Abstract
Land reform in South Africa has paid less attention to the creation of fair and viable postapartheid urban human settlements than it has to rural land reform. While expropriation of land with or without compensation will deliver land, the question as to what happens post-expropriation has not been addressed. A reconsideration and redesign of the South African legal, policy and institutional frameworks, and spatial planning instruments are required, in order to enable the process of urban land reform to deliver on the development of sustainable human settlements. Since a number of countries have successfully dealt with large-scale restructuring and redevelopment, an examination of the methods employed in two countries, namely Rwanda, post-the genocide in 1994, and The Netherlands, post-World War II, is undertaken to facilitate that process.
Highlights
Land reform in South Africa is both an objective in its own right – correcting the injustices of historical spatial dispossession and impoverishment – and a crucial tool in the realisation of multiple other objectives that relate mainly to rural land, and as such neglecting, to a large extent, the urban context of land reform (Pienaar, 2014: 647-648)
While recognition is given to the importance of meeting the overall objective and sharing the view of many both in and outside South Africa that its resolution is way overdue, the authors concur with others that urban land reform has received far too little attention (Cousins, 2016)
While many countries have been through such a process, two examples - one in Africa and one in Europe - were chosen for this purpose, namely Rwanda, post-the genocide in 1994, and The Netherlands, post-World War II
Summary
Land reform in South Africa is both an objective in its own right – correcting the injustices of historical spatial dispossession and impoverishment – and a crucial tool in the realisation of multiple other objectives that relate mainly to rural land, and as such neglecting, to a large extent, the urban context of land reform (Pienaar, 2014: 647-648). Mark Oranje & Jeannie van Wyk Land (and settlement) reform post-expropriation the parliamentary review process on expropriation without compensation during 2018 (RSA, 2019d: iv, 5, 11; RSA, 2019a: 15) This imbalance must be corrected, as the successful realisation of urban land reform is not concluded when the land is returned, or financial compensation paid. While many countries have been through such a process, two examples - one in Africa and one in Europe - were chosen for this purpose, namely Rwanda, post-the genocide in 1994, and The Netherlands, post-World War II Both these countries saw it as a priority to implement a set of integrated policies, legislation and plans; they realised that measures needed to be implemented expeditiously and they related to spatial redevelopment of urban areas. The aim is to learn what it took (The Netherlands), and what it is taking (Rwanda) to turn around dire situations where reconstruction and redevelopment were required, and what ‘insights’ they offer in guiding the process of reconsidering and remaking the legal, policy and institutional frameworks, and spatial planning instruments in South Africa
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
