Piety in the Sky? Gender Policy and Land Reform in South Africa
Abstract
This article examines the disjuncture between high–level commitments to gender equity and practice in South Africa's land reform programme. Weaknesses in implementing the gender policy of the Department of Land Affairs stem largely from limitations within the broader programme, compounded by the inadequate conceptualization and management of the task and an absence of political accountability around women's land rights by the Department and Ministry. The low political priority accorded gender policy is itself a reflection of weak levels of organization among rural women. However, rural women show an interest in strengthening their rights in land and the small number of women whose households have secured land through the programme regard this as a positive achievement.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
CLaRA was criticized by trade unions, women's organizations, the South African Human Rights Commission, and land rights NGOs as perpetuating undemocratic rule of tribal chiefs and failing to secure individual rights, especially women's.
“these measures were criticized by a range of trade unions, women's organizations, the South African Human Rights Commission, and land rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as perpetuating the undemocratic rule of tribal chiefs and failing to secure the rights of individuals, especially women (Walker 2003;Claassens and Cousins 2008).”
From Agricultural Land Redistribution and Land Administration in Sub-Saharan Africa: Case Studies of Recent Reforms (2014) · cites this paper as Walker 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Contemporary Discourses and Contestations around Pro-Poor Land Policies and Land Governance
BORRAS JR, S. M., & FRANCO, J. C. (2010) · Journal of Agrarian Change · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2009.00243.x · Cited by 204 · see citing works
'Willing buyer, willing seller': South Africa's failed experiment in market-led agrarian reform
Lahiff, E. (2007) · Third World Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01436590701637417 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
(2014) · World Bank · doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0188-4 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Land Redistribution in South Africa
Lahiff, E., & Li, G. (2012) · doi:10.1596/27168 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Is Zimbabwe the future of South Africa? The implications for land reform in Southern Africa
Goebel, A. (2005) · Journal of Contemporary African Studies · doi:10.1080/02589000500273979 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Hunger for farmland among female farmers in Limpopo Province: Bodies, violence and land
Makhetha, E., & Hart, T. (2018) · Agenda · doi:10.1080/10130950.2018.1535042 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Walker, C.
- Corresponding author
- Walker, Cherryl
- ORCID
- Walker, Cherryl
- Venue
- Journal of Agrarian Change
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 113-148
- ISSN
- 1471-0358 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-0366
- OpenAlex
- W1968889307
- Cited by
- 144
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 13.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Agrarian Change (publishedVersion)
- 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
- gender policy, land reform, women's land rights, gender equity, policy implementation, political accountability, rural women, South Africa, land redistribution
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