IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae10/96156.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Game Theoretic Framework for Cooperative Benefits in South Africa’s Land Redistribution Process: A Case of Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal Sugarcane Farmland Transfers

Author

Listed:
  • Mbatha, C. Nhlanhla
  • Antrobus, G.G.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Mbatha, C. Nhlanhla & Antrobus, G.G., 2010. "A Game Theoretic Framework for Cooperative Benefits in South Africa’s Land Redistribution Process: A Case of Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal Sugarcane Farmland Transfers," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96156, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae10:96156
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.96156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/96156/files/98.%20Game%20theory%20and%20land%20reform%20in%20KZN.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.96156?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
    2. Richard Brinkman, 1995. "Economic Growth versus Economic Development: Toward a Conceptual Clarification," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 1171-1188, December.
    3. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duarte N. Leite & Sandra T. Silva & Oscar Afonso, 2014. "Institutions, Economics And The Development Quest," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 491-515, July.
    2. Wilfred Dolfsma, 2001. "Economists as subjects: Toward a psychology of economists," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 30(2), pages 77-88, March.
    3. Citera, Emanuele & Sau, Lino, 2019. "Complexity, Conventions and Instability: the role of monetary policy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201924, University of Turin.
    4. Petrick, Martin, 2004. "Can Econometric Analysis Make (Agricultural) Economics A Hard Science? Critical Remarks And Implications For Economic Methodology," IAMO Discussion Papers 14911, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    5. Emmanuel Yeboah-Assiamah & Kobus Muller & Kwame Ameyaw Domfeh, 2018. "‘Complex crisis’ and the rise of collaborative natural resource governance: institutional trajectory of a wildlife governance experience in Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 2205-2224, October.
    6. Eicher, Theo S. & Schreiber, Till, 2010. "Structural policies and growth: Time series evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 169-179, January.
    7. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    8. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    9. Elisa D?Adamo, 2018. "La Cost-Benefit Analysis delle grandi infrastrutture: un riesame del Large Hadron Collider (LHC) del CERN," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1-2), pages 97-108.
    10. Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta, 2010. "Editors’ Introduction," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Osei-Tutu, Francis & Weill, Laurent, 2023. "Individualism reduces borrower discouragement," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 370-385.
    12. J. Kornai., 2002. "The System Paradigm," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 4.
    13. Suzuki, Tomo, 2003. "The accounting figuration of business statistics as a foundation for the spread of economic ideas," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 65-95, January.
    14. Nastasi, Federico & Spagano, Salvatore, 2023. "Institutionalist Clues in Celso Furtado’s Economic Thought," MPRA Paper 120242, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Evans, Lewis & Meade, Richard, 2005. "The Role and Significance of Cooperatives in New Zealand Agriculture, A Comparative Institutional Analysis," Working Paper Series 3847, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    16. Heira Georgina Valdez-Bocanegra & Gonzalo Maldonado-Guzmán & Carmen Castrejón-Mata, 2020. "The Entrepreneurial Orientation and its Impact on Competitiveness and Growth: Empirical Evidence in the State of Aguascalientes in Mexico," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 10(3), pages 1-6.
    17. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2021. "On the optimality of outsourcing when vertical integration can mitigate information asymmetries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    18. Roberto Foa & Anna Nemirovskaya & Elena Mostovova, 2013. "Internal Empires I: Social Institutions of the Frontier," HSE Working papers WP BRP 09/SOC/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    19. Aseem Kaul & Jiao Luo, 2018. "An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1650-1677, June.
    20. Graupe, Silja & Steffestun, Theresa, 2018. ""The market deals out profit and losses": Wie ökonomische Standardlehrbücher das unreflektierte Denken in Metaphern fördern," Working Paper Series Ök-38, Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Institut für Ökonomie.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaae10:96156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaaeaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.