Household Returns to Land Transfers in South Africa: A Q-squared Analysis

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractThe South African land reform programme has been widely criticised for its slow pace as well as its apparent lack of contribution to poverty reduction. However, there is little systematic evidence of the impact of land transfers on their beneficiaries due to data scarcity. This paper combines econometric evidence based on official household surveys with qualitative data collected specifically to triangulate and complement the econometric analysis. The qualitative data analysis confirms the plausibility of the econometric finding that, on average, beneficiaries do not gain from participation, and suggests that the main reason for the disappointing impact of participation is the incompatibility of consultant-led land use plans to land grantees' skills.

Handbook of Research on In-Country Determinants and Implications of Foreign Land Acquisitions

“…Existing evidence in literature further reiterates that in most cases, land deals or transfers do not seem to be contributing to the livelihoods of a substantial share of the households involved (Valente, 2009). In a survey conducted by Ahmed et al (2003), only 8.1% of the households surveyed reported achieving a higher income, and only 11.1 per cent reported achieving a more secure income as a consequence of participation in land redistribution.…”

Qualitative and Mixed‐methods Research in Economics: Surprising Growth, Promising Future

“…As with program evaluations discussed above, q‐squared work is also valuable for explaining why given policies or programs are effective or not. Thus, for example, in studying effects of land reform in South Africa, Valente () combined econometric analysis of survey data collected from a representative survey of 2,279 households with in‐depth interviews and focus groups. The quantitative work established that average benefits of participation were quite small, while the qualitative work identified poor matches between land use plans developed by consultants and the skills of land grantees as a key causal factor.…”

Analysis on the Resources Flow Relationship Between the New Agricultural Management Main Body and the Ordinary Peasant Household: Taking Hubei Province as an Example

“…Valente focused on the South African land reform programme that had been widely criticised for its slow pace as well as its apparent lack of contribution to poverty reduction. She found that, on average, beneficiaries did not gain from participation, and suggested that the main reason for the disappointing impact of participation was the incompatibility of consultant-led land use plans to land grantees' skills [9]. In China, policy of right confirmation of agricultural land [10] and education level of farmer [11] have significant positive effect on land circulation, and rural social security lagging has the opposite effect.…”