In the Shadow of Policy. Robert Ross

The ‘commercial’ logic applies also to loans. If beneficiaries are unable to repay loans and other debts, they can lose their newly acquired land. This happens quite frequently (Hall 2004: 58).

      The ‘land lost’ phenomenon has drawn attention to the question of whether beneficiary needs are accommodated in the business plans. Do beneficiaries agree with the expert recommendations and prescriptions? Is it not likely that the lack of beneficiary involvement in the construction of business plans contributes to their failure to follow the plans and, ultimately, to the land reform process itself being seen as a failure (Agri SA Media Release 2009; Lahiff 2008: 32)? Research confirms that land reform projects rarely succeed in developing an economic performance that matches expectations (Agri-Africa Consultants 2005: iv). Beneficiary interpretations of expert prescriptions could help to indicate what beneficiaries can realistically be expected to accomplish with their available resources, networks, experience and competencies.

      Theoretical points of departure

      I have employed an ethnographic study of the Lethu-Sonke and Good Hope projects in order to explore what land reform pratices are emerging, as well as how and whether beneficiaries of land reform relate to one another, to consultants and to government officials. This actor-oriented and constructivist approach has led me to see development-cum-land-reform as many-sided, complex and often contradictory in nature, encompassing multiple realities. The key is attributing agency – ‘the capacity to make a difference’ (Long 2001: 3) – to all those who are involved in land reform, including beneficiaries, experts, consultants, policymakers and extension agents. The idea of agency also expresses the capacity of social actors to change and adapt their situations and to create something new and unexpected from existing conditions (Long 2001: 15). Experts tend to ignore or dismiss people’s agency and their ability to shape social life (Arce and Long 2000: xv).

      The experts who are involved in the land redistribution process are frequently referred to in policy documents as ‘key stakeholders’ with ‘key responsibilities’ (DLA 2008: 3, 11, 13). Together they constitute a system ‘of technical accomplishment or professional expertise that organises large areas of the material and social environments in which we live today’ (Giddens 1990: 27). Expert systems possess typical characteristics. They value those actions that contribute towards the goals they have set (Giddens 1990: 10). They create the rules by means of which participants in a project are selected, and authorise the continued involvement of these participants in a project’s activities. They allocate resources such as grants and possess the authority to sanction or prescribe different forms of activity and conduct. They have ‘the power to define behaviour as rational, and therefore as desirable, whereas alternatives will appear as less rational, if not irrational’ (Giddens 1990: 230). An expert system develops a clear picture of the solution to problems, as well as what the future looks like (Van der Ploeg 2003: 229).