IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae10/96156.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Game Theoretic Framework for Cooperative Benefits in South Africa’s Land Redistribution Process: A Case of Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal Sugarcane Farmland Transfers

Author

Listed:
  • Mbatha, C. Nhlanhla
  • Antrobus, G.G.

Abstract

A good indicator of successful farm redistribution cases has to be the continuation of viable productivity rates in their post transfer periods. Continued productivity benefits all the stakeholders that are involved in the process. Unfortunately negative productivity levels have been reported in numerous South African land redistribution transfers in recent years. A game theoretic perspective is adopted to argue that cooperation among key stakeholders, which could be enforced through long term contracts between a land buyer, sellers and new owners, would lead to higher productivity levels and other benefits. Additional benefits would, for example, include market related prices paid by a buyer. Sugarcane farm transfer cases from two municipality districts in KwaZulu Natal province are used to show that the productivity rates in post transfer periods of cooperative land sales were more than 10% higher than the rates observed before such transfers. At the opposite end of the scale, the productivity rates in noncooperative land sales dropped by 16% after land takeovers. Furthermore, the prices paid for farms that became less productive after transfers were higher by more than 40% compared to those paid for productive farms. The cases illustrate the values of cooperative strategies in economic transactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Mbatha, C. Nhlanhla & Antrobus, G.G., 2010. "A Game Theoretic Framework for Cooperative Benefits in South Africa’s Land Redistribution Process: A Case of Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal Sugarcane Farmland Transfers," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96156, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae10:96156
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.96156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/96156/files/98.%20Game%20theory%20and%20land%20reform%20in%20KZN.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.96156?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Brinkman, 1995. "Economic Growth versus Economic Development: Toward a Conceptual Clarification," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 1171-1188, December.
    2. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    3. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duarte N. Leite & Sandra T. Silva & Oscar Afonso, 2014. "Institutions, Economics And The Development Quest," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 491-515, July.
    2. Thomas Bolognesi, 2014. "Analyse structurelle des systèmes hydriques urbains en Europe : aspects organisationnels et défis patrimoniaux," Post-Print hal-01079092, HAL.
    3. John Quiggin, 2006. "Stories about productivity," Australian Public Policy Program Working Papers WP4P06, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
    4. Wilfred Dolfsma, 2001. "Economists as subjects: Toward a psychology of economists," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 30(2), pages 77-88, March.
    5. Brousseau, Eric & Raynaud, Emmanuel, 2011. "“Climbing the hierarchical ladders of rules”: A life-cycle theory of institutional evolution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 65-79.
    6. Kun Su, 2019. "Does religion benefit corporate social responsibility (CSR)? Evidence from China," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1206-1221, November.
    7. Zoltán Nadobán, 2023. "A snapshot of the EU’s capitalist diversity between the two recent major economic crises," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 20(1), pages 131-158, June.
    8. Weichselbaumer, Doris & Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf, 2003. "Rhetoric in Economic Research: The Case of Gender Wage Differentials," Economics Series 144, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    9. Citera, Emanuele & Sau, Lino, 2019. "Complexity, Conventions and Instability: the role of monetary policy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201924, University of Turin.
    10. Petrick, Martin, 2004. "Can Econometric Analysis Make (Agricultural) Economics A Hard Science? Critical Remarks And Implications For Economic Methodology," IAMO Discussion Papers 14911, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    11. Quaas, Friedrun, 2019. "Die New Austrians als Pseudo-Heterodoxe? [The New Austrians as pseudo-heterodoxies?]," MPRA Paper 97470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Emmanuel Yeboah-Assiamah & Kobus Muller & Kwame Ameyaw Domfeh, 2018. "‘Complex crisis’ and the rise of collaborative natural resource governance: institutional trajectory of a wildlife governance experience in Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 2205-2224, October.
    13. Claude Ménard & Ivan Shabalov & Andrey Shastitko, 2021. "Institutions to the rescue: Untangling industrial fragmentation, institutional misalignment, and political constraints in the Russian gas pipeline industry," Post-Print hal-04012224, HAL.
    14. Guermazi, Walid & Halioui, Khamoussi, 2020. "Do differences in national cultures affect cross-country conditional conservatism behavior under IFRS?," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    15. Markus Groth, 2005. "Auctions in an outcome-based payment scheme to reward ecological services in agriculture – Conception, implementation and results," ERSA conference papers ersa05p180, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Eicher, Theo S. & Schreiber, Till, 2010. "Structural policies and growth: Time series evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 169-179, January.
    17. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    18. Alex Trew, 2012. "Contracting Institutions and Development," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 3(3).
    19. Mbatha, C. Nhlanhla & Antrobus, G.G., 2008. "Institutions and economic research: a case of location externalities on agricultural resource allocation in the Kat River basin, South Africa," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 47(4), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaae10:96156. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaaeaea.html .

    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.