANC), gets closer to its national elective conference scheduled for December, the country can expect another heated debate on land reform. The curtain raiser to this debate will be the ANC’s policy conference in July which precedes the elective conference.

But the debates in these charged environments tend to generate more heat than substance. Take the decision of the 2017 ANC policy conference to amend Section 25 of the constitution. The political rationale was that this would enable expropriation of land without compensation under specified conditions, which, in turn, would accelerate land reform.

But a prominent legal scholar on land reform, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi pointed out in 2018 and 2019 that land reform had not been held back by the constitution but by capacity constraints and the lack of political will on the part of government.

Ngcukaitobi went on to consolidate his views in a book, Land Matters: South Africa’s Failed Land Reforms and the Road Ahead, published in 2021.

His book should be part of the basis for the debates on land reform during the forthcoming ANC conferences. It offers insights on what an effective land reform programme – and the institutions to deliver it – might look like.

Why land matters

Ngcukaitobi reflects on the role of business in dispossession and apartheid, and therefore its potential contribution to land reform. In this he invokes the late Stellenbosch University economist Sampie Terreblanche who also flagged the role of business in contributing to reparatory justice.

Ngcukaitobi also argues that land reform shouldn’t be seen only as an agricultural industry problem. Rather, it should be viewed as a multi-industry challenge involving non-agricultural players. Underpinning this view is his analysis that white farmers weren’t the only beneficiaries of the colonial and apartheid regimes’ land policies. Most of those who profited from apartheid live in urban areas.

Book cover showing the title 'Land Matters'

On this point, the proposals of a Land Reform Fund that came out of the Expert Advisory Panel on Land Reform and Agriculture in 2018 could be a perfect vehicle for business to contribute through donations for land reform.

Perhaps, Ngcukaitobi should have reflected on the panel’s proposal.

His research draws heavily on archival material. He casts a spotlight on the large-scale loss of black South African livestock during the years of dispossession, starting from the late 1600s through theft and killings and during the wars since the late 1600s.

This insight brings home the point that black South Africans lost more than land.

They lost their livelihoods and productive assets too in the form of livestock.

He writes the story of land dispossession will never be complete without an understanding of the loss of indigenous people’s cattle.

Cattle, more than land, were a visible sign of wealth.

Unfinished work

The book also brings home the reality of the slow progress of land reform in South Africa. In 1994 when the country became a democracy, white farmers owned 77.580 million hectares of farmland out of the total surface area of 122 million hectares.

Ngcukaitobi writes that the ANC’s Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) set a target of redistributing 30% of agricultural land in the first five years of the new democratic government. The RDP was the socio-economic policy framework of the first ANC government in 1994.

Government has missed this goal and has been shifting the goal posts ever since. The aim now is to reach the 30% goal by 2030.

The achievements so far have been small. Exactly how far off the target the government is is the subject of heated debate. Some researchers argue that land reform has been painfully slow. In my work with Stellenbosch University agricultural economist, Professor Johann Kirsten, we estimate that a total of 13.2 million ha (or 17%) has already been transferred away from white landowners to the state (3.08 million ha) or black owners (10.135 million ha) through private and state supported transactions including land restitution.

These have included restitution, redistribution, private transactions and state procurement transactions.

If we add the hectares of land (2.339 million ha) that were successfully identified for restitution, but for which communities elected to receive financial compensation as the means for restitution, then the total area of land rights that were restored since 1994 is 15.56 million ha.

This is equivalent to 20% of formerly white-owned land – much closer to the 30% target (of 23.25 million ha) than commonly believed.

I don’t mention these statistics to justify the relatively slow pace of land reform but to highlight the challenge of the lack of credible land data in South Africa. For effective policy-making, accurate data is key and we have suggested on various occasions the methods of accelerating this process.

Ngcukaitobi argues that the failure to faithfully implement the land reform policy and its three pillars of redistribution, restitution and tenure should be attributed to weaknesses in the state, including corruption. Thus, blaming the constitution for the slow pace of land reform – and calls for an amendment – are perhaps, misplaced.

Another critical aspect the book highlights is the role of women in land reform by offering both the historical part played by women in the South African society, and a mirror of how they have not benefited from redistribution in the recent past.

Finally, there are some success stories that might have been examined in more in depth. Example are joint venture approaches to land reform, specifically within agriculture. The success stories are important as they provide insight into what can be done better going forward.

Overall, Land Matters is crucial work that should be read by all South Africans who care about the country’s future. The point about the weakness of institutions comes up several times in the book. This is a critical aspect that the government should prioritise. It should strengthen the land reform delivery instruments, and do more with the establishment of the Land Reform and Agricultural Development Agency that has already been announced by the president.The Conversation

Wandile Sihlobo, Senior Fellow, Department of Agricultural Economics, Stellenbosch University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


In most cases neither the present farmer nor the lucky recipient are related to the original parties 300 years ago. It ends up as a very expensive mess attracting hordes of schemes and corruption.

How far back does one go? Can the San claim their land back from the new black farmers after the whites are removed? They were similarly disposessed.

I sometimes wish we had simply implemented a 50% wealth tax in 1994 and been done instead of thirty years of strife teed up for another thirty years for opportunistic politicians.

They did implement an 80% wealth tax already. Add up the wealth-destroying and redistributive effects of BEE(30% capital + perpetual dividends on that capital), 25% estate duties(de facto nationalization and redistribution of capital) plus the income on those estate duties, redistributive municipal rates and taxes(a consumption-driven tax on capital that transforms property values into sewage), and the cost of SOEs like Eskom who have monopoly powers to extort consumers and siphon off capital to finance state capture and communist unionized labor).

They were never interested in 50% of a thriving economy. They want 100% of a bankrupt economy instead.

Who determines the relative importance of this socialist redistributive process of land reform? Is it of any importance to average citizens, who also happen to be consumers, or is it only important to the specific individuals who stand to reap temporary financial gain from a process that exchanges something for nothing? Some politicians and some individual emerging farmers stand to gain over the short term, while millions of consumers will carry the cost and pay the price over the long term.

Equal and fair access to the market, with the forces of supply and demand, as part of a process of voluntary and free exchange, is the fairest and most efficient allocator of scarce resources. For something to be redistributed at will, and easily shared, that commodity should be abundant and of zero value to anyone. The moment that something becomes scarce, the price signal becomes the most efficient, fair, and justifiable instrument to allocate that scarce resource in the interest of consumers.

The market mechanism protects and serves the interests of consumers. The farmer who is more efficient, who is able to employ land, equipment, capital, and labor in such a way that it benefits consumers, will be able to afford land at any price. The price discriminates against people who are unable to add value and serve the consumer with the best product at the best price. The free market is a judge that allocates productive resources in the interest of consumers. Mugabe fired the “judge” and hijacked the redistribution process for political gain. Zimbabwean consumers are still paying the price. People flee from territories where politicians replace the market mechanism in process of allocation of scarce and critical resources.

In a free society, consumers have the power to decide who owns land and they implement their decisions at the retail store on a daily basis. If consumers were so convinced of the importance of land reform, they would vote for it, and put their money where their mouths are, by paying a higher price for the produce of emerging farmers. If a commercial farmer delivers 1kg of tomatoes for R30, consumers will pay R90 rand for the emerging farmer’s tomatoes. The increased profitability of the emerging farmer will then motivate the bank to finance his purchase of a tomato farm. The emerging farmer will be able to afford the farm if the consumer considers it to be important. It is the same consumer that keeps the commercial farmer on his farm every day.

Consumers are willing to pay extra for free-range and organic products but they are unwilling to pay a higher price for emerging farmer’s products. This simply proves that consumers feel that a free-range chicken is more important than an emerging farmer. The consumer has spoken! Who is the ANC or the EFF to overrule the decision of the consumer when they themselves are unwilling to pay higher prices!

The political system either treats consumers like royalty, or it treats politicians as royalty. Any process of land reform that sidesteps the market mechanism will enslave consumers and increase the power of politicians.

“The system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” – FA Hayek

there is that single down vote again Sensei. Must be the guy cutting the cables at Eskom.

Meanwhile in Cape Town, District Six was demolished in 1966 and is still a wasteland with the usual few squatters 56 years later.

End of comments.



Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Moneyweb newsletters

Instrument Details  

You do not have any portfolios, please create one here.
You do not have an alert portfolio, please create one here.

Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: