IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cjssxx/v38y2012i4p809-826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Finite Land: Challenges Institutionalising Land Restitution in South Africa, 1995–2000

Author

Listed:
  • Cherryl Walker

Abstract

This article addresses a neglected strand in assessments of the failure of ‘delivery’ in South Africa's land reform programme, through an examination of the institutional obstacles to success in the restitution programme between 1995 and 2000. Here it looks in particular at the impact of ‘the sunset clause’ on initial staffing and the definition of claims, at persistent weaknesses in information management, and at conflicts among and within the implementing agencies. While it can be shown that these problems affected implementation negatively, the difficulties facing the restitution programme cannot be reduced to ‘capacity constraints’ and bureaucratic in-fighting. Understanding the shortcomings of the state's programme, it is argued, also requires an appreciation of the incomplete institutionalisation of restitution as a ‘social field’ (as a domain of shared meanings), and the diversity and malleability of the meaning of land in contemporary South Africa.

Suggested Citation

  • Cherryl Walker, 2012. "Finite Land: Challenges Institutionalising Land Restitution in South Africa, 1995–2000," Journal of Southern African Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 809-826.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cjssxx:v:38:y:2012:i:4:p:809-826
    DOI: 10.1080/03057070.2012.750915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03057070.2012.750915
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03057070.2012.750915?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Büscher, Bram & Thakholi, Lerato, 2024. "Convivial fences? Property, ‘right to wildlife’ and the need for redistributive justice in South African conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cjssxx:v:38:y:2012:i:4:p:809-826. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cjss .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.