Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

'Willing Buyer, Willing Seller': South Africa's failed experiment in marketled agrarian reform

  • University of the Western Cape

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Since its transition to democracy, South Africa has implemented a multifaceted programme of land reform to address problems of historical dispossession and rural poverty, relying heavily on the concept of 'willing buyer, willing seller'. This version of market-led agrarian reform has been influenced by the World Bank but enjoys support from landowners and elements within the ruling African National Congress committed to maintaining the structure of large-scale, capital-intensive farming. Central to the South African approach is the voluntary acquisition of land, but also important have been the methods of beneficiary selection, of farm planning and of post-settlement support, all of which have been influenced by the market-led approach and serve to discriminate against the very poor. The rate of land transfer remains far below official targets and the limited available evidence suggests that, where land has been transferred, it has made little positive impact on livelihoods or on the wider rural economy. Key to understanding the slow pace of reform is the lack of mobilisation and militancy among the rural poor and landless, who to date have had minimal influence over the design and implementation of the land reform programme.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1577-1597
Number of pages21
JournalThird World Quarterly
Volume28
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2007
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 1 - No Poverty
    SDG 1 No Poverty
  2. SDG 2 - Zero Hunger
    SDG 2 Zero Hunger

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of ''Willing Buyer, Willing Seller': South Africa's failed experiment in marketled agrarian reform'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this