The University of the Free State released findings that challenge the long-standing belief that giving rural households more land will automatically improve their incomes. The research, published on Moneyweb, examined 132 small-scale farming households in Emmaus, KwaZulu-Natal and Thaba Nchu, Free State.
Both sites are former homelands where apartheid-era laws such as the 1913 Natives Land Act left the Black population with fragmented, low-productivity land. Current policy documents, the National Development Plan 2030, the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme, the Strategic Plan for Smallholder Support and the Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan, assume that expanding land ownership will turn “small-scale farmers” into commercial producers and drive economic growth.
What the study actually observed was that farming remains a key source of food security, but it is rarely the main source of cash. Households combine farming with wage employment, small businesses, social grants and other activities. In Emmaus only 16% of households and in Thaba Nchu 19% earned enough from all sources to rise above the South African Food Poverty Line of R868 per person per month.
Why land is not the bottleneck
The researchers found that labour shortages, not land scarcity, were the biggest barrier to expanding production. Many families owned or had access to land but lacked the hands to work it. In Emmaus, poor road networks and unreliable water supply further limited the ability to increase yields. In Thaba Nchu, communal grazing land was often subject to conflicts that reduced livestock productivity.
Household aspirations also varied. Only 12% of heads of households in Emmaus and 36% in Thaba Nchu said they wanted to grow farming into a business. Younger dependants (aged 18-32) were far more likely to aim for education, wage jobs or migration, 64% in Emmaus and 80% in Thaba Nchu.
These differences mean that a one-size-fits-all policy that simply hands out more land will miss the complex reality of rural livelihoods. Households with stable off-farm income can invest in livestock, hire labour or buy inputs, while poorer families may have land but no cash or labour to make it productive.
Policy implications
According to the study’s authors, rural development strategies need to look beyond land redistribution. Effective interventions should address labour availability, infrastructure upgrades (roads, water), market access and the provision of credit that matches the seasonal nature of small-scale farming. Without these supporting elements, additional land is unlikely to translate into higher incomes or reduced poverty.
The findings echo earlier critiques that South Africa’s rural policies have been overly focused on agriculture as a singular engine of growth. By treating small-scale farmers as a homogeneous group, policymakers risk designing programmes that help a minority while leaving the majority unchanged.
For entrepreneurs and SME owners operating in the agri-sector, the study suggests a market for services that complement farming, for example, labour-matching platforms, micro-finance products tied to harvest cycles, or logistics solutions that improve road connectivity. Such offerings could fill the gaps identified by the research and create new revenue streams.
While the government’s land-reform agenda remains politically important, the evidence points to a need for a broader, more integrated approach to rural development. Only by aligning land policy with investments in people, infrastructure and markets can the promise of “more land, better life” become a reality for the majority of South Africa’s rural households.
Read more about related agricultural policy issues in our Agri-Business coverage.
The study’s methodology combined household surveys, life-history interviews, farm mapping and focus-group discussions, allowing the team to capture both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of rural livelihoods. By triangulating these sources, researchers could identify patterns that a single data set might miss, such as how off-farm earnings are reinvested into livestock or hired labour. This mixed-methods approach also revealed that households with stable grant or wage income tended to allocate resources toward inputs, whereas those with erratic cash flows kept a larger share of land idle. Such nuance underscores why policies that treat all small-scale farmers as a monolith risk overlooking divergent capacity to act on land assets.
Policy documents referenced by the authors, the National Development Plan 2030, the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme, the Strategic Plan for Smallholder Support and the Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan, each articulate a suite of goals beyond land redistribution, including employment creation, market participation and inclusive rural economies. The convergence of these objectives reflects an acknowledgement that land alone cannot address historic inequities rooted in the 1913 Natives Land Act. Yet the study suggests that the implementation of these multi-pronged aims remains uneven, with many programmes still prioritising land allocation while under-delivering on the complementary supports required for productive farming.
Labour scarcity emerged as the primary barrier to expanding cultivated area, a finding echoed in the researchers’ field notes. Households often possessed sufficient acreage but lacked the hands to work it, especially during peak planting periods. In Emmaus, the combination of inadequate road networks and unreliable water supply further constrained the ability to scale up, while in Thaba Nchu, disputes over communal grazing rights hampered livestock productivity. These constraints illustrate that without targeted interventions, such as seasonal labour-matching schemes or conflict-resolution mechanisms for shared resources, additional land parcels are unlikely to translate into higher yields or income growth.
Looking ahead, the authors outline the next steps for translating their insights into policy action. They recommend that future rural development frameworks embed mechanisms for monitoring labour availability, infrastructure quality and market access alongside land-allocation metrics. By aligning funding cycles with harvest calendars and establishing clear timelines for road and water upgrades, authorities can create a more responsive environment for small-scale producers. The study therefore calls for a coordinated rollout of complementary services, rather than a sequential or isolated focus on any single element of the rural development agenda.
