IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cmpart/243471.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Socio-economic impact of land reform projects benefiting from the Recapitalisation and Development Programme in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Nomfundo Mabuza, Nosipho

Abstract

Land reform is a key aspect of social and economic development in South Africa, both as a way of redressing past injustice and addressing the problem of poverty in the country, especially in rural areas. Empirical evidence, however, shows that a large number of land reform beneficiaries have not been able to meaningfully use their land due to inadequate nature of the post-settlement support provided. As a response to the challenges of unproductive land reform projects, the Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RECAP) was introduced in 2009. The objectives of this programme are “to increase production; to guarantee food security; to graduate small farmers into commercial farmers and create employment opportunities within the agricultural sector”. The purpose of this study was to assess the socio-economic impact of land reform projects benefiting from the Recapitalisation and Development Programme in South Africa. Assessment of a programme is important in determining how well the programme is meeting its intended objectives and is a fundamental requirement for improving efficiency and performance. The study used cross-sectional data collected in 2013 from a purposive and stratified sample of 98 projects in six of South Africa’s provinces. Descriptive statistics and a paired t-test were used to determine the impact of the programme on economic variables such as production, employment, and number of people benefiting from the projects. A logistic regression analysis was adopted to assess how the different interventions of RECAP vi (mentor/strategic partner, skills transfer and funding) improved the household food security of beneficiaries. The results indicated that the programme has made some progress towards improving the socio-economic status of land reform beneficiaries, particularly in terms of production, but much still needs to be done to ensure that the programme achieves its objectives. Positive changes were mostly experienced in terms of food security, employment generation, and economic and social status after RECAP was introduced, although the same cannot be said for skills transfer and market access. The paired t-test showed that the observed differences between the mean values of the socio-economic variables such as production, employment, number of beneficiaries were statistically significant, suggesting that RECAP has made some advancement towards achieving its intended objectives. The empirical evidence from this study indicates that the impact of RECAP on beneficiaries’ food security is significantly influenced by age of project managers, number of beneficiaries, farm size, funding and, most importantly, skills development. One of the core principles of RECAP, strategic intervention (having a strategic partner/mentor), was found not to be significant which may be attributed to the way the strategic partner/mentor is chosen for a project. To ensure effective skills transfer from strategic partners and mentors, the selection criteria for strategic partners and mentors need to be reviewed. More emphasis needs to be placed on job creation as a condition for receiving RECAP assistance on the part of beneficiaries. Diversification through small and medium agro-enterprises should be adopted to build resilient livelihoods and create non-farm employment opportunities for the poor.

Suggested Citation

  • Nomfundo Mabuza, Nosipho, 2016. "Socio-economic impact of land reform projects benefiting from the Recapitalisation and Development Programme in South Africa," Research Theses 243471, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:243471
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.243471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/243471/files/Thesis%20Nosipho%20Mabuza.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.243471?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. Eicher, Carl K. & Rukuni, Mandivamba, 1996. "Reflections On Agrarian Reform And Capacity Building In South Africa," Staff Paper Series 11703, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Finan, Frederico & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & de Janvry, Alain, 2005. "Measuring the poverty reduction potential of land in rural Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 27-51, June.
    3. Ramón López & Alberto Valdés, 2000. "Fighting Rural Poverty in Latin America: New Evidence and Policy," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Ramón López & Alberto Valdés (ed.), Rural Poverty in Latin America, chapter 1, pages 1-31, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Grootaert, Christiaan & Kanbur, Ravi & Gi-Taik Oh, 1995. "The dynamics of poverty : why some people escape from poverty and others don't - an African case study," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1499, The World Bank.
    5. Matthew A. Turner, 1999. "Tradition and Common Property Management," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 673-687, May.
    6. Finan, Frederico & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & de Janvry, Alain, 2005. "Measuring the poverty reduction potential of land in rural Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 27-51, June.
    7. repec:phd:pjdevt:pjd_2002_vol__xxix_no__2-c is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Kirsten, Johann & Machethe, Charles, 2005. "Appraisal Of Land Reform Projects In Northwest Province," Working Papers 241848, University of Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development.
    9. Carter, Michael R. & May, Julian, 1999. "Poverty, livelihood and class in rural South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Valente, Christine, 2009. "The Food (In)Security Impact of Land Redistribution in South Africa: Microeconometric Evidence from National Data," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1540-1553, September.
    11. Klaus Deininger, 2003. "Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15125.
    12. Mohammed, M.A. & Ortmann, Gerald F., 2005. "Factors influencing adoption of livestock insurance by commercial dairy farmers in three Zobatat of Eritrea," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 44(2), pages 1-15, June.
    13. Saturnino M. Borras & Terry McKinley, 2006. "The Unresolved Land Reform Debate: Beyond State-Led or Market-Led Models," Policy Research Brief 2, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    14. Kay, C., 1998. "Complex legacy of Latin America's agrarian reform," ISS Working Papers - General Series 19009, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    15. Jock R. Anderson, 2004. "Agricultural Extension: Good Intentions and Hard Realities," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 41-60.
    16. Kirsten, Johann & Machethe, Charles, 2005. "Appraisal of land reform projects in the Northwest Province of South Africa," MPRA Paper 31614, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Reyes, Celia M., 2002. "Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty," Discussion Papers DP 2002-02, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    18. Groenewald, Jan A., 2003. "Conditions For Successful Land Reform In Africa," Conference Papers 28068, University of the Free State, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2000. "Land Reform, Poverty Reduction, and Growth: Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(2), pages 389-430.
    20. Ramón López & Alberto Valdés (ed.), 2000. "Rural Poverty in Latin America," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-333-97779-8, March.
    21. Deininger, Klaus, 1999. "Making negotiated land reform work : initial experience from Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2040, The World Bank.
    22. Binswanger, Hans P. & Deininger, Klaus & Feder, Gershon, 1995. "Power, distortions, revolt and reform in agricultural land relations," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 42, pages 2659-2772, Elsevier.
    23. Deininger, Klaus, 1999. "Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Initial Experience from Colombia, Brazil and South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 651-672, April.
    24. Karol Boudreaux, 2010. "Land Reform As Social Justice: The Case Of South Africa," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 13-20, March.
    25. Zimmerman, Frederick J., 2000. "Barriers to Participation of the Poor in South Africa's Land Redistribution," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 1439-1460, August.
    26. Anseeuw, Ward & Mathebula, Ntombifuthi, 2008. "Land Reform and Development: Evaluating South Africa’s Restitution and Redistribution Programmes," Reports 108281, University of Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development.
    27. van Renen, E., 1997. "The Batat Marketing Drive: Improving Market Access For Small Scale Farmers," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 36(4), pages 1-8, December.
    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. Mendola, Mariapia & Simtowe, Franklin, 2015. "The Welfare Impact of Land Redistribution: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Initiative in Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 53-69.
    2. Frederico Neto, 2004. "Innovative approaches to rural development: Moving from state‐controlled towards market‐based land reform," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(1), pages 50-60, February.
    3. Valente, Christine, 2009. "The Food (In)Security Impact of Land Redistribution in South Africa: Microeconometric Evidence from National Data," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1540-1553, September.
    4. Chandra Bahadur Adhikar & Trond Bjorndal, 2014. "Economic Relationship between Access to Land and Rural Poverty in Nepal," Applied Economics Journal, Kasetsart University, Faculty of Economics, Center for Applied Economic Research, vol. 21(1), pages 20-41, June.
    5. Gersbach, Hans & Siemers, Lars-H. R., 2010. "Land Reforms And Economic Development," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 527-547, September.
    6. Stefania Lovo, 2014. "Analyzing the welfare-improving potential of land in the former homelands of South Africa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(6), pages 679-692, November.
    7. Boucher, Stephen R. & Barham, Bradford L. & Carter, Michael R., 2005. "The Impact of "Market-Friendly" Reforms on Credit and Land Markets in Honduras and Nicaragua," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-128, January.
    8. Johane Dikgang & Edwin Muchapondwa, 2016. "The Effect of Land Restitution on Poverty Reduction among the Khomani San “Bushmen” in South Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 84(1), pages 63-80, March.
    9. Claudio Araujo & Catherine Araujo Bonjean & Jean-Louis Combes & Pascale Combes-Motel, 2006. "Insécurité foncière et croissance économique au Brésil," Revue d’économie du développement, De Boeck Université, vol. 14(1), pages 79-97.
    10. Conning, Jonathan H. & Robinson, James A., 2007. "Property rights and the political organization of agriculture," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 416-447, March.
    11. Chiwuzulum Odozi, John & Uwaifo Oyelere, Ruth, 2024. "Land Access and Poverty among Agricultural Households in Nigeria," IZA Discussion Papers 17230, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Donaldson, John A., 2008. "Growth is Good for Whom, When, How? Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction in Exceptional Cases," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 2127-2143, November.
    13. Raffaella Castagnini & Klaus Deininger & Maria A. Gonzalez, 2004. "Comparing land reform and land markets in colombia: impacts on equity and efficiency," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3258, The World Bank.
    14. Alexis Rampa & Yiorgos Gadanakis & Gillian Rose, 2020. "Land Reform in the Era of Global Warming—Can Land Reforms Help Agriculture Be Climate-Smart?," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    15. Helfand, Steven M. & Sielawa, Vilma H. & Singhania, Deepak, 2019. "A matter of time: An impact evaluation of the Brazilian National Land Credit Program," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    16. Christine Valente, 2006. "Early Land Redistribution and the Food Security of South African Households: Micro-econometric evidence from national data," Working Papers 2006009, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Jun 2006.
    17. Odozi, John Chiwuzulum & Uwaifo Oyel, Ruth, 2024. "Land Access and Poverty among Agricultural Households in Nigeria," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1479, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    18. Fitz, Dylan, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of market-assisted land reform in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 255-267.
    19. Boubacar, Inoussa & Nene, Gibson, 2024. "Land to the landless: Does the type of approach matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    20. Foley-Fisher, Nathan & McLaughlin, Eoin, 2016. "Capitalising on the Irish land question: land reform and state banking in Ireland, 1891–1938," Financial History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 71-109, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    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:cmpart:243471. 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: http://www.agriculturaleconomics.net .

    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.