FARMERS' WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT THE 'JUST AND EQUITABLE'

COMPENSATION PRINCIPLE FOR LAND EXPROPRIATION IN THE NORTH

WEST PROVINCE OF SOUTH AFRICA

BY

KGAMESOLOMONSEKOTO

STUDENT NUMBER: 16182618

SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE

OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PhD)

IN

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND EXTENSION

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

NORTH WEST UNIVERSITY,

MAFIKENG CAMPUS

SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR OLADIMEJI OLADELE

CO-SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR M.A. ANTWI

JANUARY 2015

DECLARATION

I Kgame Solomon Sekoto, declare that the thesis entitled "Farmers' willingness to adopt

the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation in the North West

Province of South Africa", hereby submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

(PhD) in Agricultural Economics has not previously been submitted by me for a degree at

this or any another university. I further declare that this is my own work in design and

execution and that all materials contained herein have been duly acknowledged.

'3:.fj.~/!:f!lf ... DATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere gratitude goes to my supervisor, Pofessor Oladimeji Oladele, for his patience,

encouragement, guidance and advice towards the completion of this study. His

availability and research expertise were very valuable during the research journey. He

deserves my utmost gratitude.

I also wish to extend special thanks to Pofessor M.A. Antwi, Dr Paul Nkamta, Frederick

Asare and commercial farmers in the North West province who contributed in no small

way towards the completion of the study. I am very grateful to Johannes Albertus

Badenhorst, Liana van Wyk, Henri Benjamin Pretorius, James Prinsloo, Julian Brian

Fincham, Driekie Louw, Gratiano Ferrero, Frans Neveling, Nicolaas Johannes van Zyl,

Alexander de Beer, Johannes Hendrik Coetzee, Johan Taljaard, Andries Johannes Petrus

Le Roux, Jukie Hinds, Jacques Nel, Carien Theart, Johan Louw and Marthinius Wessels

Marais for their valuable assistance during the field work. I am also grateful to Mr N.N.

Maruma of the North West University for providing indispensable statistical advice for

my work. I acknowledge the financial assistance received from AgriSETA, the Land

Bank and North West University during my studies.

I will forever remain indebted to my parents Fusi Samuel Sekoto (RIP) and Matshaneng

Maria Sekoto (RIP). I cannot forget their love, effort and prayers. I also wish to express

special thanks to my brother, Pule Jeremiah Sekoto and my sisters, Inolofatse Lekabe,

Dikeledi Sekoto, Molebogeng Sekoto, Neo Sekoto and Refilwe Nemaname (RIP) for

their encouragement. To all who supported me during my studies my uncles, Lemphane

Sekoto and Paul Nkashe, my aunts Matshidiso Modupe, Lucia Sekoto and Keneilwe

Nkashe (RIP) .

I would like to also extend sincere gratitude to my beloved wife, Mmalerato Baatile Pasca

Sekoto. Without her love and moral support, this study would not have been completed.

She deserves my keen appreciation for taking good care of our beloved children, Oratile,

Kgalalelo and Naledi. They have been my pillar of strength, my source of joy and my

inspiration. Above all, I give thanks to the Almighty God for the wisdom; strength and

guidance which I needed to overcome the challenges of life.

11

ABSTRACT

The primary objective of this study was to examine farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation in the North West province.

The study covered the four districts in the North West province of South Africa (Ngaka

Modiri Molema, Dr Kenneth Kaunda, Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati and Bojanala). The

study population consisted of all commercial farmers, excluding LRAD, SLAG and

PLAS farmers. Since there was no information on the population of farmers, a large

sampling size technique of n 2: 30 was used to select 44 farmers from each of the districts

in the province. One hundred and seventy six (176) commercial farmers in the North

West province constituted the target sample of the study. A structured and pre-tested

questionnaire was used to collect data. The data was analysed using the Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), frequencies, mean, percentages, Probit and Ordinal

Regression analyses. The study revealed that the maximum educational level attained by

farmers is high school. The majority of respondents were males. The challenge is that

women, including the youth, need to be capacitated in order to participate in farming. The

size of farms ranged from 100 - 1000 hectares. The results of the probit model revealed

that participation in organizations (t = 1.718, p < 0.10), perception of policy (t = 3.596, p

< 0.01), educational level (t = -4.772, p < 0.01), household head (t = -1.749, p < 0.10),

farm size (t = 14.042, p < 0.01), income from maize (t = -2.611 , p < 0.05), income from

groundnuts (t = -1.668, p < 0.10), income from wheat (t = -1.749, p < 0.10), income from

tobacco (t = -2.481, p < 0.05), friends / relatives (t = -2.243, p < 0.05), extension service

(t = -3.552, p < 0.01), farmer organisations (t = -3.626, p < 0.01), Agricultural Research

Council (t = 5.985, p < 0.01), income from broilers (t = 2.504, p < 0.05) and other mass

media (t = -1.660, p < 0.10) showed a significantly positive relationship with farmers '

willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. The intercept stood at 0.001 and the model is well fit at 0.05. The chi

square was 6729.322. Therefore, in order to encourage farmers on the adoption of the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation, information on 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation, must remain extensive and

constant in reaching out to farmers.

lll

Declaration

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of contents

List of figures

List of tables

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Page

11

lll

lV

vii

Vil

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 1

1.2 ST A TEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 8

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 10

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 10

1.5 HYPOTHESIS 11

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 11

1. 7 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY 11

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 13

2.1 INTRODUCTION 13

2.2 THE NEED FOR LAND REFORM 13

2.3 LAND REFORM IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 15

2.4 LAND REFORM ISSUES IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES 17

2.5 CASES OF LAND REFORM PRINCIPLES, POLICIES AND 18

PROGRAMMES IN OTHER COUNTRIES

2.5.1 Brazil

2.5.2 South Korea

2.5.3 China

2.5.4 Japan

2.5.5 Colombia

2.5.6 Philippines

2.5.7 Chile

2.5.8 Zimbabwe

lV

18

21

22

23

23

24

25

26

2.5.9 Namibia 29

2.5.10 Kenya 30

2.6 HISTORICAL BASIS FOR LAND REFORM IN SOUTH AFRICA 31

2.7 SOUTH AFRICA'S LAND REFORM POLICY AND LEGAL 32 FRAMEWORKS

2.7.1 Land restitution 33

2. 7 .2 Land redistribution 34

2.7.2.1 Land grants 35

2.8 PERCEIVED CHALLENGES OF THE LAND REFORM PROGRAMME 36

2.8.1 The Land Redistribution Programme 36

2.8.2 The Land Restitution Programme 37

2.8.3 Land Tenure Reform 37

2.9 LAND ACQUISITION MODELS 38

2.9.1 Market-Based Land Distribution Model 39

2.9.1.1 Land cost comparison for land in the market 40

2.9.1.2 Land delivery trends 42

2.9.2 Expropriation (Just and equitable Land Reform Policy) 44

2.9.3 Outright confiscation or seizure of land 45

2.10 THE COST OF LAND ACQUISITION 45

2.11 THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN 46

ECONOMY

2.12 AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY 47 IN SOUTH AFRICA 2.13 THE INCIDENCE OF POVERTY, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 47

INEQUALITY IN SOUTH AFRICA

2.14 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

2.14.1 The Logit model

2.14.2 The Tobit model

2.15 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

V

48

48

52

53

54

54

3.2 STUDY AREA 54

3.3 STUDY POPULATION, SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE SIZE 55

3.4 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS AND APPROACH 56

3 .5 ANALYTICAL MODEL AND DAT A ANALYSIS 56

3.5.1 The Probit Model 58

3.5.2 The Ordinal regression Model 59

3.6 ETHICAL PROCEDURES OF DATA COLLECTION 61

3.7 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 62

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.0 DAT A ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 63

4.1 INTRODUCTION 63

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE SURVEY DATA 63

4.2.1 Demographic and socio-economic variables of commercial farmers 63

4.2.2 Categories of farming income derived from crop farming 69

4.2.3 Categories of farming income derived from animal farming 71

4.2.4 Sources of information 74

4.2.5 Farmers ' participation in agricultural or social organisations 75

4.2.6 Attitude towards the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle 76

4.2.7 Awareness of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle 79

4.2.8 Knowledge of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle 82

4.2.9 Willingness and extent of adoption of the 'just and equitable' principle 85

4.2.10 Perceived constraints on the 'just and equitable' principle 87

4.2.11 Willing and non-willing adopters of the 'just and equitable 'principle 90

4.2.12 One way analysis of variance comparing extent of willingness to adopt 91

4.2.13 Probit parameter estimates of willingness to adopt 'just and equitable ' 93

4.2.14 Extent of willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' principle 99

4.2.15 Proportion of land willing to be expropriated 104

4.3 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 109

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.2SUMMARY

Vl

110

110

110

5.3 CONCLUSIONS

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

Appendix I: Interview questionnaire

Appendix II: Letter of editing

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

3.1

3.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4 .7

4.8

LIST OF FIGURES Figures

Matching grant scale depending on the applicant's own contribution

Land price comparison for land in the market under the Restitution and

Redistribution Programmes, 1994-2004

Land delivery trends characterising the Redistribution and Restitutions

Programmes between 1994 and 2004

Land delivery trends characterising the Redistribution and Restitutions

Programmes between 1994 and 2004

Map of the North West Province

LIST OF TABLES

Tables

Definition of empirical variables used in adoption analysis

Personal characteristics of farmers

Category of income from crop farming among respondents in the study

area

Categories of income derived from animal farming among respondents

in the study area

Sources of information on the 'just and equitable ' compensation

principle for land expropriation

Farmers' participation in agricultural or social organizations

Attitude of commercial farmers towards 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation

Statements about awareness of 'just and equitable ' compensation

principle for land expropriation

Statements about knowledge of the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation

Vll

111

112

130

Pages

36

41

43

44

55

Pages

61

68

71

73

75

76

78

81

84

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

Farmers' willingness and extent of adoption of the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation

Perceived constraints on the 'just and equitable ' principle for

compensation

t-test statistics comparing willing adopter and non-willing adopters on

the 'just and equitable ' principle of land expropriation

One way analysis of variance comparing extent of willingness to adopt

the 'just and equitable' principle of land expropriation

Probit Parameter estimates of willingness to adopt the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation

Right amount for the adoption of the 'just and equitable' principle

Proportion of land willing to be expropriated

Vlll

87

89

91

93

98

104

108

1.0

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Land is one of the factors of production. Under pre-capitalist economies, land had a very

different meaning from what it is today. While access to land was the basis of life, land

was not a commodity owned in the way European powers understood it, nor was it a

repository of value as it was to become under capitalist relations of production. Generally,

land was abundant; the constraints on human well being laid not in a shortage of land but

in the amount of labour and the technology to work it (Walker, 2002). There was no

individual who owned land and land was considered a valuable resource because it was

regarded as part of the community. In short, one could say that the traditional land tenure

system was based on the relationship between the land and the people, who not only

owned the land, but who also belonged to the land (Zoloveke, 1979). However, the

situation changed with the arrival of Europeans and the colonisation and with introduction

of land rights and ownership. This involved the selling of land by individuals, and as a

result, some land became marketable commodity that could be acquired by a purchaser.

Nowadays, the importance of land is clearly reflected with the growing number of

disputes and anxiety over land rights, triggered basically by the growing use of land for

economic development (Lomo, 2001 ).

Land is a basic source of livelihood. In agricultural economies, land is the single most

important asset. With access to arable land, rural people at a minimum can feed

themselves and their families. Yet, ironically, the world' s hunger is concentrated in the

countryside (Boyce et al., 2005). The poor and landless in rural areas account for 80

percent of people who are chronically hungry in the world today (FAO, 2004). Land

reform is defined as the reallocation of rights to establish a more equitable distribution of

farmland and can be a powerful strategy for promoting economic development (Boyce et

al., 2005). Land is one of the most important scarce economic resources and its

ownership is an entry point to wealth creation (Mxotwa, 2013). The basic importance of

land is that it provides people with food and minerals (Hubacek et al., 2002). Land

suitable for farming is becoming scarce because of global increase in population. This

trend has caused a rise in the number of landless people as well as increasing inequality in

1

income and wealth distribution. All developing regions share impoverishment associated

with increasing rural population pressures. The world population has grown four times

from the 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the period 1900 to 2000 (United Nations,

2001). It is projected that the world's population will reach nine billion by 2050

(Rowarth, 2013).

The land question is a highly sensitive and emotive matter which touches the lives of

people. The unequal access to land has dominated discussions mainly in former settler

colonies such as South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Land reform is the transfer of

land ownership from existing land owners to new land owners, with the aim of addressing

skewed land ownership patterns. In most countries, the unequal distribution of land

ownership is probably the single most important determinant of the existing highly

inequitable distribution of rural income and wealth. When land ownership is unequally

distributed, rural people have little hope for economic advancement. The land reform

programme is by far the most important programme driving transformation. If land

reform is well designed, it can reduce the level of poverty, unemployment and income

inequality (Todaro, 1994 ). Land reform promotes greater productivity to the extent that it

improves the net asset position of tenants, even if they do not own land (Banerjee, 2000).

The history of land dispossession in South Africa dates as far back as 06 April 1652 with

the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck in the Cape. The dispossession forced many black people to

seek employment as farm workers. The first government of the 1910 Union of South Africa

came up with the so-called native policy which put into operation the Land Native Act

which was signed into law on 19 June 1913. This was an effort by the colonial government

to repress South Africa' s black people. The 1913 Natives Land Act excluded black people

from participating in the land market and this became the foundation for racial segregation

of land ownership. Rights to land for blacks were eroded until the advent of democracy in

1994 (Department of Land Affairs, 2007).

It is a general perception that the first government of the Union of South Africa was led by

a group of self selected, selfish capitalists who wanted to bargain or improve their

individual economic positions at the expense of the oppressed majority by excluding black

people from participating in the land market. The 1913 Natives Land Act was the root

cause of racial divisions that tore South Africans apart. This division continued until 1994

2

after the introduction and election of a democratic government. The Act gave white people

a platform from which to increase their wealth while at the same, it degraded and destroyed

material ownership of black people. Initially, it set aside 7 .3 % of all South African land for

"reserves" designed to accommodate black people. The 1913 Natives Land Act was

complemented in 1936 by the Native Trust and Land Act, increasing the amount of land

dedicated exclusively to "the native population" to 13.5% (Mxotwa, 2013).

The problem was more noticeable with the introduction of apartheid in 1948. This was a

move that divided South African people the more. The apartheid government relocated

many black people, in both urban and rural areas, in an attempt to create Bantustans.

Productive land was lost and small-scale farming that helped rural households to survive

was undermined. This contributed to wide-spread poverty, unemployment and inequality

among black people. In contrast, white commercial farmers were given massive financial

support and subsidies and over time, they became highly productive. The legacy of this

history is immense bitterness among black South Africans and a powerful desire to have

the land restored to its rightful owners. This is one reason why land reform is considered

high priority in South Africa since 1994. The high levels of racial inequality in land

ownership symbolise and has brought a feeling of a much wider range of deprivations and

oppressions that were experienced in the past and which require redress in the present

(Cousins, 2009).

The new South African democratic government inherited one of the worst racially-skewed

land distribution problems in the world with 87 percent of land owned by whites and only

13 percent of agricultural land by blacks. The skewed land ownership patterns resulted

from the history of South Africa, which is characterized by brutal conquest and the

systematic dispossession of black people from their land by the colonial and apartheid

governments. The Department of Land Affairs was established to address the skewed land

ownership patterns, provide redress for black people and contribute to national

reconciliation, growth and development. The World Bank and South Africa' s partners have

developed a new approach to land reform (World Bank, 2009).

The new approach to land reform allows beneficiaries to buy land in the open market.

Therefore, the post-apartheid South African government adopted the market-based

approach to land reform, without reducing the rights of white people and responded

3

proactively to the cries of black people by coming up with the South African Land Policy

(World Bank, 2009). The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform is duty­

bound to buy properties from those who make up the 87% of South Africa' s land owned by

white farmers and redistribute them to landless black people. But this process has not been

without hurdles. The new democratic government has encountered problems that are

entrenched and so inextricably hard wired into the structure of the economy that

overcoming them may seem an almost insurmountable challenge (Mxotwa, 2013).

The land reform programme is experiencing its fair share of hassles, some of which

emanate from the government itself, hence it is very slow. Although the ruling party has

always approved and endorsed the department' s land reform proposals at its conferences,

some government leaders have not taken these radical changes kindly. This has seen

drafts of the department' s policies and legislation moving forward and backward between

the cabinet and the department. Agrarian transformation is a long, arduous task for the

government. It will need a lot of patience, dedication and perseverance from the victims

of dispossession, who are always yearning for land and emancipation from poverty. The

government needs to be given time and space to pursue this goal until land inequalities

and rural poverty become a thing of the past (Mxotwa, 2013).

The victims of dispossession have a choice between getting their original land back, or

obtaining alternative land in instances where schools, hospitals or even towns have been

built on the original property. Those who are not interested in going back to the land are

free to opt for financial compensation. However, land distribution without subsequent

material and technical support from government has proven to be the country' s undoing

during the first 16 years of its freedom. That is why in 2010, the newly established

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform added a fourth pillar for land

reform, namely development, to the existing three: land restitution, land redistribution,

and land tenure reform. Redistribution is paramount for the just and equitable allocation

of land (Mxotwa, 2013). The South African Constitution places a positive obligation to

effect land redistribution (De Vos, 2013).

Land restitution is a legal process designed to provide redress to millions of households

dispossessed of their rights to land as a result of past racially discriminatory laws and

practices perpetrated by the colonial and apartheid governments. It is designed to restore

4

land rights (property ownership) or provide financial compensation to those who were

dispossessed of their property under colonialism and apartheid. This is an attempt to

promote equity among victims, particularly the landless and rural people (Department of

Land Affairs, 2004). Land redistribution is a process designed to transfer land from

people who previously enjoyed favourable access to those who were excluded from the

land market on the basis of race. The main purpose of land redistribution is to address the

skewed land ownership patterns of colonialism and apartheid (Department of Land

Affairs, 1997).

Land tenure reform refers to the planned change in the terms and conditions (e.g. the

adjustment of the terms of contracts between land owners and tenants, or the conversion

of more informal tenancy into formal property rights). A fundamental goal is to enhance

and secure people ' s land rights (Adams et al., 1999). Labour tenants are not credit

worthy. When the government opts to give them land through the land distribution

procedure, they are usually unable to qualify to secure loans from financial institutions.

Although the tenure reform programme has been the slowest and most difficult aspect of

the South African land reform programme to date, there are a number of laws that have

been promulgated since 1994 to address the tenure insecurity of persons or communities

in the former homelands and white commercial farming areas where farm workers and

farm occupiers are mainly found (Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs, 2006).

Racially-based laws have been removed and many people still face tenure insecurity.

Through the tenure programme, the Department of Land Affairs extends security of

tenure in diverse ways. In 1996, an interim law (The Interim Protection of Informal Land

Rights Act, 31 of 1996) was passed to protect people with insecure tenure from losing

their rights to land. The majority of this population live and farm on tribal land held under

communal tenure. Their land is registered in the name of the state. A demand for the

transfer of the land predates the 1996 Constitution. In terms of the Constitution, the

demand for the restoration of this land and mineral rights constitutes the majority of

tenure cases (Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs, 2006).

The pace of the constitutionally mandated redistribution of land in South Africa has been

far too slow. One of the many reasons for the slow progress on land reform is the

government' s current "willing buyer, willing seller" land redistribution policy. The

5

proposed Property Valuations Bill, read with the provisions of the Expropriation Bill,

may begin to address this problem. The South African Constitution places a positive

obligation on the state to "take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its

available resources" to effect land redistribution. Section 25 of the Bill of Rights also

explicitly allows the state to expropriate property forcibly, if necessary, in order to

achieve this purpose. This means the state may validly expropriate property (even in cases

where the owners of such property are unwilling to part with the property or unwilling to

part with it at the price offered), if the expropriation is aimed at redistributing land to

address the effects of widespread colonial and Apartheid-era land dispossession (De Vos,

2013).

There is therefore nothing in the Constitution that requires the state to stick to a "willing

buyer, willing seller" land redistribution policy. This policy has so far, allowed property

owners to block redistribution efforts, as it allows property owners to refuse to have their

property expropriated and also allows them to hold the government to ransom by

demanding that the state pay exorbitant prices for property intended for expropriation. A

new approach along the general lines of the proposed Property Valuations Bill and the

Expropriation Bill is therefore needed to deal with land redistribution. However, the

Constitution also prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property and states that

expropriation is made subject to the payment of compensation, "the amount of which and

the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or

decided or approved by a court" (De Vos, 2013).

The Constitution does not require the state to pay the owner of expropriated property the

market value for the property when it is expropriated. Instead, the state is required to pay

"just and equitable" compensation, "reflecting an equitable balance between the public

interest and the interests of those affected". In deciding what would constitute just and

equitable compensation, section 25 of the Constitution requires that the following factors

must be considered: the current use of the property; the history of the acquisition and use of

the property; the market value of the property; the extent of direct state investment and

subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and the

purpose of the expropriation (De Vos, 2013). Compensation made in terms of the

Expropriation Act is seen to be constitutionally valid if it is shown to be just and equitable,

and reflects a fair balance between public and private interests (McGaffin, 2013).

6

Given the slow pace of land reform and the exorbitant cost of the "willing buyer, willing

seller policy", it is possible to argue that the existing land reform policy is unconstitutional

because the measures are not reasonable in that they do not allow the state to move as

expeditiously as possible to address the effects of past unfair (race-based) land

dispossession. The Bills are intended to deal with the slow process of the current land

reform programme as well as the exorbitant and thus unsustainable cost of the programme.

The Expropriation Bill authorizes the relevant Minister to expropriate property for the

purposes of land redistribution even without the consent of the property owner. The Bill

provides several procedural safeguards in this respect, including the opportunity for the

owner of the property to lodge an objection to the decision to expropriate his or her

property and then to negotiate with the authorities about the intended expropriation.

Unfortunately, the Bills are not without flaws, opening up space for the "we-are-going-the­

way-of-Zimbabwe" alarmists to de-legitimize these proposed legislative measures which

are aimed at speeding up land reform (De Vos, 2013). "Land ownership regulation will see

big strides this year", President Zuma promised. He lauded government successes in land

redistribution, but said the "willing buyer, willing seller" principle had dragged on too long

and the results were unsatisfactory. In an announcement that sent shivers through the

agricultural community, he promised that the expropriation legislation would, at long last,

finalized in 2015, in line with the Constitution's emphasis on redistribution with

compensation (Joubert, 2015).

Land, therefore, carries a powerful political charge, as in the case of Zimbabwe, which had

a similar history to South Africa's. Critics have chided government for the slow pace of

land reform, and warned of the possibility of the land question becoming politically

explosive, as in Zimbabwe. Land activists see the "willing buyer, willing seller" approach

as expensive and cumbersome but also unjust, given that land was forcibly appropriated by

the racial minority in the past (Cousins, 2009). It is for this reason that South Africans

should follow the ideals of former President Mandela. At his inauguration as State

President at the Union Buildings in Pretoria on 10 May 1994, urged South Africans to act

together as a united people, work towards national reconciliation, strive nation building and

for the birth of a new world (Mandela, 1994). This can serve as a motivation in resolving

the land question.

7

Minister Gugile Nkwinti has proposed a draft institutional proposal to propel land reform

in the country. The department has also ensured that state land be made available for

distribution to the landless by stipulating that it will only be leased, not sold. The

department will also do away with the oppression presently prevalent in communal areas,

particularly former homelands and rural villages. Communal land tenure is being amended

to democratise institutions in communal areas. Recently, the National Assembly passed the

Spatial Land Use Management Bill, which will assist national government, provinces and

municipalities in their development plans (Mxotwa, 2013).

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

It is more than twenty years now that the Land Reform Programme has been operational.

However, the debate has continued regarding the effectiveness of the land policy and

programmes. Concerns regarding the effectiveness of land distribution on the basis of the

"willing buyer, willing seller" principle was predominantly based on the historical value

at the time of dispossession. Many critics attribute the poor performance of the land

reform programme to a number of issues. Anecdotal evidences suggest that the pace of

land redistribution has been negatively influenced by the "willing buyer, willing seller"

principle and that the market-based approach is not efficiently distributing land and is

characterized by distortions, imperfections of the land market and obstructs the efficient

functioning of markets. The pace of land distribution in South Africa has been very slow

and anecdotal evidence suggests that it is as a result of market failures (Government

Gazette, 2013).

The Government has set the target of achieving the redistribution of 30% of commercial

agricultural land or about 25 million hectares to black people by 2015. To date, only a

quarter of the 30% target has been distributed. However, the debate has continued

regarding the effectiveness of the land policy and programmes. Concerns regarding the

effectiveness of policy and programmes focus mainly on the acceleration of land

redistribution to emerging black commercial farmers in order to meet redistribution

targets. Many critics attribute the slow pace of land redistribution in the country to a

number of issues. As a result of the "willing buyer, willing seller" clause, land

redistribution has been slow due to escalating land prices (Government Gazette, 2013).

8

This has in turn, raised questions about the effectiveness of the entire market-based land

reform process and Government's ability to participate therein, without influencing the

market and thus the land prices making land redistribution budgets grossly inadequate.

Questions are increasingly being asked whether the market-assisted land reform, based on

the principle of willing-buyer-willing-seller, can distribute the required scale and whether

there needs to be more government intervention, including more willingness to use

expropriation. It has been argued that letting the market alone determine the pace of land

reform distribution is not desirable. One of the problems identified in government's

implementation of land reform programmes is the issue of valuations (Government

Gazette, 2013).

By virtue of the willing-buyer-willing-seller-principle, market value principles are applied

when government acquires land for land reform purposes. Government is concerned that

the principle of market value is not interpreted correctly and applied in a uniform manner.

Furthermore, it has become apparent that there is a need to properly analyse and

aggressively implement the framework of how to deal with land valuations and the

determination of the purcha e price which should be linked to section 25 of the

Constitution. In order to deal with the challenges outlined above, new legislation is

required to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution which provide for land reform

and land restitution through the valuation of property. This will determine the purchase

price for or in respect of the property and review of the market-based land distribution

remains a government priority in order to ensure that the land market functions efficiently

(Government Gazette, 2013).

There have been calls for the Government to expropriate land and to do away with the

market-based land reform. The aforementioned constraints, led to the development of the

new 'just and equitable ' principle for compensation in order to speed up the land reform

programme (Government Gazette, 2013). In this regard, government will now pursue the

'just and equitable' principle for compensation, as set out in the Constitution instead of

the "willing buyer, willing seller" principle (The Presidency, 2013). While the processes

on the policy formulation have commenced, this study is an ex-ante approach of finding

out what the willingness of farmers would be on the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation as set out in the Constitution instead of the "willing

buyer, willing seller" principle.

9

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions asked were:

a) What are the personal characteristics of white commercial farmers in the North

West province of South Africa?

b) What are the perception and attitude of farmers regarding the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation?

c) What are the sources of information, awareness and knowledge of farmers about

the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation?

d) Are farmers willing to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for

land expropriation?

e) What are the potential constraints to the adoption of the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation?

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study was to examine farmers' willingness to adopt the 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation in the North West Province.

The subsidiary objectives were to:

a) Analyse the personal characteristics of white commercial farmers in the North

West province of South Africa;

b) Analyse the perceptions and attitudes of farmers regarding the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation;

c) Identify sources of information, awareness and knowledge of farmers about the

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation;

d) Evaluate the willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle

for land expropriation on the part of commercial farmers; and

e) Determine constraints affecting the adoption of the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation.

1.5 HYPOTHESIS

There is no significant relationship between socio-economic characteristics (personal

characteristics, perception, attitude, sources of information, awareness and knowledge)

and farmers' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation.

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The total land mass of South Africa is 122 million hectares. Out of this number 82 million

hectares is agricultural land. The government has set the target of delivering 30% of

commercial agricultural land, or about 25 million hectares by 2015. To date, only one

quarter of the 30% target has been reached. This is far below the intended government

target of redistributing 30% of land by 2015. For this reason, the majority of rural people

are still affected by pervasive poverty and demand that government speeds up the

delivery of programmes with particular attention to land. It is the researcher' s strong

contention that the findings of this study will provide strategic policy directions, which

will strengthen the land reform process in the province, and may also have national

implications.

If farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation in the North West Province of South Africa are found to be unfavourable,

then recommendations on how to improve the land reform policy would be provided,

which in turn may be adopted by policy makers to address the problems. The need to

examine land reform policy in the North West Province is imperative for the country' s

ability to increase economic growth, employment and the standard of living. The findings

will also be useful in helping policy-makers in understanding the constraints of the 'just

and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation.

1.7 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY

The thesis is divided into different chapters. Chapter 1 presents the introduction,

background to the study, statement of the problem, research questions, objectives of the

11

study, hypothesis and significance of the study; Chapter 2 presents the literature review;

Chapter 3 focuses on methodological issues pertaining to the study area, sampling

techniques and sample size, survey design, data collection and analysis of the data;

Chapter 4 focuses on the results and the discussion; Chapter 5 is the summary and

conclusion.

12

2.0

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature relevant to the study and present

discussions around farmers' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation in the North West Province of South Africa. The chapter

begins with the need for land reform, land reform in developing countries, land reform

issues in African countries, cases of land reform principles, policies and programmes in

other countries such as Brazil, South Korea, China, Japan, Colombia, Philippines, Chile,

Zimbabwe, Namibia and Kenya. The historical basis for land reform in South Africa is

provided. This is followed by South Africa's land reform policy and legal framework,

land restitution, land redistribution, land grants, the land tenure reform, perceived

challenges of the land reform programme in terms of the land redistribution programme,

the land restitution programme and the land tenure reform, land acquisition models,

market-based land distribution model, land cost comparison for land in the market, land

delivery trends, expropriation (Just and equitable land reform policy), outright

confiscation or seizure of land, the cost of land acquisition, the role of agriculture in the

South African economy, agricultural land reform and economic inequality in South

Africa. In the final section, a review of the incidence of poverty, social and economic

inequality in South Africa is also examined.

2.2 THE NEED FOR LAND REFORM

Land reform is generally understood to mean redistribution of property or rights in land

for the benefit of the landless, tenants and farm labourers (Warriner, 1969). The aim is to

address the skewed land ownership patterns. This encourages rural development,

promotes land and economic rights of rural people. In most countries, the unequal

distribution of land ownership is probably the single most important determinant of the

existing highly inequitable distribution of rural income and wealth. When land ownership

is unequally distributed, rural people have little hope for economic advancement. Land

reform is designed to provide secured land tenure rights to the new land owners. The land

reform programme is by far the most important programme driving transformation. Land

ownership increases rural employment and raises rural incomes (Todaro, 1994).

13

Land reform is likely to be ineffective, inefficient and perhaps even counterproductive,

unless there are changes in rural institutions that control production, for example,

financial institutions in supporting government aid services (Todaro, 1994). In many

developing countries, the unequal distribution of land makes it difficult to sustainably

reduce poverty (Deininger et al. , 2004 ). The lack of access to land within the context of

an unequal distribution of land can create obstacles that may prevent the poor from

accessing credit markets to make discrete investments such as in schooling or to take

advantage of other economic opportunities (Aghion et al. , 1999). The literature has long

emphasised that in a world where credit markets are imperfect, the unequal distribution of

assets and economic opportunities will reduce both household ability to invest and social

cohesion, and thus, ultimately economic growth (Deininger and Olinto, 2000). The

dependence of landless households on the continued good will of landlords to provide

them with land for their sustenance, rather than ownership reduces their shadow wage,

thus reducing the cost of hired labour. It reduces the incentives for the landless to acquire

human capital (Binswanger et al. , 1995) and (Conning, 2002).

Dependency also reduces the scope for establishing independent institutions, with

potentially far-reaching and adverse consequences for economic and social development

(Nugent and Robinson, 2002). The unequal distribution of land, together with lack of

efficient land markets that would help bring land to its most appropriate use, will often

lead to significant inefficiency in the utilisation of land and underinvestment. This is at

the root of the seeming paradox that in many countries, with highly unequal land

distribution, lack of land access and environmentally unsustainable cultivation of

marginal areas by the poor often go hand in hand with the underutilisation of large tracts

of productive land (Deininger et al. , 2004).

Land reform can make a huge contribution in removing poverty, but it has not been

effectively tried and tested in many areas of the world. A compelling case is made about

the need to re-focus on agricultural growth as the engine to reduce rural poverty.

Improving access to land will ensure that the benefits of agricultural technical change

reach many millions of rural poor. Land reform is neither dead nor dying. As land

becomes scarcer, its value also increases. Farms in many regions of the developing world

actually become smaller, mostly for good economic reasons and the need for efficient

institutional change related to land remains strong. The poor need appropriate and often

14

advanced scientific technologies as well as land reform. Without both of these, there is

little hope of rural poor lifting themselves out of chronic poverty. Land reform is alive

and well and delivering development around the world. Within the context of poverty,

land is a major asset. The rights over land are social constructs and so are emotive

political battlegrounds. In a world of continuing poverty and unequal access to and use of

land are as important as ever (Lipton, 2010).

A tax policy has much potential of addressing these issues, since in most countries,

differential collection favours land over other assets, and makes it more attractive to large

holders. A tax reform is helpful when heavier taxes are imposed on land than on many

other assets, both to encourage transfer to smallholders and discourage the holding of this

asset for speculative purposes. An efficient tax system discourages the holding of all

naturally speculative assets in favour of assets that are both productive and in variable

supply. When land is less useful as a tax shelter, large holders are less determined to hold

onto it at all cost. Land taxes can also help to finance rural infrastructure and make all

farms more profitable. The threat of expropriation might be needed to give market-based

land reform enough traction to make it actually work (Lipton, 1993).

2.3 LAND REFORM IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

It is true of many countries that with time and development, the potential economic and

social contribution of a good land reform diminishes. Carter and Zimmerman (2000) have

written cogently on the vulnerability of small farmers who lose their land to big ones.

Sometimes, this happens under conditions of extreme injustice and conflict.

Understanding the arguments for land reform and what, broadly speaking, needs to

happen to achieve it, is usually the easier part of the reformer's challenge. Many countries

at many times, have 'needed' such reform, but it has either not been undertaken or has not

proceeded as it should. Some aspects of the politics of land reform are straightforward but

others are tricky and nuanced. The story of land reform is very much a story of the

reduction of poverty and of income instability of the poor. This fits nicely into today's

discussions around social safety nets, economic security and social policies, a justifiable

and laudable concern of all governments who take the welfare of their citizens to heart, of

all major international agencies, and many NGOs (Lipton, 2010). Landlessness is at the

heart of agricultural development problems and land tenure reform is the most direct and

15

effective way of addressing the problems caused by landlessness (Prosterman et al. ,

1990). Political parties usually seek increased electoral support from low-income rural

voters as well as pressurizing a wide range of other clients and allies with frequently

conflicting interests in reform (Barraclough, 1999).

In many developing countries, a large proportion of rural residents are victims of the

massive livelihood crisis that has accompanied the commercialization of agriculture and

associated economic activities (Pearse, 1980). Gross inequality in the control of land

constitutes a principal obstacle to broad-based rural development in many developing

countries. Land reform that provides secure and equitable rights to productive land for the

rural poor should clearly be a high priority for states and other actors committed to the

pursuit of socially and ecologically sustainable development. Land reform in several

countries has had mixed results, with dubious effects on the livelihood of the rural poor,

although some have been more successful than others (Barraclough, 1992).

According to the Webster' s dictionary, land reform refers to measures designed to effect a

more equitable distribution of agricultural land, especially by government action. An

approach to sustainable and equitable development requires well-informed, purposeful

courses of action by the state and other concerned social actors. For the purposes of this

study, it necessarily includes the redistribution of rights to land from large landholders to

benefit the rural poor, providing them with more equitable and secure access to land.

Land tenure institutions have to be continually adapted and regulated to serve public

interest. But unless institutions and policies regulating rights and obligations of access to

land are somehow made primarily accountable to poor majorities, to low income

minorities and unborn generations, instead of to currently dominant corporate and other

powerful groups, public interest can easily be interpreted to mean the opposite of

sustainable development (Barraclough, 1999).

In many developing countries, the highly unequal distribution of land makes it very

difficult to sustainably reduce poverty (Deininger et al., 2004). One reason for this is that

access to land in the context of the unequal distribution of land can create obstacles that

may prevent the poor from accessing credit markets in order to make discrete investments

by taking advantage of other economic opportunities (Aghion et al. , 1999). The literature

has long emphasised that in a world where credit markets are imperfect, the highly

16

unequal distribution of assets and economic opportunities will reduce both household

ability to invest and social cohesion, and thus, ultimately, economic growth (Deininger

and Olinto, 2000).

2.4 LAND REFORM ISSUES IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES

Land is the basis for human life and a vital element in any nation' s geography and

identity. It is an integral resource for production and the sustenance of life on earth.

African tradition teaches that land is a God-given resource to be used by all. Pursuant to

this belief, the use of land in the past was unrestricted and accessible to everyone who

needed it. Traditional authorities served as the custodians of the land, to whom the rights

of usage would revert to for reallocation to others. Expropriation of land and the

individualisation of land ownership began with the advent of colonialism. Landlessness,

never before experienced on the continent, escalated. As such, land became the source of

protracted conflicts throughout Africa (Ndala, 2008).

Successful land reform, from the viewpoint of the rural poor, has invariably contained a

confiscatory element from the viewpoint of large holders, who lost some of their previous

rights and privileges. Land reform is necessarily a political process. When land tenure

relations are really altered to benefit tenants, landless workers and near landless peasants,

it implies a change in power relationships in favour of those who physically work the land

at the expense of those who primarily accumulate wealth from their control over rural

land and labour. The role of the state in land reform is crucial. This is because the state

comprises the institutionalized political organization of society. It articulates and

implements public policy and adjudicates conflicts (Barraclough, 1999).

In theory, the state has monopoly over the legitimate use of coercive force within its

territory, together with the responsibility to pursue public good for all its citizens. Land

reform, without state participation, would be a contradiction of terms. Land and labour

are increasingly treated as commodities to be employed rationally in ways that maximize

net monetary returns for private proprietors and for the state (Barraclough, 1999).

Available data indicate that serious cases of under-nutrition and poverty have been very

severe in rural than urban areas of Africa (Barraclough, Ghimire and Meliczek, 1997).

17

2.5 CASES OF LAND REFORM PRINCIPLES, POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES

IN OTHER COUNTRIES

In this section, the literature review focused on countries from different parts of the world

such as Brazil, South Korea, China, Japan, Colombia, Philippines, Chile, Zimbabwe,

Namibia, Kenya and South Africa.

2.5.1 Brazil

Brazil has one of the most skewed land distribution programmes in the world. It is not

surprising that it is one of the most unequal countries in terms of income distribution.

Facing the challenge of reducing inequality of land ownership and intensifying land use,

the Brazilian government implemented a land reform programme in 1966, with the

enactment of the Land Act. In Brazil, wealth has been largely associated with land. First,

land is used not only as a productive asset but also as a resource for other benefits; as a

hedge against inflation, as an asset that can be liquidated to smooth consumption in the

face of risk, as collateral for access to loans, as a tax shelter, or as a means of laundering

illicit funds (de Janvry et al., 1997).

Since the mid 1980s, however, the country has also given birth to a vibrant land reform

movement. The Brazilian land reform movement strives to redistribute land from the rich

to the poor in order to lay the basis for more inclusive economic growth. In Brazil the

driving impetus for land reform comes not from the state but rather from a popular

organisation, the Landless Workers ' Movement. The origin of the Landless Workers'

Movement can be traced to the Catholic liberation theology of the 1960s, which is spread

in the Brazilian countryside and urban shantytowns. In the 1970s, the pastoral Land

Commission, organised by the National Council of Catholic Bishops and supported by a

number of land occupations from around the country, came together to form the Landless

Workers' Movement (Boyce et al., 2005).

In Brazilian property law, land ownership is governed by the 'principle of effective use '.

Under the law, land owners who do not use their land productively, thereby failing to

fulfill the ' social function ' of property, are subject to expropriation (Wright and Wolford,

2003). This principle was affirmed in the Land Statute passed by Brazil ' s new military

18

rulers in 1964, and again in the National Agrarian Reform Plan that passed upon the

return to civilian rule in 1985. The latter defines a ' productive farm ' as one in which at

least 80% of the acreage is effectively used, environmental and labour standards

respected, and the use of the land of common benefit to landowners and workers (Deere,

2003).

Although farms that do not meet these criteria can be expropriated, in practice, Brazilian

government authorities generally do not act unless direct action forces them to do so. This

is where the Landless Workers' Movement plays a crucial role. After identifying an

unproductive estate that it considers eligible for expropriation, the Landless Workers '

Movement recruits 200 to 2500 landless families, sometimes from rural areas and

ometimes from towns and cities, to carry out an occupation. Over a period of several

months, the families are trained and prepared in meetings of origin groups in their places

of residence. The occupation is then conducted at a single stroke, mobilising ' thousands

of people overnight, some of them from substantial distances' (Hammond, 1999).

The landowners typically respond with lawsuits, and sometimes, with violence. If they

are evicted, the occupier often erect temporary shelters on nearby state-owned land while

the litigation proceeds, receiving material support from the Landless Workers ' Movement

while they attempt to win legal title to the land. The strategy of the Landless Workers '

Movement is founded on the reality that property rights are never perfectly defined, nor

perfectly secured. Instead, they are created, and recreated in an ongoing process of social

construction. To date, the Landless Workers ' Movement-led occupations have enabled

some 300, 000 Brazilian families (more than a million people) to win legal recognition

for more than eight million acres of land reform settlements (Stedile, 2004 ).

While this represents only a fraction of the land held in large estates in Brazil, it is an

impressive beginning that could mark a historic break from Brazil ' s highly unequal

agrarian structure. At first, the Landless Workers ' Movement encouraged settlers to

undertake collective production on the occupied lands. These efforts often failed. In

subsequent years, the Landless Workers ' Movement employed a flexible system that

promotes cooperation in multiple forms, from true collective farming to various kinds of

marketing cooperative that serve individual family farms. A typical settlement of several

hundred families may include some groups who farm collectively, as well as several

19

different cooperatives. All families participate together in the political governance of the

settlement (Boyce et al., 2005).

Brazil has recently embarked on selective expropriation with compensation; viable family

smallholder farms receiving government support; serving domestic markets, while large­

scale commercial farms serve export markets; and, combined market-related strategies

with traditional land management systems, in a complementary manner. The lessons

emanating from the Brazilian experience with the implementation of the land and agrarian

reform programme are illuminating. In Brazil, the opposite practice in the implementation

of the land and agrarian reform programme has been the order of the day (Department of

Rural Development and Land, 2011).

The beneficiaries of the land and agrarian reform in Brazil have been actively involved in

negotiations with the land owners over the purchase of land. In their negotiations with the

landed gentry for the purchase of land, they had the power to walk away when the land

owners became unreasonable by demanding high prices for the land. In so doing, the

beneficiaries of the land and agrarian reform in Brazil have been able to bring down the

prices of land through the use of their power of walking away from negotiations. In

bringing down the prices of land, they have been able to save money for development and

investment purposes on their newly acquired land (Department of Rural Development and

Land Reform, 2011).

The Landless Workers' Movement has only recently begun to stress the importance of

securing land rights for women. Earlier, the organisation considered gender issues to be

potentially divisive and a diversion from the central issue of class. Under Brazilian law,

joint titling for couples is not mandatory, and title to the land is often held by the male

household head. At a national seminar in 1997, almost one hundred landless women from

across the country debated the role of gender issues in the Landless Workers' Movement.

A gender collective within the Landless Workers' Movement and a national rural

women' s organisation were subsequently organised. Today, the Landless Workers'

Movement is paying more attention to the gender dimension of land reform, prompted by

the growing awareness that the failure to recognise women's land rights is prejudicial to

20

the development and consolidation of settlements and thus, the movement (Deere, 2003 ,

Martins 2004). In Brazil, landholders have clamoured for a market-based approach as a

substitute for a more ambitious state-led programme (Deere and Servolo de Medeiros,

2006)

2.5.2 South Korea

In South Korea, the U.S. military authorities and the new post-war government also

instituted a land to the tiller reform. Prior to this, most farmlands were cultivated by

tenant farmers, who gave half or more of their crops to Korean landlords. The reform

transferred ownership rights to former tenants. The ceiling on land ownership was set at

three hectares (about 7.5 acres). Korean landlords received compensation, nominally

equal to the market price of the land. In practice, the market price already was deflated by

landowner fears of expropriation, and the value of the compensation was further curtailed

by stretching payments to the government in return for the land (Boyce et al., 2005). The

government used the income from the sale of rice not only to compensate landlords, but

also to invest in rural water supply systems (Jang, 2004).

The land reforms helped to set the stage for rapid industrialisation that one day would be

hailed as the East Asian miracle. By redistributing rights to the most important rural asset,

East Asia' s post-war land reforms did much to reduce poverty in the countryside (Boyce

et al., 2005). Two links between land reform and industrial growth were particularly

important. First, farmers ' improved economic security meant that they could afford to

send their children to school, providing a skilled workforce for industry (Shin, 1998).

Second, compared to landed oligarchies that dominated political life in the pre-reform era,

the reforms brought about a more egalitarian order. This explains why government efforts

to promote industrialisation did not degenerate into a mere pretext for looting state

resources and capturing policy generated rents, as it so often happened in countries where

traditional landed elites retained their grip on power (Boyce et al., 2005). Analysing how

and why the state succeeded in promoting industrial growth in South Korea, the initial

advantage conferred by an egalitarian distribution of wealth and income was probably the

single most important reason why extensive government intervention could be carried out

effectively, without giving rise to rampant rent seeking (Rodrik, 1995). In other words,

land reform was one of the most important factors to East Asia' s economic miracle.

21

2.5.3 China

Land reform has characterised rural China since the founding of the People's Republic in

1949. Radical farmland reforms started in the early 1950s. By expropriating land from

landlords and distributing it to landless peasants, China achieved the goal of tillers having

their own land. China shaped its farmland policy from the well-known model of the

Soviet Union, which was characterised by collective ownership and unified collective

operation. China carried out its second land reform, a campaign of collectivisation in the

mid-1950s. During the process individual farmers were compelled to join collectives. The

collectivisation finally developed an institution called the People's Commune. With

centrally controlled property rights and a misapplied egalitarian principle of distribution,

the communes destroyed farmers' operational freedom and their enthusiasm for

production (Chen and Davis, 1998). The bulk of the literature illustrates the poor

performance of the commune system (Stavis, 1982; Lin, 1982; Lin, 1987; Chen, 1994).

In China, the Agrarian Reform Law of 1950 institutionalised the land to the tiller

redistributive reforms started in communist controlled territories during the revolution.

Landlords, described by the Chinese as the rural gentry and who did not work in the

fields, were expropriated and their properties transferred to landless and poor peasants.

Individual peasant proprietors, including the land reform beneficiaries were free to buy,

sell and rent land (Boyce et al., 2005). In the early years of the revolution, the traditional

Chinese ideal of a system of more or less equal family-owned and operated farms was

probably more fully realized than it has ever been in China's long history (Meisner,

1986).

The Chinese Communist party initially advocated a gradual, voluntary transition from

individual to collective farming. Starting in 1995, however, the party embraced a more

aggressive collectivization strategy with the aims of increasing agricultural output,

extracting bigger surpluses for industrial investment, and heading off the re-emergence of

inequalities in the countryside. This culminated in the establishment of the people's

communes, each of which comprised roughly 5000 households (Boyce et al., 2005). The

collectivization strategy proved disastrous as it contributed to what has been referred to as

the largest famine in human history in 1959 to 1961, in which millions perished (Smil,

22

1999). Ultimately, the communes were dissolved and a new wave of agrarian reforms

began in the late 1970s. Under the ' household responsibility system', individual families

in China now have the right to till the land, but not to buy or sell it (Boyce et al. , 2005).

2.5.4 Japan

In Japan, a far-reaching land reform was initiated after World War II by U.S. occupation

authorities under General Douglas Mac Arthur. America' s backing of the land reform

motives were to dismantle the traditional rural power base of Japanese militarism, and to

ward off the appeal of communism by reducing agrarian discontent (Putzel, 1992). The

chief architect of the land reform described it as a drastic redistribution of property,

income, political power, and social status at the expense of landlords (Ladejinsky, 1977).

The reform put a one hectare ceiling on ownership of tenanted lands, and a three hectare

ceiling on self-cultivated lands. Holdings above these limits were expropriated and

redistributed to tillers of the soil. Former landlords received partial compensation in

government bonds (Boyce et al., 2005). Tenants participated in the local land

commissions that implemented the reforms, but most tenants and landlords alike, saw it

as a top-down transformation imposed from heavens above (Dore, 1959).

2.5.5 Colombia

An unequal distribution of land ownership, together with lack of efficient land markets

that could help bring land to its most appropriate use, will often lead to significant

inefficiency in the utilisation of land and underinvestment. This is at the root of the

seeming paradox that many countries with highly unequal land distribution and lack of

access to land by the poor go hand in hand with underutilisation of large tracts of

productive land (Deininger et al., 2004). Aspects of this problem have been illustrated for

Colombia (Heath and Binswanger, 1996). Lack of access to land in the context of its

unequal distribution can create obstacles that may prevent the poor from accessing credit

markets to make discrete investments (Aghion et al., 1999).

23

Market assisted land reform has emerged as a non-coercive alternative to traditional land

reform in Colombia. Colombia enacted its first land reform law in 1936. The law used the

threat of expropriation of unproductive lands to induce landlords to modernise their

farming practices. In response, a new landlord class of large scale entrepreneurs emerged

with political influence over the state. This group used its influence to weaken the land

reform law and to direct public expenditures on infrastructure, irrigation and credit

subsidies to large-scale farmers. As violence by the landless increased in the countryside,

Colombia passed a redistributive land reform law in 1961 aimed at creating the family

farm sector. But by then, yields were higher in large-scale farms than in the small ones,

and high market prices for large farms made expropriation with full compensation

impossible. Land concentration actually increased in the decade after 1961. In 1972,

Colombia declared the end of the redistributive land reform. Land reform efforts had

resulted in neither an efficient reallocation of ownership nor a reduction in poverty, but

rather in greater uncertainty, political turmoil, and the creation of a highly capital

intensive agriculture on a large estates subsidised by heavy public expenditures (Hoff,

1996).

2.5.6 Philippines

Philippines has long been known for its high inequality in the distribution of wealth and

income. Partly due to its historically high levels of inequality, there has long been an

intermittent incidence of peasant unrests and rural insurgencies in the Philippines. As a

result, the issue of land reform has continuously been on the political agenda, at least

since the early part of the 20th century. The process of land reform legislation and its

implementation in the Philippines has been a continuous process (Fuwa, 2000). The

failure of redistributive land reform programmes was as a result of the rising relative

economic power of medium and large owners over time, which presumably, shifted the

demand and supply of land reform in the political market (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 1989).

Recent developments in both theoretical and empirical economic literature have

demonstrated many aspects of the negative socio-economic consequences of high

inequalities in the distribution of wealth. High inequality also hinders the subsequent

distribution of wealth. High inequality also hinders subsequent economic growth (Persson

and Tabellini, 1994 ), inhibits the poor from realising their full potential in economic

24

activities and human development through credit constraints (Deininger and Squire,

1998), and as well encourages rent-seeking activities (Rodrik, 1996).

The Philippines is a classic example of an economy suffering from all these

consequences. The Philippines has long been known for its high level of inequality in the

distribution of wealth and income. Unlike many of its Asian neighbours characterised by

relatively lowest levels of inequality by international standards, the economy of the

Philippines has often been compared to Latin American countries characterised by high

levels of inequality in terms of land distribution. Nevertheless land reform in the

Philippines has been, and still is, an unfinished business (Manahan, 2013).

2.5.7 Chile

Electoral politics was an important mechanism used to push land reforms in Chile from ~

timid beginning to a radical climax that implied profound modifications in the agrarian

structure. In the 1950s, much of rural Chile was dominated by large estate owners. The

owners of these large estates would have represented only 3 percent of the total number

of rural families and most large estate owners were absentees, living all or part of the time

in urban areas. Many estates belonged to the same landowners, or members of their

immediate families, making the real concentration of ownership even greater. Passive

resistance to the dominance by estate owners of the countryside was often supplemented

by strikes and other forms of overt protests (Barraclough, 1999).

Chile expropriated large farms in the 1960s, turning them into co-operatives for peasants

and small farmers (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, 2011). No

poorly worked estates were actually expropriated. Estates that were voluntarily sold by

their owners, usually received prices lower than requested but far above tax-assessed

values. A few large estates owned by government agencies were also subdivided. Some

of these purchased and public agency-held estates were allocated to beneficiaries in

economic units estimated to be sufficient for profitable family-operated farms. Some of

the land was allocated in (larger) medium-sized commercial units (Barraclough, 1999).

25

The first agrarian reform law was enacted in 1962. Approximately half of all agricultural

land was covered, a large percentage of which had previously been owned by large

landowners. Just as importantly, the semi-feudal relations which had predominated in

many areas were definitively abolished. One-third of the 5,800 expropriated estates,

which covered 10 million hectares, were totally or partially returned to the former

owners; another third ended up in the hands of private capitalists through various means.

The rest of the land remained in the hands of peasants in the form of individual plots. The

1973 coup d'etat reversed the country's socialist policies (Remando, 2005). A counter­

reform after 1973 was accompanied by further structu~al changes (Barraclough, 1999).

There was also a reversal in 1974, with the re-instatement of elite family farms

(Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, 2011). Existing cooperatives were

encouraged to divide communal land into family plots, and were given no support

whatsoever. However, the large landed estates were never reconstituted. A new agrarian

bourgeoisie developed, which devoted an important part of the production to exports,

particularly fruits, wood and wine using state of the art procedures and technologies. The

land reform experience of Chile is worth examining because of its important social,

economic and political impacts and experiences (Remando, 2005). Regulatory reforms

were introduced on land rentals and subdivisions in the 1980s (Department of Rural

Development and Land Reform, 2011).

2.5.8 Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980 and the focus of land reform has been on the

redistribution of land from the large-scale commercial farming sector to small-scale

peasant producers. Land redistribution and the deracialisation of land ownership top the

land reform agenda (Walker, 2002). In fact, the market-led programme, which was based

on the "willing buyer, willing seller" principle, was imposed at independence in order to

prevent the emergence of state-led programmes (Van Donge et al., 2006 and Moyo,

2006).

In 1981, Zimbabwe argued that the provision of adequate foreign funds for land

purchases was not forthcoming, as promised in 1979 by the United Kingdom and the

26

United States of America. The United Kingdom pledged that it would finance the

purchase price of land for land reform purposes. However, any commercial farmer who

wanted to sell his / her land had to first offer it to the Zimbabwean government. When the

government of Zimbabwe was not willing to buy such land, the farmers were then

allowed to sell the land in the open market. It was agreed in accordance with the

Lancaster House Agreement, that, the distribution of land ownership for land reform

purposes would be financed through international resources. Lack of funds for the

purchase and the distribution of land ownership for land reform purposes, and the absence

of a planned strategy for an orderly land reform process, has caused social, economic and

political upheavals. The Zimbabwean government forcibly took land from white

commercial farmers and gave it back to blacks. Unfortunately, the blacks could not put

the agricultural land into productive use. This resulted in poor food security and

deterioration of the country's economy (Sibanda, 2001).

Since early 2000, however, Zimbabwe has been in the grip of an escalating political and

economic crisis as a consequence of its ' fast track' resettlement programme. The state

sanctioned a wave of farm invasions, and mounting conflict in the run-up to national

elections in early 2002. The crisis saw seeing the contraction of the formal economy and

rising levels of unemployment which, among other things, meant an increase in the

dependency ratios on formally employed workers as well as greater dependency on land

across all sectors of society (Mbaya, 2001).

Land and agranan reform problems in SADC member states have the potential of

undermining economic growth and promote instability. In some countries such as

Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, racially-based land ownership patterns have led to

discriminatory land use and tenure policies, practices and laws. Attempts to change these

patterns have proven to be difficult and have become a source of political and economic

divergence. A major constraint faced by member states is the lack of the capacity of

implementing land and agrarian reforms in an efficient manner. Poor information sharing

also affects the quality of dialogue between governments and other stakeholders, leading

to suspicion and mistrust, even where land reform policies are well intentioned. Member

states have expressed frustration with the slow pace of market-assisted norms of land

acquisition on alternative models as an area of concern (SADC, 2007).

27

A rather misleading assumption that guided land acquisition under Fast Track was that

settlement of good quality and well developed land would lead to immediate increases in

agricultural production. There were many other issues that were sidelined in the process

which in the end, resulted in the collapse of production in the formerly highly productive

enterprises. Such factors included the quality of beneficiaries, adequacy of extension

support, absence of secure tenure arrangements and the shortage of farming inputs.

Arguably, Fast Track was erroneously based on the assumption that transfer of good

quality land from one set of farmers to another could be carried out without

compromising production. Evidence to date is proving the contrary and is in fact , giving

weight to the argument that Fast Track contributed directly and indirectly to the

escalation of poverty (Marongwe, n.d.).

The lack of tenure security for the new farmers has been associated with lack of

investment on the land, potentially undermining agricultural production. In some cases,

the new farmers or settlers evicted farm workers from the compound houses, resulting in

loss of employment, and the livelihoods of former farm workers and their families

seriously compromised. The new farmers were allocated land by a process that displaced

former farm workers. In the end, land was allocated in some cases to farmers with low

individual resource bases and it became difficult or even inconceivable for some of them

to make any investment on the land. It is in this regard that poverty alleviation through

the multiplier effects is rather questionable under Fast Track. There is no doubt that

Zimbabwe' s agricultural productivity has been severely challenged. New farmers were

poorly equipped, and even though they had experience in farming, they could not produce

without equipment (World Bank, 2009).

In order to force white commercial farmers to release land for land reform purposes, the

Zimbabwean government had to issue a certificate of "no present interest" to the seller.

The latter was at that point in time, allowed to sell the land in question in the open

market. The principle underlying land acquisitions during this period was that if the

government wanted to buy the land in question, it had to enter into negotiations with the

sellers. However, if the owner of the land did not agree with the price offered by the

government, such a seller could simply walk away. But such owners would of course, not

obtain a certificate of "no present interest" from the Zimbabwean government. In this

28

situation, the owner of land was unable to sell his property in the open market. Namibia

has put in place a similar mechanism (Department of Land Affairs, 2006).

2.5.9 Namibia

Under previous Apartheid policies, access to land was reserved for white farmers. This

underlines the fact that access to productive land and agricultural resources were

structured along racial lines. At independence, in 1990, the new government of Namibia

inherited a highly racially skewed land distribution programme. Colonial land

dispossession left indigenous communities with a little over 40 percent of agricultural

land. The pattern of poverty in Namibia mirrors the unequal distribution of land and

economic inequalities. The Namibian government adopted the principle of the market­

based approach (willing buyer, willing seller model) in redressing the inequalities created

by past apartheid policies. The rate of transfer of land in Namibia has been slow. Its

impact on rural poverty in the long-term will be limited. Land reform in Namibia is

divided into four main components, namely: redistributive land reform; tenure reform;

development of unutilised communal land; and the affirmative action loan scheme.

Beneficiaries of land reform should be poor landless Namibian citizens (SARPN, 2001).

The Namibian government only managed to resettle 37,254 people. The pace of delivery

is still low and might result in the failure to achieve the targeted scale of resettling 240,

000 people. It has been argued that letting the market alone determine the pace of land

reform delivery is not desirable, because present land owners of commercial agricultural

land are not necessarily willing to sell their land. The Namibian government is challenged

to address, among other things, issues such as high land market prices and could

continuously pose a cost barrier to poor land reform beneficiaries as well as the state.

These constraints continue to put strain on government budget (Geingob, 2005). In the

1980s and 1990s, both programmes in Zimbabwe and Namibia moved at a slow pace.

However, the slow pace in the delivery of land in both countries is better explained by a

lack of any substantial budget allocations. The international experience has demonstrated

that the open land markets on their own are unable to effectively alter the pattern of land

ownership and the broader goals of job creation and poverty alleviation. Challenges and

constraints experienced over the last twenty years, and lessons drawn from other

29

countries across the world, clearly show that there are no silver bullets to solving post­

colonial land issues (Department of Land Reform and Rural Development, 2012).

2.5.10 Kenya

The Kenyan population was landless due to colonization and the allocation of indigenous

land to foreigners by different powers at different times in its history. After independence,

most of the lands were acquired by the well connected. The settlement Schemes

Programme has not managed to settle the majority of Kenyans who were made landless

by the colonialists. Currently, land tenure can be classified into three broad categories as

follows: communal land; government trust land; and privately owned land. Access to land

has contributed greatly to increased incomes and agricultural production. The government

has made considerable efforts to tackle the land problem through land adjudication, land

registration, resettlement schemes, and the provision of long-term credit for the purchase

of land and land transfer schemes. Fair accesses to land and better utilization of natural

resources have been among some of the aims of land reforms in Kenya. The government

has further put in place strategies and policies to provide security of tenure and access to

land. The success of the rural economy faced a number of constraints in the past such as

reduced earnings and poor infrastructure (Getura et al., 2006).

The National Land Policy recommends that the government should provide secure tenure

to ensure access to land by the rural poor for production purposes. Agricultural

production coupled with security of tenure, is more reliable and has allowed a wider and

more diversified choice of cropping patterns as well as the production of high-value

crops. Private ownership of land has encouraged investments in permanent and long-term

improvements and/or developments on farms and created a secured and assured market

for land. Access to land is a key component of the technical package needed to achieve

productivity to crop lands and sustain yields (Njuguna and Baya, n.d.). Land reform in

Kenya favoured men against women, and downplayed the status and role of women as the

actual utilisers of land (Adams, 1995).

Kenya introduced the land tenure reform at an earlier stage than other countries with the

assumption that this would create security of tenure, improve efficiency, incentives for

investment, improve agricultural outputs, food and income security. Kenya has led the

30

way smce the 1960s with an official land titling process involving adjudication and

registration of land holdings in individual names. However, customary forms of

inheritance and access to land as well as informal transfers of land continue to be

practised in relation to these lands. In Kenya, settler colonialism, although never on the

scale of the settler colonies of the south, played an important part in shaping the land

dispensation of the twentieth century. Land continues to be a highly contested issue in

contemporary Kenyan politics (Walker, 2002). In Kenya, a little over 7% of the total area

was secured for white settlers in the mid 1930s, in the fertile highlands (Hallett, 1974).

2.6 HISTORICAL BASIS FOR LAND REFORM IN SOUTH AFRICA

The history of land dispossession in South Africa dates as far back as 1652 with the

arrival of Jan van Riebeeck in the Cape. Many Africans were forced to enter into labour­

tenant arrangements with the white-landed gentry. Others entered into share-cropping

arrangements and land could not be bought freely but through a complicated and

restricted trusteeship. The first government of the 1910 Union of South Africa came up

with the so-called native policy which promulgated the Land Native Act of 1913. This

racial piece of legislation, together with similar ones, became the foundation of racial

land dispossession in South Africa until the advent of democracy in 1994. This policy

excluded people from land markets on the basis of race. This racial piece of legislation

became the foundation for racial segregation of land ownership and the erosion of rights

to land for blacks. With the negotiation process for a new Constitution at CODESA, it

was agreed that 19 June 1913 will be the date for the consideration of land dispossession

in South Africa. The pre-1913 land dispossession was related to colonial and tribal wars.

One reason why 1913 was chosen as the upper limit was because the Native Land Act of

1913 was the first racially discriminatory piece of legislation promulgated, which took

land from all blacks to one population group; the whites (Department of Land Affairs,

2007). Apartheid was the outcome of a particular political choice and decisions were

executed through a plethora of oppressive policies and laws, carefully crafted to achieve

the set outcome (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, 2011).

Apartheid policies pushed millions of black South Africans into overcrowded and

impoverished reserves, homelands and townships. In addition, capital-intensive agricultural

policies led to large-scale eviction of farm-dwellers from their land and homes. The

31

apartheid government expelled most farmers to 'homelands' , often without compensation

for their lost land rights. Dispossession forced successful black farmers to seek

employment as farm workers. Forced removals in support of racial segregation caused

enormous suffering and hardship in South Africa (Department of Land Affairs, 1997).

Laws and policies have been drafted and enacted to deal with the legacy of racially-based

land distribution. All these pieces of legislation mentioned above have been repealed.

Government, therefore, needs to ensure that the remainder of the 30% of white-owned

agricultural land is redistributed by 2015 and this can only be achieved through other Land

Reform Programmes (Government Gazette, 2013).

2.7 SOUTH AFRICA'S LAND REFORM POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Land reform is primarily an issue of basic human rights. It implies access to land and its

benefits on more equitable and secure terms for all those who physically work on it and

primarily depend upon it for their livelihoods. In unjust agrarian structures, this implies

redistributing land rights to benefit the landless and near landless at the expense of large

landholders and others who appropriated most of its benefits before the reform. Once

these concepts of land tenure and land reform are understood, it becomes easier to devise

ways to bring about land reform. What land reform implies in practice always depends on

the context and particular circumstances, but the basic principles remain the same. In

developing countries, land reform usually involves expropriating large holdings and

redistributing them as individual family holdings or as worker-managed co-operatives,

but there are many variations and sequences depending on the situation (Barraclough,

1999). Land reform is defined as the redistribution and confirmation of the rights to land

for the benefit of the poor. Three major types of intervention by the state could be

identified such as land tenure reforms, inducements or market assisted incentives, legally

imposed controls and prohibitions (Adams, 2000).

In 1994, the government of South Africa inherited one of the worst racially-skewed land

distribution programme in the world with 87 percent of land owned by whites and only 13

percent of agricultural land owned by blacks despite the fact that Black constitute about

80% of the population. South Africa' s negotiated transition to democracy in 1994

involved, among other contentious issues, a fierce debate about the nature of future

property rights and the limits of a future restitution programme to compensate victims of

32

the apartheid government's programme of forced population removals (Walker, 2002).

The result was the entrenchment of a property clause in the Constitution which committed

the country to a programme of market-led land reform after 1994, while recognising

existing property rights (Walker, 2002).

The land reform programme aims at redressing the injustices caused by the apartheid

policy of dispossession while contributing to national reconciliation, growth and

development. The World Bank and South Africa's partners have developed a new

approach to land reform that allows beneficiaries to buy land in the open market. The

post-apartheid South African government adopted the principle of the market-based

approach (the willing-buyer, willing seller model) to land reform and responded

proactively to the cries of the 6 million victims of racial land dispossession by coming up

with the South African Land Policy. The policy has three dimensions to the land reform

programmes, namely; Restitution, Redistribution and Land Tenure Reform. Through

these programmes, the government has set itself the target of delivering 30% of

commercial agricultural land to blacks by 2015. A policy and a legal framework are in

place to guide land reform, such as the White Paper on South African Land Policy and the

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (World Bank, 2009). Land reform has been

conceptualized in terms of three relatively discrete programmes; restitution, redistribution

and tenure reform. Policy and tenure reform in communal areas have not been finalized

(Walker, 2002).

2.7.1 Land restitution

Land restitution is a legal process whereby persons or communities who can prove that

they were dispossessed of their property after 19 June 1913, as a result of past racial

discriminatory laws and practices, can regain their property or receive due financial

compensation. It is designed to restore property ownership or provide financial

compensation to those who were dispossessed of their property under colonialism and

apartheid. This move by the state is to promote equity among victims of dispossession,

particularly the landless and rural people. It is also to facilitate development initiates by

bringing together all stakeholders relevant to land claims and to promote reconciliation

through the restitution process. This sub-programme aims to contribute towards an

equitable redistribution of land rights. Restitution challenges include delays in the

33

movement of funds, delays in the transfer of land and registration of deeds. Some

landowners ask exorbitant land prices and some officials collude with them (Department

of Land Affairs, 2004).

South Africa' s land restitution programme is based on the Restitution of Land Rights Act

(No. 22) of 1994. Under the terms of the Act, individuals or communities that were

removed from land as a result of racially-based laws, such as the 1913 Natives Land Act

or the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act, could bring a claim to a regional land claims

commission for processing. A Land Claims Court was created to litigate land claims and

provide restitution orders. After 1999, the court shifted from adjudicating claims against

the South African state and not against individual land owners. Litigants can thus seek a

return of the land they lost, request for financial compensation or a grant of an alternative

land (Boudreaux, 2010).

2. 7 .2 Land redistribution

Land redistribution is a process designed to transfer land from people who previously

enjoyed favourable access to those who were excluded from the land market on the basis

of race. The main purpose of land redistribution is to address the skewed land ownership

patterns of colonial and apartheid past by providing people who were previously excluded

from the land market with access to land for residential and productive uses, in order to

improve their income and quality of life. The programme aims at assisting the poor,

labour tenants, farm workers, women and emergent farmers . The South African

government adopted the principle of the market-based approach, without lowering either

the rights of those who have historically enjoyed favourable access to the land market.

The government will assist in the purchase of land, but in general, will not be the buyer or

the owner. Rather, it will make land acquisition grants available, support and finance the

required planning process (Department of Land Affairs, 1997). The South African

government has relied on the "willing buyer, willing seller" approach to re-engineer land­

holding patterns. This programme provides grants to qualified applicants in order to assist

them buy land, primarily in rural areas and for purposes of farming (Boudreaux, 2010).

34

2.7.2.1 Land grants

Between 1994 -1999, the main emphasis was to provide poor landless people with land

for settlement and small-scale farming using the Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant

(SLAG). The Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) was initially set at R15,

000 per household in 1995 for the acquisition of land and startup capital. In 1998, it was

increased to R16, 000 per household to be used for land acquisition, enhancement of

tenure rights, and investments in infrastructure, home improvements, and farm capital

investment according to the plans put forward by applicants (Department of Agriculture

and Land Affairs, 2006).

The introduction of LRAD in 2000 was intended to promote a class of black commercial

farmers. A grant system was designed to assist people who were previously excluded

from the land market on the basis of race, to purchase land from willing seller . This

grant, consisting of a sliding scale of matching grants, fall s under the new sub-programme

of Land Redistribution and Agricultural Development. The LRAD grant allows for black

South Africans, to access land specifically for agricultural purposes. This grant can be

accessed, on an individual basis, per sliding scale from a minimum of R20 000 to a

maximum of RlO0 000, depending on the participants' own contribution. The grant would

be used to cover expenses such as land acquisition, land improvement, agricultural

infrastructure investments, capital assets, short-term agricultural inputs and lease options

(Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs, 2006).

Grant for the acquisition and development of land for municipal commonage, is to enable

primary municipalities to acquire land in order to extend or create commonage and

provide infrastructure on the land to be acquired or on existing commonage for the use of

qualifying persons. As indicated in Figure 2.1 , the grant is given on a sliding scale from

R20 000 up to Rl00 000, depending on the applicant's own contribution in kind, labour

and / or cash which rises according to the matching grant level (that is to say, from R5

000 to R400 000). The grant is given to adult individuals rather than to households; for

example, many adult members of the same household can apply for LRAD grants. Land

reform beneficiaries select the position on the scale for which they want to enter LRAD.

This is determined by their objectives and ability to leverage the grant with their own

re ources. LRAD and Settlement and Production Land Acquisition (SPLAG) grants have

35

been respectively reviewed to Rl 11 152 and R430 857 per qualifying individual

(Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs, 2006).

100 000

90000

80000

70000 -~ 60000 .... = ca OMi contribution Matching gant Proportion of total cost

50000 ,.. c., R R %

40000 OM1 contribution Grant

SOOJ 2000J 20 00

30000 3500J 40871 46 54

20000 14500J 68888 68 32

40000J 10000J 00 20

10000

0

0 50000 I 00 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 300 000 350 000 400 000 450 000

Value of own contribution (R)

Figure 2.1: Matching grant scale depending on the applicant's own contribution Source: Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs (2006)

2.8 PERCEIVED CHALLENGES OF LAND REFORM PROGRAMME

2.8.1 The Land Redistribution Programme

As mentioned earlier, the Government has set the target of achieving the redistribution of

30% of commercial agricultural land or about 25 million hectares to black people by 2015

(Government Gazette, 2013). The issue of "exorbitant" land prices is a serious challenge

affecting not only redistribution but also other land reform programmes, making land

reform quite expensive. Lack of alignment among different spheres of government

departments has led to a lack of project sustainability. The length of time it takes to finish

a project negatively affects those who are ready and willing to work with government in

land delivery. Accesses to productive land, water, proper fencing and affordable prices

have continued to hinder the progress of land redistribution. Group production does not

yield the desired results, as often, groups have to deal with group dynamic and conflicts

(SAHRC, 2004).

36

2.8.2 The Land Restitution Programme

The land restitution sub-programme gave effect to the constitutional provision that people

unfairly disposed after the 1913 Land Act, be entitled either to restitution of that property

or to compensation. The Restitution Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 established a

Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) to solicit and investigate claims

for land restitution and prepare them for settlement. A Land Claims Court was also

established to adjudicate claims and make orders on the form of restitution or redress that

should be provided to claimants. From 1995, the Commission on the Restitution of Land

Rights (CRLR), together with partners both in and outside government, advertised the

restitution process and invited those eligible to submit claims to do so by the end of

December 1998 (Department of Land Reform and Rural Development, 2012).

The issue of exorbitant land prices as in the Land Redistribution Programme, is a serious

challenge affecting the Land Restitution Programme. Conflicts are a serious threat for this

programme. Poor management of farms initially managed by single farmers and now

owned and operated by several claimants pose a threat to the land restitution programme

(SAHRC, 2004).

2.8.3 The Land Tenure Reform Programme

The Land Tenure Reform Programme is a planned change in the terms and conditions on

which land is held, used and transacted; for example through converting informal rights to

formal rights, establishing mechanisms for managing common land rights to formal

rights, establishing mechanisms for managing common land rights, recognising

customary rights of occupation (Adams, 2001). The policy of tenure reform, which

regulates the eviction of farm dwellers and labour tenants, does not prevent them from

being evicted. In the event of eviction, the process has to follow particular procedures.

The chance of labour tenants being evicted by land owners, in the event where they have

land rights to stay on the farm, but are denied the rights of burial and access to water and

grazing is very high. Land tenure systems are sometimes classified as private property

regimes, common property regimes, state property or open access (Bromley, 1989).

Tenure reform is seriously being hampered by landowners through the denial of the rights

to water, grazing access and burial rights to labour tenants. Labour tenants are not credit

37

worthy. When the government opts to give them land through the land redistribution

procedure, they are usually unable to qualify and secure loans from financial institutions.

Most beneficiaries are settled on commercial land. Since they lack economic resources,

they end up producing little or nothing. Policies within the National and Local

Government do not provide for the welfare of evicted labour tenants. The local

municipality and the social welfare department should take responsibility, but there are

hamstrung by budget restraints. The progress of the programme is hindered by clashes

between the traditional authority and the communal land rights given to a community.

The former usually wants to manage the land, and the communal property association

feels threatened by the management of the land (SAHRC, 2004).

2.9 LAND ACQUISITION MODELS

There are several models to acquiring land, such as, the market-based land distribution

model, compulsory acquisition or expropriation and outright confiscation or seizure of

land. The ANC has instituted a shift away from the "willing buyer, willing seller"

principle in favour of "just and equitable compensation", which is allowed by the

Constitution. The idea is to shorten the time it takes to settle a claim and to lower the

price paid by the state. The mechanism for the shift seems to be a combination of the new

Expropriation Bill and the Property Valuation Bill. The Minister of Rural Development

and Land Reform, Gugile Nkwinti, recently unveiled a policy proposal for farm workers

to earn equity in farms as an alternative mode of land reform. The ANC has promised to

spearhead the reopening of land claims until 2019. In its manifesto, the ANC focuses on

more investment to support smallholder farmers through infrastructure, training and

recapitalisation. The DA also wants state-owned land to be used for land reform

"wherever possible" and promises a "clear commitment to the principle of willing seller,

willing buyer" (City Press, 2014).

A key dimension of any land reform is compensation of landowners. At one extreme, are

programmes of pure expropriation, as implemented in the post-revolutionary period in the

Soviet Union and China. At the other extreme, are programmes in which landowners are

generously compensated, as in Tsarist Russia or in the Philippines where landowners

received 133 percent of the market value of their land (Riedinger, 1995). The trade-off

38

here is clear. Land owners will show less resistance to reform if they are generously

compensated, but redistribution will be more limited if compensation must be paid.

Reducing resistance to reform is beneficial. Generously compensating landowner clearly

limits the benefits from the programme. If beneficiaries of reform pay the bulk of the

compensation, the extent of effective redistribution and the equity gains from the reform

will be limited. Efficiency gains may also be limited because from the point of view of

the basic agency model, what counts is not land ownership but the net asset position of

the tenant. If the net position of tenants changes only slightly because compensation

payment liabilities have to be deducted from the value of extra land they have acquired,

their incentive and hence their productivity will also change slightly (Banerjee, 2000).

2.9.1 Market-based land distribution model

Market-based land redi tribution model has emerged in recent years in a number of

countries, including Brazil, Colombia and South Africa. The basic idea is that the state

gives qualified landless people a grant or a subsidized loan with which to buy land.

Superficially, market-based land redistribution model is similar to a fully compensated

land reform, with the government paying for a substantial part of the compensation.

Market-based land redistribution model includes neither a fixed time-scale nor explicit

targets for the kind of land distribution that will eventually be achieved. A second

disadvantage of market-based land redistribution model is the uncertainty about how

many land owners will sell. As a result, no landowner may want to be the first to sell out.

The price of land will go up when such a reform is introduced. Supporters of market­

based land redistribution model stress that it is demand-driven. Instead of the government

deciding who will benefit, potential beneficiaries decide whether they want to go through

the various bureaucratic processes necessary to purchase land. People who want the land

most and who know where to find the kind of land they are looking for should come

forward first. In South Africa, debates around land reform since 1994 have focused on the

specific concept of "willing buyer, willing seller", rather than the wider category of

market-based land distribution (Lahiff, 2005).

The market-based land redistribution model may also raise productivity and placate the

politically most volatile sections of the rural population, at least, if there are ome

restrictions on immediate resale. Another advantage of the market-based land

39

redistribution model is that beneficiaries pay part of the price for the land, thereby,

presumably having stronger incentives for negotiating a low price than a bureaucrat

entrusted to negotiate compensation acceptable to the land owner. The high cost of the

market-based land redistribution model means that it cannot be expected to achieve very

substantial redistribution in the near future (Banerjee, 2000).

Under the market-based land distribution model, land is acquired from land owners

willing to sell their property by a willing buyer (usually the state), and redistributed to

groups or individuals. The key to this model is that land transfer is a voluntary

transaction. The South African government employs the market-based land distribution

model to redistribute land to people who were previously excluded to participate in the

land market on the basis of race. In South Africa, the practice in the implementation of

the land reform programme has been the order of the day. Land owners are not

necessarily compelled to sell land but land is bought with the consent of land owners.

Beneficiaries of land reform in South Africa have not been actively involved in

negotiations with land owners over the purchase of land. The state enters into negotiations

with land owners for the purchase of land. Cases have been reported of deals falling

through due to minuscule differences between the asking price and the amount offered by

DLA, suggesting that negotiating skills may not be adequate among DLA officials

(Tilley, 2004).

2.9.1.1 Comparison of the cost of land in the market

The state is the only biggest buyer of land and therefore, a significant player in the land

market. It should play a more pro-active role in the acquisition of land in order to

influence land markets on behalf of landless people and those who need land for

productive purposes. Land owners have the freedom to determine the price of land. The

powers of walking away from land price negotiation processes in order to drive down the

prices of land have not been used. If one cannot walk away from a negotiation process

over the price of land, the more one becomes disadvantaged. ' Willing sellers and willing

buyers' often find themselves caught up in protracted and uncertain processes dominated

by officials attempting to apply market ' principles' , a far cry from the independent

encounter of willing buyers and sellers in the market envisaged by its proponents

(Deininger, 1999).

40

Figure 2.2 indicates that average prices paid for land under both redistribution and

restitution diverged considerably from the pattern of the general market trend. The prices

of land for the redistribution programme increased sharply between 1994 and 1996. The

reason can be attributed to a combination of many factors. By contrast, prices paid for

land under the restitution sub programme, remained below the market value for the period

1994-1999. The prices of land for the redistribution sub programme from 1997 to 2004,

were below the prevailing market prices of land. However, the prices of land for the

restitution sub programme from 2000-2004, were above the prevailing market prices of

land. The average price of land offered to the restitution sub-programme in 2000, was

slightly above R1500.00 per hectare, with the prices in 2004 being three times higher than

the prices that obtained in 2000. Regardless of cost considerations, the purchase of land

that is below average in quality is obviously a cause for concern. The market-based land

distribution model has remained at the centre of South African land reform despite

widespread opposition (World Bank, 2009).

Land cost co"1)arison

4,500

4,000

3,500

ca 3,000 .c a.. 2,500 C1) a.

--+- Market

-a- Redistribution "C 2,000 C: ca Restitution a: 1,500

1,000

500

0 * ~~ ~'o ~ ~'o ~~ ~() ~" ~~ ~~ ~ ,C?S ,C?S ,C?S ,C?S ,C?S ,C?S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Year

Figure 2.2: Comparison of the cost of land in the market under the Restitution and Redistribution Programmes (1994-2004) Source: M. R Mokoena, "Descriptive Analysis of land reform delivery Unit Cost in South Africa: 1994-2004.

41

2.9.1.2 Land delivery trends

A comparison of the price of land in the open market, under the Redistribution and

Restitution Programmes, provides useful details on the willing seller-willing-buyer

principle in determining the pace of land reform in South Africa. Assisting land delivery

processes was to increase the Settlement Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) from R15

000.00 to R16 000.00 per household. However, land delivery took a dip between 1999

and 2001. In 2002/03 , the Department of Land Affairs struck a deal with the Land Bank

to provide for the latter to implement the LRAD projects on an agency basis with a loan

component. The implication of this agency arrangement for the implementation of LRAD

projects is that up to 2004, none of the Land Bank approvals of the LRAD projects came

through the Department of Land Affairs. The market-based land reform programme in

South Africa places landowners in a strong negotiating position due to the limited number

of properties offered for land reform purposes. Applicants often have a strong preference

for a particular property; this is an additional cost that would be incurred if negotiations

were to collapse and the lengthy planning process had to start all over again for another

property (Aliber and Mokoena, 2002).

Price setting occurs through highly bureaucratic processes that bear only a distant

relationship to the workings of the real land market. A specific claim of market-based

land reform programme is that it will make itself attractive to landowners and keep prices

down by paying landowners in full at the time of sale. The opposite appears to be the case

in South Africa. Landowners and their representatives complain not only of the lengthy

and cumbersome bureaucratic procedures around sale agreements, but also delays in

payments once the agreement has been reached. It could be concluded that while market

prices serve as a guide to prices paid in land reform transactions, the process is open to

manipulation and both the negotiation process and the time involved bear little

resemblance to conventional market transactions. Intended land reform beneficiaries are

incapable of competing in the open land market and are compelled to fall back on closed

sales negotiations between landowners and officials. The bureaucratic complexity of the

process does not make it attractive to landowners. It i likely that at least some

landowners enter into land reform transactions in order to dispose of property that they

would not sell otherwise, or which they can obtain at a price more favourable than what

they might have on the open market (Lahiff, 2007).

42

Figure 2.3 shows the land delivery trends characterising the Redistribution and

Restitution Programmes between 1994 and 2004. The Redistribution Programme is

concerned, with the rising trends in the acquisition of land between 1995 and 1999.

150,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

-4- Redistribution

~ Restttution

Figure 2.3: Land delivery trends characterising the Redistribution and Restitutions Programmes between 1994 and 2004 Source: M. R Mokoena, "Descriptive Analysis of land reform delivery Unit Cost in South Africa: 1994-2004

The "willing buyer, willing seller" principle has to be one of the mechanisms to be used

with other alternative mechanisms for the acquisition of land. Furthermore, the state has

to make available adequate budget for this purpose. According to the information

contained in Figure 2.4, the Redistribution Programme has delivered more land than the

Restitution Programme. However, the Restitution Programme seems to have benefited

more people than the redistribution programme between 1994 and 2004. Land price

comparison in the open market, under the Redistribution and Restitution Programmes,

provides useful details on the willing seller-willing-buyer principle in determining the

pace of land reform in South Africa (Mokoena, 2006).

43

•

•

Total :

2,433 projects

2.2 million ha

225,000HH

1.1 million people

Redistribution:

1.3 million ha

256,000 people

But based on assumption of 3 grants per household (seems high)

People

■ Redistribution

• Resrnution

.------------------~ •

•

Restitution:

0.9 million ha

778,000 people

Tenure reform:

87,000 ha

47,000 people

Redistribution delivered more land Restitution benefited more people

Ha

■ Redistribution

■ Restitution

Figure 2.4: Land delivery trends characterising the Redistribution and Restitutions Programmes between 1994 and 2004 Source: M. R Mokoena, ''Descriptive Analysis of land reform delivery Unit Cost in South Africa: 1994-2004

2.9.2 Expropriation (just and equitable land reform policy)

The manner in which land is to be acquired has been the most contentious issue in South

Africa's land reform policy since 1994. Land expropriation is the compulsory acquisition

of private property by the state, provided it is undertaken within a clear policy and legal

framework. Governments always have a provision for land expropriation in case they

need to make land available for public interest (such as to create major public

infrastructure). In Brazil , Zimbabwe, and South Africa, land reform is defined as a public

purpose for expropriation. Land expropriation is a lawful process and should be used in a

fair and transparent manner. This implies a clear definition of the notion of public

interest, the payment of the "just compensation" to the property owner, and the right of

the owner to contest the level of compensation in court. The South African Constitution

44

places a positive obligation on the state to "take reasonable legislative and other

measures, within its available resources" to effect land redistribution (De Vos, 20 I 3).

When landowners are unwilling to cede their property, and they often are unwilling, they

use the judicial system to delay the expropriation process, if not, to escape it altogether.

Because expropriation is based on due process, an important principle of justice, the

resulting litigation increases the administrative costs of land reform. By its very nature,

the legal process is lengthy and costly, adding to the costs of compensation. "Just

compensation", moreover, is almost invariably interpreted by courts at least, as high as

the prevailing market price. Courts all over the world tend to use the market price of land

as a guide in awarding compensation, and they add something on top of it. Expropriation

in practice invariably leads to more costly land acquisition than acquisition in the market.

The state should use expropriation to a greater extent in order to obtain strategic land for

developmental objectives provided it is undertaken within a clear policy and legal

framework where the principle of 'just and equitable' compensation is made and legal

recourse available for parties to seek fairness (McGaffin, 2013).

2.9.3 Outright confiscation or seizure of land

This occurred in the revolutionary land reform programme m China. When land is

acquired through confi cation, there is none or little direct cost of land acquisition. But

confiscation has many other undesirable consequences, such as reduced investor

confidence and international backlash. These consequences can easily lead to a

devaluation of the currency, imposing the cost of land on the entire nation. History has

shown that governments have the options mentioned in 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 in order to manage

land reform without disrupting the economy and the political system. In practice, these

two options often coexist in the same country (World Bank, 2009).

2.10 THE COST OF LAND ACQUISITION

In South Africa, agricultural land prices in the open market approximately doubled

between 1994 and 2005. During the same period, the prices paid under the redistribution

programme (that uses the market-assisted or community-driven land purchase approach)

increased accordingly. However, every year, except in 1996, they were about a third

lower than market prices. Under restitution, however, where the state is negotiating for

the purcha e of parcels of land that it must buy (or expropriate), prices for such land have

45

sky-rocketed, reaching as high as 2, 5 times the price on the general market. The data

suggests that sellers in more complex and more productive farms have learned to exploit

what the state needs to acquire their land, and they have used the threat of protracted

litigation to push the state to offer ever-increasing prices (World Bank, 2009).

2.11 THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN ECONOMY

Agriculture remains an important sector in the South African economy, despite its small

share in the total gross domestic product (GDP). The agricultural sector provides two

basic human needs, namely; food and fibre, and has strong economic and employment

linkages with other sectors of the economy, thus contributing substantially to economic

growth. Primary agriculture accounts for 4, 5% of the GDP of South Africa while the

larger agro-food complex accounts for another 9%. There are about 50 000 large

commercial farmers in South Africa. In 2000, they exported about R16 billion worth of

products, or nearly 10% of South Africa's total exports. They employ about 1 million

workers, or about 11 % of the total formal employment of South Africa. There are also

240 000 small farmers who provide a livelihood to more than 1 million family members

and occasional employment to another 500 000 people (Department of Agriculture,

2009).

Furthermore, there is an estimated 3 million farmers, mostly in communal areas of former

homelands, who produce primary food to meet their family's needs. Because of the

legacy of suppression, exclusion and discrimination in South African agriculture, the

main challenge is to unlock the untapped potential, improve participation in all facets of

the sector and rid it once and for all of the many entry barriers rooted in its historical

dualism. The challenge is to identify programmes that will encourage new entrants into

the sector. South Africa is characterised by high levels of poverty, especially in rural

areas where approximately 70% of South Africa' s poor people reside (Department of

Agriculture, 2009).

46

2.12 AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY IN SOUTH AFRICA

Agricultural land reform is about the skewed ownership of land in South Africa where the

majority of agricultural land is white-owned. In relation to all aspects of the country' s

bitter apartheid past, mainstream agriculture excluded the nation' s black majority and was

founded on dispossession and racial land ownership. The government, therefore, faces the

challenge of maintaining the gains made from the past, while also promoting equitable

participation and transformation for a better future. This is done through engaging all

stake holders, particularly people who were previously excluded from the land markets on

the basis of racially-based land allocation, to unite the sector painfully divided by

apartheid (Njobe, 2003).

The agricultural sector is going through a difficult period as it deals with the process of

land reform. South African agriculture is dualistic in nature, currently characteri ed by a

commercial modem sector, a subsistence sector and an emerging farmer sector. The

skewed distribution of land ownership has led to the duality of the sector. Apartheid South

Africa never supported the distribution of land ownership for land reform purposes. The

strategic plan for South African agriculture is to combine these sectors and encourage a

vibrant, equitable, competitive and sustainable sector. The most important challenge in the

modem commercial sector is the transfer of land to people who were previously excluded

from the land market on the basis of race. In the subsistence sector, low productivity is a

major challenge. Low productivity can be a result of decisions which were executed

through a plethora of oppressive policies and laws, which excluded people from the land

market on the basis of race, coupled with other problems such as tenure insecurity, and

very small land holdings. Given that most people are poor, there are challenges for

agriculture not only on the supply of food but also in the demand for food (Nieuwoudt and

Groenewald, 2003).

2.13 THE INCIDENCE OF POVERTY, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

IN SOUTH AFRICA

The 2004 United Nations South Africa Human Development Report, which assesses

progress made by governments in social development and policy-making, painted a

dismal picture of the country. The report identified unemployment and inequality as the

47

most significant issues of development in post-apartheid South Africa. Apartheid left

behind a divided society characterised by conflict and hatred, fear, revenge with extensive

social and economic inequalities. Alistair Sparks describes South Africa as having a

"double - decker economy", namely, its 'First World sector and its Third World ' ector.

According to Sparks, what is working for those on the upper deck of this economic bus is

not working for those on the lower deck. Those on the upper deck are prospering, while

those on the lower deck are languishing in misery. Hence, unemployment is on the rise

and the wealth gap is widening. " It is a question of skills ... if nothing is done about it,

South Africa faces a socially dangerous prospect of unemployment becoming

generational repetitive. There is a further troubling feature to this double deck bus. Those

at the top are a multiracial group, but those below are predominantly, but not exclusively

black and there is no stairway from the lower deck to the upper one." The First World

sector is the modem commercial agricultural sector of the economy and the Third World

ector is the subsistence and emerging-farmer sector. The dual agricultural sector of the

economy has been challenged for its failure to achieve trickledown effect (SARPN,

2006).

Consider a village made up of two farmers (Foster and Rosenzweig, 1995). Strategies for

alleviating poverty that address both the market failure and the resource constraints

dimensions of persistent poverty may thus give rise to a self-reinforcing "virtuous cycle"

whereby public policy enables the poor to pull themselves out of poverty through their

own actions (Hoff, 1994). It is highly necessary to move towards a truly developmental

state system in South Africa. This will have to be created in the South African economy

as an undivided entity. Former President Thabo Mbeki made a similar analysis where he

divided the economy into first world and third world components (SARPN, 2006).

2.14 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

2.14.1 The Logit model

Logit Regression analysis can be used to establish the socio-economic factors that

influence farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle

for land expropriation. The determinants of the willingness to adopt 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation (WT A) can be estimated as a binary

48

variable which assumes either the value of O for "no" response or I for "yes" response.

Then a Logit model which assumes the logistic distribution of error term can be employed

(Gujarati, 2004). Unlike Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), the Logit model assigns

probabilities that are between O and 1 and is consistent with probability axioms. Since the

Logit model is chosen here, then; WTA = f (bid, Xi), where f (bid, Xi) is some non-

linear function and Xi 's are explanatory variables as explained above (personal

characteristics, perception, attitude, sources of information, awareness and knowledge).

The function is estimated using Maximum likelihood estimation technique (MLE) since

the Logit model has been used. The MLE produces efficient and unbiased estimates

(Molosiwa, 2009).

Gujarati (1995) specifies the logistic cumulative distribution function (CDF) associated with the Logit model as:

(2.1)

Simplifying:

(2.2)

Whenever:

(2.3)

P(Y=llx-)= 1 I I 1 + .e-z;

From Equation 2.3, it can be inferred that the logistic CDF is nonlinearly related to the

vector of explanatory variables, which solves the problem described earlier with the linear

model. Yet, the model is still linear with respect to the set of ~ parameters; a necessary

assumption to explain the relationship between the parameter and the probabilities. This

can be clearly seen if the natural log of the odds ratio is computed.

Explicitly, if the event occurs, then:

(2.4)

And if the event does not occur:

(2.5)

Therefore, the ratio of the odds is given by:

49

(2.6)

If the natural log is computed on both sides of Equation 3.6, the result is:

(2.7)

(2.8)

ln[ P;(.) ] = lnf 4

1-P;(.)

where L; is the log of the odds ratio in favour of the event occurring and Z; is a linear

model. The final result of Equation 2.8 is called the Logit model, and it has been shown

from this equation that even though this model is not linearly related to X , it has a linear

relationship with the parameters of~- The slopes ~2 measure the change in L; for a unit

change in X; that is, the change in the log-odds ratio in favour of the event occurring as

one of the independent variables is changed by one unit. Since the relationship of the

model with the parameters is linear, a positive slope measures an increase (decrease) in

the log-odds ratio as the X associated with that slope increase (decrease) by a unit. The

intercept ~1 is the value of the log-odds in favour of the event occurring if all independent

variables are zero. It might be that the interpretation of the log-odds does not give very

intuitive results but there are many approaches to interpret this model. For the case of

continuous independent variables, more sensitive conclu ions can be drawn by looking at

the marginal effects, or to be precise, at the effects of change in an independent variable

on the probability of the event occurring.

According to Greene (2003), the general framework of probability model can be

represented by:

(2.9) P;(Y = ljx) = F(x,13)

where P is the probability of the event i occurring, Y is a discrete choice variable, x is a

vector of explanatory variables, ~ is a vector of parameter estimates, and F is an as urned

cumulative distribution function (CDF).

From Equation 2.9, the expected probability model is given by:

50

(2.10)

Then, as illustrated by Anderson and Newell (2003), a change in the probability derived

from a change in an independent variable x would be equal to:

(2.11)

where J(x,/3) is the density function, equivalent to the logistic density function for the

Logit model, and p is the estimated parameter associated with that variable x . As a result,

in continuous independent variables, the density function is a scale factor that translates

raw estimates into marginal effects. A positive marginal effect measures an increase in

the probability of the event occurring, as variable x increases one unit.

In the case of dummy independent variables, more insightful inferences can be obtained

through an interpretation of the odds ratio. If initially one had:

(2.12)

and the antilog of both sides is calculated, then the antilog of P2 ( or 10"P 2) equals the odds

ratio. It was assumed that P2 was a vector of parameters, each one associated to an

explanatory variable. If the vector is denoted by /Jj , then the interpretation of a change of

one unit in jth variable is a change in the odds ratio by 1 o"Pi .

Finally, given a certain level to all of the independent variables in the X; set, not a change

in the probability but the probability itself of the event occurring can be calculated. Once

the intercept /J1 and the slopes /J2 are known, L; will equal a constant k :

(2.13) L; = ln[ P; (.) ] = k 1-P;(.)

Taking the antilog of the constant and of the log of the odds ratio, the following result is

obtained:

51

(2.14)

where 10k yields another constant, and equals an expression from which the probability

P; can be found (Dinarte, 2009).

2.14.2 The Tobit Model

Tobit Regression analysis is another model that can be used to establish socio-economic

factors that influence farmers' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation. The Tobit model introduced by the Nobel laureate

economist James Tobin in 1958, can be used when the dependent variable in a regression

model equation has a lower and upper limit. In general, Tobit is specified like Ordinary

Least Squares (OLS), with a dependent variable and a list of independent variables as in

Equation 2.15.

The Tobit model is specified as:

(2.15)

In this equation, X; is the vector of causal variables, and &; is a normally distributed error

term. Additionally, a truncation in the normal distribution is made at some threshold

value that is often set at zero. In such a case, the model specification is given by:

(2.16) ; > 0

if • < 0 Y ; -

where Y; is the dependent variable that is only observed or only exists when the latent or

unobservable variable Y; * is greater than zero. Tobit can also be used to model

dependent variables where the cut-off value is· different from zero, or where observations

with large values are those not observed (Dinarte, 2009).

52

2.15 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER

This chapter has presented the need for land reform, land reform in developing countries,

land reform issues in African countries, cases of land reform principles, policies and

programmes in other countries such as Brazil, South Korea, China, Japan, Colombia,

Philippines, Chile, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Kenya. Historical basis for land reform in

South Africa, South Africa' s land reform policy and legal framework, land restitution,

land redistribution, land grants, the land tenure reform, perceived challenges of land

reform programme in terms of the land redistribution programme, the land restitution

programme and the land tenure reform were also discussed. Land acquisition models,

market-based land distribution model , comparison for the cost of land in the market, land

delivery trends, expropriation Uust and equitable land reform policy), outright

confiscation or seizure of land, the cost of land acquisition, the role of agriculture in the

South African economy, agricultural land reform and economic inequality in South Africa

and the incidence of poverty, social and economic inequality in South Africa and

analytical framework were equally described and explained. The next chapter is the

research methodology.

53

3.0

3.1 INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section outlines how the study was conducted. It describes specific research tools

including the development of the survey design and the conceptual framework used to

explain the willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. First, a discussion on the choice of the study area, sampling techniques,

sample size determination and the statistical software used in the research is presented.

Second, an explanation of the appropriateness of the model to measure willingness to

adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation is equally

examined. Third, the willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle

for land expropriation models are set up and the variables used also discussed.

Finally, Probit and Ordinal regression models used in this study to determine farmers'

willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation are also discussed in this chapter. Ordinal regression and Probit models

were established and a justification of the selected variables and how the independent

variables were examined as well as procedures of data collection presented. The

designation of the survey instrument, procedure for data collection, descriptive statistics

as well as the method employed for data processing is also presented.

3.2 STUDY AREA

The study was conducted in the North West Province of South Africa. The North West

Province is one of the nine provinces of South Africa with 104 882 square kilometres of

the total land area (8, 7%) of the country. The North West Province has a total population

of 3509 953 representing (6, 8%) of South Africa' s total population (Statistics South

Africa, 2012). Apart from mining, agriculture is the only sector in which the North West

province has a comparative advantage over the other provinces. The agricultural sector

produces 13% of provincial GDP and provides jobs for 18% of the labour force in the

province. Sunflower seeds, groundnuts, maize, wheat and cattle dominate the agricultural

sector. In addition, 65% of the population lives in rural areas (Davis, 2009). There are 4

districts and 21 local municipalities in the North West province of South Africa. These

54

districts are: Ngaka Modiri Molema; Bojanala; Dr Kenneth Kaunda; and Dr Ruth

Segomotso Mompati. Ngaka Modiri Molema, Bojanala and Dr Kenneth Kaunda districts

comprise 5 local municipalities per district and Dr Ruth Segomotso Mompati has 6 local

municipalities (Department of Cooperative Governance, 2010).

North West Province: District Municipalities

r u 7.......1 0 2S 50 100

Figure 3.1: Map of North West province 150

l lQIQ111 11

200

N

+

Legend

Q Pl'cv ltl boull<lary

C Olitl1Ct M11mC01>1 K bo,mdants

D Loeal Munltlp1litiM

Source: Department of Agriculture Conservation and Environment (2008)

3.3 STUDY POPULATION, SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE SIZE

All commercial farmers excluding LRAD, SLAG and PLAS farmers made up the

population of the study. Since there was no information on the population of farmers , a

large sampling size technique of n 2: 30 was used to select 44 farmers from each of the

districts in the province. One hundred and seventy six (176) commercial farmers in the

North West Province constituted the target sample of the study. Sample size plays a very

crucial role in conducting statistical tests and analysis. Sample size is correlated to

making an appropriate decision or inference about the product from which the sample has

been drawn. In other words, if the sample size is too small, a systematically conducted

study can fail to detect the important effects, associations or correlations. In the same

manner, if the sample is too large, the study will be complex and tedious. Thus, an

optimum sample size will be the most important part in any statistical study (Lani, 2009).

55

3.4 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS AND APPROACH

Data for this study was collected from secondary and primary sources. Secondary data

was collected from published and unpublished documents, reports, maps, statistical data,

bulletins and reports. Secondary data was collected from different governmental and non­

governmental offices found in the province, districts and area offices. A questionnaire

was designed as a tool for data collection comprising of open and closed-ended questions.

The questionnaire was designed to capture information in relation to the objectives of the

research and subdivided into the following five sections:

Section 1 - focused on the personal characteristics of participants;

Section 2 - focused on the perceptions and attitudes of farmers regarding the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation;

Section 3 - focused on the identification of sources of information, awareness and

knowledge by farmers of the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land

expropriation;

Section 4 - focused on the evaluation of the willingness to adopt 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation on the part of commercial farmers; and

Section 5 - focused on the constraints affecting the adoption of the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation.

The questionnaire was pre-tested before its administration to twenty participants. The pre­

test was administered on farmers who were not included in the sample. From the pre-test

information, some amendments were made on the questionnaire before its administration.

The questionnaire was administered by enumerators who understood and could speak the

languages of respondents such as English and Afrikaans.

3.5 ANALYTICAL MODEL AND DATA ANALYSIS

After collecting the data, the data from completed questionnaires was coded and captured

using version 21 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive

statistics such as mean, standard deviation and frequency distribution were employed to

summarise the data. Graphs and tables were also used where necessary. The Logit and

Tobit Regression analyses could also be used but in this case, Probit and Ordinal

Regression analyses were done to establish the socio-economic factors that influence

56

farmers' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation.

The limited dependent variable Y in the study was to be determined as the proportion of

the policy components which respondents were willing to adopt or the proportion of the

land which respondents were willing to offer to the policy under consideration. The main

components of the new 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation

are derived from Section 25 of the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution which

provides for property expropriation with certain qualifications: The components as stated

in part 3 emphasize that: The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of

payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between public

interests and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances,

including:

(a) The current use of the property;

(b) The history of the acquisition and the use of the property;

( c) The market value of the property;

(d) The extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial

capital improvement of the property; and

(e) The purpose of the expropriation (Department of Justice and Constitutional

Development, 2011).

Respondents were required to make decisions on either adoption or rejection for each of

the above limited five respective relevant circumstances stated in the policy. The

proportions of adoption from the five alternatives were used as the dependent variable.

The explanatory or independent variables (Xi) were the personal characteristics,

perception and attitude, sources of information, awareness and knowledge of farmers

regarding the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation.

Farmers are assumed to be rational economic actors who are out to maximise utility. The

theory of maximisation of utility is generally used to explain farmers ' responses to new

technology (Adesina and Seidi, 1995; Adesina, 1996). According to this theory, a farmer

will adopt a given technology if the utility obtained from the new technology exceeds that

of the previous one. Analytical models widely used to assess adoption of technologies

57

include Logit, Tobit and Probit models. To study the adoption behaviour, a limited

dependent variable provides a good framework where there is a cluster of farmers with

zero adoption of the improved technology. The present study uses Probit and Ordinal

regression models.

3.5.1 The Probit model

The Probit model is often used in situations where an individual makes choices between

two alternatives. In this case, the decision is to either adopt or not adopt the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. The Probit model was used to

determine farmers willingness to adopt 'just and equitable' compensation principle for

land expropriation. Farmers ' attributes were hypothesised to affect the decision to or not

to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. According

to Mussei et al; (2001 ), farm and farmers associated attributes are some of the factors

influencing the adoption of new agricultural technologies. In the Probit model the discrete

dependent variable Y is a rough categorization of a continuous, but unobserved variable

y *.

If y * could be directly observed, then standard regression methods would be used (such

as assuming that y * is a linear function of some independent variables, for example:

y * = P1X1 i + . .. . . .. . pj x j i + ui ................. ......................... . .. . . .. .. ..... .. . ..... (1)

In this study, y * is willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for

land expropriation which is used as a proxy for Y *. A Probit model is appropriate when

the dependent variable to be evaluated is dichotomous (Maddala, 1983).

Following from Greene (2003), the binary probit for the two choice models can be written as:

..... ........ .. .. ...... .................... ........... .... ........ .... .... .............. ... ........ (2)

1 IX B - (X,B)~ = F X B = -= e :. dx

i'27T - oo ...... ........ .............. ........ ..... ............. (3)

X = (1, X l i X2i ' ' ' . ' ' X ki ...... .. ....... ........ ............... ............ .......... .......... ..... ..... ..... .... (4)

58

/3' = (f3o,f31,, •"" .. " ", ,f3k ) ...... ...... .. .... ... .... .............. .................... .... ......... .... ........ (5)

The actual model specification for farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation in collective action is:

Y; = /Jo + /31 Age + /32 Gender + /33 Educational level + /34 Household size + f35

Household head + /36 Number of dependents + /37 Farm size + /Js Years of farming

experience + /39 Number of full time employees + fJ 10 Number of part time employees +

/Jn Income from maize + /312 Income from sunflower + /313 Income from sorghum + /314

Income from groundnuts + /J1 s Income from wheat + /31 6 Income from vegetables + /317

Income from tobacco + /J1s incomefrom beef + /319 Income from goats+ /320 Income from

dairy + /321 Income from broilers + /322 Income from sheep + /323 Income from pigs + /324

Income from layers + /3 2s Other mass media + µ ;

where Y; and µ ; represent farmers willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation.

3.5.2 The Ordinal regression Model

The limited dependent variable Y (the ordinal dependent variable) in the study was

determined as the willingness to accept right amount for the adoption of the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation or the proportion of the land

willing to be expropriated. The ordinal regression was another model used to estimate or

determine farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle

for land expropriation. This model was based on the hypothesis that there is no significant

relationship between socio-economic characteristics (personal characteristics, perception,

attitude, sources of information, awareness and knowledge) and farmers willingness to

adopt 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. It is assumed

that several variables determine farmers' willingness to adopt 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation. Regression methods such as linear, logistic

and ordinal regression are useful tools to analyse the relationship between multiple

explanatory variables and student satisfaction results (Thomas and Galamos, 2002; and

Hummel and Lichtenberg, 2001).

59

The ordinal regression model may be written in the following form if the logit link is

applied.

The function for ordinal regression model is:

F[Yj (X)]=log{Yj (X)/ [1 -Yj(X)]}=log{[P(Y:Syj I X)] / [P(Y>yj I X)]} =aj+pX

wherej= 1,2 . ...... . . , k-1 and Yj (X)=e (aj+px) I [ 1 +e (aj+pX)] where j indexes the cut-

off points for all categories (k) of the outcome variables. If multiple explanatory variables

are applied to the ordinal regression model, BX is replaced by the linear combination of

P1X1 +P2X2 + . . .... . . .. + PpXp (Bender and Benner, 2000). The alpha aj represents a

separate intercept or threshold for each cumulative probability. The threshold (aj) and the

regression coefficient (P) are unknown parameters to be estimated by means of the

maxmmm likelihood methods. Variables in the study included information about

respondents on age, gender, level of education, household size, household head, and

number of dependants. It also included other demographic and socio-economic variables.

Table 3.1 shows the socioeconomic factors that influenced farmers ' willingness to adopt

the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. The following are

the levels of measurement of empirical variables used in adoption analysis:

60

Table 3.1: Definition of empirical variables used in adoption analysis

Factors Type of question / level of measurement Age Actual age of respondent mentioned Gender 1 if the respondent is male; 2 if the respondent is female Education Educational level of respondent ( 1-7 classification) Household size Household size in numbers Household head 1 if the respondent is male; 2 if the respondent is female Dependents number of dependents Farm size Farm size in hectares Farming experience Number of years in farming Full time employees Full time employees in number Part time employees Part time employees in number Categories of income Categories of income (A-D classification) Sources of information 2= yes; l= no Agricultural organization Organizational activities and extent of participation (l-3

classification) Perception and attitude Perception and attitude of respondents (1-5 classification) Awareness and knowledge Awareness and knowledge of respondent (2= yes; 1 = no) Adoption 2= yes; l= no Proportion of land to offer Proportion of land to offer to the policy (1-4 classification) Perceived constraints 2= yes; 1= no

3.6 ETIDCAL PROCEDURES OF DATA COLLECTION

Standardization and uniformity were adopted in the study and procedure followed with all

respondents. Permission to have access to the farms was obtained from the farmers

themselves. They were informed about the objectives of the research. Respondents were

assured that the information obtained would be treated as confidential as possible and that

the results were to be used for the research purpose only. Respondents were also assured

that the results were to be used to develop policy guidelines on the farmers ' willingness to

adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. Respondents

were also treated with respect, dignity and the research objectives outlined. Participation

in the research was voluntary for respondents and interviews focused solely on issues

related to farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle

for land expropriation.

61

3.7 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER

This chapter has presented a thorough description of the study area, where the research

was conducted. The North West province is one of the nine provinces of South Africa

with a total 104 882 square kilometers representing 8, 7% of the surface area of the

country. The North West province has a total population 3509 953 representing 6, 8% of

South Africa's total population. Apart from mining, agriculture is the only sector in which

the North-West province has a comparative advantage over the other provinces. The

agricultural sector produces 13% of provincial GDP and provides jobs for 18% of the

labour force in the province. Sunflower seeds, groundnuts, maize, wheat and cattle

dominate the agricultural sector. In addition, 65% of the population lives in rural areas.

Furthermore, the methods for sampling were explained.

All commercial farmers excluding LRAD, SLAG and PLAS farmers constituted the

population of the study. Since there was no information on the population of farmers, a

large sampling size technique of n ~ 30 was used to select 44 farmers from each of the

districts in the province. One hundred and seventy six ( 17 6) commercial farmers in the

North West province constituted the target sample of the study. Sample size plays a very

crucial role in conducting statistical tests and analysis.

Finally, Probit and Ordinal regression models were used in the study to determine

farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. Ordinal regression and Probit models were established and a justification

of the selected variables and how the independent variables were examined as well as

procedures of data collection explained. The designation of the survey instrument,

procedure for data collection, descriptive statistics as well as the method employed for

data processing was equally presented. The next chapter is the analysis and interpretation

of the data collected from the questionnaire.

62

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data collected from questionnaires.

The chapter is divided into two sections. The first section provides an overview of the

demographic characteristics of the respondents, with the main focus on the socio­

economic aspects, perception, attitude, awareness, knowledge and perceived constraints

of the "just and equitable" policy issues. The second section present the results and

discussion of the Probit and Ordinal Regression analyses. The results of the discussions

are linked to the existing literature.

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE SURVEY DATA

4.2.1 Demographic and socio-economic variables of commercial farmers

Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the 176 commercial farmers

interviewed, such as age, gender, level of education, household size, household head, and

number of dependants a well as other demographic and socio-economic variables at the

time of survey are presented in Tables 4.1 - 4.15, respectively.

The age of respondents in the study area is presented in Table 4.1. From Table 4.1, it is

clear that the current age of commercial farmers ranges from 30-60 years. The results

indicate that 13.6% of respondents were above 60 years of age, 35.7% between 51 - 60

years old, 28.9% between 41 - 50 years old, 17.1 % between 30 - 40 years old and only

5.2% aged 30 years or younger. This indicates that most of the respondents involved in

the agricultural sector are adults and fall within the economically active age group. This

may be due to the rural-urban drift of young people. This confirms with other research

findings (IFAD, 2011 ), which found that the lack of interest by the youth in farming

poses a threat to agriculture and aggravates urban unemployment and social problems.

IF AD further found that one of the difficult issues is attracting male and female youth in

farming.

63

Gender among respondents in the study area is also presented in Table 4.1. The results

show that 76.8% of respondents were males and 23.2% females. It is the general belief

that the tedious aspect of farming is reserved mainly for men. This implies that men are

more involved in farming business than females in the study area. Thi could be due to

the fact that women are restricted to household jobs. Women seclusion is a common

practice in the study area. This finding is corroborated by Jibowo (1992) who found that

men engage more in farming than women in Western Nigeria. This assertion is also in

agreement with the findings of Chinyere (1993) who reported that female farmers are not

statistically identified as an active population in farm operations and as a result, their

productive economic roles are regarded as part of their domestic and reproductive roles.

Nthia NJeru (1991) also found that land reform in Kenya favoured men against women,

and downplayed the status and role of women as the actual users of land. Adams (1995)

further found that farming in Kenya favoured men against women.

Educational level among respondents in the study area is presented in Table 4.1. From the

Table 4.1 , 6.2% of respondents never attended school, 6% did not complete primary

school, 1.7% completed primary school, 5.1 % did not complete secondary school, 12.4%

completed secondary school, 38.4% completed high school and 35.6% tertiary education.

Here, the maximum educational level attained is high school. This shows that the

majority of respondents were literate. The relative high level of literacy is expected to

enhance the adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. Educational level of respondents is a strong factor to be considered in the

adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This

implies that with the preponderance of educated farmers, it is expected that respondents

will be able to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. Education has proven to be a factor in the adoption of the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. Positive correlation has been

found between education and the adoption of new technologies as elucidated by Agwu

(2004) and Junge et al. (2009). This assertion is also in agreement with the findings of

Okunlola (2009) and Agbamu (2006) who found that educational level is one of the

factors that influence the adoption of new technology by farmers. Uematsu and Mishra

(2010) argue that in agriculture, farmers with higher education have better access to

information and knowledge necessary for farming operations. They also tend to possess

higher analytic capabilities of information and knowledge necessary to successfully

64

implement new technology and realise expected results. According to Rahm and Huffman

( 1984 ), higher level of education allows farmers to make efficient adoption decisions.

Ariyo et al. (2013) found that more educated farmers are typically assumed to be better

able to process information and search for appropriate technologies to alleviate their

production constraints. The belief is that education gives farmers the ability to perceive,

interpret and respond to new information faster than their counterparts without education.

Werner (2003) also found that the utilisation of new technologies is critically dependent

on workforces aware to them and their ability to use them. Low education will also

decrease productivity and income. However, a good level of education helps to enhance

technology adoption and increase productivity and agricultural knowledge.

Household size among respondents in the study area is also presented in Table 4.1 .

Households with 1-5 members made up 86.15%, 9.6% had between 5-10 members and

4% had more than 10 members. This shows that there are many households with less than

5 members. This could be due to the fact that farmers are educated and sensitised on the

benefits of family planning. This result is consistent with the findings of Aqhajan (1986)

who found that farmers do adjust their household sizes to various aspects of the

agricultural structure. He further found that given the high rate of fertility in rural areas,

the demographic mechanism of the downward adjustment of household size is the

selective migration of young males to work in urban areas.

Household head among respondents in the study area is also presented in Table 4.1. The

Table reveals that 85.9% of household heads are males and 14.1 % are females. This

implies that male headed households are more involved in farming than female headed

households in the study area.This might be due to the fact that more male-headed

households are involved in farming than female headed households. This is in line with

studies by Kazianga and W ahhaj (2011) who found that in many instances, gender is an

important determinant in the allocation of resources within the household.

The number of dependents among respondents in the study area is also presented in Table

4.1. From the Table, 95% of respondents have less than five dependents, 3.4% have

between 5-10 dependents and 1.8% have more than 10 dependents. This implies that there

are more farmers with less than 5 dependents. This might be due to the fact that

commercial farmers are aware of the importance of family planning. This agrees with the

65

study of Abdul-Hakim and Che-Mat (2011) who found that the dependency ratio, which

is the ratio of the farmer to the number of dependants in the household, has a negative

relationship with the probability to participate in off-farm employment. They further

maintain that the lower the dependency ratio, that is the larger the number of dependants,

the higher the probability for the farmer to look for off-farm employment. Since a farmer

with a larger number of dependents requires a higher income to sustain the family, there

is a higher probability to look for off-farm job.

Farm size among respondents in the study area is presented in Table 4.1. The results

reveal that the farm size ranges between 100 - 1000 hectares. From the Table 58% of

respondents have more than 1000 hectares, 17 .9% have farm sizes that range between

400-1000 hectares, 16% have a farm size that ranges between 100-400 hectares and only

9.2% less than 100 hectares. This shows that the farm sizes of the majority (58%) of

respondents are more than 1000 hectares. This might be due to the realisation of higher

rates of return on equity. This finding is consistent with the literature that large-scale

farmers are more inclined to adopting new technologies than small-scale farmers (Mc

Namara et al., 1991; Abara and Singh, 1993; Feder et al., 1985; Fernandez-Cornejo,

1996; and Kasenge, 1998). This assertion is also in agreement with the findings of Mc

Namara et al., 1991; Abara and Singh, 1993; Feder et al., 1985; Fernandez Cornejo, 1996

and Kasenge 1998 who found farm size to be positively related to adoption. In this

regard, Feder et al. (1985) noted that only larger farms will adopt these kinds of

innovations. This finding concurs with prior studies by Abdul et al. (1993) that there is a

significant relationship between farm size and adoption. This assertion is also in

agreement with the findings of Ayinde et al. (2010) that farm size has significant and

positive influence on adoption. The analysis of Daberkow and McBride (2003) shows that

given the uncertainty and the fixed transaction and information costs associated with

innovations, there may be a critical lower limit on farm size which prevents smaller farms

from adopting. Therefore, adoption of innovation will tend to take place earlier on larger

farms than on smaller farms. The findings by Nkonya et al. ( 1997) hinted that those with

large farms are likely to be better informed, and are able to take risks associated to

experiment with new practices. The effect of farm size on adoption has been adopted in

many studies (Erenstein and Faroog, 2009; Daku, 2002; Doss and Morris, 2000).

Evidence from various sources has indicated that there is positive relationship between

66

farm size and adoption (Erenstein and Faroog, 2009; Deressa et al., 2009; Kasenge,

1998). In a number of studies, it was found that those with larger farms have a greater

probability of adopting an innovation than owners of smaller sized farms (Azilah, 2007;

Deressa et al. 2009).

Farming experience among respondents in the study area is equally presented in Table

4.1. Regarding farming experience, 12% of respondents have spent less thanlO years in

farming while 45.3% have 10 - 20 years of farming experience, 32.9% have 20 - 40

years of farming experience and 4.5% have more than 40 years of farming experience.

This shows that the majority (45.3 %) of respondents have 10 - 20 years of farming

experience. This implies that most respondents have practiced farming for a reasonable

number of years. This might be due to the fact that new farmers are not all young farmers

and also that the startup costs might present a barrier to entry. Chiremba and Masters

(2012) state that farming experience and skills are strong predictors of good performance

and farming experience is measured by the number of years that the farmer has been

farming and resettled. Ariyo et.al (2013) found that the farming experience of farmers to

a large extent, affects their managerial know-how as well as the use of various extension

methods including mass media methods.

Table 4.1 shows that 30.5% of respondents have less than ten full time employees, 54.3%

had between 10-20 full time employees and 5.8% had more than 20 full time employees.

This shows that there are more farmers with between 10-20 full time employees. This

might be due to the fact that most farmers practise integrated farming system and have

large farms. Kerekes (2010) found that the number of young people employed m

agriculture was expected to decrease, because the level of income in agriculture is low.

Table 4.1 further shows that 21 % of respondents have less than ten part time employees,

46.3% had between 10-20 part time employees and 4.6% had more than 20 part time

employees. This implies that there are more farmers with 10-20 part-time employee .

This might be due to the fact that farming is characterised by sea onal labour peaks,

where number of employees may be hired on part-time basis. Kerekes (2010) further

found that another major problem of rural employment is the weakness in skills and

human capital.

67

Table 4.1: Personal characteristics of farmers

Personal Frequency Percentage Mean Std. characteristics Deviation A2:e ( in years ) 50.29 10.99 Less than 30 9 5.2 30-40 30 17.1 41 - 50 51 28.9 51 - 60 63 35.7 Above 60 24 13.6 Gender Male 136 76.8 Female 41 23.2 Educational level None 11 6.2 Primary incomplete I 6 Primary complete 3 1.7 Secondary incomplete 9 5.1 Secondary complete 22 12.4 High school 68 38.4 Tertiary 63 35.6 Household size 3.56 7.89 Less than 5 members 153 86.15 5-10 members 17 9.6 Above 10 members 7 4 Household head Male-headed 152 85.9 Female-headed 25 14.1 Dependents 3.09 6.05 Less than 5 168 95 5-10 6 3.4 Above 10 3 1.8 Farm size 7664.49 17803.50 Less than 1 OOha 16 9.2 100 - 400ha 28 16 400 - lOOOha 31 17.9 Above 1 OOOha 102 58 Farmin2 experience 20.46 11 .34 Less than 1 0 years 21 12 10-20 years 80 45.3 20 - 40 years 58 32.9 Above 40 years 8 4.5 Full time employees 11.46 9.91 Less than 10 54 30.5 10-20 96 54.3 Above 20 10 5.8 Part time employees 8.69 17.60 Less than IO 37 21 10 - 20 82 46.3 Above 20 8 4.6 Source: Field Survey, 2014

68

4.2.2 Categories of farming income derived from crop farming

The categories of farming income from crop among respondents in the study area are

presented in Table 4.2. The results indicate that 11.9% of respondents had a farm income

of less than R50 000 per year from maize, 6.8% had a farm income that ranged between

R50 000 - RlO0 000 per year from maize, 12.4% had a farm income that ranged between

RlO0 001 - R500 000 per year from maize and 27.7% had more than R500 000 as farm

income per year from maize. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm

income above R500 000 per year from maize. It is clear from the Table 4.2 that the

majority of respondents are maize producers. This might be due to the fact that large

farms in South Africa are more dependent on maize as a staple food consumed in large

quantities and constitutes a dominant portion of standard diet in South Africa. Chianu et

al. (2009) maintain that maize is the largest locally produced field crop and a key staple

crop in the farming system of Western Kenya.

The results indicate that 6.2% of respondents had a farm income of less than R50 000 per

year from sunflower, 10.7% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000

per year from sunflower, 13.0% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 -

R500 000 per year from sunflower and 14.1 % had more than R500 000 as farm income

per year from sunflower. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income

above R500 000 per year from sunflower. This might be due to the fact that government

and agricultural or social organisations are not supporting farmers in order to improve

accessibility to markets and facilitate market information flow. Ugulumu and Inanga

(2014) identified that the perceptions of sunflower producers regarding identification of

sunflower buyers and quantity demanded were negative.

The results further indicate that 1.1 % of respondents had a farm income of less than R50

000 per year from sorghum 7.9% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 -

RlO0 000 per year from sorghum, 4.5% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0

001 - R500 000 per year from sorghum and 2.8% had more than R500 000 as farm

income per year from sorghum. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm

income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per year from sorghum. This might be

due to the fact that few farmers are engaged in the commercial production of sorghum and

that farmers are not able to produce sufficient quantities for domestic and commercial

69

use. Ogeto et al. (2012) found that despite the utility of sorghum, there is low production

of sorghum among Kenyan farmers against food security challenges.

The results indicate that 1.1 % of respondents had a farm income of less than R50 000 per

year from groundnuts, 6.2% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000

per year from groundnuts, 5.1 % had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 -

R500 000 per year from groundnuts and 0.6% had more than R500 000 as farm income

per year from groundnuts. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income

that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per year from groundnuts. This might be due to

the fact that there is a high demand for labour and other input costs that are critical factors

in groundnut production. Usman et al. (2007) found that experienced farmers are less

involved in groundnut production and that most groundnut farmers are engaged in other

forms of business.

The results further indicate that 1.1 % of respondents had a farm income of less than R50

000 per year from wheat, 6.8% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0

000 per year from wheat, 5.6% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 - R500

000 per year from wheat and 6.2% had more than R500 000 as farm income per year from

wheat. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income that ranged

between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per year from wheat.

The results indicate that 15.3% of respondents had an income of less than R50 000 per

year from vegetables, 5.1 % had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000

per year from vegetables, 4.5% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 - R500

000 per year from vegetables and 3.4% had more than R500, 000 as farm income per

year from vegetables. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income of

less than R50 000 per year from vegetables. This might be due to the fact that the

potential increase in income from vegetable production depends on the availability of

economic resources and market availability. Kebede and Gan (1999) found that the

production of properly selected vegetables is profitable and offers a viable economic

option for enhancing the income generation of small and limited resource farmers in

Alabama.

70

The results indicate that 0.6% of respondents had farm income of less than R50 000 per

year from tobacco, 1.1 % had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - R 100 000 per

year from tobacco, 1.7% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 - R500 000

per year from tobacco and 1.7% had more than R500 000 as farm income per year from

tobacco. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income that ranged

between R 100 000 - R500 000 per year from tobacco. This might be due to the fact that

farmers are shifting resources away from tobacco production. Beach et al. (2008) found

that farmers ' decisions about tobacco acreage have been shaped in expected ways by the

expected revenue associated with substitute crops.

Table 4.2: Categories of farming income derived from crop farming among respondents in

the study area

Crop farming Less than R 50 000- RIOOOOI - Above

R 50 000 R 100 000 R 500 000 R 500 000

Maize (n = 104) 21 ( 11 .9) 12 (6.8) 22(12.4) 49 (27.7)

Sunflower (n = 78) 11 (6.2) 19 (I 0.7) 23 (13.0) 25 ( 14.1)

Sorghum (n = 29) 2 (I. I) 14 (7.9) 8 (4.5) 5 (2.8)

Groundnuts (n = 23) 2(1.1) 11 (6.2) 9(5.1) 1 (0.6)

Wheat (n = 35) 2 (I. I) 12 (6.8) IO (5.6) 11 (6.2)

Vegetables (n = 50) 27 (15.3) 9 (5.1) 8 (4.5) 6 (3.4)

Tobacco (n = 12) 1 (0.6) 2(1.1 ) 3 (1.7) 3 (1.7)

4.2.3 Categories of farming income derived from animal farming

Categories of farming income derived from animals among respondents in the study area

are presented in Table 4.3. The results indicate that 20.3% of respondents had a farm

income of less than R50 000 per year from beef 15.8% had a farm income that ranged

between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per year from beef, 14.1 % had a farm income that ranged

between RlO0 001 - R500 000 per year from beef and 12.4% had more than R500 000 as

farm income per year from beef. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm

income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per year from beef. It is clear from the

table that the majority of respondents are beef cattle producers. This might be due to the

fact that South African large farms are more dependent on beef cattle. Palmer and Ainslie

71

(2012) maintain that nationally, beef production is the most important livestock-related

activity, followed by small stock (sheep and goats) production.

The results show that 5.1 % of respondents had a farm income of less than R50 000 per

year from goats, 7.3% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per

year from goats, 5.6% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 - R500 000 per

year from goats and 3.4% had more than R500 000 as farm income per year from goats.

This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income that ranged between R50

000- RlO0 000 per year from goats.

The results further indicate that 2.3% of respondents had farm income of less than R50

000 per year from dairy, 6.2% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0

000 per year from dairy, 10.7% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 - R500

000 per year from dairy and 4% had more than R500 000 as farm income per year from

dairy. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income that ranged between

R 100 001 - R 500 000 per year from dairy. Utami et al. (2014) found that farmers who

raised dairy cattle of les than four Animal Units made more profit in terms of obtaining

more income.

The results also indicate that 2.8% of respondents had farm income of less than R50 000

per year from broilers, 9.6% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000

per year from broilers, 6.8% had a farm income that ranged between RlOO 001 - R500

000 per year from broilers and 2.3% had more than R500 000 as farm income per year

from broilers. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income that ranged

between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per year from broilers. Murthy and Madhuri (2013) found

that the major benefits from contract farming are derived from reduction in transaction

costs and assurance of regular income for broiler farmers.

The results indicate that 11 .9% of respondents had a farm income of less than R50 000

per year from sheep, 7.9% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000

per year from sheep, 11.9% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 - R500

000 per year from sheep and 3.4% had more than R500 000 as farm income per year from

sheep. This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income of less than R50

000 per year from sheep.

72

The results indicate that 6.8% of respondents had an income of less than R50 000 per year

from pigs, 4.5% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per year

from pigs, 4.5% had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 - R500 000 per year

from pigs and 6.8% had more than R500, 000 as farm income per year from pigs. This

shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income of less than R50 000 per year

from pigs.

The results indicate that 3.4% of respondents had a farm income of less than R50 000 per

year from layers, 2.3% had a farm income that ranged between R50 000 - RlO0 000 per

year from layers, 1.1 % had a farm income that ranged between RlO0 001 - R500000 per

year from layers and 2.3 had more than R500 000 as farm income per year from layers.

This shows that the majority of respondents had a farm income of less than R50 000 per

year from layers.

Table 4.3: Categories of farming income derived from animal farming among respondents

in the study area

Animal farming Less than R 50, 000 - R 100, 001 - Above

R 50,000 R 100, 000 R 500, 000 R 500,000

Beef (n = 111) 36 (20.3) 28 (15.8) 25 (14.1) 22 (12.4)

Goats (n = 38) 9 (5 .1) 13(7.3) 10 (5.6) 6 (3.4)

Dairy products (n = 41) 4 (2.3) 11 (6.2) 19 (10.7) 7 (4)

Broilers (n = 38) 5 (2.8) 17 (9.6) 12 (6.8) 4 (2.3)

Sheep (n=62) 21 (11.9) 14 (7 .9) 21 (11.9) 6 (3.4)

Pigs (n = 40) 12 (6.8) 8 (4.5) 8 (4.5) 12 (6.8)

Layers (n = I 6) 6 (3.4) 4 (2.3) 2(1.1) 4 (2.3)

73

4.2.4 Sources of information

Table 4.4 shows the sources of information on the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation available to farmers in the study area. The results show

that majority of respondents received information on the 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation through different means such as the

television (49.7%), newspapers (42.4%), farmer organisations (41.8%), radio (38.4%),

friends I relatives (33.3 %), extension services (24.3 %), seminars (23 .7%) and other

forms of mass media (15.3%). From the results, it could be inferred that television serves

as the main source of information for farmers on the 'just and equitable ' compensation

principle for land expropriation. This implies that information on the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation is properly communicated through

different channels. The diverse nature of the sources of information should encourage

farmers to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation.

The results revealed that the majority (49.7%) of respondents received information

through the television. This implies that the television may be an effective medium of

disseminating information on the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land

expropriation to farmers in the study area. High frequency of multiple sources of

information to farmers may change their behaviour towards the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation. This might be due to the fact that access to

usable information can have a significant impact on adoption. This finding is

corroborated by Muhammad et al. (2012) who found that television was the major and

most frequent used source of information.

74

Table 4.4: Sources of information on the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for I d an expropnation

YES NO No response

Other mass media 27 (15.3) 83 (46.90) 67 (37.8)

Radio 68 (38.4) 79 (44.6) 30 (17.0)

Television 88 (49.7) 73 (4 1.2) 16 (9.1)

Newspapers 75 (42.4) 76 (42.9) 26 (14.7)

Friends/ relatives 59 (33.3) 67 (37.9) 51 (28.8)

Seminars 42 (23.7) 68 (38.4) 67 (37.9)

Extension services 43 (24.3) 69 (39.0) 65 (36.7)

Farmer organisations 74(41.8) 65 (36.7) 38 (2 1.5)

Agricultural Research Council 25 (14. 1) 66 (37.3) 86 (48.6)

Private companies 27 (15.3) 65 (36.7) 85 (48.0)

4.2.5 Farmers' participation in agricultural or social organisations

The results on farmers' participation in agricultural or social organisations are presented

in Table 4.5. The results revealed that 26.0 % of farmers participated in meetings

organized by Senwes organization, 11 . 9% of farmers participated in conferences

organized by Agri North West organization and 7.3 % farmers participated in workshops

organized by Senwes organization. The low percentages indicate the low level of

participation by farmers in social and agricultural organisations. Farmers who belong to

organisations, farmers' groups and associations are more likely to adopt the 'just and

equitable' principle for land expropriation better than farmers who do not belong to any

organisation. The reason may be because of the information and awareness of innovation

that farmers get from the farmers' groups through their fellow farmers or through

extension agents who work with the group. This finding concurs with prior studies by

Jagger and Pender (2003) who analysed farmers' participation in different types of

organisations as a determinant of the adoption of different kinds of innovations. Bahta

and Bauer (2007) maintain that membership in farmers' group influences participation in

agricultural projects due to the fact that there is increased interest in farmers'

organisations as an effective approach to farmer participation research. According to

Agwu (2004), farmer organisations offer an effective channel for extension contact with

75

large number of farmers , as well as opportunities for participatory interaction with

extension services.

Table 4.5: Farmers' participation in agricultural or social organisations

Organisation Organisational activities Extent of participation Meetings Conferences Workshops Regular Occasional Never

AFASA 36 (20.3) 11 (6.2) 4 (2.3) 18 (10.2) 4 (2.3) 68 (38.4) (n = 51) Agric 33 (18.6) 14 (7.9) 3 ( 1.7) 29 (16.4) 10 (5.6) 66 (37.3) Cooperatives (n = 50) YARD/BAY 4 (2.3) 6 (3.4) 3 (1.7) 12 (6.8) 3 (1.7) 83 (46.9) OFA (n = 13) Local 6 (3.4) 4 (2.3) - 8 (4.5) 1 (0.6) 83 (46.9) community Clubs (n = 10) NAFU 20 (11.3) 7 (4.0) 4 (2.3) 6 (3.4) 6 (3.4) 75 (42.4) (n = 31)

WARD 6 (3.4) 4 (2.3) 5 (2.8) 4 (2.3) 5 (2.8) 81 (45 .8) (n = 15) TAU 23 (13.0) 6 (3.4) 6 (3.4) 26 (14.7) 5 (2.8) 71 (40.1) (n = 35) NWK 40 (22.6) 15 (8.5) 10 (5.6) 30 (16.9) 13(7.3) 54 (30.5) (n = 65) Agricol 19(10.7) 12 (6.8) 9(5.1) 18 (10.2) 13 (7.3) 53 (29.9) (n = 40) Senwes 46 (26.0) 14 (7.9) 13 (7.3) 31 (17.5) 22 (12.4) 43 (24.3) (n = 73)

Agri 40 (22.6) 21 (11.9) 10 (5.6) 28 (15.8) 24 (13.6) 44 (24.9) North West (n = 71 ) Others 7 (4.0) 1 (0.6) 5 (2.8) 3 (1.7) 3 (1.7) 32 (18.1) (n = 13)

4.2.6 Attitude towards the 'just and equitable' compensation principle

The results on commercial farmers' attitude towards the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation are presented in Table 4.6. The results

show a list of 19 attitudinal statements about the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation. Respondents were asked to rate the statements using 5

point Likert scale as follows: 1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Uncertain), 4 (Agree)

and 5 (Strongly agree) . The actual mean is 3 due to the rating scale and a mean of greater

76

than 3 denoted a positive attitude while a mean less than 3 denoted a negative attitude

towards the 'just and equitable' principle for land expropriation.

The results revealed a positive attitude by commercial farmers towards the 'just and

equitable' principle for land expropriation. The means for sixteen out of nineteen

attitudinal statements were above the cut-off point of 3. The most prominent attitudinal

statements as ranked by farmers were: 'Just and equitable ' consider the current use of the

property (3.42); 'just and equitable ' viability of the purpose of the expropriation (3.38),

reflecting an equitable balance between public interests and the interests of those affected

(3 .23), 'just and equitable' considers the market value of the property (3 .19) and 'just and

equitable' is needed to deal with land redistribution (3.19). Attitude has been defined as

the predisposition to feel, think or act in a particular way with some degree of

consistency. This might be due to the fact that levels of knowledge are positively

correlated with more favourable attitudes. The result is consistent with the findings of

Kai-ming Au and Enderwick (2000). In their study, the cognitive process, which

determines an attitude towards technology adoption was found to be affected by six

beliefs such as compatibility; enhanced value; perceived benefits; adaptive experiences;

perceived difficulty and suppliers' commitment.

On the other hand famers were not favourably disposed to statements such as 'just and

equitable' is to replace government's current "willing buyer, willing seller" land

redistribution policy (2.94) and Just and equitable was due to the pace of redistribution

which is far too slow (2.98).

77

Table 4.6: Attitude of commercial farmers towards the 'just and equitable' compensation ··1tld "ti prmc1p e or an expropna on

Attitudinal statements Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Std. A2ree Disa2ree D

Reflecting an equitable 36(20.3) 58(32.8) 36(20.3) 19(10.7) 14(7.9) 3.23 1.50 balance between public interests and the interests of those affected ' Just and equitable ' considers 35(19.8) 66(37 .3) 35(19.8) 23(13.0) 15(8.5) 3.42 1.27 the current use of the property 'Just and equitable' viability of 34(19.2) 66(37.3) 37(20.9) 20(11.3) 13(7.3) 3.38 1.33 the purpose of the expropriation ' Just and equitable' considers 36(20.3) 45(25.4) 52(29.4) 15(8 .5) 13(7.3) 3.16 1.50 the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property ' Just and equitable ' considers 31(17.5) 45(25.4) 57(32.2) 22(12.4) 14(7.9) 3.19 1.33 the market value of the property ' Just and equitable' considers 26( 14.7) 46(26.0) 57(32.2) 19(10.7) 17(9.6) 3.05 1.40 of the history of the acquisition and use of the property ' Just and equitable ' was due to 22(12.4) 52(29.4) 45(25.4) 27(15.3) 21(11.9) 2.98 1.39 the pace of redistribution which is far too slow 'Just and equitable ' is to 24(13 .6) 53(29.9) 38(21.5) 25(14.1) 25( 14. l) 2.94 1.47 replace government's current "willing buyer willing seller" land redistribution policy The proposed Property 24(13.6) 49(27.7) 44(24.9) 32(18.1) 22(12,4) 3.02 1.35 Valuations Bill , read with the provisions of the Expropriation Bill, will address the problem of "wi lling buyer, willing seller" The proposed Property 37(20.9) 40(22.6) 43(24.3) 27( 15.3) 19(10.7) 3.09 1.49 Valuations Bill , read with the provisions of the Expropriation Bill, will speed up land reform The expropriation is aimed at 32(18.1) 44(24.9) 48(27.1) 24(13.6) 19(10.7) 3.09 1.43 redistributing land to address the effects of land dispossession The 'Just and equitable ' land 29(16.4) 41(23.2) 60(33 .9) 19(10.7) 19(10.7) 3.08 1.37 redistribution policy will not allow property owners to block redistribution efforts The ' Just and equ itable ' allows 38(21.5) 28(15.8) 62(35 .0) 29(16.4) 12(6.8) 3.15 1.36 property owners to refuse to have their property expropriated

78

The 'just and equitable' allows 33(18.6) 32(18.1) 57(32.2) 31 (17.5) 15(8.5) 3.06 property owners to hold the government to ransom by demanding that the state pays exorbitant prices for property intended for expropriation The 'just and equitable' will 30(16.9) 33(18.6) 62(35.0) 31(17.5) 12(6.8) 3.06

allow the state to move as expeditiously as possible to address the effects of past unfair (race-based) land dispossession. ' Just and equitable' is needed to 26(14.7) 56(31.6) 48(27.1) 26(14.7) 14(7.9) 3.19 deal with land redistribution The 'j ust and equitable' is 26(14.7) 38(21.5) 62(35.0) 25(14.1) 20(1 1.3) 3.04 intended to deal with the slow process of the land reform programme as well as the exorbitant and thus unsustainable cost of the programme The 'j ust and equitable ' fails to 27(15.3) 34(19.2) 57(32.2) 30(16.9) 16(9.0) 2.93 provide for the mandatory involvement of the court m the determination of the compensation ' Just and equitable ' allows that a 28(15.8) 36(20.3) 35(19.8) 29(16.4) 25(14.l) 2.67 property owner would be able to approach a court to challenge the amount or the manner of payment of compensation

4.2.7 Awareness of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle

Table 4.7 shows a list of 26 statements about awareness of the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation. Respondents were asked to rate the

statements using 1 (No) or (Yes) 2. The actual mean is 1.5 and a mean of greater than 1.5

denoted a high awareness while a mean less than 1.5 denoted a low awareness towards

the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation.

The results revealed awareness by commercial farmers towards the 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation. The means for fifteen out of twenty six

attitudinal statements were above the cut-off point of 1.5. The most prominent awareness

statements as ranked by the farmers were 'just and equitable' considers the history of the

acquisition and use of the property (1.64 ); 'just and equitable' considers the current use of

79

1.38

1.33

1.30

1.31

1.41

1.64

the property (1.62); under 'just and equitable' expropriation is made subject to the

payment of compensation (1.61) and 'just and equitable' provides several procedural

safeguards including the opportunity for the owner of property to lodge an objection to

the decision to expropriate his or her property (l.60). This might be due to the fact that

education is an important tool to improve awareness of 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation. Kumar et.al (2010) found that encouraging social

participation will increase the awareness of farmers.

80

Table 4.7: Statements about awareness of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle £ I d . ti or an expropna on Statements about 'just and equitable' principle Awareness

Yes No Mean SD ' Just and equitable ' considers the history of the 118(66.7) 54(30.5) 1.64 0.54 acquisition and use of the property ' Just and equitable' considers the current use of the 114(64.4) 58(32.8) 1.62 0.54 property 'Just and equitable' considers the market value of the 103(58.2) 66(37.3) 1.54 0.58 property ' Just and equitable' considers the extent of direct state 93(52.5) 75(42.4) 1.47 0.59 investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property 'Just and equitable' considers the purpose of the 97(54.8) 72(40.7) 1.50 0.59 expropriation 'Just and equitable' reflects an equitable balance 95(53.7) 71 (40.1) 1.47 0.61 between the public interest and the interests of those affected Under 'just and equitable' expropriation is made 11 3(63.8) 59(33 .3) 1.61 0.54 subject to the payment of compensation ' Just and equitable' will be based on the amount, the 113(63.8) 52(29.4) 1.57 0.62 time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court" Under 'just and equitable' the Constitution does not 105(59.3) 57(32.2) 1.52 0.64 require the state to pay the owner of expropriated property the market value for the property when it is expropriated The state is required to pay 'just and equitable' 108(6 1.0) 63(35.6) 1.58 0.56 compensation, "reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected" Under 'just and equitable ' the Expropriation Bill 111 (62.7) 59(33.3) 1.59 0.57 authorises the relevant Minister to expropriate property for the purposes of land redistribution without the consent of the property owner 'Just and equitable' provides several procedural 111 (62.7) 61 (34.5) 1.60 0.55 safeguards including the opportunity for the owner of the property to lodge an objection to the decision to expropriate his or her property ' Just and equitable ' provides the opportunity for the 104(58.8) 62(35.0) 1.53 0.61 owner of property to negotiate with the authorities about the intended expropriation ' Just and equitable' provides for a decision to be taken 108(61 .0) 60(33.9) 1.56 0.59 on the expropriation within 60 days ' Just and equitable' provides for the expropriation to 101 (57.1) 58(32.8) 1.47 0.67 go ahead even if the owner is not happy with the amount of compensation offered ' Just and equitable ' states that if the owner and the 103(58.2) 48(27.1) 1.44 0.74 expropriation authority cannot agree on the terms of an expropriation, any party to an expropriation has the right to approach a court to decide or approve the amount of compensation; the time of payment of compensation; or the manner of payment of

81

compensation 'Just and equitable' Bill would not prevent the 98(55.4) 55(31.1) 1.42 0 .72 expropriation from being effected before the court makes a final determination on the compensation Under 'just and equitable' the involvement of the court 111 (62.7) 52(29.4) 1.55 0.64 in determining the compensation would be optional, not mandatory 'Just and equitable ' requires compensation to be either 95(53.7) 71(40.1) 1.48 0 .60 "decided or approved" by a court when the expropriation is not by agreement Under 'just and equitable ' the court will not be 103(58.2) 60(33 .9) 1.50 0.64 involved in deciding or approving the compensation -in conflict with the Constitution if the owner does not approach a court to challenge the amount or the manner of payment of compensation 'Just and equitable' would create the Office of the 89(50.3) 76(42.9) 1.44 0.62 Valuer-General Under 'just and equitable' the Office of the Valuer- 96(54.2) 71(40.1) 1.49 0.60 General would be tasked with the duty of valuating all properties that will be expropriated Under 'just and equitable' The Office of the Valuer- 98(55.4) 72(40.7) 1.51 0 .58 General will develop criteria for the valuation of such properties Under Just and equitable a valuation process will 92(52.0) 75(42.4) 1.46 0 .60 always start by considering the market value of the property Under 'just and equitable' other relevant factors might 96(54.2) 62(35 .0) 1.44 0.68 be used to reduce the valuation of the property

4.2.8 Knowledge of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle

Table 4.8 shows a list of 26 statements about knowledge of the 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation. Respondents were asked to rate the

statements using 2 point Likert type scale of 1 (No) and 2 (Yes). The actual mean is 1.5

due to the rating scale and a mean of greater than 1.5 denoted a high knowledge while a

mean less than 1.5 denoted a low knowledge towards the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation. The results revealed a low knowledge

towards the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. The means

of all twenty six statements on knowledge were below the cut-off point of 1.5. This shows

that the majority of farmers have low knowledge about the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle. This might due to the fact that land reform is a deeply political

process. Guambe and Ige (2014) argue that when people have enough knowledge about

the law, it creates the ability to differentiate between traditional norms and the behaviour

82

of the people. They further state that if the law had been properly stated and clearly

understood, it will change the behaviour of the people through interpretation. It could be

concluded that knowledge of the land reform policy is poor. According to Holden (2008),

this could be attributed to illiteracy, non-participation in meetings and mismanagement by

the administration. Regarding the issue of low knowledge of people about land reform,

people are able to make opinions that could be assessed whether they are in line or not

with the law. According to Holden (2008), knowledge of land reform contributes in the

process of land distribution, especially in rural areas where landlessness is severe and that

the laws shall be clear to rural people. Holden (2008) further states that many changes

have been made in the federal and regional land proclamations and regulations.

83

Table 4.8: Knowledge of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land . ti expropna on

Statements about just and equitable principle Knowledie Yes No Mean SD

' Just and equitable' considers the history of the 75(42.4) 67(37.9) 1.23 0.76 acquisition and use of the property ' Just and equitable' considers the current use of 72(40.7) 88(49.7) 1.31 0.64 the property ' Just and equitable' considers the market value of 64(36.2) 93(52.5) 1.25 0.64 the property 'Just and equitable' considers the extent of direct 71(40.1 ) 89(50.3) 1.31 0.64 state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property 'Just and equitable' considers the purpose of the 70(39.5) 95(53 .7) 1.33 0.60 expropriation 'Just and equitable' reflects an equitable balance 65(36.7) 96(54.2) 1.28 0.62 between the pub I ic interest and the interests of those affected Under 'just and equitable' expropriation is made 65(36.7) 98(55.4) 1.29 0.60 subject to the payment of compensation ' Just and equitable' will be based on the amount, 63(35.6) 98(55.4) 1.27 0.61 the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court" Under 'just and equitable ' the Constitution does 67(37.9) 102(57.6) 1.33 0.56 not require the state to pay the owner of the expropriated property, the market value for the property when it is expropriated The state is required to pay 'just and equitable' 58(32.8) 103(58.2) 1.24 0.60 compensation, "reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected" Under 'just and equitable', the Expropriation Bill 56(31.6) 106(59.9) 1.23 0.59 authorises the relevant Minister to expropriate property for the purposes of land redistribution without the consent of the property owner ' Just and equitable' provides several procedural 60(33 .9) 103(58.2) 1.26 0.59 safeguards including the opportunity for the owner of property to lodge an objection to the decision to expropriate his or her prooerty ' Just and equitable ' provides the opportunity for 71 (40.1) 92(52.0) 1.32 0.62 the owner of property to negotiate with authorities about the intended expropriation Just and equitable provides for a decision to be 65(36.7) 93(52.5) 1.26 0.64 taken on expropriation within 60 days ' Just and equitable' provides for the expropriation 55(31.1) 95(53.7) 1.16 0.66 to go ahead even if the owner is not happy with the amount of compensation offered ' Just and equitable' states that if the owner and the 47(26.6) 96(54.2) 1.07 0.67 expropriation authority cannot agree on the terms of an expropriation any party to an expropriation , has the right to approach a court to decide or approve the amount of compensation; the time of payment of compensation; or the manner of

84

payment of compensation The 'just and equitable' Bill would allow (but l (0.6) 1 (0.6) 0.02 0.17 would not require) a court to make a final determination on the compensation paid for expropriated property The 'j ust and equitable' Bill would not prevent the 61 (34.5) 87(49.2) 1.18 0.69 expropriation from being effected before the court makes a fina l determination on the compensation Under' just and equitable ' the involvement of the 70(39.5) 89(50.3) 1.29 0.64 court in determining the compensation would be optional , not mandatory 'Just and equitable' requires compensation to be 63(35.6) 103(58.2) 1.29 0.58 either "decided or approved" by a court when the expropriation is not by agreement Under 'just and equitable' the court wi ll not be 67(37.9) 101 (57. l ) 1.33 0.57 involved 10 deciding or approving the compensation - in conflict with the Constitution if the owner does not approach a court to challenge the amount or the manner of payment of compensation 'Just and equitable' would create the Office of the 64(36.2) 101(57.1) 1.29 0.59 Valuer-General Under 'j ust and equitable ' the Office of the 46(26.0) 116(65.5) 1.1 8 0.56 Valuer-General would be tasked with the duty of valuating all properties that wi ll be expropriated Under 'j ust and equitable' the Office of the 47(26.6) 113(68.8) 1.17 0.58 Valuer-General will develop criteria fo r the valuation of such properties Under 'j ust and equitable' Aavaluation process 55(31.1) 105(59.3) 1.21 0.60 wi ll always start by considering the market value of the property Under 'just and equitable' other relevant factors 55(31.1 ) 105(59.3) 1.21 0.60 might be used to reduce the valuation of the property

4.2.9 Willingness and extent of adoption of the 'just and equitable' principle

Farmers' willingness and extent of adoption of the 'j ust and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation is presented in Table 4.9. It can be seen from the Table

4 .9 that 69.5% of respondents are not willing to adopt the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation whereas 30.5% are willing to adopt the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. It i clear from the

Table that respondents are not willing to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation. This might be due to the fact that land provides financial

afety nets for farmers. Land reform is a very sensitive issue and farmers see it as a way

85

to confiscate land without compensation. Buckley et al. (2012) found that there is

reluctance among the Irish farming community to adopt a 10 metre fixed width riparian

buffer zone despite the potential availability of economic incentives.

The proportion of land which respondents are willing to offer to the policy under

consideration is presented in Table 4.9. The proportion ranges from 0% - 50%. The Table

also shows that 64.9% of respondents are not willing to offer any proportion of their land

to the policy under consideration, 29.9% of respondents are willing to offer less than 25%

of the proportion of their land to the policy under consideration and only 5.1 % of

respondents are willing to offer less than 25 - 50% of the proportion of their land to the

policy under consideration.

The number of respondents willing to accept less than 25% of land is presented in Table

4.9. From the Table 83 .7% of respondents are willing to accept less than R4500/ha for

less than 25% of land, 9.7% of respondents are willing to accept less than R4501 -

R15000/ha for less than 25% of land and 6.5% of respondents are willing to accept above

R15000/ha for less than 25% of land.

The number of respondents willing to accept 25 - 50% of land is presented in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 shows that 86% of the respondents are willing to accept less than R5000/ha for

25 - 50% of land, 7.5% of respondents are willing to accept less than R5001 - R15000/ha

for 25 - 50% of land and (3.5%) of the respondents are willing to accept R150001 - R500

000/ha for 25 - 50% of land and 3.5% of respondents are willing to accept above R500

000/ha.

The number of respondents willing to accept above 50% of land is presented in Table 4.9.

The Table also shows that 92.2% of respondents are willing to accept less than R5000/ha

for above 50% of land, 2.8% of respondents are willing to accept R5001- R30000/ha for

above 50% of land, 1.2% of respondents are willing to accept R30001 - R6000000/ha for

above 50% of land and 4.1 of respondents are willing to accept above R6000000/ha.

The right amount to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation is also presented in Table 4.9. From Table 4.9, that 50.8% of respondents

do not agree that the right amount will make them to adopt the 'just and equitable'

86

compensation principle for land expropriation and 49.2% agree that the right amount will

make them to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land

expropriation.

Table 4.9: Farmers' willingness and extent of adoption of the 'just and equitable' ti ··1tld compensa on prmc1p e or an expropriation

Willingness Frequency Percentage

No 123 69.5 Yes 54 30.5 Proportion of land None 115 64.9 Less than 25% 53 29.9 25-50% 9 5.1 Amount for less than 25% Less than 4500 148 83.7 4501 - 15000 17 9.7 Above 15000 11 6.5 Amount for 25 - 50 % Less than 5000 152 86 5001 - 15000 13 7.5 15001 - 5000000 6 3.5 Above 5000000 6 3.5 Amount for above 50% Less than 5000 163 92.2 5001-30000 5 2.8 30001 - 6000000 2 1.2 Above 6000000 7 4.1 Rie:ht amount No 90 50.8 Yes 87 49.2

4.2.10 Perceived constraints on the 'just and equitable' principle

Table 4.10 shows a list of 26 statements about perceived constraints on the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. Respondents were asked to rate

the statements using 2 point Likert type scale of 1 (No) and Yes (2). The actual mean is

1.5 due to the rating scale and a mean of greater than 1.5 denoted a high perceived

constraints while a mean less than 1.5 denoted a low perceived constraint towards the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation.

The results revealed high perceived constraints by commercial farmers towards the 'just

and equitable ' principle for compensation. The means for nineteen out of twenty six

87

perceived constraints were above the cut-off point of 1.5. The most prominent perceived

constraints as ranked by the farmers were statements such as delays and impediments

displayed by property owners with the continuation of land expropriation if the owner of

the property is not happy with the amount of compensation offered ( 1. 77), owners of the

property can challenge the amount or the manner of payment of compensation through

the court (1.73), unwillingness to initiate/ accept the policy by property owners (1 .72),

calculating 'just and equitable' compensation in a manner which will avoid exorbitant

prices being paid to current land owners and also make land more affordable for the

purpose of land reform (1.71) and lack of precise methods in calculating direct state

investment and subsidies in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the

property (1.68). This might be due to the fact that farmers are unwilling to accept the 'just

and equitable ' compensation approach for land expropriation. Du Plessis (2014) argues

that Bill 16-2008 was introduced to give effect to the constitutional provision on

expropriation and related matters. Du Plessis (2014) further argues that some of the

contentious issues discussed are the powers of the courts to determine compensation, the

wide authority to expropriate property, the uncertainty about the meaning of public

purpose and the determination the amount of compensation.

88

Table 4.10: Perceived constraints on the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for

land expropriation

Constraints Yes No Mean SD The Constitution makes it mandatory in the 86(48.6) 91(51.4) I.IO .93 involvement of the court in the determination of an amount of compensation that must be 'just and equitable' reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. Owners of the property can challenge the 131(74) 46(26) 1.73 .47 amount or the manner of payment of compensation through the court. Unwillingness to initiate/accept the policy by 131(74) 46(26) 1.72 .49 property owners Delays and impediments displayed by 138(78) 39(22.1) 1.77 .43 property owners with the continuation of land expropriation if the owner of the property is not happy with the amount of compensation offered ' Just and equitable' determination of land 131(74.0) 46(26) 1.69 .56 compensation reduces the value of the property Calculating 'just and equitable' 131(74.0) 46(26) 1.71 .53 compensation in a manner which will avoid exorbitant prices being paid to current land owners and also make land more affordable for purpose of land reform Delays in the payment of 'just and equitable' 122(68.9) 55(31.1) 1.67 .51 compensation, allowances and interests due to the current and profitable use of the property Delays in the payment of the compensation 124(70.1) 53(29.9) 1.68 .50 in lieu of losses due to pending payment Lack of precise methods m calculating 123(69.5) 54(30.5) 1.68 .50 direct state investment and subsidies in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property Lack of the precise method in calculating 114(64.4) 64(35 .6) 1.60 .57 'just and equitable' compensation amount to land Low financial implication on the part of the 116(65.5) 61 (34.4) 1.64 .50 land owner for redress when offered 'just and equitable' compensation for the expropriated property Use of court process m determining 116(65.5) 61(34.4) 1.64 .52

compensation to property owners Conflict of interests between the expropriator 112(63.3) 65(36.7) 1.59 .58 and all holders of rights in the property expropriated Low accessibi lity of the courts as a final 112(63.3) 65(36.7) 1.59 .58 arbiter of the amount of compensation to be paid to property owners The inability of the court to examine the 110(62.1) 67(37.8) 1.58 .58

89

merits of the decision used to pay 'just and equitable ' compensation Delays due to lower payment of the 106(59.9) 71(40.1) 1.49 .68 compensation for the property value Contradiction in the Constitution in 118(66.7) 59(33 .3) 1.58 .65 protecting existing property rights of land owners, while at the same time, making a commjtment to land reform-oriented redistribution Lack of existing tools to quantify the factors 94(53.1) 83(46.9) 1.38 .73 to calculate compensation to property owners The uncertainty and difficulties of finding an 88(49.7) 89(50.3) 1.24 .84 acceptable process of determining a 'just and equitable ' compensation Prolonged legal processes can be 79(44.6) 98(55.4) 1.23 .78 frustratingly protracted due to unacceptable compensation to property owners The difficulties experienced by courts in the 98(55.4) 79(44.6) 1.52 .56 determination of 'just and equitable ' amount of compensation The strong position held by property owners 102(57.6) 75(42.3) 1.57 .52 in situations where they contest expropriation and the determining of price The avai lability of suitable valuers 97(54.8) 80(45.2) 1.53 .54 authorised to interpret factors synonymous with 'just and equitable ' compensation

4.2.11 Willing and non-willing adopters of the 'just and equitable 'principle

The results oft-test statistics comparing willing adopters and non-willing adopters of the

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation are presented in Table

4.11. Farmers were compared on the basis of participation in organisations, perception of

policy, awareness of policy, knowledge of policy and constraints of policy. The results

show a significant difference between willing adopters and non-willing adopters on the

knowledge of policy (t = -2.40, p < 0.05). The mean score for willing adopters (33 .18) is

higher than non-willing adopters (30.16). This might be due to the fact that willing

adopters participate more in social organisations than non-willing adopters. Knowledge of

the policy is significant and positively related to adoption of the 'just and equitable'

principle of land expropriation. This suggests that a well-informed farmer i more

innovative than farmers who are less informed. Therefore, knowledge can influence the

adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This

90

finding agrees with Paswel and Christopher (2007) who found that educational attainment

had a significant positive effect on the likelihood of adoption.

Table 4.11: t- test statistics comparing willing adopters and non-willing adopters on the 'just an d . bl ' . . . I ti I d eqmta e compensation prmc1p e or an ex oropr1atlon

Adoption Std. t df

categories N Mean Deviation Std. Error Mean

Participation Non-willing 110 12.4091 8.70547 .83003

in adopters

organisations Willing adopters -67 14.4925 9.68969 1.18378

1.44

Perception of Non-willing 110 59.3455 18.40295 1.75465

policy adopters

Willing adopters 67 57.7015 13 .70469 1 .67429 0.68

Awareness of Non-willing 110 37.7909 8.70210 .82971

policy adopters

Willing adopter -67 38.2388 7.06697 .86337

0.374

Knowledge of Non-willing 110 30.1636 7.13375 .68018

policy adopters

Willing adopter 67 33.1791 8.62506 1.05372 -2.40

Constraints of Non-willing 110 39.9636 8.06957 .76940

policy adopters

Willing adopters 67 39.8955 6.47170 .79064 0.06

4.2.12 One way analysis of variance comparing extent of willingness to adopt

One way analysis of variance comparing the extent of willingness to adopt the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation among farmers is presented in

Table 4.12. Farmers were compared on the basis of participation in organisations,

perception of policy, awareness of policy, knowledge of policy and constraints of policy

for different categories of farmers based on their willingness to offer a proportion of their

land under the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. They

are none, less than 25% and 25 to 50 %. The results show a significant difference between

these 3 groups with respect to participation in organisations (F = 7.31, p < 0.05), the post­

hoc intra significant difference shows that the mean score for the 3 categories of farmers

91

128

167

161

119

162

p

0.15

0.50

0.71

0.02

0.95

are none= 10.57, those willing to offer 25% = 14.60 and those not-willing to offer 25 -

50% = 17.14.

Participation in organisation shows a significantly positive relationship with farmers '

adoption of the 'just and equitable' principle of land expropriation. Participation in social

organisation affects adoption. This means that farmers who belong to organisations,

farmers ' groups and associations are more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation than farmers not belonging to any

organisation. The reason may be because of the information and awareness of innovation

that farmers get from the farmers ' groups through their fellow farmers or through

extension agents who work with the group. Besides, farmers have a way of working

collectively to assist each other on the farm. This finding concurs with prior studies

conducted by Jagger and Pender (2003). They analysed farmers ' participation in different

types of organisations as a determinant of the adoption of different kinds of innovations.

This assertion is also in agreement with the findings of Iwueke (1987) who found that

social participation was one of the variables that positively relate to farmers ' decision to

adopt new practices. In this regard, Uaiene (2006) noted that members of agricultural

associations are more likely to adopt new agricultural technologies.

Similarly, there is a significant difference between these 3 groups with respect to

knowledge of policy ( F = 6.90, p < 0.05), the post-hoc intra significant difference shows

that the mean score for farmers not willing to offer their land - none is 29.09, those

willing to offer 25% is 33.72 and those not willing to offer 25 - 50% is 31 .76. Knowledge

of the policy is significant and positively related to adoption of the 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation. This means that a well informed farmer is

more innovative than less informed farmers. Therefore, knowledge can influence the

adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This

finding is corroborated by the study of Ayinde et al. (2010) that the educational level of

farmers has a significant and positive influence on adoption. This assertion is also in

agreement with the findings of Paswel and Christopher (2007) who argue that educational

attainment has a significant positive effect on the likelihood of adoption.

92

Table 4.12: One way analysis of variance comparing extent of willingness to adopt the 'just an d . t bl ' ti . . I fi I d . f eqm a e compensa on prmc1p e or an expropr1a 100

Sum of Mean

squares df square F Sig.

Grou N

p

Participation in Between groups 1134.801 2 567.401 7.311 .001 None 80

organisations Within groups 13503.278 174 77.605 <25% 68

Total 25- 29 14638.079 176 50%

Perception of Between groups 1283.583 2 641 .792 2.320 .101 None 80

policy Within groups 48139.852 174 276.666 <25% 68

Total 49423.435 176 25- 29 50 %

Awareness of Between groups 2.075 2 1.038 .016 .984 None 80

policy Within groups 11556.648 174 66.418 <25 % 68

Total 11558.723 176 25- 29 50 %

Knowledge of Between groups 796.136 2 398.068 6.899 .001 None 80

policy Within groups 10039.389 174 57.698 I< 25% 68

Total 10835.525 176 ~5- 29 SO %

Constraint of Between groups 197.092 2 98.546 1.774 .173 None 80

policy Within groups 9665.224 174 55.547 I< 25% 68

Total 9862.316 176 ~5- ~9 M%

4.2.13 Probit parameter estimates of willingness to adopt 'just and equitable'

Table 4.13 shows farmers willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation

principle for land expropriation. To identify farmers' willingness to adopt the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation, a probit regression model was

used. The results of the probit model revealed that participation in organisations (t =

1.718, p < 0.10), perception of policy (t = 3.596, p < 0.01 ), educational level (t = -4.772, p

< 0.01), household head (t = -1.749, p < 0.10), farm size (t = 14.042, p < 0.01), income

from maize (t = -2.611 , p < 0.05), income from groundnuts (t = -1.668, p < 0.10), income

from wheat (t = -1.749, p < 0.10), income from tobacco (t = -2.481, p < 0.05), friends/

relatives (t = -2.243, p < 0.05), extension service (t = -3 .552, p < 0.01), farmer

organizations (t = -3.626, p < 0.01), Agricultural Research Council (t = 5.985, p < 0.01),

income from broilers (t = 2.504, p < 0.05) and other mass media (t = -1.660, p < 0.10)

showed a significantly positive relationship with farmers willingness to adopt the 'just

93

Mean

10.573

14.60b

17.14°

61 .25 57.88

53.72

38.05 37.82

38.03

29.093

33.72b

~ J.76°

40.10 38.88

f4 J.97

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. The intercept is 0.001 and

the model is well fit at 0.05. The chi square is 6729.322.

Participation in organizations shows a significantly positive relationship with farmers '

adoption of the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. This

means that farmers who belong to organisations, farmers ' groups and associations are

more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation than farmers who do not belong to any organisation. The reason may be

because of the information and awareness of innovation that farmers receive from the

farmers' groups through their fellow farmers or through extension agents who work with

the group. This finding concurs with prior studies conducted by Jagger and Pender (2003)

who analysed farmers ' participation in different types of organisations as a determinant

for the adoption of different kinds of innovations.

Perception of policy shows a significantly positive relationship with farmers ' adoption of

the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. This might be due

to the fact that farmers could adopt since they were aware of the 'just and equitable '

principle for land expropriation. This finding agrees with the work of Okunlola (2009)

who reported that awareness is the first stage of adoption before respondents develop

interest in the technology and later decide on adoption.

Educational level is significant and positively related to adoption of the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. These results imply that farmers

with high education are more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation than farmers with low educational level. Therefore,

educational level can influence the adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation. This finding corroborates the study conducted by Paswel

and Christopher (2007) that educational attainment had a significant positive effect on the

likelihood of adoption. This assertion is also in agreement with the findings of Marenya

and Barret (2006) that educational attainment has a significant positive effect on the

likelihood of adoption. The results suggest in line with previous studies of Adebiyi and

Okunlola, 201 O; and Agbamu, (2006) that education influences adoption of new

technology.

94

Household head shows a significantly positive relationship with farmers ' adoption of the

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. Paswel and

Christopher (2007) argue that gender of household heads all had a significantly positive

effect on the likelihood of adoption. Marenya and Barret (2006) found that gender of

household heads all had a significantly positive effect on the likelihood of adoption.

Farm size shows a significantly positive relationship with farmers ' adoption of the 'just

and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. The larger the farm sizes,

the higher the likelihood of adopting the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for

land expropriation .This means that farmers with big farm sizes are more likely to adopt

the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation compared to

farmers with small farm sizes. This finding concurs with prior studies by Paswel and

Christopher (2007) who argued that the size of the farm owned by a household had a

significant positive effect on the likelihood of adoption. This as ertion is also in

agreement with the findings of Marenya and Barret (2006) who found that the size of the

farm owned by a household had a significantly positive effect on the likelihood of

adoption. The analysis of Daberkow and McBride (2003) shows that given the

uncertainty and the fixed transaction and information costs associated with innovations,

there may be a critical lower limit on farm size which prevents smaller farms from

adopting. Therefore, adoption of innovation will tend to take place earlier on larger farms

than on smaller farms.

Income from maize, wheat, tobacco and broilers is significant and positively related to

adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. Wealth

status is expected to affect technology use for a number of reasons, including that

wealthier farmers have greater access to resources and may be more able to assume risk.

This finding is consistent with previous studies (Grazhdani, 2013). This assertion is also

in agreement with the findings of Jensen et al. (2007) who hypothesised that greater on

farm income would have a positive effect on the adoption of a new crop. Norris and Batie

(1987) also found that income had a positive effect on new techniques.

Friends / relative are significant and positively related to adoption of the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. Farmers who have stronger ties

with friends and relatives are characterized by adoption behaviour in terms of the speed

95

and intensity of adoption compared with farmers reporting less frequent interactions with

other farmers. Adoption is strongly influenced by members of the same social group.

New ideas are more easily adopted when they come from others who are similar in

several respects. Outsiders are not entirely trusted, especially in conservative locations. It

appears that friends or relatives are important influences in the decisions by farmers to

adopt. Friends or relatives appear to be influential in farmers' attitude towards adoption.

This might be due to the fact that the information provided by friends or relatives is often

central to a given farmer 's decision to adopt. This finding is corroborated by Foster et al.

(1987) that farmers find other important sources of information.

Extension service 1s significant and positively related to adoption of the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This means that a well­

informed farmer is more innovative than ignorant farmers. Therefore, information

through the extension services over the years can influence the adoption of the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This might be due to the fact

that extension officers play a very important role in the adoption process and the services

that exten ion institutions provide involve the provision of information to farmers, in

order to influence adoption. This finding concurs with prior studies by Igodan, et al.

(1988) that farmers who are more exposed to formal extension information have a high

propensity towards adoption than those with less exposure. This assertion is also in

agreement with the findings of Ayinde et al. (2010) that access to extension agents has

significant and positive influence on adoption. Anderson and Feder (2007) reported that

access to extension support services is one of the most important external factors which

has been found to have an influence on the decision by a farmer to adopt. Several studies

have shown that farmers who have regular contacts with extension agents are more

willing to adopt new technologies than those who do not have this type of contact

(Azilah, 2007; Feder et al., 1985; Feder and Umah, 1993; Kassie et al., 2009; Ogunlana,

2004). Ozowa (1997) noted that extension is a type of education which is functional

rather than formal , whose main task is to convey information in a meaningful manner to

farmers.

Farmer organizations show a significantly positive relationship with farmers' adoption of

the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. Decisions on

farming seem to be made collectively under the guidance of farmer organizations in

96

which farmers hold membership. This means that farmers who belong to organisations,

farmers' groups and associations are more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation than farmers who do not belong to any

organisation. The reason may be because of the information and awareness of innovation

that farmers get from farmers ' groups through fellow farmers or through extension agents

working with the group. Besides, farmers have a way of working collectively to assist

each other on the farm. This finding concurs with prior studies conducted by Jagger and

Pender (2003) who analysed farmers' participation in different types of organisations as a

determinant of the adoption of different kinds of innovations.

The Agricultural Research Council shows a significantly positive relation hip with

farmers' adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. This means that farmers who belong to organisations, farmers' groups and

associations are more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for

land expropriation than farmers who do not belong to any organisation. This means that

farmers that belong to Agricultural Research Council are more likely to adopt the 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation than farmers who do not

belong to the Agricultural Research Council. The reason may be because of the

information and awareness of innovation that farmers get from the Agricultural Research

Council through extension agents working with the group. This finding concurs with prior

studies by Jagger and Pender (2003) who analysed farmers' participation in different

types of organisations as a determinant of the adoption of different kinds of innovations.

Other mass media is significant and positively related to adoption of the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. This means that a well­

informed farmer is more innovative than ignorant farmers. Therefore, other mass media

can influence the adoption of the 'just and equitable' principle for land expropriation. The

use of other mass media is assumed to help the farmer in getting up-to-date agricultural

information and technologies, which influences the decision making processes in

technology adoption and its extent of use.

97

Table 4.13: Probit Parameter estimates of willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' · · · le for land ex propnat1on

Parameters Estimate Std. Error z Sie:.

Participation in organisations .003 .002 1.718 .086

Perception of policy .003 .001 3.596 .000

Awareness of policy .000 .002 .101 .920

Knowledge of policy -.001 .002 -.707 .480

Constraint of policy .001 .002 .449 .653

~ge -.001 .002 -.348 .728

Gender -.017 .036 -.480 .631

Educational level -.044 .009 -4.772 .000

Household size -.002 .002 -1.224 .221

Household head -.045 .026 -1.749 .080

IN umber of dependents .001 .002 .553 .580

!Farm size .000 .000 14.042 .000

farming experience .002 .002 1.181 .238

IN umber of full time employees .002 .001 1.378 .168

Number of part-time employees -.001 .001 -1.300 .194

Income from maize -.032 .012 -2.611 .009

Income from Sunflower -.009 .011 -.779 .436

Income from sorghum .011 .015 .753 .452

Income from groundnuts -.032 .019 -1.668 .095

Income from wheat -.022 .013 -1.749 .080

llncome from vegetables .012 .019 .649 .516

[ncome from tobacco -.055 .022 -2.481 .013

[ncome from beef .004 .012 .301 .764

II.ncome from goats -.013 .016 -.784 .433

IIncome from dairy products .023 .014 1.611 .107

!Radio .006 .021 .300 .764

rrelevision .032 .027 1.193 .233

!Newspapers .000 .022 -.016 .987

friends / relatives -.043 .019 -2.243 .025

!Seminars -.013 .020 -.639 .523

!Extension services -.080 .023 -3.552 .000

farmer organisations -.064 .018 -3 .626 .000

IAgricultural Research Council .150 .025 5.985 .000

Private companies .013 .023 .560 .576

llncome from broilers .037 .015 2.504 .012

llncome from sheep .012 .013 .889 .374

Income from pigs -.01 I .013 -.859 .390

Income from layers -.032 .022 -1.415 .157

98

Other mass media -.032 .019 -1.660 .097

Intercept -.501 .148 -3 .390 .001

Chi Square 6729.322

p 0.00

4.2.14 Extent of willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' principle

Table 4.14 shows extent of willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation

principle for land expropriation. The results of ordinal regression model on willingness to

adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation are presented

in Table 4.14. Chi-square statistics is 141.298 and is significant at 0.05. It can be

concluded that there is association between the dependent variables. The model-fitting

statistics, namely, the pseudo R square, measured the success of the model in explaining

the variations in the data. The pseudo R square was calculated depending upon the

likelihood ratio. McFaddens R Square compared the likelihood for the intercept model

with the independent variables in order to assess the model goodness. The pseudo R

square indicated that the proportion of variation in the dependent variable was accounted

for by the independent variables. The larger the pseudo R square was, the better the

model fitting. The pseudo R square for McFadden (0.39), Cox and Snell (0.55) and

Nagelkerke (0.63) in the model with complementary Log-log link. From the variables

included in the model, the following variables are significant:

Age (t=8.62, p<0.01), farm size (t=3.91, p<0.05), farming experience (t=6.49, p<0.05),

income from sorghum (t=6.11 , p<0.05), other mass media (t=5.62, p<0.05), radio (t=4.69,

p<0.05), farmers' organisations (t=3 .84, p<0.10) and participation in organisations

(t=8.77, p<0.05). From these variables, age, farm size, farming experience, income from

sorghum, other mass media, radio, farmers ' organisations and participation in

organisations show a very strong significance on willingness to adopt the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation.

Age shows a very strong significance on the willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation. The results revealed that there is

significant association between age and adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation. The implication is that age influences adoption of the

99

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation by respondents. This

means that young farmers are more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation

principle for land expropriation than old farmers. This might be due to the fact that young

people are more innovative than old farmers who are reluctant to change. This finding

concurs with prior studies conducted by Rao and Rao (1996) who found a positive and

significant association between age and adoption. This assertion is also in agreement with

the findings of Batte and Johnson (1993) that increasing age reduces the probability of

adoption because of factors inherent in the aging process. In line with previous studies

(Adebiyi and Okunlola, 2010; Agbamu, 2006), the results suggest that age influences

adoption of new technology. Younger farmers tend to be more educated and more willing

to innovate. This finding concurs with prior studies conducted by Yang and Folly (2008);

Hong and Tam, (2006) that age has proven to have significant associations with decisions

to adopt technology.

Farm size was found to have a positive relationship with the probability of adoption of the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This suggests that

farmers with big farm sizes are more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation compared to farmers ' with small farm sizes. This might

be due to the fact that farmers operating larger farms tend to have greater financial

resources and their opportunities to adopt are higher compared to those with smaller

farms. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Just et al. , 1980). This finding is

also consistent with the literature that large-scale farmers are more inclined to adopting

new technologies than small-scale farmers (McNamara et al., 1991; Abara and Singh,

1993; Feder et al., 1985; Fernandez-Cornejo, 1996; and Kasenge, 1998). This assertion is

also in agreement with the findings of McNamara et al., (1991); Abara and Singh (1993);

Feder et al. (1985); Fernandez Cornejo (1996) and Kasenge (1998) who found farm size

to be po itively related to adoption.

In this regard, Feder et al. (1985) noted that only larger farms will adopt these kinds of

innovations. This finding concurs with prior studies by Abdul et al. (1993) that there is a

significant relationship between farm size and adoption. This assertion is also in

agreement with the findings of Ayinde et al. (2010) that farm size has significant and

positive influence on adoption. The analysis of Daberkow and McBride (2003) show that

given the uncertainty and the fixed transaction and information costs associated with

100

innovations, there may be a critical lower limit on farm size which prevents smaller farms

from adopting. Therefore, adoption of innovation will tend to take place earlier on larger

farms than on smaller farms. The findings by Nkonya et al. (1997) revealed that farmers

with large farms are likely to be better informed and are able to take risks associated with

experimenting new practices.

The effect of farm size on adoption has constantly been investigated in many studies

(Erenstein and Faroog, 2009; Daku, 2002; Doss and Morris, 2000). Evidence obtained

from various sources reveals that there is positive relationship between farm size and

adoption (Erenstein and Faroog, 2009; Deressa et al., 2009; Kasenge, 1998). In a number

of studies, it was found that farmers with larger farms have a greater probability of

adopting innovation than owners of smaller farms (Azilah, 2007; Deressa et al. 2009).

MacDonald et.al. (2013) found that larger crop farms perform better financially, realise

better financial returns on average than smaller farms . They are also able to make more

intensive use of their labour and capital resources. Joerger (2012) suggests that the size of

a farm should be dependent upon the financial goals of the producer. Meeting financial

goals can be accompli hed with lower gross farm returns when the net farm income

percentage is high. However, increasing the percentage of the net farm income requires a

high level of willingness on the part of the farmer in order to improve his or her farm

management skills.

Farming experience shows a very strong significance on the willingness to adopt the 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. These results imply that

farmers who have been in farming for a longer period of time are more likely to adopt the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This may be as a result

of the knowledge gathered from social organisations over the year . This finding is

corroborated by Barry et.al (1995) that greater years of farming experience increa e the

possibility of adoption. This assertion is also in agreement with the findings of Ayinde et

al. (2010) that farming experience has significant and positive influence on adoption.

Income from sorghum shows a very strong significance on willingness to adopt the 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. The results reinforce

similar findings in previous studies that farm income is one critical component in shaping

the behaviour of farmers in terms of adopting the 'just and equitable ' compensation

101

principle for land expropriation. This finding is consistent with previous studies

(Grazhdani, 2013). This assertion is also in agreement with the findings of Jensen et al.

(2007) who hypothesised that greater on farm income would have a positive effect on the

adoption of a new crop. Norris and Batie (1987) also found that income had a positive

effect on new techniques.

Other mass media is significant and positively related to adoption of the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This suggests that a well­

informed farmer is more innovative than ignorant farmers. Therefore, other mass media

can influence the adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. The use of other mass media could assist the farmer in getting up-to-date

agricultural information and technologies, which influence decision-making processes in

technology adoption and its extent of usage.

Radio shows a very strong significance on willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable '

compensation principle for land expropriation. This means that a well-informed farmer is

more innovative than ignorant farmers. Therefore, radio can influence the adoption of the

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. The use of the radio

could assist the farmer in getting up to date agricultural information and technologies,

which influence decision-making processes in technology adoption and its extent of

usage. These results agree with that of Farm Radio International (2011) that the radio is

the most widespread medium for mass communications and by broadcasting in local

languages, address the information and education requirements of farmers in Mali,

Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda. This finding is further supported by Sokwanele, (2012)

that the radio is the main source of information among Zimbabwean farmers .

Farmer organisation shows a very strong significance on willingness to adopt the 'just

and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. This means that farmers

belong to organisations, farmers ' groups and associations are more likely to adopt the

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation than farmers who do

not belong to any organisation. This may be due to the information of innovation

messages obtained by farmers from farmers' groups and fellow farmers or through

extension agents who work with the group. Besides, farmers have a way of working

collectively to assist each other on the farm. This finding concurs with prior studies

102

conducted by Jagger and Pender (2003) who analysed farmers ' participation in different

types of organisations as a determinant for the adoption of different kinds of innovations.

Participation in organisation shows a significantly positive relationship with farmers '

adoption of the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. This

means that farmers who belong to organisation, farmers ' groups and associations are

more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land

expropriation than farmers who do not belong to any organisation. This may be due to the

information and innovation messages obtained from farmers ' groups and fellow farmers

or through extension agents who work with the group. This finding concurs with prior

studies carried out by Jagger and Pender (2003) who analysed farmers ' participation in

different types of organizations as a determinant for the adoption of different kinds of

innovations.

Also, membership in organisations is considered an important source of information. By

not belonging to an organisation it is likely that the social-network through belonging to

groups farmers group as source of agricultural-related information will not be fully

utilised. This observation is in line with studies conducted by Agwu (2004 ), Odoemenem

(2007) and Salasya et al. (2007). Cohen (1996) noted that obstacles to community

participation are identified in the attitudes and practices of the personnel of development

agencies and field staff and in the community itself. Masango and Oladele (2013) argue

that lack of participation in cooperative activities may be caused by members who do not

have much experience in working with peers and sometimes, members have not

sufficiently developed the acceptance and trust of self and others necessary to work

together.

103

Table 4.14: Right amount for the adoption the 'just and equitable' principle

Estimate Std. Error Wald df Sig.

[Right amount = .00] 4.559 2. 101 4.710 1

[Right amount = 1.00] 7.187 2.160 11.071 1

IAge of respondent .072 .025 8.621 1

!Gender -.209 .553 .142 1

!Educational level .168 .128 1.726 1

[House hold size -.004 .023 .035 1

!Household head -.189 .391 .233 1

IN umber of dependents .024 .062 .145 1

!Farm size 7.355E-5 3.719E-5 3.910 1

!Farming experience -.071 .028 6.493 1

!Number of full time employees .010 .020 .259 1

!Number of part-time employees -.017 .023 .547 1

Income from maize .185 .150 1.513 1

Income from sunflower .207 .148 1.956 1

Income from sorghum -.669 .270 6.114 1

bther mass media .751 .31 7 5.619 1

[Radio -.680 .314 4.685 l

If elevision -.097 .416 .054 1

[Newspapers .181 .347 .271 1

!Friends / relatives -.070 .296 .056 1

Seminars .453 .321 1.994 l

!Extension services .260 .340 .588 I

!Farmer organisations -.523 .267 3.843 1

!Agricultural Research Council .053 .357 .022 1

!Private companies .004 .358 .000 I

IAFASA .142 .358 .157 l

Adoption 2.419 .537 20.3 14 I

Participation in organisations .089 .030 8.772 l

Perception of policy -.020 .014 2.044 1

Awareness of policy .032 .029 1.247 I

Knowledge of policy -.030 .030 1.031 I

Constraints of policy .006 .029 .047 I

4.2.15 Proportion of land willing to be expropriated

The results of ordinal regression model on willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable'

principle for compensation are presented in Table 4.15. Chi-square statistics is 110.522

104

.030

.001

.003

.706

.189

.852

.629

.703

.048

.011

.611

.460

.219

.162

.013

.018

.030

.816

.603

.812

.158

.443

.050

.883

.992

.692

.000

.003

.153

.264

.310

.829

and is significant at 0.05. It could be concluded that there is association between the

dependent variables. The model-fitting statistics, namely, the pseudo R square, measured

the success of the model in explaining the variations in the data. The pseudo R square was

calculated depending upon the likelihood ratio. McFaddens R Square compared the

likelihood for the intercept only model to the likelihood for the model with the

independent variables in order to assess the model ' s goodness. The pseudo R square

indicated that the proportion of variation in the dependent variable was accounted for by

the independent variables. The larger the pseudo R square was, the better the model

fitting. The pseudo R square for McFadden (0.305), Cox and Snell (0.464) and

Nagelkerke (0.533) in the model with complementary Log-log link.

From the variables included in the model, the following are significant: Educational level

(t=3.17, p<0.10), household head (t=2.87, p<0.10), Number of dependants (t=3.61 ,

p<0.10), farming experience (t= 6.84, p<0.01), income from maize (t=7.05, p<0.01),

participation in organization (t=l 1.74, p<0.01), Knowledge of policy (t=4.21 , p<0.05),

groundnuts income (t= 5.25, p<0.05), beef income (t=l5.07, p<0.01) and sheep income

(t=8.69, p<0.01 ). From these variables, farming experience, maize income, groundnuts

income, beef income and sheep income show a very strong significance on willingness to

adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation.

Educational level shows a very strong significance on the willingness to adopt the 'just

and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation, which implies that adoption

increases with an increase in years of schooling. Farmers with a higher level of education

are more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. Education is very important for farmers to understand and interpret

agricultural information obtained from different sources. A better educated farmer can

easily understand and interpret information transferred to him / her. Education, as a

measure of human capital development enables an individual farmer to access

information and to make informed decisions on the 'just and equitable ' compensation

principle for land expropriation. The likelihood of farmers who have higher education to

adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation is higher

compared to those with less education. This finding is corroborated by Ayinde et al.

(2010) that the educational level of farmers has significant and positive influence on

adoption. This assertion is also in agreement with the findings of Marenya and Barret

105

(2006) that educational attainment has a significant positive effect on the likelihood of

adoption. Jensen et al. (2007) found that attaining a higher level of education has a

positive effect on innovation adoption.

Household head shows a significantly positive relationship with farmers ' adoption of the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. Paswel and

Christopher (2007) argue that gender of household head all had a significant positive

effect on the likelihood of adoption. Marenya and Barret (2006) found that gender of the

household heads all had a significant positive effect on the likelihood of adoption.

The number of dependents shows a very strong significance on the willingness to adopt

the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This might be due

to the fact that farmers with less number of dependents are more likely to adopt 'just and

equitable ' principle of land expropriation. This finding is consistent with previous studies

(Arene, 1994).

Farming experience also shows a very strong significance on the willingness to adopt the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. These results imply

that farmers with many years of experience in farming are more likely to adopt the 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This may be as a result of

the knowledge gathered from social organisations over the years that would make them to

understand the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation better.

This finding concurs with prior studies conducted by Barry et.al (1995) which shows that

many year of farming experience increases the possibility of adoption. This assertion is

also in agreement with the findings of Ayinde et al. (2010) that farming experience has

significant and positive influence on adoption. Rao and Rao (1996) found a positive and

significant association between farming experience and adoption.

Participation in organization shows a significantly positive relationship with farmers '

adoption of the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. This

suggests that farmers who belong to organisations, farmers ' groups and associations are

more likely to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land

expropriation than farmers who do not belong to any organisation. This may be due to the

information and innovation messages obtained from farmers ' groups and fellow farmers

106

or through extension agents who work with the group. This finding concurs with prior

studies conducted by Jagger and Pender (2003) who analysed farmers' participation in

different types of organisations as a determinant of the adoption of different kinds of

innovations.

Knowledge of policy shows a very strong significance on the willingness to adopt the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This suggests that a

well-informed farmer is more innovative than less informed farmers. Therefore,

knowledge can influence the adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle

for land expropriation. This finding agrees with Paswel and Christopher (2007) that

educational attainment has a significant positive effect on the likelihood of adoption.

Income from maize, groundnuts, beef and sheep shows a very strong significance on the

willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. The result reinforces similar findings in previous studies that farm income

is one critical component in shaping the behaviour of farmers in terms of adopting the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. This finding is

consistent with previous studies (Grazhdani, 2013). This assertion is also in agreement

with the findings of Jensen et al. (2007) who hypothesised that greater on farm income

would have a positive effect on the adoption of a new crop. Norris and Batie (1987) also

found that income has a positive effect on new techniques.

107

Table 4.15: Proportion ofland willing to be expropriated

Estimate Std. Error Wald df Sig.

Threshold [Proportion of land for adoption = 1.00]

3.552 1.884 3.555 I .059

[Proportion of land for adoption = 6.501 1.942 11.205 1 .001

12.00]

Location IAge of respondent .025 .020 1.535 1 .215

!Gender .071 .451 .024 1 .876

!Educational level -.187 .105 3. 174 1 .075

House hold size -.017 .024 .499 1 .480

Household head -.556 .328 2.868 1 .090

Number of dependents -.054 .029 3.610 1 .057

Farm size 9.768E-7 1.030E-5 .009 I .924

Farming experience -.062 .024 6.844 I .009

Number of full time employees .027 .019 2.069 1 .150

Number of part-time employees .010 .012 .737 I .391

Income from maize .364 .137 7.049 1 .008

Income from sunflower -.049 .123 .160 1 .689

Income from sorghum .089 .227 .154 1 .695

Adoption 2.433 .424 32.977 1 .000

Participation in organization .078 .023 11.738 1 .001

Perception of policy -.015 .011 1.819 1 .177

Awareness of policy -6.716E-5 .024 .000 1 .998

Knowledge of policy .057 .028 4.212 1 .040

Constraint of policy .02 1 .027 .596 1 .440

[ncome from groundnuts -.737 .322 5.251 1 .022

llncome from wheat .009 .177 .002 I .962

[ncome from vegetables -.216 .291 .553 1 .457

II.ncome from tobacco .105 .307 .118 1 .731

II.ncome from beef -.600 .155 15.066 1 .000

[ncome from sheep -.55 1 .187 8.688 1 .003

108

4.3 SUMMARY OF CHAYfER

This chapter has been presented and analyzed farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. The analysis supports the

hypothesis that participation in organization (t = 1.718, p < 0.10), perception of policy (t

= 3.596, p < 0.01), educational level (t = -4.772, p < 0.01), household head (t = -1.749, p

< 0.10), farm size (t = 14.042, p < 0.01), income from maize (t = -2.611, p < 0.05),

income from groundnuts (t = -1.668, p < 0.10), income from wheat (t = -1.749, p < 0.10),

income from tobacco (t = -2.481, p < 0.05), friends / relatives (t = -2.243, p < 0.05),

extension services (t = -3.552, p < 0.01), farmer organisations (t = -3.626, p < 0.01),

Agricultural Research Council (t = 5.985, p < 0.01), income from broilers (t = 2.504, p <

0.05) and other mass media (t = -1.660, p < 0.10) showed a significantly positive

relationship with farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation

principle for land expropriation. The next chapter is the summary, conclusion and

recommendations.

109

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the findings of the study and their relationship with relevant

theories and determines how the factors identified impact on the adoption of the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation. Based on the results obtained

from the study, a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications is presented. The

contributions which this study can make in determining future research directions are

discussed and conclusion presented.

5.2SUMMARY

The primary objective of the study has been to examine farmers ' willingness to adopt the

'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation in the North West

province. To identify farmers ' willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable ' compensation

principle for land expropriation, the study used data collected from 176 commercial

farmers. A structured questionnaire was designed to capture and identify farmers '

willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS), frequencies, mean, percentages, Probit and Ordinal Regression analyses.

The study revealed that the maximum educational level attained is high school. The

majority of the respondents were males. The challenge is that women, including the youth

need to be capacitated in order to participate in farming. The size of farms ranged from

100 - 1000 hectares. The results of the pro bit model revealed that participation in

organization (t = 1.718, p < 0.10), perception of policy (t = 3.596, p < 0.01), educational

level (t = -4.772, p < 0.01), household head (t = -1.749, p < 0.10), farm size (t = 14.042, p

< 0.01), income from maize (t = -2.611, p < 0.05), income from groundnuts (t = -1.668, p

< 0.10), income from wheat (t = -1.749, p < 0.10), income from tobacco (t = -2.481 , p <

110

0.05), friends / relatives (t = -2.243, p < 0.05), extension services (t = -3.552, p < 0.01),

farmer organisations (t = -3 .626, p < 0.01), Agricultural Research Council (t = 5.985, p <

0.01), income from broilers (t = 2.504, p < 0.05) and other mass media (t = -1.660, p <

0.10) showed a significantly positive relationship with farmers, willingness to adopt the

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. The intercept is 0.001

and the model is well fit at 0.05. The chi square is 6729.322. Therefore, in order to

encourage farmers on the adoption of the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for

land expropriation, information on 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land

expropriation, must remain extensive and constant in reaching out to farmers.

5.3 CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study have important policy implications for the adoption of the 'just

and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation. The study has shown

clearly that the maximum educational level attained by commercial farmers is high

school. The majority of commercial farmers were males. The challenge is that women,

including the youth, need to be capacitated in order to participate in farming. The size of

farms ranged from 100 - 1000 hectares. The results of the probit model revealed that

participation in organization (t = 1.718, p < 0.10), perception of policy (t = 3.596, p <

0.01), educational level (t = -4.772, p < 0.01), household head (t = -1.749, p < 0.10), farm

size (t = 14.042, p < 0.01), income from maize (t = -2.611 , p < 0.05), income from

groundnuts (t = -1.668, p < 0.10), income from wheat (t = -1.749, p < 0.10), income from

tobacco (t = -2.481, p < 0.05), friends/ relatives (t = -2.243, p < 0.05), extension services

(t = -3 .552, p < 0.01), farmer organisations (t = -3.626, p < 0.01), Agricultural Research

Council (t = 5.985, p < 0.01), income from broilers (t = 2.504, p < 0.05) and other mass

media (t = -1.660, p < 0.10) showed a significantly positive relationship with farmers '

willingness to adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land

expropriation. The intercept is 0.001 and the model is well fit at 0.05. The chi square is

6729.322. Therefore, in order to encourage farmers on the adoption of the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation, information on 'just and

equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation, must remain extensive and

constant in reaching out to farmers .

111

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Since males and older people dominate farming, women and youth should be encouraged

to participate in farming . Therefore, in order to encourage farmers on the adoption of the

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation, information on 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation, must remain extensive and

constant in reaching out to farmers. The most critical factor affecting the adoption of the

'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land expropriation is knowledge. Farmers '

knowledge on the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation in

the study was low. Given that knowledge is a pre-requisite to any technological adoption,

farmers' knowledge on the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land

expropriation therefore needs to be improved substantially before appreciable levels of

adoption could be expected. The role of extension services in promoting the 'just and

equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation is very crucial. There is a need

to intensify efforts to make agricultural extension services more functional. This will

enable farmers obtain useful information to enhance adoption of the 'just and equitable'

compensation principle for land expropriation. Therefore, extension officers need to

intensify trainings on the 'just and equitable ' compensation principle for land

expropriation in order to improve farmers ' knowledge and perceptions. This should be

done through social support groups, encouragement and experience sharing. Farmers

should be encouraged to form and belong to cooperatives in order to facilitate group

dynamism. Adequate enlightenment programmes should also be introduced on the 'just

and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation for more farmers to adopt.

Lastly, international experience shows that the conditions which lead to significantly

positive agrarian reforms are rare.

112

REFERENCES

ABARA, 1.O.C. & SINGH, S. (1993). Ethics and biases in technology adoption: The small farm argument. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 289-300.

ABDUL, R.Q. , ASHFAQ, H.M. & SULTAN, A.C. (1993): Farmers characteristics affecting adoption of agricultural innovations. Journal of Rural Development and Administration. Vol.xxv, (3): 111-113.

ABDUL-HAKIM, R. & CHE-MAT, S.H. (2011). "Determinants of Farmer's Participation in Off-Farm Employment: A Case Study in Kedah Darul Aman, Malayisa" Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, vol.I, no2, pp. 27 - 37. http://aessweb.com/down1oad.php?id=1099. Date accessed: 12 Dec. 2014.

ADAMS, M. (2000). Evaluation of ODA to Land sector. International Organisation

Development, May 2000.

ADAMS, M. (1995). Land Reform: New seeds on old ground? http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/2979.pdf. Date accessed: 26 Jan. 2014.

ADAMS, M., SIBANDA, S. & TURNER, S. (1999). Land Tenure Reform and Rural

livelyhoods in Southern Africa. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/2883.pdf. Date

accessed: 02 Apr. 2013.

ADAMS, M. (2001). Tenure Security, Livelihoods and Sustainable Land Use in Southern Africa. Paper presented at the Conference on Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa held by the Southern African Regional Poverty and Development Network, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, 4 - 5 June 2001.

ADEBIYI, S. & OKUNLOLA J.O. (2010). Factors affecting Adoption of Cocoa Rehabilitation Techniques in Oyo State of Nigeria. Proceedings The 18th Annual Congress of the Nigerian Rural Sociological Association of Nigeria. FUT A. Akure, Nigeria.

ADESINA, A.A. (1996). Factors affecting the adoption of fertilizers by rice farmers in Cote d' Ivoire: Nutrient cycling. Agroecosystems 46, 29-39.

ADESINA, A.A. & SEIDi, S. (1995). Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: Analysis of modem mangrove rice varieties in Guinea Bissau. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 34, 358-85.

AGBAMU, J.U. (2006) Essentials of Agricultural Communication in Nigeria. Malthouse Ltd pp. 65-73

AGHION, P. , CAROLI, E. & GARCIA-PENALOSA, C. (1999). "Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories." Journal of Economic Literature 37 (4): 1615-60.

113

AGWU, A.E. (2004): Factors Influencing Adoption of Improved Cowpea production Technologies in Nigeria. Journal of International Agricultural Extension Education 11 (1).

ALIBER, M. & MOKOENA, R. (2002). The interaction between land redistribution programme and the land market in South Africa: A perspective on the willing-buyer/ willing-seller approach. Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape.

ANDERSON, J.R. & FEDER, G. (2007). Agricultural extension. Handbook of agricultural economics, 3, 2343-2378.

AQHAJAN, A. (1986). Agricultural variation and household size_Ap_ [Genus_1986 July-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12280633 Date accessed: 12 Nov. 2014.

ARENE, C.J. (1994). Discriminant analysis of small holder farmer adoption potential and the prediction of extension cost in Nigeria: a comparative enterprise perspective. J. Extension System 10 (1): 46-58.

ARIYO, O.C. , ARIYO, M.O. , OKELOLA, O.E. , AASA, O.S., AWOTIDE, O.G., AARON, A.J. & ONI, O.B. (2013) Assessment of the Role of Mass Media in the Dissemination of Agricultural Technologies among Farmers in Kaduna North Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093 X (Online) Vol.3, No.6, 2013

AYINDE, O.E. , ADEWUMI, M.O. , OLATUNJI, G.B. & BABALOLA, O.A. (2010). Determinants of Adoption of Downy Mildew Resistant Maize by Small-Scale Farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria, Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 10.

AZILAH, M.E. (2007). Adoption of Cassava Technology for Sustainable Livelihoods: A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Science in Rural Development at Massey University, New Zealand. Massey University, Palmerston North.

BAHTA, S.T. & BAUER, S. (2007) Analysis of the Determinats of Market Participation within the South Africa. http://www.tropentag.de/2007/abstracts/full/422.pdf

BANERJEE, A.V. (2000). Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics: Prospects and Strategies for Land Reform.

BARRACLOUGH, S. (1992). The Struggle for Land in the Social Dynamics of Deforestation, paper prepared for the Fundacao Memorial da America Latina Conference (Sao Paulo, 25-27 March 1992), UMA Estrategia Latino-Americano para a Amazonia, UNRISD, Geneva.

114

BARRACLOUGH, S. L. (1999) . LAND REFORM IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: THE ROLE OF THE STATE AND OTHER ACTORS. Discussion Paper No. 101, June 1999

BARRACLOUGH, S. L., GHIMIRE, K. & MELICZEK, H. (1997). Rural Development and the Environment: Towards Ecologically and Socially Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, UNRISD/UNEP, Geneva.

BARRY, P.J. , ELLINGER, P.N., HOPKINS, J.A. & BAKER, C.B. (1995) . Financial

Management in Agriculture. 5th

edition. Interstate Publisher, Inc., Danville, IL, USA, pp. 42-52.

BATTE, M. & JOHNSON, R. (1993). Technology and its impact on American agriculture, In Hallum, A. (ed). Size, Structure and the Changing Face of American Agriculture. West Press Inc., Boulder, CO, USA, pp.35-47.

BEACH, R.H., JONES, A.S. & TOOZE, J.A. (2008). Tobacco Farmer Interest and Success in Income Diversification. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 40,l (April 2008):53-71 Southern Agricultural Economics Association

BENDER, R. & BENNER (2000). A Calculating Ordinal Regression Models in SAS and S-Plus. Biometrical Journal 42, 6, 677-699.

BINSW ANGER, H.P., DEININGER, K. & FEDER, G. (1995). " Power, Distortions, Revolt and Reform in Agricultural Land Relations." Handbook of development economics. Volume 3B (1995): 2659-2772 2659-772.

BOUDREAUX, K. (2010). Land reform as social justice: The case of South Africa. Institute of Economic Affairs. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

BOYCE, J.K., ROSSET, P. & STANTON, E.A. (2005) . Land Reform and Sustainable Development. Working Paper Series Number 98

BROMLEY, D.W. (1989). Property relations and economic development: The other land reform. World Development, 17(6), June.

BUCKLEY, C. HYNES, S. & MECHAN, S. (2012). AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Supply of an ecosystem service - Farmers' willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Published in Environmental Science & Policy, 24, (December 2012), 101-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.022.

CARTER, M. & ZIMMERMAN, F. (2000). 'The Dynamic Costs and Persistence of Asset Inequality in an Agrarian Economy', Journal of Development Economics 63(2): 265- 302.

CHEN, F. & DAVIS , J. (1998). Land reform in rural China since the mid-1980s.

CHEN, J. (1994). On property institution of the People's Commune. Economic Research, 7:47-53 .

115

CHIANU, JONAS. N., VANLAUWE, B., MAHASI, J.M. , KATUNGI, E., AKETCH, C., MAIRURA, F.S. , CHIANU, JUSTINA, N. and SANGINGA, N. (2009). Baseline progress report on soybean in Kenya. Baseline progress report for Tropical Legume II. http://www.icrisat.org/what-we-do/impi/projects/tl2-publications/research-reports/rr­sbean-kenya.pdf. Date accessed: 15 Nov. 2014.

CHINYERE, A.E. (1993). Economic Status and Women Involvement in Agriculture. A case study of Etiti Local Government Area of Imo State, Nigeria. The Journal of Rural Extension and Development. 1 (2&3):87-89.

CHIREMBA, S. & MASTERS, W. 2012. The Experience of Resettled Farmers in Zimbabwe. http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asg/v7/v7i2a5.htm. Date accessed: 14 Dec. 2014.

CITY PRESS, (2014). The hot-button issue of land reform. Land reform is moving back to the centre of SA politics with new land claims and policy proposals that radically change the nature of the programme. City press 20.04.2014 pp. 4.

COHEN, S.I. (1996). Mobilising communities for participation and empowerment. In J Servaes, T L Jacobson, S A White (Eds.): Participatory Communication for Social Change. New Delhi: Sage Publication, pp. 223 - 248

CONNING, J. (2002). "Latifundia Economics." Hunter College Department of Economics WP 02/1. New York

COUSINS, B. (2009). Land reform in post-apartheid South Africa: a disappointing harvest. http://www.lalr.org.za/news/land-reform-in-post-apartheid-south-africa-2013-a­disappointing-harvest-by-ben-cousins Date accessed: 10 Mar. 2013.

DABERKOW.S.G. & MCBRIDE, W.D. (2003). Farm operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US Precision. Agriculture 4: 164-177

DAKU, L. (2002). Assessing farm-level and aggregate economic impacts of Albanian olive integrated pests management programs: An ex-ante analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

DAVIS, S. (2009). Sustainable Development - North West Province. http://sharondavis.co.za/content/view/64/33/ Date accessed: 28 Mar. 2013 .

DEERE, C.D. (2003). ' Women' s Land Rights and Rural Social Movements m the Brazilian Agrarian Reform, Journal of Agrarian Change 3(1/2):257-288

DEERE, C.D. & SERVOLO DE MEDEIROS, L. (2006). Agrarian Reform and Poverty Reduction: Lesson from Brazil

DEININGER, K. (1999) . Making negotiated land reform work: Initial experience from Brazil, Colombia and South Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2040.

DEININGER, K. , CAST AGNINI, R. & GONZJ\LEZ, M.A. (2004 ). Comparing Land Reform and Land Markets in Colombia: Impacts on Equity and Efficiency World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3258.

116

DEININGER, K. & OLINTO, P. (2000). "Distribution, Inequality and Growth." World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2375.

DEININGER, K. & SQUIRE, L. (1998). "New Ways of Looking at Old Issues: Inequality and Growth." Journal of Development Economics 57 (2), 257-285.

DE JANVRY, A., KEY, N. & SADOULET, E. (1997). 'Agricultural and Rural Development Policy in Latin America: New Directions and New Challenges', F AO Agricultural Policy and Economic Development Series 2, F AO: Rome.

DE JANVRY, A. & SADOULET, E. (1989). A Study in Resistance to Institutional Change: The Lost Game of Latin American Land Reform. World Development 17:1397-1407.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT (2008). PPIS GIS unit, Department of Agriculture Conservation and Environment, North West

DERESSA, T.T. , HASSAN, R.M. , RINGLER, C., ALEMU, T. & YESUF, M. (2009). Determinants of farmers ' choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethopia. Global Environmental Change, 19 (2), 248-255.

DE VOS, P. (2013). Constitutionally Speaking. Willing buyer, willing seller works .... If you have a lifetime to wait. http:constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/willing-buyer-willing­seller-works-if-you-have-a-lifetime-to-wait/ Date accessed: 27 Oct. 2013.

DINARTE, A.J.C. (2009); "Analysis of brand recognition associated with the Texas Super Star TM and Earth-Kind TM programs in Texas" M.Sc Thesis, Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University.

DORE, R. P. (1959). Land Reform in Japan. London: Oxford University Press.

DOSS, C.R. & MORRIS, M.L. (2000). How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovasions? Agricultural Economics, 25 (1 ), 27-39.

DU PLESSIS , W.J. (2014). Sabinet. The (shelved) Expropriation Bill B16-2008. An unconstitutional souvenir or an alarmist memento? SA ePublication year 2011 vol 22. Journal Title: Stellenbosch Regstydskrif. ISSN 10164359. http://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa epublication article/ju sir v22 n2 a8 Date accessed: 12 Dec. 2014.

ERENSTEIN, 0 . & FAROOG, U. (2009). Factors affecting the adoption of zero tillage wheat in the rice wheat systems of India and Pakistan. Outlook on Agriculture, 38 (4), 367-373.

FARM RADIO INTERNATIONAL, (2011). African Farm Radio Research Initiative

(AFRRI). http://www.farmradio.org/english/partners/afri/research.esp. Date accessed: 20

Dec. 2014

117

FEDER, G., JUST, R.E. & ZILBERMAN, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural change, 33 (2), 255-298.

FEDER, G. & UMALI, D.L. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological forecasting and social change, 43 (3-4), 215-239.

FERNANDEZ-CORNEJO, J. (1996). The microeconomic impact of IPM adoption: Theory and application. Agricultural and Resource Economic Review, 25, 149-160.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAQ), (2004). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2004. Rome: FAO.

FOSTER, J.H. , KSHIRSAGAR, K.G. , BHENDE, M.J. , BHASKAR RAO, V. & WALKER, T.S. (1987). Early adoption of improved versitol technology options and double cropping in Begumgunj , Madhya Predesh (International Crop Research Center for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India)

FOSTER, A. & ROSENZWEIG, M.R. (1995). Leaming by Doing and Learning from others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture. Journal of Political Economy, 1995, 103 (6), 1176{ 1209.

FUW A, N. (2000). Politics and Economics of Land Reform in the Philippines: a survey. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Paper No. 23394

GEINGOB , P. (2005). The land Reform process in Namibia: The study of the impact of land reform on beneficiaries in Otjozondjupa region, Namibia.

http://www.amazon.com/reform-process-Namibia-Phillipus-Geingob/dp/3844391584

Date accessed: 01 Jun. 2013

GETURA, K. , NYIKULI, A. , SONGA, W., ONDEKI, S.M. , KOSKE, C.K. , OYOSI, D.N. , MUTISO, J., OKUNGU, J.M. , MBURU, J., MWARASOMBA, L.I., HAI, M.T. , THUO, R.R. and MBOGO, P. (2006). A national report on Kenya. Agrarian Reforms and Rural Development: New challenges and options revitalizing rural communities in Kenya. http://www.icarrd.org/en/icard doc down/national Kenya.doc. Date accessed: 24 Jun. 2013.

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, (2013); Republic of South Africa (vol. 575 No. 36478 Notice 504 of 2013 (23 May 2013) Pretoria.

GREENE, W.H. (2003); Econometric Analysis, fifth edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

GRAZHDANI, D. (2013). AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF RESOURCE CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES IN AL­PRESPA PARK.

118

GUAMBE, J. & IGE, K.D. (2014). Community Members' Knowledge, Support and Perceived Benefits of Land Reform in Rural South Africa: The Case of Mtunzini, in the Kwazulu Natal Province. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences vol5 No 8. MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy May 2014

GUJARATI, D.N. (1995); "Basic Econometrics, New York: McGraw-Hill

GUJARATI (2004); "Basic Econometrics, 4th Edition New York: McGraw-Hill

HALLETT, R. (1974). Africa since 1875. A Modem History. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

HAMMOND, J.L. (1999). Law and Disorder: The Brazilian Landless Farm worker' s Movement,' Bulletin of Latin American Research 18(4): 469-489.

HEATH, J. & BINSWANGER, H. (1996). "Natural Resource Degradation Effects of Poverty and Poverty and Population Growth Are Largely Policy-Induced: The Case of Colombia." Environment and Development Economics 1 (1):65-84.

HOFF, K. ( 1996). "Market Failures and the Distribution of wealth: A Perspective from the Economics oflnformation. "Politics and Society 24(4):411-32.

HOFF, K. (1994) "The Second Theorem of the Second Best." Comment on "Prospects and Strategies for Land Reform,"Journal of Public Economics 45: 223-42

HOLDEN, S. (2008). From Being Property of Men to Becoming Equal Owner? Early Impacts of Land Registration and Certification on Women in Southern Ethopia.

HONG, S. & TAM, K. (2006). Understanding the Adoption of Multipurpose Information Appliances: The Case of Mobile Data Services, Information Systems Research, Vol. 17, pp.162-179.

HUBACEK, K. & VAN DEN BERG, J.C.J.M. (2002). Interim Report IR-02-037. The

Role of Land in Economic Theory. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/IR-02-

037.pdf. Date accessed: 20 Apr. 2013

HUMMEL, T.J. & LICHTENBERG, J.W. (2001). Predicting Categories of Improvement Among Counselling Center Clients, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Seattle, W.A

IFAD, (2011). Grenada Gender and age issues m agriculture.

http://www.ifad.org/gender/learning/challenges/youth/g 6 3 4.htm. Date accessed: 30

Dec. 2014

IGODAN, C.O. , OHEJI, P.E. & EKPERE, J.A. (1988). Factors associated with the adoption of recommended practices for Maize Production in Kainji Lake Basin in Nigeria. Agricultural Administration and Extension Vol. 29 (2): 149 -156.

119

IWUEKE CC (1987). Fanner related factors influencing the Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Imo State. An unpublished Ph.D thesis, Dept. Of Agricultural Extension UNN, Nigeria.

JAGGER, P. , & PENDER, J. (2003). Impacts of programs and organizations on the adoption of sustainable land management technologies in Uganda. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 101 , IFPRI, Washington, DC.

JANG, S. (2004). Land Reform and Capitalist Development in Korea, paper presented at the Economic History & Development in Korea, paper presented at the Economic History & Development Workshop, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, May.

JENSEN, K., CLARK, C.D. , ELLIS , P. , ENGLISH, B. MENARD, J. WALSH, M. AND UGARTE, D.L.T. (2007). "Farmers Willlingness to Grow Switchgrass for Energy Production." Biomass & Bioenergy 31:773-781

JIBOWO, A.A. (1992). Essential of Rural Sociology: Gbemi Sodipo Press Limited. Abeokuta.

JOERGER, P. (2012). Fann Size Depends on Economic Factors. The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. http://www.noble.org/ag/Economics/FannSizeEconomics/index.htm. Date accessed: 4 Dec. 2014

JOUBERT, J.J. (2015). ' Spread mineral wealth, speed up land reform'. Zuma promises supporters radical transformation. Sunday Times 11 January 2015.

JUNGE, B.; DEJI, O. ; ABAIDO, R.; CHIKOYUE, D. & STAHR, K. (2009). Farmers Adoption of Soil conservation Technologies: A case study from Osun State, Nigeria. The journal of Agricultural education and Extension. 15 (3): 257-274.

JUST, R. , ZIBERMAN, D. & RAUSER, G. (1980). A Putty - Clay Approach to Distributional Effects of New Technology Under Risk, in Operations Research in Agriculture and Water Resources, Yaron, D. And Tapero, C. Eds., New York: North Holland Publishing Company.

KAI-MING AU, A. & ENDERWICK, P. (2000). A cognitive model on attitude towards technology adoption. Journal of Management Psychology Vol. 15: Is ue. 4: Pages. 266-282.

KASENGE, V. (1998). Socio-economic factors influencing the level of Soil Management Practices on Fragile Land. In proceedings of the 16th Conference of Soil Science Society of East Africa (Eds.: Shayo-Ngowi, A.J. , G. Ley and F.B.R Rwehumbiza), 13 th-19th

,

Tanga, Tanzania pp. 102-112.

KASSIE, M., YESUF, M. & KOHLIN, G. (2009). The role of production risk in sustainable land-management technology adoption in the Ethiopian Highlands. Rapport nr.: Working Papers in Economics 407.

120

KAZIANGA, H. , & WAHHAJ, Z. (2011). Gender, Social Norms and House hold Production in Burkina Faso! http://users.ox.ac.uk/-qehs0657 /BurkinaHousehold.pdf. Date accessed: 30 Nov. 2014

KEBEDE, E. & GAN, J. (1999). The Economic Potential of vegetable Production for Limited Resource Farmers in South Central Alabama Journal of Agribusiness 17,1 (Spring 1999):63-75. Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia

KEREKES, K. (2010). The impact of EU-accession and on farming and agricultural employment in Cluj County. EASTERN JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES Volume 1, Issue 1, June 2010

KUMAR, D.S. , PALANISAMI, K., RANGANATHAN C.R. & VENKATRAM R. (2010). Farmers ' perception and awareness towards crop insurance as a tool for risk management in Tamilnadu. Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development Studies (CARDS) Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Coimbatore - 641 003 May 2010.

LADEJINSKY, W. (1977). Land Reform, in Louis J. Walinsky, ed., Land Reform as Unfinished Business: The Selected Papers of Wolf Ladenjinsky. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 354 -366.

LAHIFF, E. 2005. From willing seller, willing buyer to a people- driven land reform. Cape Town: Programme for land and Agrarian Studies, Univer ity of Western Cape. Policy Brief No. 17).

LAHIFF, E. (2007). State, Market Or The Worst Of Both? Experimenting With Market­based Land Reform in South Africa. Published by the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, School of Government, University of the Western Cape.

LANI, J. (2009). Sample Size: http://researchsamplesize.blogspot.com/. Date accessed:

08 Mar. 2013

LIN, J.Y. (1987). Household farm, cooperative farm ad efficiency: evidence from rural decollectivization in China. Economic Growth Center Working Paper No. 533. New Haven, Connecticut, USA, Yale University.

LIN, Z. (1982). On the household responsibility system. Beijing. China. Agricultural Publishing House.

LIPTON, M. (1993). ' Land Reform as Commenced Business: The Evidence against Stopping', World Development 21(4): 641-57.

LIPTON, M. (2010). Land Reform in Developing Countries: Property rights and property wrongs. Research Professor of Economics, Sussex University Paperback 10 Dec 2010.

LOMO, F.F. (2001). Commercial Logging, Subsistence Livelihood and Rural development: A case study of Rufoki village, Malaita province, Solomon Islands: Thesis

121

Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts in Development Studies at the University of South Pacific. Suva, Fiji.

MADDALA, G.S. (1983). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

MANAHAN, M.A.B . (2013). The State of Agrarian Reform Under President Benigno Aquino Ill's Government. Beyond the Numbers: A struggle for social justice and inclusive rural development. Focus on the Global South with the Save Agrarian Reform Alliance.

MANDELA, N . (1994) . Transcript: Nelson Mandela's 1994 Inauguration Speech.

http://www.bet.com/news/global/2013/l2/05/transcript-nelson-mandela-s1994-

inauguration-speech.htm1 Date accessed: 27 Apr. 2014

MARENY A, P. & BARRETT, C.B. (2006). Household-Level Determinants of adoption of Improved Natural Resources Management Practices among Smallholder Farmers in Western Kenya. Food Policy, vol. 32, No. 4 2007 http://papers.ssrn.com//sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1846804 Date accessed: 29 Nov.

2014.

MARONGWE, N. (n.d.). Redistributive Land Reform and poverty reduction in

Zimbabwe. A working paper for the research project on 'Livelihoods after Land Reform'

http://www.lalr.org.za/za/zimbabwe/redistributive-land-reform-and-poverty-reduction-in­

zimbabwe/at download/file. Date accessed: 10 Jun. 2013

MARTINS, M. (2004). Aprendendo a Participar, in Monica Dias Martins, ed., 0 Banco Mundialea Terra: Ofensiva e Resistencia na America Latina, Africa e Asia. Sao Paulo: Viramundo

MASANGO, B & OLADELE, O.I. (2013). Factors Influencing Cooperatives in Ngaka Modiri Molema District

MBA YA, S. (2001). Land reform in Zimbabwe: Lessons and prospects from a Poverty Alleviation Perspective. Paper presented at the Conference on ' Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa' held by the Southern African Regional Poverty and Development Network, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, 4 - 5 June 2001.

MACDONALD, J.M. , KORB , P. And HOPPE, R.A. (2013). Farm Size and the Organization of U.S. Crop Farming of United States Department of Agriculture, ERR-152. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, August 2013.

MCGAFFIN, R. (2013). Expropriation: Key to More Equitable Land Distribution, or Expensive Folly.

http://www.afesis.org.za/Sustainable-Settlements Articles/expropriation-key-to-more-equitable-land-distribution-or-expensive-folly Date accessed: 20 Apr. 2014

122

MC NAMARA, K.T., WETZSTEIN, M.E., & DOUCE, G.K. (1991). Factors affecting peanut producer adoption of integrated pest management. Review of Agricultural Economics, 13, 129-139.

MEIS ER, M. (1986). Mao's China and After: A History of the People ' s Republic. New York: Free Press.

MOKOENA, M.R. (2006). Third draft discussion document "Descriptive Analysis of land reform delivery Unit Cost in South Africa: 1994-2004. http:www.caxtonmags.co.za/data/files/doc/file e8fe22f00b2ffa7f94680b9298fd495e.DO C. Date accessed: 10 Jun. 2013.

MOLOSIW A, K. (2009) . "Payment for Wildlife Ecosystem Services in the Okavango Delta, Botswana" MA Economics Research Proposal, Department of Economics, University of Dar ES Salaam.

MOYO, S. (2006). Land Policy, Poverty Reduction and Public Action in Zimbabwe.

MUHAMMAD, A.N., MUMTAZ A.A. & SURRAYA B. (2012). Information seeking by Pakistani farmers: A review of published research. Pakistan Journal of Library & Information Science, 13 (2012) ISSN 1680-4465.

MURTHY, M. & MADHURI, S.B. (2013). Case study on Suguna poultry production through contract farming in Andhra Pradesh. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review Vol.2 (5) May (2013)

MUSSEi, A.J., NGWANGA, W., MWANGI, H. , VERKUIJL, R., MONGI, A. & ELANGA (2001). Adoption of improved wheat Technologies by small - scale farmers in Mbeya District, Southern Highlands, Tanzania Mexico D.F. International Maize and wheat improvement center (CIMMYT) and the United Republic of Tanzania.

MXOTWA, M. (2013). "Radical steps needed to right the 1913 wrong: Skewed ownership condemns the dispossessed to poverty and frustration: Land Reform" Sunday Times 23 June 2013.

NDALA, E. (2008). Namibian land reform experiences 1990-2007. Land reform in South Africa - Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. www.kasde/wf/ ... /kas 18654-544-30.pdf Date accessed: 10 Dec. 2014

NIEUWOUDT, L. & GROENEWALD, J. (2003). The Challenge of Change. Agriculture, Land and the South African Economy. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press Publishers.

NJOBE, B. (2003). The Challenge of Change. Agriculture, Land and the South African Economy. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press Publishers.

NJUGUNA, H.K. & BAY A, M.M. (n.d.) Land Reforms in Kenya: An institution of surveyors of Kenya (ISK) initiative

123

http://www.fig.net/pub/proceedings/korea/full-papers/pdf/session 7 /n j uguna-ba ya. pdf. Date accessed: 18 May. 2013

NKONY A, E., SCHROEDER, T. & NORMAN, D. (1997). Factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed and fertilizer in Northern Tanzania. J. Agricultural Economics. 48(1):1-12

NORRIS, P.E. , & BATIE, S.S. (1987). "Virgina Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: an Application of Tobit Analysis." Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 19:79-90.

NTHIA NJERU, E.H. (1991). 'The socio-economic and political dimensions in the management of land in Kenya. ' Natl. Conf. On Land Reform and Land Question, Windhoek, Namibia (mimeo).

NUGENT, J.B. & ROBINSON, (2002). "Are Endowments Fate?" CEPR Working Paper 3206. London

ODOEMENEM, LU. (2007): Capital Resource Mobilization and Allocation Efficiency by Small-scale cereal Crop Farmers of Benue State, Nigeria Ph.D. Dissertation Dept. Of Agric. Economics management & Extension, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria.

OGETO, R.M., MSHENGA, P., CHERUIYOT, E. & ONY ARI, C.N. (2012). Influence of institutional factors on Sorghum production in Nakuru County, Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Vol. 1(6), pp. 130-137, ISSN 2327-3151 December 2012. http://academeresearchjournals.org/journal/jaed.

OGUNLANA, E.A. (2004). The technology of adoption behaviour of women farmers : The case of alley farming in Nigeria. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 19 (01), 57-65.

OKUNLOLA, J.O. (2009). Factors influencing Adoption of Rubber Based Technologies among Small Holder Farmers in Delta state Nigeria International Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment Helsinki, Finland 7:2.

OZOWA, V.N. (1997). Information Needs of Small Scale Farmers in Africa: The Nigerian Example. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.

PALMER, T. & AINSLIE, A. (2012). South Africa: Country Pasture / Forage Resource Profiles. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGPC/doc/Counprof/southafrica/southafrica.htm. Date accessed: 12 Nov. 2014.

PASWEL, P.M. & CHRISTOPHER, B.B. (2007). Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among small holder farmers. Food Policy 32(4):515-536.

PEARSE, A. (1980). Seeds of Plenty, Seeds of Want: Social and Economic Implications of the Green Revolution, UNRISD, Geneva.

124

PERSSON, T. & TABELLINI, G. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth? American Economic Review 8 4(3):600-621

PROSTERMAN, R. L., TEMPLE, M. N. & HANSTAD, T.M. (1990). Agrarian reform and grassroots development: ten case studies 1990 pp. 349 pp. ISBN 1-55587-23 1-x

PUTZEL, J. (1992). A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Phillipines. Landon: Catholic Institute for International Relations and New York: Monthly Review Press.

RAHM, M.R. & HUFFMAN, W.E. (1984). The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables. American journal of Agricultural Economics Agricultural & Applied Economics Association

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1240918?uid=2129&uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=7 0&uid=4&sid=21105335787223 Date accessed: 01 Dec. 2014.

RAO, P.P. & RAO V.G.K. (1996). Adoption of rice production technology by the tribal farmers. Journal of research and ANGRAU 24 (1-2): 21 - 25.

RERNANDO, E. (2005) . Land Rrforms in Latin America. A Discussion Paper, 2005.

RIEDINGER, J.M. (1995). Agrarian Reform in the Philippines: Democratic Transitions and Redistributive Reform. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

RODRIK, D. (1995). Getting Interventions Right: How South Korea and Taiwan Grew Rich, Economic Policy 20:55-107

RODRIK, D. (1996). "Understanding Economic Policy Reforms." Journal of economic Literature, Vol. 34, pp. 9-41.

ROWARTH, J. (2013) . No more ' cheap ' food. Marrying food demand with sustainable production will require innovation. Agribusiness Professor Jacqueline Rowarth of Waikato Management School New Zealand said at the SA Large herds Conference. Farmer's weekly 12 July 2013.

SADC (SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY). (2007).

Establishing the SADC Land Reform Support Facility and Inception Activities.

http://www. sadc. int/f anr/ docs/Environment/Establ ishing%20the% 20SADC % Land20Refo

rm%20Support%20Facility%20%20Inception%20Activities.pdf. Date accessed: 19 Jun.

2013 .

SAHRC, (2004). The Pace of Land Reform in South Africa: Submission to the Portfolio Committee for Agricultural and Land Affairs, National Assembl. Public Hearings held on 18 - 20 October 2004

125

SALASYA, B; MWANGI, W.; MWABU, D. & DIALLO, A. (2007): Factors influencing adoption of stress-tolerant maize hybrid (WH 502) in Western Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2 (10) 544-551.

SARPN (SOUTHERN AFRICAN REGIONAL NETWORK). (2001). Land Reform, Income Inequality and Poverty Alleviation.

http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000879/index.php. Date accessed: 12 Mar. 2013.

SARPN (SOUTHERN AFRICAN REGIONAL NETWORK). (2006). SARPN and Oxfam (GB) Round table Discussion on Poverty, HIV/AIDS and Inequality in Southern

Africa. http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001811/SARPN index.php. Date accessed: 22 Mar. 2013.

SHIN, G. (1998). Agririan Conflict and the Origins of Korean Capitalism, American Journal of Sociology 103(5): 1309-1351.

SIBANDA, S. (2001). Land Reform and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Paper presented at the SARPN conference on Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa held at the Human Sciences Research Council in Pretoria on 4 and 5 June 2001.

SMIL, V. (1999). China' s Great Famine: 40 Years Later, British Medical Journal 319(18-25 December): 1619-1621.

SOKWANELE, Z. (2012) About Zimbabwe. http://www.Sokwanele.com/articles/home/page/aboutzirnbabwe.html. Date accessed: 22 Jan. 2014.

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. (2009). The strategic Plan for South African Agriculture. http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/sectorplan/sectorplanE.htm Date accessed: 12 Jun. 2013.

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS. (2006). Land and Agrarian reform in South Africa: 1994 - 2006. Presentation by the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, Republic of South Africa, Ms AT Didiza for the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, Brazil, March 2006. http://www.icarrd.org/en/incard doc down/national SouthAfrica.doc. Date accessed: 18 Jun .. 2013.

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE. (2010). Municipalities of the Republic of South Africa. http://www. goo gle.co.za/search? q=municipalities+ in+south+africa&hl=en&source=hp&g bv=z&gs upl=0I0l4l 10657I0I0I0I0I0I0I0I0I0I0&oq=municipalities+in&aqi=g 1 0&aql= Date accessed: 06 Apr. 2013

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF LAND AFFAIRS. (2004). Commission on Restitution of Land Rights. Pretoria.

126

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF LAND AFFAIRS , (1997). White paper on South African Land Policy. http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/white papers/landwp.html. . Date accessed: 10 May. 2013. SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT, (2011). The South African Constitution, (1996).

http://www.justice.gov .za/legislation/constitution/constitution.htm. Date accessed: 28

Apr. 2013

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF LAND AFFAIRS , (2007). Restitution Amendment Bill Proposal: Cut-off dates: 19 June 1913 and 31 December 1998. Public Hearing, by Portfolio Committee on Agric and Land Affairs: 29 May 2007.

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF LAND AFFAIRS , (2006). Toward the

framework for the review of the willing buyer-willing seller principle. 3rd Draft

Discussion Document. http://www.participation.org.za/docs/wbwsreview.DOC Date

accessed: 14 Oct. 2013

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM, (2011). Green Paper on Land Reform.

http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=149700. Date accessed: 20 May. 2013

SOUTH AFRICA. DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM, (2012). Land Reform Policy Discussion Document, JUNE 2012.

STATISTICS SOUTH AFRICA, (2012). "Statistical release P0301.4, Census 2011." Embargoed until : 30 October 2012 10:00. Pretoria: Published by Statistics South Africa

STAVIS, B. (1982). Rural institutions in China. In Barker R., Sinha, R. & Rose, B. Eds. The Chinese agricultural economy. Boulder, Colorado, USA, Wesview Press/London, UK, Croom Helm.

STEDILE, J.P. (2004). Personal communication (MST, Brazil).

THE PRESIDENCY, (2013); State of the Nation Address by His Excellency Jacob G Zuma, President of the Republic of South Africa on the occasion of the Joint Sitting of Parliament Cape Town (14 Feb 2013).

THOMAS, E.H. & GALAMOS, N. (2002). What Satisfie Students? Mining Student­Opinion Data with Regression and Decision-Tree Analysis. Stoney Brook, New York: Stoney Brook University.

TILLEY, S. (2004). Why do landless remain landless? An examination of land acquisition and the extent to which the land market and land redistribution mechanisms serve the needs of land-seeking people. Cape Town: Surplus People Project.

127

TODARO, M.P. (1994). Economic Development. Fifth edition. New York & London: Longman Singapore Publishers.

UAIENE, R.N. (2006). Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption m Mozambique. International Food Policy Research Institute Av. Das FPLM 2698

UEMATSU, H. & MISHRA, A.K. (2010). Can Education Be a Barrier to Technology Adoption? Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association 2010 AAEA, CAES, & W AEA Join Annual Meeting. Denver, Colorado, July 25-27, 2010.

UGULUMU, E.S. & INANGA, E.L. (2014). Market access and sunflower marketing: Challenges and prospects to small scale farmers in Tanzania. International Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship, 1(10), 247-259. Vol.1 , Issue 10, 2014

UNITED NATIONS, (2001). World population prospects: the 2000 revision, highlights, ESA/P/WP, Population, Environment and Development: The Concise Report, New York.

USMAN, I., TAIWO, A.B ., HARATU, D. & ABUBAKAR, M.A (2007). Socio­Economic factors affecting groundnut production in Sabongari local government of Kaduna state, Nigeria. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics ISSN 2147-8988 Vol.1 No.1 pp.41-48

UTAMI, H.D. , MAHARAMI, B.R.D. & SERUNI, A.P. (2014). The Role Dairy Farming In Generating Rural Household Income At East Java. Journal of Applied Science and Agriculture, 9(11) Special 2014, Pages: 201-206. ISSN 1816-9112. www .aensiweb.com/J ASA

VAN DONGE, J.K., EISEB , G. & MOSIMANE, A. (2006). Land Reform in Namibia: Issues of Equity and Poverty.

WALKER, C. (2002). Land Reform in Southern and Eastern Africa: Key issues for strengthening women's access to and rights in land. Report on a desktop study commissioned by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

WARRINER, D. (1969). Land reform in principle and practice. Clarendon Press: Oxford. ISSN: 1356-9228

WERNER, W. (2003). Land Reform in Namibia: Motor or Obstacle of Democratic Development. Paper presented at a meeting on Land Reform in Southern Africa: Motor of Obstacle of Democratic Development held under the auspices of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Berlin, 28 May 2003 . http://www.fes.de/in afrika/studien/Land Reform Wolfgang Werner.pdf. Date accessed: 24 Dec. 2014

WORLD BANK. (2009). Agricultural Land Redistribution. Toward greater consensus. http://sitereources.worldbank.org/INT ARD/Resources/ Ag Land Redistribution.pdf

128

Date accessed: 27 May 2013.

WRIGHT, A. & WOLFORD, W. (2003) . To Inherit the Earth: The Landless Movement and the Struggle for a New Brazil. Oakland: Food First Books.

YANG, K. & FOLLY, L. (2008). Age cohort analysis in adoption of mobile data services: gen Xers versus baby boomers, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25/5, 2008, 272-80.

ZOLOVEKE G. (1979) . Traditional Ownership of Land Policy. In P. Lamour (Eds), Land in Solomon Islands (pp. 1-9). Suvo: Fiji

129

APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FARMERS' WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT THE 'JUST AND EQUITABLE' COMPENSATION PRINCIPLE FOR LAND EXPROPRIATION IN THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE OF SOUTH AFRICA The information contained in this questionnaire is strictly confidential and will be used solely for research purposes and to inform farmers and stakeholders about the 'just and equitable' compensation principle for land expropriation in the North West province of South Africa. It is not compulsory for respondents to participate in the study. Answers are voluntary. INSTRUCTION: Please ask to speak to the farmer: the person responsible for the day to day activities o the arm

uestionnaire identification number Stud area SI f odti ca e o pr uc on SECTION 1: Personal characteristics of farmers Age of respondent Gender Male □ Female □

What is your highest level of education? None□ Primary incomplete □ Primary complete □ Secondary incomplete □ Secondary complete □ High school D Tertiary □

House hold size Household head Male headed □ Female headed D Number of dependents Farm size (in hectares) Years of farming experience Number of full time employees Number of part-time employees Please indicate the category of your income Maize A B C D from crop farming enterprise

Sunflower Less than R 50,000 -A R50000 - RI00,000 - B Sorghum

RI00,001 - RS00,000 - C Above R 500,000 - D

Groundnuts

Wheat

Vegetables

Tobacco

Please indicate the category of your income Beef A B C D from animal farming enterprise Less than R 50,000 -A Goats R50000 - RI00,000 - B RI00,001 - RS00,000 - C Dairy Above R 500,000 - D

Broilers

Sheep

Pigs

Layers

130

From which of the sources have you obtained information on the 'j ust and equitable' . . . I ? comoensat1on pnnc1p e.

Internet YES NO

Other mass media

Radio

Television

Newspapers

Friends/ relatives

Seminar

Extension services Farmer organisations

Agricultural Research Council

Private companies

Others ( Specify )

Farmers' participation in agricultural or social organisations Organisation Organisational activities Extent of Jarticipation

Meetings Conferences Workshops Regular Occasional Never

AFASA Agric. cooperatives YARD/BA YOFA

Local community clubs NAFU WARD TAU NWK Agricol Senwes Agri NorthWest Others

SECTION 2 Pl : . di easem d h ,. cate your perception towar st e ·1ust an d eomta e . bl ' . I ormcrn e Attitudinal statements SA A u D SD Reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected ' Just and equitable' principle con iders the current use of the property ' Just and equitable ' principle viability of the purpose of the expropriation 'Just and equitable' principle considers the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property 'Just and equitable' principle considers the market value of the

131

property ' Just and equitable' principle considers the history of the acquisition and use of the property ' Just and equitable' principle was due to the pace of redistribution which is far too slow 'Just and principle is to replace government's current "willing buyer, willing seller" land redistribution policy The proposed Property Valuations Bill, read with the provisions of the Expropriation Bill, will address the problem of "willing buyer, willing seller" The proposed Property Valuations Bill, read with the provisions of the Expropriation Bill , will speed up land reform The expropriation is aimed at redistributing land to address the effects of land dispossession The 'just and equitable' land redistribution principle will not allow property owners to block redistribution efforts The" Just and equitable" principle allows property owners to refuse to have their property expropriated The 'just and equitable' principle allows property owners to hold the government to ransom by demanding that the state pays exorbitant prices for property intended for expropriation The 'just and equitable' principle will allow the state to move as expeditiously as possible to address the effects of past unfair (race-based) land dispossession. ' Just and equitable' principle is needed to deal with land redistribution

The 'just and equitable ' principle is intended to deal with the slow process of the land reform programme as well as the exorbitant and thus unsustainable cost of the programme The 'j ust and equitable' principle fails to provide for the mandatory involvement of the courts in the determination of compensation ' Just and equitable' principle allows a property owner to be able to approach a court to challenge the amount or the manner of payment of compensation SECTION 3: Please indicate your awareness and knowledge of the 'just and equitable'

r oo icy issues Statements about just and equitable Awareness Knowlede:e

Yes No Yes No ' Just and equitable' considers the history of the acquisition and use of the property ' Just and equitable' considers the current use of the property ' Just and equitable' considers the market value of the property ' Just and equitable ' considers the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property ' Just and equitable' con iders the purpose of the expropriation ' Just and equitable' reflects an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected Under 'just and equitable' , expropriation is made subject to the payment of compensation

132

'Just and equitable' will be based on the amount, the time and manner of payment which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court Under 'just and equitable ' , the Constitution does not require the state to pay the owner of expropriated property the market value for the property when it is expropriated The state is required to pay 'just and equitable' compensation, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected Under 'just and equitable' the Expropriation Bill authorises the relevant Minister to expropriate property for the purposes of land redistribution without the consent of the property owner ' Just and equitable' provides several procedural safeguards including the opportunity for the owner of property to lodge an objection to the decision to expropriate his or her property Just and equitable provides the opportunity for the owner of property to negotiate with the authorities about the intended expropriation ' Just and equitable' provides for a decision to be taken on the expropriation within 60 days. ' Just and equitable ' provides for the expropriation to go ahead even if the owner is not happy with the amount of compensation offered 'Just and equitable' states that if the owner and the expropriation authority cannot agree on the terms of an expropriation, any party to an expropriation has the right to approach a court to decide or approve the amount of compensation; the time of payment of compensation; or the manner of payment of compensation ' Just and equitable ' Bill will allow (but would not require) a court to make a final determination on the compensation paid for expropriated property ' Just and equitable ' Bill will not prevent the expropriation from being effected before the court makes a final determination on the compensation Under 'just and equitable ' the involvement of the court in determining compensation would be optional , not mandatory ' Just and equitable ' requires compensation to be either decided or approved by a court when the expropriation is not by agreement Under 'just and equitable ', the court will not be involved in deciding or approving the compensation lfl

conflict with the Constitution if the owner does not approach a court to challenge the amount or the manner of payment of compensation ' Just and equitable ' will create the Office of the Valuer-General Under 'just and equitable' , the Office of the Valuer-

133

General would be tasked with the duty of valuating all properties that will be expropriated Under 'just and equitable ', the Office of the Valuer-General will develop criteria for the valuation of such properties Under 'just and equitable' a valuation process wi ll always start by considering the market value of the property Under 'just and equitable ' , other relevant factors might be used to reduce the valuation of the property

SECTION 4: Willingness to adopt the'just and equitable' compensation principle Suppose government initiates a policy of 'just and equitable ' Yes No compensation for expropriation in South Africa, would you be willing to adopt the policy? If yes, state your reasons

If no, state your reasons

How much of your land (the proportion of the land) would you None 0 be willing to offer to the policy under consideration? Which less than 25% 0 proportion of your land will you adopt just and equitable' 25-50%0 compensation? Above 50 %0 Please state the amount you wi ll be willing to accept for less than 25%0 of land

Please state the amount you wi ll be willing to accept for 25% to 50% of land Please state the amount you will be wi lling to accept above 50%of land Would a right amount make you adopt the 'just and equitable' compensation?

SECTION 5 Pl : . di easem . d cate your perceive cons ram 0 ,iust an t . ts f '" d eqmta e prmc1pe . bl ' . I

Constraints Yes No The extent of the Valuation Bill seems inconsistent with the Constitution. The Constitution makes it mandatory in the involvement of the court in the determination of an amount of compensation that must be 'J ust and equitable' reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected Owners of the property can challenge the amount or the manner of payment of compensation through the courts Uwillingness to initiate/ accept the policy by property owners Delays and impediments displayed by property owners with the continuation

134

of land expropriation if the owner of the property is not happy with the amount of compensation offered 'Just and equitable ' determination of land compensation reduce the value of the property Calculating just and equitable compensation in a manner which will avoid exorbitant prices being paid to current land owners and also make land more affordable for purposes of land reform Delays in the payment of just and equitable compensation, allowances and interests due to the current and profitable use of the property Delays in the payment of compensation in lieu of losses due to pending payment Lack of precise methods in calculating direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property Lack of precise methods in calculating just and equitable compensation amounts to land Low financial implications on the part of the land owner for redress when offered just and equitable compensation for the expropriated property Use of court process in determining compensation to property owners

Conflict of interests between the expropriator and all holders of rights in the property expropriated Low accessibility of the courts as a final arbiter of the amount of compensation to be paid to property owners The inability of the court to examine the merits of the decision used to pay ' just and equitable ' compensation Delays due to lower payment of compensation for the property value Contradictions in the Constitution in protecting existing property rights of land owners, while at the same time, making a commitment to land reform oriented redistribution. Lack of existing tools to quantify the factors to calculate compensation to property owners The uncertainty and difficulties of finding an acceptable process of determining a 'just and equitable' compensation Prolonged legal processes can be frustratingly protracted due to unacceptable compensation to property owners The difficulties courts experience in the determination of 'just and equitable ' amount of compensation The strong position held by property owners in situations where they contest expropriation and the determining of price The availability of suitable valuers authorised to interpret factors synonymous with just and equitable compensation THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY

135

The thesis entitled

4072 Desiree Street Unit 12 Mmabatho 30 January 2015 Cell : 0739707514 / 0617386560

CERTIFICATE OF LANGUAGE EDITING

FARMERS' WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT THE 'JUST AND EQUITABLE'

COMPENSATION PRINCIPLE FOR LAND EXPROPRIATION IN THE

NORTH WEST PROVINCE OF SOUTH AFRICA

Submitted by

KGAME SOLOMON SEKOTO (16182618)

For the degree

In the

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

(Agricultural Economics)

Faculty of Agriculture, Science and Technology

Mafikeng Campus

North West University

Has been edited for language by

Paul Nepapleh Nkamta (PhD; MA; PGCE; BA Hons)

Paul Nepapleh Nkamta (PhD)