CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Land Rights and ReformsAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues

Performance of land reform projects in the North West province of South Africa: Changes over time and possible causes

Open access
Kirsten, Johann, Machethe, Charles, Ndlovu, Talent, Lubambo, Pascalina·2016·Development Southern Africa
DOI 10.1080/0376835x.2016.1179104
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Anecdotal evidence as well as selected studies on the performance and progress of South Africa’s land reform programme generally present mixed to rather negative results. Few longitudinal studies exist on the progress of redistributed farms, resulting in an incomplete picture of the performance and progress of land reform projects. In this article, we report on the progress and performance of a group of land reform projects in the North West province of South Africa over five years. As part of a comprehensive audit of land reform projects in the North West province, 43 farms were studied in 2005 to assess their performance, based on their production status. Five years later, in 2010, 37 of these farms were visited again to review their progress. The results indicate that the production status (and thus performance) of land reform projects is not static. Although some projects either improved or maintained their initial production status, the overall trend shows deterioration in performance. Numerous factors are responsible for the decline, including group characteristics where farms are owned by groups of beneficiaries. This article is thus the first to use two surveys of a group of land reform projects to show the true status of farms in their post-transfer phase in South Africa.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0376835x.2016.1179104

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The PLAS programme had been unsuccessful in establishing commercial farmers.

    “This indicated that the programme had been unsuccessful in establishing commercial farmers and corroborates the work of other authors (Kirsten et al. 2016; Maka and Aliber 2019; Zantsi and Greyling 2021).”

    From Proposing a farm assessment toolkit: evaluating a South African land reform case study (2023) · cites this paper as Kirsten et al. 2016

    The Introduction says many land reform projects failed to achieve commercial viability, which supports the broader point. But Table 2 and §5.2 identify the projects studied as SLAG and LRAD projects, not PLAS projects. The paper therefore does not establish that PLAS was unsuccessful in establishing commercial farmers; no page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Farms owned by groups of beneficiaries often face coordination and management difficulties, contributing to declining performance.

    “Group Ownership Challenges: Farms owned by groups of beneficiaries often face coordination and management difficulties, contributing to declining performance [85].”

    From How Has South Africa's Land Reform Policy Performed from 1994 to 2024? Insights from a Review of Literature (2025) · cites this paper as [85]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [3]3. Binswanger-Mkhize, H, 2014. From failure to success in South African land reform. Invited paper presented at the Annual conference of the Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa, September 30, 2014, Mpekweni Beach Resort.
  2. [7]7. Deininger, K, Hoogeveen, H & Kinsey, B, 2002. Benefits and costs of land reform in Zimbabwe with implications for Southern Africa. Paper presented at the CSAE conference on Understanding Poverty and Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa, 18-19 March, Oxford.
  3. [12]12. Kirsten, JF & Machethe, C, 2005. Appraisal of land reform projects in North-West province. Unpublished review report to the National Department of Agriculture. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
  4. [19]19. Olson, M, 1965. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kirsten, J., Machethe, C., Ndlovu, T., & Lubambo, P.
Affiliations
University of Pretoria (ZA)
Corresponding author
Kirsten, Johann
ORCID
Venue
Development Southern Africa
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-06-16
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
442-458
ISSN
  • 0376-835X (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-3637
DOI
10.1080/0376835x.2016.1179104
OpenAlex
W2430323952
Cited by
34
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Development Southern Africa (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › African studies and sociopolitical issues
Keywords
land reform, land redistribution, farm performance, North West Province, beneficiary groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review