In a column last week in Business Day, Carol Paton framed South Africa’s future in terms of the country’s fractious land politics. Referring to the recent spate of land invasions and municipalities’ responses to this – not least the recent judgment of the Western Cape High Court limiting the removal of illegal structures – she asserted that political parties’ prospects would be linked to the extent to which they could find solutions to contestation around land.

‘If anyone ever doubted the fight for land is at the heart of the fight for economic justice,’ she wrote, ‘then by now they must surely have changed their mind.’

The notion that land is the central economic issue confronting the country is not uncommon. It has been endlessly repeated over the past few years. But Paton’s argument deserves attention because she alludes to land primarily as a tangible socio-economic resource rather than a symbolically important asset.

Paton links land to the concept of ‘economic justice’. If the term is intended to serve as an aspiration and a guide to policy and social action, its meaning must be clearly understood. Even though it is doubtful that it means the same to everyone who uses it, it should not be too controversial to view it (at a minimum) as making it possible for the millions living in poverty to have a reasonable and practicable chance to find a way out.

How does ‘the land question’ feature here? Certainly, land is necessary for particular types of economic activity, notably agriculture. And it is perhaps for this reason that land reform has come to be touted as a central part of the country’s development. Provide land, and all else will follow.

This, however, is belied by the failure of so many of South Africa’s land reform endeavours. Providing land is arguably the least troublesome element of the programme. Turning land reform beneficiaries into farmers, however, is an altogether more difficult proposition. Without financing, decent mentorship, infrastructure and access to markets, land reform stands little chance of success. Indeed, proposals for peasant farming (‘one household, one hectare’) not only underestimate the extent to which South Africa has lost its peasantry, but are a recipe for a poverty trap.

An urbanising country

South Africa is in any event an urbanising country. Around two thirds of the population already live in urban areas, and urbanisation will only grow in future; working the land has a diminishing attractiveness. Agriculture contributes a mere 2% of GDP, although in value chains and export earnings it has an outsized importance. If commercial farming is disrupted there will be serious consequences. Opinion surveys do not point to extensive pressure for farmland; in 2018, an IRR poll showed that only 2% of South Africans wanted expedited land reform to be a priority for the government.  

This is not to say that land reform has nothing to offer, nor that small-scale farming has no place. But it is prudent to be realistic about their potential to help deliver prosperity or economic justice. They are simply not a solution for the country’s ailments.

Land features more powerfully in recent events – and in Paton’s analysis – as it relates to urban centres. This is where the real ‘land hunger’ is.

But this too must be properly understood. Pressure for urban land is a function of the need to find a place to live that provides a route to participation in the urban economy and society – jobs and services, in other words. Although in South Africa this is compounded by the ludicrous spatial patterns that segregation and apartheid planning demanded, the overall problem is common to every country undergoing an urban transition.

The challenge is whether the receiving cities are able to generate the opportunities and administrative systems to cater for the expanding populations.

Urbanisation – as it occurred in Europe and North America in the 19th century and Asia in the 20th (a process that remains incomplete) – produces plenty of stresses of its own. In the absence of vibrant economies and competent management, these stresses can become debilitating. Cities turn from sites of hope for the countries’ poor, to zones of very visible exclusion.


This is in essence South Africa’s problem. With an economy that has barely grown in the past decade, and with unemployment at over 30% at its last official count, an orderly integration into the urban economy is denied to millions of people. Land invasions, which are often organised by criminal rings, are an outcome.

Yet the breakdown of law caused by land invasions and the threat to property rights only serves to undermine the prospects for the economic growth that is the only real long-term hope of resolving the poverty issue. Indeed, as Anthea Jeffery has argued previously on the Daily Friend, the recent court decision on evictions may compound this problem by providing some additional support for land invasions.

Meanwhile, as has been seen in Protea Glen and Lenasia, invasions are likely to breed resentment and confrontation with established residents, whose homes represent their primary investment.

What is to be done? Land is a potent flashpoint in South Africa. Having regard for the country’s history, it would be surprising if this were not the case. But if the country is serious about achieving some form of economic justice, it is critical that the barriers to inclusion should be clearly and soberly understood. One of these is to acknowledge that it is less the availability and provision of land, than the capacity to manage transition and urbanisation that is at issue.

No easy answers

There are certainly no easy answers. But finding those answers is not helped by the heavily ideological character of the country’s politics. Policy that prioritises the circulation of wealth among a relative elite, rewards political loyalty above competence, and fantasises about resurrecting a poor peasantry can only aggravate South Africa’s existing problems.

Equitable access to land is an important component in resolving South Africa’s malaise and pursuing economic justice, but likely not the one with the greatest impact. We must be aware of this – and always be wary of mistaking a political metaphor for a socio-economic solution.

If you like what you have just read, subscribe to the Daily Friend

Previous article
Next articleTDF Show – Clicks v EFF, George Bizos passes away, and countdown to failed state status has started
Terence Corrigan
Terence Corrigan is the Project Manager at the Institute, where he specialises in work on property rights, as well as land and mining policy. A native of KwaZulu-Natal, he is a graduate of the University of KwaZulu-Natal (Pietermaritzburg). He has held various positions at the IRR, South African Institute of International Affairs, SBP (formerly the Small Business Project) and the Gauteng Legislature – as well as having taught English in Taiwan. He is a regular commentator in the South African media and his interests include African governance, land and agrarian issues, political culture and political thought, corporate governance, enterprise and business policy.


  1. the problem comes with entertaining the notion of “economic justice”.

    this is yet another left-wing word salad aimed at socialism and communism. To whit: “How can it be just if Peter has more than Paul?” “Let’s take from Peter until he has the same as Paul”.

  2. The wise and unwise. Wise will buy land. The unwise will buy short lived status symbols. Before you know it A will be rich and B poor. B wanting what A worked for. Story of life.

  3. Land alone cannot meet economic justice.
    The real Justice is to protect the economic strength of the economy so that the golden egg it could produce as was in the past prior to ANC taking Government, could have allowed the economy to run in an open and free market environment with both Black and white working together and as the only adjustment to inclusive justice was to have built up education and training as a sideline opportunity to drive economic justice into a fast lane to bring inclusion of Black persons into the Country’s existing network as professionals and educated persons that can also co-exist in the economic environment.

    What we now have is a bunch of crooks running the Government and taking all for themselves leaving nothing to grow the economy or make investment towards infrastructure so as to give economic justice the opportunity it requires to provide for all and especially those calling for it.

    • The problem, as I see it, is that companies initially did not want to hire blacks, not because they are black, but because they had no skills. The ANC, instead of responding by asking business what skills they were looking for, destroyed first formal education and then skills based education in trades (carpenters, medical technicians, plumbers, electricians etc)

      This left the great majority of blacks unemployable and dependent on grants, which the ANC provided in return for their vote. Some suggest the ANC deliberately kept the voting pool unskilled and uneducated as it suited their goal of remaining in power at all costs, and an uninformed, uneducated and unskilled voting pool, dependent on the ANC would guarantee that.

      To cater for urban blacks and clamoring unions and an electorate fed on populous ideology, the ANC passed legislation forcing companies to hire blacks, or use companies with the requisite BBEEEBB (I forget how many B’s and E’s are required) credentials as “partners” whether or not they could in fact add value. Just to satisfy some government imposed quotas, blacks were hired to contribute to the numbers, not because they could do the job, leaving companies and the blacks resentful.

      The end result of these policies can now be seen in the collapse of the factors which are absolutely necessary to grow a prosperous society for all to benefit from.

      Unless the destructive cadre deployment in the public sector, and the BEEEBEE and AA laws are removed from the Statute books, SA is doomed. It’s that simple.

  4. Just know that the african mindset is not the same as the european mindset. I agree all 4 comments above is spot on, especially Ian Badenhorst’s.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here