Towards a reorientation in land reform: From a market to locality-driven approach in South Africa’s land restitution programme

Logan, B. Ikubolajeh; Tengbeh, George; Petja, Brilliant Mareme

doi:10.1177/146499341101200306

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The case in Kenya reflects a general trend across eastern and southern Africa, where the means of land reform are often designed in ideological dualities yet combined in one reform. These dualities frame land reform in a continuum; at one end is land redistribution, sometimes associated with the state and equity goals (Logan et al 2012) and, at the other end, there is market-led reform, which is often linked to efficient agricultural production (Logan et al 2012).…”

Section: Land Reform For Agricultural Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Traversing State, Agribusinesses, and Farmers’ Land Discourse in Kenyan Commercial Intensive Agriculture

Narh

2021

African Land Reform Under Economic Liberalisation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a qualitative study of sugarcane production in Chemelil(western Kenya) and insights drawn from the Kenyan land reform enacted in 2012, this study contends that the goal of land reform to provide farmers with certainty of rights to land to invest in and benefit from agriculture is heavily weakened by the farmers’ lack of control over agricultural inputs. Land reform and intensive agriculture, such as sugarcane production, share the same market-based land discourse, where land is considered an environmental asset to be harnessed efficiently for high productivity. Although this discourse supports the application of high inputs for maximum agricultural outputs, it has also eroded farmers’ power and control over their lands. This loss of power and control occurs through the supply of high-cost agricultural inputs from external sources, such as state research agencies and the Chemelil Sugar Company. The control of inputs by sources external to farmers stifles possible farm-based innovations that could reduce farming costs. The chapter, thus, contends that, although land reform aims at farmers’ utmost benefit from land, the farmer’s lack of control over agricultural inputs limits the benefits they derive from land use for intensive agriculture; this is especially true in the case of small-scale farmers.

show abstract

Section: Land Reform For Agricultural Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Traversing State, Agribusinesses, and Farmers’ Land Discourse in Kenyan Commercial Intensive Agriculture

Narh

2021

African Land Reform Under Economic Liberalisation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second was the subject of land reform and property rights. This included a variety of sub-topics, from the history of common property resources (Johnson, 2004;Mosse, 1997) to case studies of land reform (Binswanger & Deininger, 1993;Logan, Tengbeh, & Petja, 2012), global land grabs (Edelman & León, 2013;Edelman, Oya, & Borras, 2013), and intellectual property rights (Runge & Defrancesco, 2006).…”

Section: Historical Subject Sample Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coming from more of an on-the-ground perspective, Astone (1998) also argued for closer and earlier integration of local knowledge in the planning process, based on past shortcomings in participatory development. Finally, Graulau (2008) and Logan, Tengbeh, and Petja (2012) also advised local engagement, but from the perspective of correcting for the failures of neoliberalism and modernist 'mega-narratives'.…”

Section: First-order Historical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Development Discourse Learn from History?

Park

2017

World Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the nature and extent of historical awareness in the development discourse? Does the development discourse learn from history, including its own? Set in the contexts of aging development institutions and a changing geopolitical climate, this paper provides one account through a historiographical survey of 136 journal articles across 10 leading development journals. It uncovers a substantial body of works, which offer descriptive histories, derivative lessons, and historiographical critiques. Altogether, they evidence two modes in which the development discourse attempts to learn from history. The first lies in the proactive use of external histories as empirical evidence for a variety of development issues. This is the predominant mode exhibited in the survey. A second mode lies in the use of internal histories of the development discourse, itself. Here, the survey finds a number of noteworthy but largely disparate efforts. This suggests a relative dearth in historiographical selfconsciousness for a narrow but influential segment of the development discourse. A number of consequences are considered, ultimately responding to the legitimacy, efficacy, and sustainability of development action. In sum, our survey finds that the mainstream development journal discourse is adept at learning from external histories, but not necessarily from its own. Evidence, however, suggests that it can. A case is made for why it must.

show abstract

“…To achieve these dual reforms, the government actively supports certain forms of partnerships such as strategic partnerships between the land claimant community and a commercial operator for redistributed or restituted farms, grants to establish farm-worker equity share schemes to alter land ownership, and prescribed mentorships with commercial partners as a condition for emerging farmers to gain access to government land and grant funding [1,[8][9][10]. It envisages these IB partnerships as tools to provide smallholders with, among other things, technical assistance and market access, but also financial contributions, to prevent the failure of the many land reform projects in South Africa [11,12]. These partnerships fit the narrative of an efficient, market-led model of land reform that supports the large-scale commercial farming model [12,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It envisages these IB partnerships as tools to provide smallholders with, among other things, technical assistance and market access, but also financial contributions, to prevent the failure of the many land reform projects in South Africa [11,12]. These partnerships fit the narrative of an efficient, market-led model of land reform that supports the large-scale commercial farming model [12,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusive Businesses and Land Reform: Corporatization or Transformation?

Chamberlain

Anseeuw

2018

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Inclusive businesses (IBs), embodying partnerships between commercial agribusinesses and smallholder farmers/low-income communities, are considered to contribute towards rural development and agricultural sector transformation. Structured as complex organizational set-ups consisting of, and overcoming the limitations of, standard inclusive instruments (collective organization, mentorship, supply contract, lease/management contract and equity), they allow for the inclusion of smallholders and low-income communities into commercial agricultural value chains. IBs are a way for governments to engage private agribusinesses in agricultural and rural policies. However, will the commercial sector, through IB partnerships, contribute towards the government's transformation and developmental objectives? Based on case studies in South Africa-a country engaged in land and agrarian reforms-the effects of IBs at the project level appear positive, illustrated by an increase in production and growth in agricultural assets. However, individual beneficiaries experience only a marginal change in income and livelihoods. Whereas land reform, project development and market integration are generally achieved, the transformation and beneficiary development objectives are compromised. Although commercial agribusinesses contribute to investment needs in the sector and smallholder exposure to commercial markets, IB partnerships allow commercial entities control over the smallholders' assets. Ownership and secure rights, especially of land, and support of external parties to capacitate beneficiaries and adjust power asymmetries, are essential starting points. Without these aspects, IBs will not lead to effective transformation and development.

show abstract

Towards a reorientation in land reform: From a market to locality-driven approach in South Africa’s land restitution programme

Cited by 5 publications

References 42 publications

Traversing State, Agribusinesses, and Farmers’ Land Discourse in Kenyan Commercial Intensive Agriculture

Traversing State, Agribusinesses, and Farmers’ Land Discourse in Kenyan Commercial Intensive Agriculture

Does the Development Discourse Learn from History?

Inclusive Businesses and Land Reform: Corporatization or Transformation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About