Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS)
Permanent URI for this community
The Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) engages in research, training, policy development and advocacy in relation to land and agrarian reform, rural governance and natural resource management. It is committed to social change that empowers the poor, builds democracy and enhances sustainable livelihoods.
Browse
Browsing by Author "Ainslie, Andrew"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Cattle ownership and production in the communal areas of the Eastern Cape, South Africa(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2002) Ainslie, Andrew; Kepe, Thembela; Ntsebeza, Lungisile; Ntshona, Zolile; Turner, StephenThis report documents a study of the social and economic structure of cattle ownership and production in the communal tenure areas of the Eastern Cape (i.e. the former Bantustans of Transkei and Ciskei). The report begins with a review of the conventional arguments relating to cattle production systems in communal tenure areas, i.e. that they are inefficient and irrational. In seeking to challenge these pervasive assumptions concerning the way in which cattle production systems in these areas apparently work, it is argued, first, that very little systematic and detailed knowledge of these systems actually exists on which to base arguments that have had considerable impact and, second, that cattle ownership and production for African people in the Eastern Cape, quite apart from its obvious utility and cultural resonance, has been, for many decades, expressly about political-economic struggle against the state and its varied policies, which have had the effect – if not always the explicit intention – of the gradual proletarianisation of the rural population.Item Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa : Land use and livelihoods(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2003) Andrew, Maura; Ainslie, Andrew; Shackleton, CharlieThis paper addresses how land reform can contribute to enhancing land-based livelihoods. South African agriculture is often characterised as being divided into two types: freehold tenure/ commercial agriculture vs. communal tenure/ subsistence agriculture. Subsistence uses of land are generally viewed as wasteful, destructive and economically unproductive in comparison to commercial production systems. It is not surprising therefore that land redistribution programmes which transfer land to subsistence producers are often viewed with disdain. Such views inform recent land reform policy shifts aimed at enhancing ‘commercial’ agricultural production for the market rather than subsistence production. There is also an emphasis on ‘full-time’ farming on larger portions of land to generate substantial agricultural incomes. These dualistic stereotypes are inappropriate and misleading. This dualism ignores the many cases where small-scale producers in communal areas are currently involved in production for the market (along with self-provisioning) as well as the more numerous historical examples of such involvement. We also challenge the characterisation of subsistence land uses as ‘wasteful, destructive and economically unproductive’. There is considerable evidence that land-based livelihoods have been significantly undervalued. This is not to say that there is no room for improvement. Most poor rural households encounter considerable constraints to production that limit their land-based livelihoods to a survivalist mode.Item Land use and rural livelihoods: Have they been enhanced through land reform?(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2003) Andrew, Maura; Shackleton, Charlie; Ainslie, AndrewIt is often assumed that transferring land to rural households will provide people with valuable assets that can be productively used to enhance their livelihoods. Unfortunately, few rural people or land reform beneficiaries are perceived to be using land produc- tively because they do not engage in significant commercial production for the market. Transferring land to subsistence users is therefore seen as a waste of resources. However, an examination of land use in communal areas and amongst land reform beneficiaries indicates that resource-poor rural people do use land productively and resourcefully, but the constraints to production and participation in agricultural markets they encounter limit their livelihoods to survivalist mode. Land reform can enhance rural livelihoods beyond this survivalist mode if it is integrated into a broader rural development programme aimed at providing subsistence land users with the support they need to overcome the constraints to production, and to connect them to the markets.