A Game Theoretic Framework for Cooperative Benefits in South Africa’s Land Redistribution Process: A Case of Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal Sugarcane Farmland Transfers
A good indicator of successful farm redistribution cases has to be the continuation of viable productivity rates in their post transfer periods. Continued productivity benefits all the stakeholders that are involved in the process. Unfortunately negative productivity levels have been reported in numerous South African land redistribution transfers in recent years. A game theoretic perspective is adopted to argue that cooperation among key stakeholders, which could be enforced through long term contracts between a land buyer, sellers and new owners, would lead to higher productivity levels and other benefits. Additional benefits would, for example, include market related prices paid by a buyer. Sugarcane farm transfer cases from two municipality districts in KwaZulu Natal province are used to show that the productivity rates in post transfer periods of cooperative land sales were more than 10% higher than the rates observed before such transfers. At the opposite end of the scale, the productivity rates in noncooperative land sales dropped by 16% after land takeovers. Furthermore, the prices paid for farms that became less productive after transfers were higher by more than 40% compared to those paid for productive farms. The cases illustrate the values of cooperative strategies in economic transactions.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 254 20 6752866
Web page: http://www.aaae-africa.org
More information through EDIRC
Web page: http://www.aeasa.org.za/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaae10:96156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.