Hypocrsy and doube s standards over land expropriation in South Afrixa

This article from the Washington Post was uncritically reproduced by NZ media.

We weren't far beyond the ending of the apartheid regime in South Africa and the whole world was aghast (and still is) at Robert Mugabe's actions against white farmers many of whom were accepted by this country.

And yet when South Africa, which looks to the tottering on the edge wants to repeat the exercise any reporting of this is dismissed as right-wing, white supremacy – truth be damned!

An essentially violent process of forced expropriations that would not have been out of place in Stalin's USSR is now painted as "social justice" and might even (sic) "improve South Africa's economy"

I can't think of any social engineering of this sort based on hatred that has succeeded – especially given this period of human history.

To say this is all hypocrisy and double standards would be a gross understatement.

The promise and peril of South African land reform

ANALYSIS: Right-wing groups have been sounding the alarm about proposed land reforms in South Africa, where the ruling African National Congress party is preparing to amend the country's constitution to make it easier for the government to redistribute farmland without compensation.

On August 22, US President Donald Trump caused a stir with a tweet on the subject: "I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers."

The tweet, possibly intended to capitalise on racial tensions, was in part inaccurate - there is no large-scale killing of farmers going on.

But the part about plans to make land seizures easier is accurate.

The move is ostensibly about racial justice - white farmers own about 72 per cent of the country's individually owned farmland, which they wouldn't own if not for colonialism and apartheid.

The idea is to take some of that land and give it to black farmers.

This is, naturally, a morally contentious issue - opponents will argue that since the current owners didn't do the seizing, they're entitled to compensation.

But the policy is also about economics - South Africa's unemployment rate has been rising and now is more than 27 per cent, a rate higher than anything suffered by the US during the depths of the Great Depression.

The government has been trying to put people to work by employing them in community and social services, but there's only so much that can do.

It might also be a good idea to consider sending restless unemployed people out into the countryside to farm.

There are good reasons to believe that this might work - not only to absorb the country's surplus labour force, but to increase the country's agricultural output as well.

The reason is a curious fact about farming that defies the trend for many other industries: negative economies of scale.

In most industries, bigger is better; a huge factory can usually produce cars or computer chips more efficiently than a small one, while a large national chain store can optimise its purchasing and logistics more efficiently than a mom-and-pop shop.

In agriculture, that's also true in terms of overall productivity - a large mechanised farm doesn't use much labour, allowing it to produce lots of food cheaply.

But small farms, especially in developing countries, tend to be more efficient in their use of land.

Growth economist Dietrich Vollrath has a blog post summarising the relevant academic literature.

An inverse relationship between land yield and farm size - meaning smaller farms making more intensive use of each acre - was recorded in India by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in 1962.

Many subsequent papers and books have confirmed this observation.

The relationship doesn't hold for commercial farms in developed countries like the US or NZ, but it seems like a universal feature of developing economies, including South Africa.

Theorists have struggled to explain this strange phenomenon - if large commercial farms are less productive than small family farms, it should make sense for the owners of the big farms to just rent some of their land to family farmers, increasing output and splitting the proceeds.

But for some reason that doesn't work - when small farmers manage their own land, they work harder and get more out of the land.

Journalist Joe Studwell, in his book How Asia Works, speculates that it's simply a matter of motivation - when small farmers feel like they're in business for themselves rather than for a landlord, they put in the extra work to do things like intensive weeding and individual plant care.

This isn't efficient in terms of profit.

But if you have a huge pool of idle labour, as South Africa does, small farming could be a highly effective way to put people to work.

Studwell believes that it was land reform - expropriating farmland from wealthy landlords at below-market prices and handing it out to small farmers - that kicked off economic growth in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

So whatever one thinks of the morality of land expropriation in South Africa, it could give the country's economy a boost.

The World Bank in a 2009 book suggested exactly this approach, discussing some of the promises and pitfalls.

These promises and pitfalls can be seen by examining the experience of neighbouring Zimbabwe.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Zimbabwe expropriated its remaining white-owned farmland without compensation, handing it over to black farmers.

This resulted in improved agricultural yields, rising incomes for farmers and reduced rural poverty.

But the new small farmers didn't end up using all of the land that was given to them, and total agricultural production suffered.

The production of maize, a staple crop, fell by more than half during the early 2000s and 2010s, and the country was forced to start importing food.

The country famously became an economic basket case under President Robert Mugabe, suffering hyperinflation and an economic crash.

But interestingly, maize production recovered to its earlier levels in 2017, and some argue that land reform's positive effects will ultimately prove more enduring than Mugabe's economic mismanagement.

So if South Africa decides to go through with extensive land reform, it will be important to get things right.

Farmers should only be given as much land as they're willing and able to use, and they should be supported by high-quality training and agricultural extension services.

Crucially, the government should allow the market to dictate what crops the new small farms grow, rather than issuing orders about what to plant.

These policies will help make land reform a success, hopefully alleviating South Africa's unemployment and setting it on the road to economic development.

* Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, US.

From Australia's Foreign Correspondent

Now, the Guardian, which was aghast at the murders of farmers in Zimbabwe and the expropriation of land at the time now contends that it is all 'normal'.

Murders of farmers in South Africa at 20-year low, research shows

Forty-seven farmers reportedly killed in 2017-18, consistent with decline since peak in 1998 when 153 died

This is what the Guardian said about Mugabe and land seisures 18 years ago

Mugabe land seizures force hundreds of farm owners to flee

Sat 3 Jun 2000

Hundreds of Zimbabwe's white farmers prepared to leave their land yesterday following Robert Mugabe's announcement of the seizure of 804 mostly white-owned farms for the resettlement of poor black farmers.

"I don't know how to even begin leaving my farm," said Jim Sinclair, a white farmer faced with eviction by early next month. "I had reckoned it would take five months to wind up the farm, not a few weeks."

He said he feared an increase in lawlessness. "This gives carte blanche to anybody who wants to move onto the farms. Some of them are armed."

Five white farmers have been killed since Mr Mugabe's supporters began invading farms three months ago.

In 1980, as president of the Commercial Farmers Union, he encouraged white farmers to continue under majority rule. Now Mr Sinclair sees little hope for Zimbabwe's large-scale farming. "This will tear the heart out of commercial agriculture," he said. "It's the beginning of the end of the economy of this country."

Other farming families have begun packing up valuables in fear that their property will be invaded immediately.

"Our biggest fear is that there will be an influx onto the farms by people who are just going to go shopping for land, livestock and equipment," said Colin Cloete, a CFU official. The group is setting up a programme to help farmers relocate their families, protect farm workers, move household goods and livestock.

An extraordinary government gazette was published yesterday announcing the confiscations. Some of the farms involved are owned by black Africans, most of whom are critics of Mr Mugabe.

Mr Mugabe's action will enable his government to take possession of farms covering nearly 2m hectares (5m acres), by the time of the election on June 24 and 25.

"The president has called for a fast-track kind of resettlement with no elaborate infrastructure," said Vincent Kwenda, the director of land resettlement. But critics claim that without redevelopment only subsistence farming will be possible on seized land.

People will be moved onto the farms by the end of June, despite the fact that the farm owners have 30 days to lodge legal objections to the confiscations. The new land legislation, written by Mr Mugabe and enacted last week, gives farmers few grounds to contest the seizures.

Far from praising Mr Mugabe's move, many black Zimbabweans are dismissing it as an election ploy that will be disastrous for the country's long-term stability.

"It is an election gimmick which will result in environmental damage and will speed up our economic decline," said John Makumbe, a political science lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe.

"The people will not get adequate infrastructure, financial support or training to cultivate the land productively. It is unfortunate that Mugabe is so scared of losing power that he will damage the environment and the economy just to stay in office."

The new legislation states that Britain is obliged to pay for the land seized from the African people during the colonial period. If Britain does not pay, states the law, then the Zimbabwe government is authorised to seize the land without paying compensation.

The British government had earmarked £37m for much-needed land reform in Zimbabwe, but Mr Mugabe's current land grab will not qualify for the funds.

"Land reform in Zimbabwe can only really succeed if it is transparent and legal," said the British high commissioner, Peter Longworth, yesterday.

"We have always said we are prepared to participate in such a plan. We are aware, as are many others, that well managed land reform is an important factor for social stability."

Other international donors are expected to shun Mr Mugabe's hurried land expropriations. Officials from the United Nations Development Programme and the president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, have attempted in recent days to broker a compromise deal to raise international funds to pay for the white-owned farms. But Mr Mugabe rejected the imposition of any conditions on how the land reform should be carried out.

The economic effects of Mr Mugabe's hasty land resettlement are expected to be disastrous. The properties confiscated comprise nearly a quarter of the country's large-scale farms. Zimbabwe's commercial farming sector provides 40% of the country's export earnings and is the largest single employer, supporting 2m.

The seizures could also trigger a failure of Zimbabwe's commercial banks which have lent more than £431m to the farming sector.

The Foreign Office minister, Peter Hain, last night described a visit to Zimbabwe today by the shadow foreign secretary, Francis Maude, as "irresponsible" given the country's present volatility.