farm-worker housing in south africa: an evaluation of an off-farm housing project

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 09 October 2014, At: 14:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Housing StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chos20

Farm-Worker Housing in South Africa: An Evaluation ofan Off-Farm Housing ProjectRolf Hartwig a & Lochner Marais aa University of the Free State, Centre for Development Support (IB 100) , Bloemfontein ,South AfricaPublished online: 22 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Rolf Hartwig & Lochner Marais (2005) Farm-Worker Housing in South Africa: An Evaluation of an Off-FarmHousing Project, Housing Studies, 20:6, 931-948, DOI: 10.1080/02673030500291165

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030500291165

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chos20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02673030500291165

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030500291165

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Farm-Worker Housing in South Africa: AnEvaluation of an Off-Farm Housing Project

ROLF HARTWIG & LOCHNER MARAISCentre for Development Support (IB 100), University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

(Received September 2004; revised May 2005)

ABSTRACT Although farm-worker housing has been neglected in South Africa historically, newpolicy, tabled in 2004, specifically targets the constraints that have been hampering delivery in ruralareas. While either on- or off-farm farm-worker housing is envisioned, constraints with regard toon-farm housing and service provision, such as the prerequisite of security of tenure, preventgeneralised delivery to the rural population, despite the fact that ESTA provides for security oftenure under certain conditions. There is a need to upgrade the living conditions of people on farmswhere they are currently residing, in order to ensure the right to adequate shelter as envisioned bythe Constitution. However, under current legislation tenure rights must first be secured before suchaction can be taken. Research on an off-farm housing project in Bothaville was conducted in order todetermine the sustainability of this approach, while simultaneously assessing the broader housingpolicy context, with a view to making policy recommendations.

KEY WORDS: South Africa, farm worker, housing

Introduction

An ever-increasing amount of housing-policy-related research has been conducted in

South Africa since the inception of the post-apartheid housing policy in 1994. A number of

publications have assessed the development of post-apartheid low-income housing policy

and policy options, and there has been a steady increase in focus on the evaluation and

monitoring of current low-income housing policy (Marais, 2003). In terms of the latter,

notable contributions have been made by the following: Bond & Tait, 1997; CDE, 1999;

CSIR, 1999; Gilbert, 2000; Khan & Thring, 2003; Mackay, 1999; Marais & Krige, 1999,

2000; Marais et al., 2002; Napier, 2000; Tomlinson, 1995, 1998. However, these

assessments are all characterised by a notable lack of any significant research focusing on

rural housing and specifically farm-worker housing and related needs in the South African

context. Some research contributions relating to farm-worker living conditions have been

made (Atkinson et al., 2002, 2003a, 2003b; GoSA, 2003, 2004a; Marais, 2004; Payne,

ISSN 0267-3037 Print/1466-1810 Online/05/060931–18 q 2005 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02673030500291165

Correspondence Address: Lochner Marais, Centre for Development Support (IB 100), University of the Free

State, PO Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa. Tel./fax: 27-51-4012978; Email:

[email protected]

Housing Studies,Vol. 20, No. 6, 931–948, November 2005

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

1994; Pienaar, 2002, 2003; Rubenstein et al., 1996; Setplan, 2002; Stouman, 1999), but

seldom in relation to the South African Housing Policy context. Since 1994, two housing

projects in the Free State province of South Africa, in Fauresmith and Bothaville

respectively, have been implemented, providing housing to farm workers in the nearest

urban area (i.e. off-farm housing). The Reconstruction and Development Programme

(RDP), developed by the African National Congress (ANC) as the official document to

govern post-apartheid development, and the White Paper on Housing (GoSA, 1994b),

refer directly to farm-worker housing, but contain only vague implementation plans and

objectives. The first attempt to develop an appropriate framework specifically for farm-

worker housing only occurred in 2003, and was tabled in 2004 (GoSA, 2004a).

Interpretation and implementation thereof are still pending.

Against this background, this paper provides an evaluation of the Naledi off-farm

(urban) farm-worker housing project, which provided 1000 units of farm-worker housing,

establishing the community of Naledi in the town of Bothaville (see Figure 1) in the Free

State province of South Africa in 1998.

The evaluation of this project will also lead to a number of policy-related conclusions

with regard to farm-worker housing in the South African context. In order to achieve the

above aim, this paper is structured as follows: first, it provides a broad overview of the

available literature on farm workers’ living conditions and the relevant legislation

contributing to the current situation, both internationally and in South Africa. This is

followed by an analysis of the former and current housing policies and the relevance

thereof to farm workers in South Africa. The Bothaville project findings are then

evaluated. Finally, a number of policy-related comments are made.

Methodologically, the research described in the paper was based on various

approaches. First, a literature review of existing policy and relevant research

(internationally and in South Africa) was conducted. Five focus groups were conducted

with Naledi residents. Most of the focus group participants were homeowners and

included male farm workers (both daily and weekly commuters), female farm workers,

mothers of children attending school, and a group of elderly unemployed men (all of

whom were homeowners). The intention was to gain a more qualitative understanding

of the problem. Furthermore, as the farm workers are a homogeneous group of people

(all Sotho-speaking), the obtaining of a representative sample was not viewed as

important. All the participants in the focus groups were participants in the Naledi

housing scheme. The focus group interviews were followed up by questionnaires

developed by the HSRC (Human Sciences Research Council). These were adapted and

used in a semi-structured manner to ascertain the perceptions and concerns of nine

farmers and one of each of their farm workers. The aim of these interviews was once

again to gain a qualitative understanding. Farmers overall also represent a fairly

homogeneous group. These farmers were Afrikaans-speaking, and mostly had mixed

farming businesses. Their farming activities typically included crops and stock farming.

Once again, because of their homogeneous status, representativeness was not an

important factor. The nine interviews with farm workers were used to gain an

understanding of perceptions of people still employed on the farms. In the same way,

the Naledi project co-ordinator, the Naledi project initiator and the head of the local

farmers’ discussion group were also interviewed (since this comprised a farmer-driven

project). Finally, a personal interview with an official at the Department of Local

Government and Housing was also conducted.

932 R. Hartwig & L. Marais

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Figure

1.

Th

elo

cati

on

of

Nal

edi

inB

oth

avil

le,

20

04

Farm-Worker Housing in South Africa 933

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

On-Farm Living Conditions: A Literature Overview

International

In relation to the array of literature on housing policy world-wide, only a limited amount of

literature exists with regard to farm-worker housing or housing for agricultural labourers.

In fact, it seems that internationally, general research with regard to the lives of farm

workers, as well as on development-related aspects in this regard, has received limited

attention. Although some published works dealing with research concerning farm workers

are available internationally (for example, Hammond, 1999; Henderson, 2004; Waterloos

& Rutherford, 2004), the majority of international research available (at least in English)

was conducted in the US (see for example Allensworth & Rochin, 1998; Atkinson, 2002;

Goodno, 2003; Gwyther & Jenkins, 1998; Harrison, 1997; Magana & Hovey, 2003; Taylor

& Martin, 1997); and this research is seldom focused on housing only. More commonly, it

focuses on poverty, labour issues and migrant labour issues, with some peripheral

implications concerning housing and the living environment. In general, the existing

literature in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, highlights five main points with

regard to the living environment of farm workers. Each of these will broadly be considered

in the following paragraphs.

The first main aspect is the poor living environment to which these workers are exposed

(Goodno, 2003; Peterson, 2001; Taylor & Martin, 1997). In the US, farm workers’ housing

is viewed as the worst housing of any single group (Goodno, 2003). It is not uncommon to

find poor levels of water and sanitation access, leaking roofs and overcrowding. Magana &

Hovey (2003) found that poor housing conditions are one of the contributing reasons for

stress among farm workers.

Second, in relation to the poor living conditions, the marginalised status of these

workers is described extensively. In the US the large majority (up to 56 per cent) of

these workers are migrants from Mexico, with limited political rights (Goodno, 2003).

A large percentage of these migrant workers are also illegal migrants. Considering this

reality, providing housing to farm workers in the US is not easy. Goodno (2003, p. 10)

summarises this problem with regard to housing provision to these migrants in the

following words: “Developing affordable housing is difficult in rural areas where density

and noise are anathema, infrastructure is under-developed, and local prejudices may

centre on farm workers. And there is little economic incentive to build migrant

housing”.

Third, in the case of the US, it seems that housing assistance is provided at two levels.

At the first level, agri-villages (called ‘farm-worker towns’ in the US) are provided, where

farm workers from a number of farms can reside (Taylor & Martin, 1997). On-farm

housing assistance is also provided (Atkinson, 2002). The US Department of Agriculture

provides grants and loans to employers for on-farm housing. In the case of loans, the

interest rate is 1 per cent.

Fourth, the service-delivery model, especially in the US, does not focus on housing

only. Services to farm workers are provided in a more integrated manner through non-

profit organisations, which provide a holistic service rather than a housing-only service,

although housing is fairly prominent (Atkinson, 2002). In fact, the service-delivery model

is closely linked to rural development. These non-profit organisations are well funded by

government, which enables them to take up private-sector loans in order to construct

housing for the farm workers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Finally, housing delivery to farm workers does not focus only on the poor. An attempt is

also made to link public-sector housing provision (through non-profit organisations) to

those who can afford mortgage bonds (Atkinson, 2002; Goodno, 2003).

South Africa

This section will first provide a broad contextual overview in respect of farm workers in

South Africa, followed by an overview of the main arguments in the existing literature in

South Africa. There are approximately 60 000 commercial farmers in South Africa and an

estimated 600 000–900 000 farm workers (Orkin & Njobe, 2000; Statistics South Africa,

2004). These farm workers provide incomes to between 2.5 million and 3 million people

(Statistics South Africa, 2004). Historically, very little labour protection was given to farm

workers. However, their labour relations with farmers are currently governed by specific

labour legislation concerning working hours and minimum wages. The existing minimum

wages are between $100 and $150 per month. The formal farm-worker employment is

dominated by males, while females perform mostly casual labour (Orkin & Njobe, 2000).

A rough estimate on the basis of the 2001 census reveals that more than 50 per cent of farm

workers do not have adequate sanitation access, and that access to water and housing is

also substandard. No specific information exists on the number of farm workers who

currently reside on farms, or who live away from the farms. However, estimates from the

available census data (2001) suggest that up to 80 per cent of farm workers still reside on

the farms in the Free State.

As already noted, existing intensive research on farm-worker housing conditions in

South Africa is limited. However, on the basis of the limited research that is available, a

number of observations need to be made. It is important to note that while policy affects

both black and white farmers, farmers in South Africa are predominately white, while farm

workers are almost exclusively people of colour.

First, farm workers and their dependants have historically existed in closed

communities, dependent on farmers (Atkinson et al., 2003a; Payne, 1994; Pienaar,

2003; Stouman, 1999), with low levels of education, gaining in situ training, but having

little experience of or access to alternative employment. This places constraints on

economic relevance in the light of a changing economy, as well as changing farming

practices, including the trend towards mechanisation. Historically, low wages have been a

reality on farms, even taking into account crop share, other rations, and the provision of

free housing and services. Low wages exacerbate farm workers’ position of dependence

on farmers. Moreover, Atkinson et al. (2003a) recently found that farmers have begun to

charge rent on housing as part of the minimum wage package, while some still do not pay a

minimum wage.

Second, related to the issue of dependency, Atkinson et al. (2002, 2003a) note the

difficulties and frustration of farm workers who experience a lack of transportation. Low

levels of service delivery and poor public transportation result in dependence on the

farmers for mobility while isolating farm workers from alternative support mechanisms.

This has consequences beyond physical mobility. It engenders social, cultural and

economic isolation. Atkinson et al. (2003a) argue that the need for the Department of

Transportation to accept greater responsibility in ensuring affordable rural transportation

for farm workers is of paramount importance in order to ensure farm workers’ socio-

economic inclusion.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Third, limitations in access to healthcare are primarily due to physical constraints in

mobility (Atkinson et al., 2002, 2003a). This is particularly true with regard to the needs of

rural women, elderly people and children to have access to appropriate schooling,

healthcare and other social amenities, increasingly only available in urban areas. For

example, Atkinson et al.’s (2002) research found rural availability and access to mobile

clinics to be declining in many areas, due to low population densities. Social services need

to be provided to the rural community, either on an on-farm basis, or through mechanisms

such as agri-villages (Stouman, 1999). Another alternative for enabling access to social

services is that of urban farm-worker housing. Additional constraints may include the fact

that a lack of knowledge regarding personal and community rights and available services,

caused in part by low literacy levels, results in failure to fully utilise these services.

Fourth, studies by both the HSRC and the CRLS indicate that a large number of the

farms have sub-RDP levels of sanitation. Only about 66 per cent of on-farm sanitation

meets the standards of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (GoSA, 1994a).

(Flush and VIP (ventilated improved pit) toilets qualify as RDP levels of sanitation

(Atkinson et al., 2002, 2003a; GoSA, 1996b).) Future health standards and levels of

service provision are questionable, since farmers have indicated an aversion to investment

in infrastructure on farms (both in terms of housing and service), in the event that security

of tenure for farm workers should also include infrastructure. Likewise, government is

averse to investing in infrastructure on privately (farmer-) owned property.

Finally, nationally and internationally, farm workers have not enjoyed security of tenure

(Atkinson et al., 2002, 2003a). In general, tied housing is the norm, with the result that

dependence on farmers for housing and services is exacerbated by employment insecurity

(Payne, 1994; Rubenstein et al., 1996; Stouman, 1999).

Relevance of the International Experience to South Africa

Having considered the overview of the experience in the US in particular, along with the

review of literature in South Africa, the question arises as to what the contextual

differences are in relation to South Africa. Atkinson (2002) warns that there are three

significant contextual differences between the South African situation and that in the US.

First, she argues that farm workers in the US are extremely marginalised, because most

farm workers are either international migrants, or their ancestry is that of recent migrant

families. They are also culturally and linguistically marginalised by the dominant Anglo-

culture of the US. South African farm workers are also marginalised according to Atkinson

(2002), but at least share cultural and linguistic affinities with the post-1994 government.

Second, the model of service delivery to farm workers in the US entails the provision of

services through a number of non-profit organisations funded by the government. These

organisations do not deliver housing only, but focus on a wider range of services to farm

workers, whereas in South Africa, such service delivery is limited, and virtually absent in

the Free State province. Third, the US farming lobby is inordinately powerful politically.

This translates into high levels of subsidies for US farmers, in contrast to South African

farmers, who are politically under-represented, and economically unprotected against

global markets. This creates a much more precarious situation for South African

agriculture, and therefore also results in a much smaller financial capability on the part of

farmers to provide services for farm workers. The impression is created that US farmers

are doubly protected, first by high levels of direct subsidies; and second, by the fact that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

the US government accepts financial responsibility for extensive farm-worker services

(housing, health, education etc.), translating into indirect subsidies for US farmers.

Another major difference, not mentioned by Atkinson, is that according to Goodno (2003),

the average household income of farm workers in the US was $860 per month in 2003. In

South Africa, the current minimum loan for farm workers is $100–$150. This impacts

negatively on affordability. There can be little doubt that overall affordability levels in the

US are higher than in South Africa.

Relevant Legislation

In view of the lack of security of tenure discussed above, the Extension of Security of

Tenure Act, No. 62 of 1997 (ESTA), was introduced in 1997. This Act comprises an

attempt to formalise security of tenure arrangements for all occupiers of property or

accommodation, including farm workers. The intention of the ESTA is to clarify the rights

of both the employer and the employee in legal terms, to regulate the conditions and

circumstances under which the right of persons to reside on land may be terminated, and

primarily, to provide measures for state assistance to facilitate long-term security of land

tenure (GoSA, 2004a). Security of tenure, according to the ESTA, is established for any

occupier who has lived on the land for 20 years or more and/or is 55 years of age [or older];

and/or is a former employee of the owner and is unable to work as a result of disability

(GoSA, 1997). Security of tenure is also of primary importance to the Department of Local

Government and Housing’s ideology of land redistribution. In an interview, an official of

the Department of Local Government and Housing stated that the Department’s primary

goal is the redistribution of wealth through housing provision/delivery.

In addition, a minimum wage and stricter labour legislation were introduced in 2002.

The wage structure and the labour arrangements for South African agricultural workers

were more thoroughly formalised in legal terms. The introduction of the ESTA and

minimum wages, coupled with the deregulation of agriculture in the early 1990s, a larger

degree of global competitiveness (Norton & Alwang, 1993; Wood, 1996) and subsequent

mechanisation (Giddens, 1997), influenced the farm-labour structure in a considerable

manner (Atkinson et al., 2003a). In addition, an increasing security risk for farmers started

to mount, as more than 1400 white farmers and/or members of their families were killed on

their farms between 1991 and 2001 (Lamprecht, 2001). Due to all these factors, farmers

have become increasingly reluctant to employ new labourers (Atkinson et al., 2002,

2003a; Rubenstein et al., 1996; Stouman, 1999), and this has led to limited on-farm

housing investment (tied housing) being provided by farmers since 1994. The literature

reviewed regarding the Free State and Northern Cape provinces in South Africa, suggests

that a combination of the above factors resulted in deterioration of labour relationships, an

increase in unemployment and an increasing rural-to-urban migration of farm workers.

Orkin & Njobe (2000) point out that the overall employment on commercial farms

declined by 25.1 per cent during the period 1988 to 1996 (from 1.2 million in 1988 to

914 000 in 1996). In the Free State province alone, more than 230 000 people from

commercial farms (primarily farm workers and their dependants) urbanised between 1991

and 2001 (Marais, 2004). Between 1991 and 1996, urban areas in the Free State grew by

2.8 per cent per annum, and between 1996 and 2001, by 1.5 per cent (Marais, 2004).

Urbanisation in small, medium and large urban areas is placing strain on existing

infrastructure and service delivery (GoSA, 1999; Mangaung Municipality, 2002). Given


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

the culture of non-payment (Mangaung Municipality, 2002) and the high levels of

unemployment, this poses a threat to the sustainability of service delivery, and also holds

implications for the broader sustainability of small and medium-sized urban areas.

The literature review and policy overview reveal that traditionally, farm-worker

housing conditions have been fairly poor, with the lack of security of tenure probably

being the most predominant characteristic. Since 1994 the South African democratic

government has introduced legislation to provide a larger degree of security of tenure and

to regulate labour relationships in order to address these issues. However, it seems evident

from the available literature that this legislation, together with the deregulation of the

agricultural industry, increasing mechanisation, as well as an increase in the security risks

on farms, has contributed instead to an increase in unemployment and increasing

urbanisation in this sector.

Housing Policy Context

Against the above background on farm-worker living conditions, the question arises

concerning the degree to which the South African housing policy is able to address these

needs. South African housing policy has been influenced by international policy trends

(especially that of the World Bank) (Bond, 1999; Tomlinson, 1998), and yet distinct

differences remain between the South African policy and that of the World Bank (Gilbert,

2002; Marais, 2003). The neo-liberal political-economic way of thinking was ensured

during the formulation of the White Paper on Housing (GoSA, 1994b), with the

recognition of budgetary constraints, cost-recovery principles and a targeted subsidy

framework similar to that of the World Bank (see World Bank, 1993). Furthermore, the

subsidy amount was set in relation to the target for housing provision and the available

budget, resulting in an initial subsidy of R15 000 for households with an income of less

than R800 as determined in 1994, instead of the larger subsidy proposals of approximately

R30 000 (Tomlinson, 1998). Households with incomes of between R801 and R1500 per

month would receive R12 500, while households with incomes of between R1501 and

R2500 and R2501 and R3500 would receive subsidies of R9500 and R5000 respectively.

Across the board, subsidies have increased due to inflation. For example, by July 2004

rural and PHP (People’s Housing Process) housing subsidies for the income category of

R0–R1500 had increased to R28 279. It should be noted that at the time, $1 ¼ R6. The

relatively small subsidy decided upon in 1994, according to Tomlinson’s (1998)

perspective, constituted a victory for width over depth (spreading the resources more

thinly to more households) and also meant that an incremental approach to housing

delivery could be followed. This incremental approach requires the provision of an initial

basic housing structure with services, and envisions owner expansions over time.

Furthermore, this principle of incrementalism is based on the assumption that security of

tenure has to be provided, mostly in the form of ownership. The emphasis on ownership is

highly urban-biased, favouring areas where it is possible to provide ownership and where

the idea is to create a secondary housing market. The bias towards urban areas can further

be observed in the fact that most of the 1 611 078 houses delivered in South Africa since

1994 (GoSA, 2004b) have been delivered in urban areas. Primarily, funding for rural

housing has been limited to the Limpopo Province and to Trust Land managed by

traditional chiefs, and has not been channelled to farm workers on private land to any

notable degree.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The influence that the international (mostly World Bank) perspective has had on

domestic housing policy seems to be inappropriate for the rural and specifically the farm-

worker situation, for a number of reasons. First, widespread ownership (and security of

tenure) for farm workers on farming land is difficult to implement, as the land belongs to

farmers. This holds true, despite the fact that the ESTA provides for security of tenure

under certain conditions. Second, the principle of incremental housing seems to be valid

mostly in cases where housing does have some form of economic value (in terms of a

secondary market) and where the inhabitants have a medium- to long-term commitment to

a specific area, conditions that do not usually exist on farms.

It has been argued above that the South African policy, as accepted in 1994, was not

always capable of addressing farm workers’ housing needs. It was only in 1999 that the

Department of Housing, in recognition of the constraints on farm-worker housing

provision, established an inter-departmental task team to investigate policy options for

farm-worker housing interventions in South Africa (GoSA, 2004a). Their initial

recommendation for rental housing on farms was rejected (GoSA, 2000). Between 1999

and 2002, increases in the number of farm-worker evictions led to mounting social

pressure for a clear policy, strategy and programme regarding farm-worker housing in

South Africa (GoSA, 2004a). Hence, the Department of Housing has drafted a policy

specifically geared towards farm-worker housing.

The current draft farm-worker housing policy (GoSA, 2004a) (together with housing

policy in general in South Africa) has been formulated in terms of moral obligation with

regard to the state’s obligation to provide adequate shelter to all (GoSA, 1996a). There is a

specific emphasis on the right of everyone to have access to adequate housing as a

fundamental human right in terms of the Constitution, and the state’s responsibility is to

achieve the progressive realisation of this right. Section 26 further states that “no-one may

be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court . . .

[and] no legislation may permit arbitrary evictions” (GoSA, 1996a, S26(3)). Section 25

states that “property may be expropriated only in terms of general law of application for a

public purpose or a public interest” (GoSA, 1996a, S25(2a)). According to the Department

of Housing (GoSA, 2004a), the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land

reforms with the goal of bringing about equitable access to South Africa’s natural

resources.

The draft farm-worker housing policy further emphasises the importance of security of

tenure, and towards this end, the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, Act No. 3 of 1996,

the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Act No. 62 of 1997, and the Prevention of Illegal

Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, Act No. 19 of 1998, all strive to provide

for security of tenure and to ensure adequate protection of labour tenants, in order to

promote their full and equal enjoyment of human rights and freedoms (GoSA, 2004a).

Within the draft farm-worker housing policy, the issues of land ownership, tenure

insecurity, inequitable service levels, public investment in private land, and local

government involvement were identified as problems that posed a challenge to effective

housing and service delivery to farming communities. Public investment in private land is

seen as particularly problematic in this draft document. A further constraint to housing

delivery is the lack of appropriate capacity to deliver houses and services on farms (GoSA,

2004a).

A number of policy suggestions and conclusions in the draft policy included a

proposition by Agri-Mpumalanga (the formal agricultural association in one of South


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Africa’s provinces) that the policy on farm housing should de-link the issue of

employment contracts from that of accommodation. At the same time, the Mpumalanga

Department of Agriculture and Agri-Mpumalanga propose tax incentives in the form of

tax rebates for farmers who build houses for their farm workers (GoSA, 2004a). In the Free

State province, agri-villages were suggested as the preferred form of farm-worker housing,

due to economies of scale and the simplification of ensuring security of tenure.

Conversely, capacity and a budget need to be available for bulk infrastructure investment,

including schools, security and healthcare (Stouman, 1999). Agri-villages are difficult to

implement and might not take the reality of increasing urbanisation into account. In

essence, either on- or off-farm farm-worker housing provision is foreseen in terms of the

policy, according to workers’ preferences, given the prerequisite of security of tenure. Off-

farm housing may further be provided in the form of either urban housing or agri-villages.

The draft farm-worker housing policy further urges government (particularly local

government) to get rid of its attitude of not supporting farmers in uplifting the conditions

of life of farming communities (GoSA, 2004a), in the light of the need to upgrade the

living conditions of people where they are currently staying on farms. However, in terms

of current legislation and thinking, this would require that the land be excised, proclaimed,

tenure rights secured and services provided (GoSA, 2004a).

This section has provided a brief overview of the inappropriateness of current South

African housing policy for the purposes of delivering rural housing to farm workers. It

appears from the literature, as well as the legislation, that the emphasis on security of

tenure also makes the issues of on-farm service provision and employment security

problematic. It is against this background that this paper will now go on to examine off-

farm (urban) housing provision for farm workers. It will specifically consider the Naledi

off-farm farm-worker housing initiative in Bothaville (Free State province), South Africa.

The Bothaville Project

Before a more in-depth analysis of the results of the research is conducted, a broad

overview of the areas of the case study will be provided. The farmer-initiated, off-farm

farm-worker housing project, Naledi, completed in 1998, involved the construction of

1000 units on sites allocated by the local Bothaville (now Nala) Municipality, using state

funds diverted from the Department of Land Affairs to the Department of Housing. At that

stage the South African housing subsidy was R15 000 (plus 15 per cent for clay soil

conditions), which meant that the project funds allocated to housing structures totalled

R17 250 000. The 1000 subsidies comprise approximately 8 per cent of the annual

allocation of housing subsidies in the Free State (Marais, 2003). It is thus possible to

provide such housing to farm workers in the long term in the Free State province.

However, considering that there are approximately 500 000 farm workers in the Free State,

the 1000 houses are a mere drop in the ocean.

The land identified was selected by virtue of the sufficient slope for sewage and the

convenient location in relation to public transport, as well as in respect of transport

provided by farmers whose farm workers were to take part in the study. Key role-players

included: farmers falling under the Bothaville Community Development Association; the

Bothaville Transitional Local Council; participating farm workers (including the

Bothaville farm workers’ committee); the Goldfields District Council (which contributed

R1.05 million towards the construction of the internal water network); ESKOM (which


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

made over R1 million available for electrification); the Free State Department of Land

Affairs; and the Department of Local Government and Housing. Naledi was thus

established as a suburb of Kgotsong. Both were separated from the traditionally white

Bothaville by an ‘open’ strip (a traditional buffer zone including the railway line)

(see Figure 1). Although the housing development was completed, sewage infrastructure is

still lacking, even though finances have been provided for this infrastructure. Furthermore,

although the Department of Local Government and Housing considers the project to be an

agri-village, the urban nature of the housing and the limited use of communal land have

resulted in the project functioning more in terms of off-farm/urban housing. Interesting to

note is that, “at the time the project was undertaken, there were no [housing] policy

guidelines on farm-worker housing” (GoSA, 1998, p. 1).

The available housing subsidy as well as the other grants relevant to the project ensured

that the final product would be provided free of charge to the farm workers. Furthermore,

a water-subsidy mechanism probably serves to ensure that a limited amount is paid

towards service costs and land taxes. The South African government has introduced a

water-billing system that provides the first 6000 litres to all households at no cost. This

subsidy is financed in two ways. First, it is subsidised by means of cross-subsidisation at

municipal level. Essentially, this means that large-scale users subsidise those who use less

than 6000 litres. Second, it is also partially financed by an inter-governmental grant from

the national government. This grant not only finances water consumption but, depending

on a local decision, could also be used to pay for other services (for example, refuse

removal) as well as land tax. Therefore, depending on income and the level of services

utilised by individual households, it is unlikely that these farm workers contribute in any

significant way in terms of paying rates and taxes in Bothaville.

The Nala region is located within a significant agricultural region. It forms part of the

so-called ‘maize triangle’ of South Africa (Nala Municipality, 2004). Agriculture

constitutes an astounding 64 per cent of the Bothaville/Kgotsong economy. Therefore,

economic and other policy in this region should reflect the importance thereof, in terms of

a more facilitative and supportive approach to the needs of farmers and farm workers.

Unemployment is evidently a major problem, and is currently estimated at 48 per cent

(Pienaar, 2003).

Evaluating the Bothaville Project

Farm Workers’ Views

As noted in the introduction, the evaluation was based on various focus groups and

individual interviews. This evaluation starts by analysing the views of farm workers with

regard to their current urban housing and living environment compared to their previous

on-farm environment.

Pride in homeownership was the most frequently mentioned benefit, also translating

into pride as a community in Naledi. Two of the comments provided by farm workers

reflect their experience of ownership in more detail: “For the first time in my life I have a

house belonging to me in which my family can live”; and “Over the past 20 years I have

worked for five farmers, stayed in five different places, probably 10 different houses. Now

I can stay in my house for ever”. The important aspect of homeownership that is revealed

by these statements relates to a need for secure tenure, a benefit that farm workers have not


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

enjoyed historically. This does not necessarily relate to having an economic asset.

Furthermore, homeownership in this case also relates strongly to independence from

farmers. For the first time, these farm workers can own a house independently of the

farmer. Limited in situ upgrading of houses has occurred, mostly in cases where resources

were provided by farmers from houses that had been broken down on the farms. Such

upgrading may be viewed as an investment in current living conditions, reflecting a sense

of pride and willingness to invest. Naledi itself means ‘city of the stars’, and this sentiment

has been carried over into the communal identity. This is in stark contrast to the lack of

security on farms described earlier.

Second only to pride in homeownership, access to adequate healthcare was the benefit

of urban residence most often cited. The primary benefit here is access, due to the reduced

distance and the availability of public transport. In contrast, it is important to note here the

consequence of on-farm housing provision, since isolation and transportation costs are

obstacles to adequate healthcare (Atkinson et al., 2003a), to the detriment of people’s

quality of life. This has particular relevance for the elderly and for mothers with young

children living in Naledi, who now have access to healthcare (and other) services within

walking distance, or by means of public transportation.

In terms of housing, all participating farm workers indicated that, in terms of quality and

size/spaciousness, housing standards were better on farms than in the 42 m2 government

houses provided as required by policy in the Free State (Marais, 2003). Thus, in this

instance, housing quality has not been improved by state-assisted housing provision.

However, the incremental nature of the South African policy requires that the owner

should expand her/his own unit over time to increase the size of the unit. The above finding

on the quality of housing does not negate the fact that on-farm housing and living

conditions do vary greatly. In related research, Atkinson et al. (2003a) found that housing

quality on farms was not always of a similar standard, and complaints in respect of

overcrowding and poor structures abounded in some cases.

In general, service provision had not drastically changed in relation to on-farm service

levels. More specifically, the quality of sanitation was said to be unchanged, with pit (not

VIP) toilets and bucket systems. However, there is at least some prospect of obtaining

flush toilets, with the delivery of sewage infrastructure, as the toilets themselves have

already been installed in the houses. Sanitation and roads accounted for the highest

number of complaints by farm workers living in Naledi, and these complaints were related

directly to inefficiency on the part of the Nala Municipality. Water provision in Naledi is

primarily comprised of taps in each garden, while on-farm water provision varied from

taps in the houses to communal taps. On average, therefore, water provision standards

have not really changed in comparison to living conditions on the farm. The fairly low

levels of infrastructure provision for urban housing are not unusual in the Free State, where

the emphasis has been on the housing structure, mostly to the detriment of the

infrastructure provision (Marais, 2003).

In terms of schooling, rural primary education was considered unreliable and was of a

poor standard. Almost all of the rural schools in this area (at least five) have subsequently

been closed down, as a result of depleted demand due to low rural densities. Currently, the

farm workers’ children attend Letlotlo primary school (in Naledi) and, although the school

is reported to be full beyond capacity and under-staffed, the change is viewed as a vast

improvement in the level of education. High-school children have generally been

attending schools whilst staying in Kgotsong, so for them the move represents a reduction


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

in costs for accommodation and transport, as well as the reunification of families. Farm

workers interviewed (whose average age was 41) had only received an average of

5.4 years of substandard rural schooling. Therefore, urban education constitutes a vast

improvement in the quality of preparation for future economic involvement, whether in

the rural or urban economy. This is particularly valid in the light of economic

transformation and the changing rural economy and skills demand, as well as

mechanisation.

Although there are 2055 ha of farm land available adjacent to Naledi for commonage

agriculture (Land Info, May 1998), all respondents indicated that all livestock previously

owned had been sold with the move to Naledi, since farmers are unwilling to keep workers’

livestock on the farms for economic and political reasons. As well as being an income/dietary

supplement, livestock are a significant cultural symbol in most African cultures. Furthermore,

seven out of the nine farm workers interviewed indicated their wish to farm independently.

Existing livestock would serve as capital in hand for the furtherance of this dream, while

selling the livestock would mean giving up hope of its realisation. Essentially the move to

Naledi has broader implications than the economic and political aspects alone.

However, most important is the participants’ preference for urban residence. The

preference given to urban housing in order to access services has similarly been

demonstrated in Atkinson et al.’s (2003a) research, as well as by the participants’

preference for urban accommodation even in cases where houses are still available on

farms. Almost all participants indicated a preference for accommodation in Naledi over

on-farm accommodation. Of the farm workers interviewed, only one indicated that she

would rather have stayed on the farm, given a choice in respect of a preferred residence. In

facilitation groups, only male daily commuters indicated a preference for farm

accommodation (given the choice of on-farm security of tenure), due to their difficulties

with transportation to their place of work.

Research by Krige (1995) and Atkinson et al. (2003a) suggested possible problems with

regard to the integration of farm workers in urban areas. Surprisingly, the general

consensus was that of satisfaction with community integration into Kgotsong. This may be

attributed to the scale of the housing project, with an estimated 4500 residents in the 1000

houses. However, integration into the Bothaville/Kgotsong economy is very limited, and

respondents indicated minimal alternative employment opportunities for any member of

their households. The group of unemployed male homeowners who participated as a focus

group, were the only group to experience a lack of social integration in Naledi, although

they still expressed their preference for Naledi housing. They said that they “don’t feel

welcomed by Kgotsong residents” and that they feel they are “not really integrated in the

Kgotsong community”. This aspect has relevance for the long-term consequences of the

already high, and rising, unemployment in a community not highly integrated in the urban

economy, and warrants further longer-term socio-economic research. Isolation in terms of

access to services and other social amenities (Atkinson et al., 2002, 2003a; Payne, 1994;

Stouman, 1999) has largely been overcome through the provision of urban housing and

through urban migration.

Farmers’ Views

Since farmers are the primary role-players in determining the future of agriculture and

related aspects, their views and intentions, stemming from economic motivation, are of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

paramount importance to policy efficacy and should be considered in policy formulation,

if the policy is to have the desired effect. Naledi itself was a farmer-driven initiative in an

attempt to avoid on-farm tenure security risks for farmers, while ensuring security of

tenure for their workers in an urban area. Farmers openly admitted their intentions in

respect of intensifying mechanisation and continued unemployment, due to the current

policy and the uncertainty regarding the future policy environment and economy. Naledi

represented a means of limiting the future risk of land occupation, while also enabling

changes in labour relationships. In terms of farm-worker housing, the broader policy

context cannot be divorced from the housing context, since it relates to employment (and

therefore tenure) security.

Security of tenure was one of the farmers’ primary concerns, particularly in the light of

the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, No. 62 of 1997. Farmers’ concerns included the

possibility of informal settlements developing on farms if housing had to be built for new

labour while old housing remained occupied, and the burden and security problems that

this situation would create for farmers. As the farmers themselves acknowledged, the

result is that, since 1997, they have not invested in farm-worker-related infrastructure on

farms (either in terms of housing or service provision). In fact, some farmers even

demolish existing houses at every opportunity, in order to minimise the future risk of

occupation, and they seek to stop labour contracts and evict labour at every legal (and

sometimes illegal) opportunity. The Naledi project has thus arguably provided a way of

minimising their on-farm housing responsibilities.

Concerning the minimum wage, most farmers indicated that they are not averse to

paying a minimum wage (R750), provided that farm workers are sufficiently skilled, while

research by Atkinson et al. (2003a) revealed that unskilled labour was viewed as

‘unaffordable’ by farmers, due to the minimum wage requirement. The use of seasonal

labour, with minimum wages of R30/day, has likewise been drastically reduced and

replaced by the use of tractors and combine harvesters. One farmer indicated that, whereas

in the past he would have hired 100 seasonal labourers, he now makes do with 10 to 15

part-time workers. This constitutes a major loss of employment for the Bothaville area,

and was found to be the greatest cause of change in the labour composition. Tied housing

and relationships have become contractualised with the formalisation of labour contracts.

Essentially, both the positive and the negative aspects of the paternalistic relationship

experienced previously, have been undermined. The move to Naledi, which happened to

coincide with legislation changes, is likely to have exacerbated the deterioration of labour

relations. However, both farmers and farm workers indicated that changes were primarily

attributable to legislation contractualising the relationship, rather than to the change in

housing locality.

Most farmers indicated an aversion to farm workers keeping livestock on farms,

primarily due to economic reasons. In fact, the relevance of livestock stretches beyond

purely economic reasoning to cultural implications (including cultural change) and

relational symbolism. According to Atkinson et al. (2003a), a farmer’s perspective on

stock ownership indicates whether a farmer regards the labour relationship purely as a

labour relationship, on the one hand, or possibly even as a potential partnership, on the

other. The move to Naledi enabled farmers to get rid of workers’ livestock, on the basis of

the reasoning (amongst other arguments) that farm workers “weren’t there to look after

their own stock”. Many indicated that labour relationships were tending to become purely

work-oriented, due to policy requirements.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Ability of the Urban Environment to Address the Needs of Farm Workers

This research has addressed the perspectives of farmers and farm workers on the Naledi

project. However, another important consideration is that of the consequences for local

government. The greatest complaint of both farm workers and farmers was related to the

incompetence and/or the lack of delivery of services on the part of the local Nala

Municipality. In Naledi, poor roads and lack of sanitation infrastructure were the primary

complaints. Like many other small towns in the Free State, Bothaville’s economy is

stagnating (Pienaar, 2003). This situation offers few prospects for the town’s future

viability as a locus of support to the agricultural community (Ingle & van Schalkwyk,

2004), and particularly, the viability of Naledi itself, where growing unemployment

prevails. To a certain degree the burdens related to farm-worker housing have been shifted

to an urban area where the ability of the given municipality to maintain the living

environment is limited. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the urbanisation

process is taking place irrespective of what the government is, or is not, willing and/or able

to do. Furthermore, service provision remains the burden of government, irrespective of

locality, whether urban or rural, when security of tenure is granted. Perhaps if the only

options open to municipal service providers entailed either on-farm or off-farm service

provision, they would find urban delivery to be their least burdensome option.

Conclusion and Policy Options

The research findings in general complemented those of related research on farm workers

in the South African, Free State context. Greater insights into the social, economic and

political dynamics of on-farm housing in particular were gained. The urban/off-farm

housing project was generally found to be successful from the point of view of both the

farmers and farm workers for the various reasons listed below, while complaints and

constraints have also been taken into account.

The research has revealed that the Naledi project has managed to improve access to

amenities such as healthcare and education in the urban area; that the beneficiaries are

extremely satisfied about having received urban ownership (ensuring security of tenure);

and that, despite some exceptions, they have been well accepted and socially integrated

into the urban environment. On the negative side, the quality of housing and services has

not necessarily improved, while farm workers now have to pay for services, which they

feel they are not receiving. The shift to Naledi also meant that they had to sell their

livestock, and resulted in the transport problems that are currently being experienced with

regard to their commuting to their places of work. Finally, the shift to Naledi, coupled with

new labour legislation, means that the farm worker-farmer relationship has been

contractualised.

For farmers, the settlement of their farm workers in the Naledi project meant that they

managed to minimise the risk of future farm occupations. The shift also enabled the

farmers to change the employment relationships with farm workers into purely contractual

relationships more easily. A drawback is the fact that off-farm housing has also resulted in

increased costs and effort for the farmers with regard to transporting workers.

Although it seems that off-farm (urban) housing provision to farm workers in Naledi-

Bothaville has been a success, off-farm housing cannot be generalised nationally. It is

fairly applicable in cases where farms are closely located to urban areas and where the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

means of production are not labour-intensive. For example, this model would perhaps be

less suitable with regard to fruit farming in the Western Cape province. Transportation

costs and times result in a critical distance and labour force, beyond which point, off-farm

housing is not economically viable. This means that some form of on-farm housing and

service provision remains relevant and needs to be considered in terms of policy.

However, the continued emphasis on security of tenure in the policy relating to on-farm

farm-worker housing may not be appropriate, and the consequences (although they may be

indirect in some cases) have been clearly set out in the paper. Together with broader labour

legislation changes and the changing economic environment (including technological

advancement), among other factors, legislation emphasising security of tenure has

contributed to an increase in unemployment, eviction and urbanisation for a large

proportion of the agricultural labour force in the Free State. Clear national norms and

standards for accommodation and service provision need to be drafted, and monitoring and

enforcement mechanisms are needed to ensure adherence to these standards. Region-

specific strategies should be developed without the prerequisite of security of tenure, in

order to ensure the provision of a basic level of housing and services to the general

population, as expressed in the Constitution. Finally, it also seems as if the approach in the

US, where services to farm workers are provided by non-profit organisations in terms of a

cross-sectoral approach which does not focus only on housing, might hold important

lessons for service delivery in general, and housing provision in particular, to farm

workers in South Africa.

References

Allensworth, E. M. & Rochin, R. (1998) Ethnic transformation in rural California. Looking beyond the immigrant

farmworker, Rural Sociology, 63, pp. 26–51.

Atkinson, D. (2002) Municipal services in farming areas: study tour of the United States, unpublished,

Bloemfontein, Human Science Research Council.

Atkinson, D., Akharwaray, N., Ingle, M. & Van Schalkwyk, C. (2002) Linking IDPs to municipal budgets, local

government support and learning networks (LOGOSUL) (Northern Cape: Department of Local Government

and Housing).

Atkinson, D., Pienaar, D., Van Schalkwyk, C., du Plessis, R. & Wellman, G. (2003a) Life on the farm: shifting

social and moral foundations of the farming community, unpublished, Bloemfontein, Human Sciences

Research Council.

Atkinson, D., Pienaar, D. & van Schalkwyk, C. (2003b) Urbanisation study: Luckhoff, Bloemfontein, Human

Sciences Research Council.

Bond, P. (1999) Basic infrastructure for socio-economic development, environmental protection and

geographical desegregation: South Africa’s unmet challenge, Geoforum, 30, pp. 43–59.

Bond, P. & Tait, A. (1997) The failure of housing policy in post-apartheid South Africa, Urban Forum, 8,

pp. 19–41.

CDE (Centre for Development Enterprise) (1999) Housing in Southern Africa: Significant Government

Achievement Based on Public-Private Partnership (Johannesburg: Centre for Development Enterprise).

CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) (1999) Report: The State of Human Settlements, South

Africa, 1994–1998 (Pretoria: Department of Housing).

Giddens, A. (1997) Sociology, 3rd edn. (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Gilbert, A. (2000) What might South Africa have learned about housing subsidies from Chile?, The South African

Geographical Journal, 82, pp. 21–29.

Gilbert, A. (2002) Scan globally. Reinvent locally: reflections on the origin of the South African Housing Capita

Subsidy policy, Urban Studies, 39, pp. 1911–1933.

Goodno, J. B. (2003) Migrant not homeless, Planning, November, pp. 10–15.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (1994a) The Reconstruction and Development Programme (Johannesburg:

Umanyano Publications).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (1994b) White Paper on Housing, White Paper (Pretoria: Department of

Housing).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (1996a) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act No. 108 of 1996

(Pretoria: Government Printers).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (1996b) National Sanitation Policy, White Paper (Pretoria: Government

Printers).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (1997) Extension of Security of Tenure Act No. 62 of 1997 (Pretoria:

Government Printers).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (1998) Farm worker subsidy: off-farm housing subsidies, Bothaville 1998,

Report (Bloemfontein: Department of Local Government and Housing).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (1999) Green Paper on Development and Planning, Development and

Planning Commission, Green Paper (Pretoria: Department of Land Affairs).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (2000) Draft Housing Strategy for the New Millennium (Pretoria:

Department of Housing).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (2003) Towards a housing policy for farming communities, Draft

Discussion Document (Pretoria: Department of Housing).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (2004a) Stakeholder consultative report on housing policy for farm-

workers, Reference: SP 10/1/38 (Pretoria: Department of Housing).

GoSA (Government of South Africa) (2004b) Housing delivery statistics, Available at www.housing.gov.za./

stats/200403/20040324.gif.

Gwyther, M. E. & Jenkins, M. (1998) Migrant farmworker children: health status, barriers to care, and nursing

innovations in health care delivery, Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 12, pp. 60–66.

Hammond, J. L. (1999) Law and disorder: the Brazilian landless farmworkers’ movement, Bulletin of Latin

American Research, 18, pp. 469–489.

Harrison, P. (1997) Functional and affordable furnishings, Journal of Housing and Community Development, 54,

pp. 22–24.

Henderson, R. (2004) Educational issues for children of itinerant seasonal farm workers. A case study in an

Australian context, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8, pp. 293–310.

Ingle, M. & van Schalkwyk, C. (2004) Service delivery to farming areas, Journal of Public Administration, 39,

pp. 143–165.

Khan, F. & Thring, P. (2003) Housing policy and practice in post-apartheid South Africa (Johannesburg:

Heinemann Publishers).

Krige, D. S. (1995) Demographic profile of the Free State, urban and regional planning, Occasional Paper, 15

(Bloemfontein: University of the Free State).

Lamprecht, J. (2001) Farm murders in South Africa (from 1994–present). Available at http://www.africancrisis.

org/photos16.asp.

Land Info (1998) Bothaville off-site development project, Land Info, 5, pp. 18–19.

Mackay, C. (1999) Housing policy in South Africa: the challenge of delivery, Housing Studies, 14, pp. 387–399.

Magana, C. G. & Hovey, J. D. (2003) Psychosocial stressors associated with Mexican migrant workers in the mid-

west United States, Journal of Immigrant Health, 5, pp. 75–86.

Mangaung Municipality (2002) Mangaung Municipality Integrated Development Plan. Available at http://www.

municipalities.co.za/Reports/MAC_verslag.doc.

Marais, L. (2003) Low-income housing in the post-apartheid era: towards a policy framework for the Free State,

PhD Thesis, Bloemfontein, University of the Free State.

Marais, L. (2004) Post-apartheid demographic trends in the Free State and their implications for regional

development, Research paper (Bloemfontein: Premier’s Economic Advisory Council in the Free State).

Marais, L. & Krige, S. (1999) Post-apartheid housing policy and initiatives in South Africa: reflections on the

Bloemfontein-Botshabelo-Thaba Nchu Region, Urban Forum, 10, pp. 115–136.

Marais, L. & Krige, S. (2000) Who received what where in the Free State: an assessment of post-apartheid

housing policy and delivery, Development Southern Africa, 17, pp. 603–619.

Marais, L., Barnes, L. & Schoeman, J. (2002) A provincial comparison of post-apartheid housing policy and

delivery: the Free State and Northern Cape as case studies, in: R. Donaldson & L. Marais (Eds) Transforming

Rural and Urban Spaces in South Africa During the 1990s: Reform, Restitution, Restructuring (Pretoria:

Africa Institute of South Africa).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Nala Municipality (2004) Nala Municipality Integrated Development Plan, Draft (Bothaville: Nala

Municipality).

Napier, M. (2000) Supporting the People’s Housing Process, [Re]-opening the housing debate (Johannesburg:

Joint venture between the Graduate School of Public and Development Management and the Isandla

Institute).

Norton, G. & Alwang, J. (1993) Economic and Agricultural Development (New York, USA: McGraw Hill).

Orkin, M. & Njobe, B. (2000) Employment trends in agriculture in South Africa (Pretoria: Statistics South Africa

and National Department of Agriculture).

Payne, B. (1994) Farm worker housing in South Africa, Report (Pretoria: National Land Committee).

Peterson, L. (2001) Shelter from the storm, Biography Magazine, May, pp. 65–68.

Pienaar, D. (2002) The Golden Age of Rural Service Delivery: The Rural Foundation, 1982–1998 (Bloemfontein:

Human Sciences Research Council).

Pienaar, D. (2003) Local economic development in the Free State, Nala Municipality Bothaville (Bloemfontein:

Human Sciences Research Council).

Rubenstein, S., Otten, N. & Dolny, H. (1996) Beyond urban bias: a policy for rural housing, in: K. Rust &

S. Rubenstein (Eds) A Mandate to Build: Developing Consensus Around a National Housing Policy in South

Africa (Johannesburg: Raven Press).

Setplan (Settlement Planning Services) (2002) Evaluation of farm worker sanitation projects in the Northern

Cape (Northern Cape: Mvula Trust for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry).

Statistics South Africa (2004) Census 2001 data (Pretoria: Statistics South Africa).

Stouman, D. (1999) Landboudorpe: ’n Alternatief tot die Voorsiening van Plaaswerker Behuising (Stellenbosch:

Stellenbosch University).

Taylor, J. E. & Martin, P. L. (1997) The immigrant subsidy in US agriculture. Farm employment, poverty and

welfare, Population and Development Review, 23, pp. 855–874.

Tomlinson, M. (1995) From principle to practice: implementers’ views on the New Housing Subsidy Scheme

(Johannesburg: Johannesburg Centre for Policy Studies).

Tomlinson, M. (1998) South Africa’s new housing policy: an assessment of the first two years, 1994–1996,

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22, pp. 137–146.

Waterloos, E. & Rutherford, B. (2004) Land reform in Zimbabwe: challenges and opportunities for poverty

reduction among commercial farm workers, World Development, 32, pp. 537–553.

Wood, G. (1996) Towards a political economy of development: the radical critique of imperialism, in:

J. K. Coetzee & J. Graaff (Eds) Reconstruction, Development and People (Johannesburg: Thomson

Publishers).

World Bank (1993) Housing: Enabling Markets to Work (Washington DC: World Bank).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

4:24

09

Oct

ober

201

4

farm-worker housing in south africa: an evaluation of an off-farm housing project

Documents