The findings of recent research on the aspirations of heads of households and their dependants in two former homeland areas call for a rethink of SA’s approach to rural development.
The researchers conclude that instead of pushing farming as the primary driver of rural development, public policy should expand opportunities beyond agriculture.
The findings resonate with economic development literature, especially the strands that talk to the tough choices policymakers must make.
One of these choices creates tension between politics and economic realities because development is by nature long term, and politics short term. It’s not like politicians to see beyond an electoral cycle.
Take the choice of whether to build a school, and in which location. Because a school is meant to last for decades, the decision requires peering decades into the future, looking at, among other things, future birth rates and migration patterns.
Such an approach has no appeal for politicians. It deprives them of a ribbon-cutting opportunity — that is, to be seen by voters on TV and other media. Politics therefore suffers from the tragedy of the horizon (a phrase coined in 2015 by then Bank of England governor Mark Carney, now Canadian prime minister).
Carney used the phrase in the context of climate change, making the point that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will happen beyond the traditional horizons of most actors — that is, beyond the business and political cycles as well as the horizon of technocratic authorities.
Rural development may suffer the same fate, especially given the aspirational gaps between the older and younger generations.
The latest SA research by Neo Mathinya, Angelinus Franke and Gerrie van den Ven (all of the University of the Free State), and Ken Giller and Jens Andersson (both of Wageningen University) finds that dependants, unlike household heads, “gravitate towards non-farming futures”. But their aspirations are frustrated by a lack of education and “modern skills”.
The study was undertaken in Thaba Nchu (which used to be part of the QwaQwa homeland) and Emmaus (in the former KwaZulu). In both communities dependants saw farming not as an end but a stepping stone to their aspirations.
These are pointers that younger people see a better life outside rural areas, and that calls for policymakers to carefully weigh decisions about investments in rural infrastructure (social and economic), specifically the type of infrastructure.
Rural development approaches must also consider that young people often shift to urban areas as their primary domicile while retaining rural links, using their urban incomes to upgrade their rural homesteads.
The researchers found that farming held cultural and economic significance in some areas — in particular Thaba Nchu, which has a strong history of market-oriented farming. However, farming “is seldom the dominant livelihood aspiration”.
The two communities differed on what constrained their farming aspirations. In Emmaus it was timely access to seeds, fertilisers and tools, while in Thaba Nchu it was poor infrastructure (roads and transport to take crops to urban markets), policy incoherence and poor community engagement.
The researchers call for a rethink of rural development policy and a move to one focused on widening opportunities to include farm and nonfarm sectors. Hence their recommendation for greater focus on vocational training.
“Therefore, the goal should be to enlarge the range of real and meaningful choices available to rural residents, enabling them to imagine — and work towards — livelihoods that align with their values, identities, and aspirations,” the researchers conclude.
• Sikhakhane, a former spokesperson for the finance minister, National Treasury and SA Reserve Bank, is editor of The Conversation Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.