
































Microsoft Word - APE-V3N3-p46


Advances in Politics and Economic 
ISSN 2576-1382 (Print) ISSN 2576-1390 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape 

46 
 

Original Paper 

Politics of Land and Agrarian Reforms in Africa: Examining the 

Challenges and Solutions 

Onyango M. Ang’anyo1* & Letangule S. Leiro2  
1 Lecturer, Department of Training, Research and Consultancy, Kenya School of Government, Baringo 

Campus, Kenya  
2 The Director of Kenya School of Government, Baringo Campus, Kenya 
* Onyango M. Ang’anyo, Lecturer, Department of Training, Research and Consultancy, Kenya School 

of Government, Baringo Campus, Kenya 
 

Received: July 2, 2020        Accepted: August 20, 2020      Online Published: August 29, 2020 

doi:10.22158/ape.v3n3p46        URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ape.v3n3p46 
 

Abstract 

Land reforms fell out of favour with donors from the early 1970s—nonetheless, sporadic efforts to 

redistribute land continue. These reforms stemmed from shifts in the domestic balance of power 

between landowners and landless workers and peasants, which were quite independent of donor 

policies. Whereas the geographical context and individual country strategies may be new, the range of 

land reforms measures being adopted and the implementation problems encountered are not. The 

standard argument for tenure reforms centres on the role of uncertainty in discouraging investment on 

land that is held without long-term security. Land title that enhances such security may induce 

investment and productivity increases both from the demand side, as farmers become more certain of 

reaping the benefits of investment in the future; and from the supply side, by affording farmers better 

access to credit. The paper recommends that solutions to land and agrarian reforms in Africa should 

seek to achieve, in their broadest sense, reforms that entail a wide spectrum of options such as land 

claims, acquisition and distribution of land, access to land for certain purposes, land use planning, 

infrastructure development, farming and commercial support, resettlement programmes, security of 

tenure and training. 

Keywords 

politics, land, agrarian, reforms, challenges, solutions 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

47 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction 

“Land reforms” and “agrarian reforms” are often used interchangeably. Land reforms is generally 

accepted to mean; the redistribution of property or rights in land for the benefit of the landless, tenants 

and farm labourers, while Agrarian reforms—a construct of the Cold War to counter “communist” land 

reforms; embraces improvements in both land tenure and agricultural organization. (Note 1) Thus, land 

reforms pertains to the remodeling of tenure rights and the redistribution of land, in directions 

consistent with the political imperatives underlying the reform.  

Those favoring revolutionary change advocate a drastic, planned, public intervention to redistribute 

land. Yet attempts at drastic redistribution of private land, in the face of strong opposition from landed 

interests (and in some cases related budgetary impediments), may distract from more feasible 

evolutionary policies aimed at improving access and security of tenure for small farmers under 

alternative forms of individual and communal tenure, which do not involve expropriation and 

compensation.  

Land reform fell out of favour with donors from the early 1970s—nonetheless, sporadic efforts to 

redistribute land continue. These reforms stemmed from shifts in the domestic balance of power 

between landowners and landless workers and peasants, which were quite independent of donor 

policies. In the 1990s, decollectivisation and privatization in the former socialist economies provided a 

new dimension to land reforms; so too has majority rule in South Africa, where the racially-skewed 

ownership of land is under challenge and where market-based measures to achieve land redistribution 

in favour of blacks are being tried. Whereas the geographical context and individual country strategies 

may be new, the range of land reform measures being adopted and the implementation problems 

encountered are not. Therefore, this paper sets out to discuss the challenges and solutions to land and 

agrarian reforms in Africa. 

 

2. Challenges and Solutions to Land and Agrarian Reforms in Africa 

2.1 Challenges to Land and Agrarian Reforms in Africa 

“What is a title deed anyway? It is just a piece of paper” (Note 2). These words were spoken by a 

Kenyan Minister after the bloody eviction of twelve thousand families by the minister’s private army 

and police from an immigration zone in southern Kenya in October 1993. His words summarize 

growing conflicts over and tensions about access to land on the Afncan continent. As recently as 1989, 

the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development noted that “... land availability was 

not a major problem m the context of most African countries” (Note 3). However, nowadays, access to 

land is becoming problematic—Africa’s land use and tenure frontiers are shifting. Is the continent 

heading for a situation in which landlessness and unequal land distribution patterns resemble those of 

the Asian and Latin American continents? 

Three major lines of policy towards land prevailed in Africa during the early 1980s. In some countries, 

there was a shift towards the socialization of land by way of co-operatives and state farms (such as 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

48 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Mozambique). In other countries, the privatization and individualization of land was either continued 

or begun (for example Kenya and Malawi). Thirdly, some countries made adaptations to existing 

tenures to modify the relations between the tribal chiefs and the state, as in the Gambia and Lesotho 

(Note 4). In general, the switch towards the second type of land policy is what seems to be prevailing in 

Africa at the present time.  

In Kenya, high potential agricultural land is limited to some 20 percent of its territory. This has a 

distorted land ownership structure, which is a legacy of the colonial period, during which high-potential 

arable and good pasture land was reserved for white settlers—no real correction was implemented in 

the post-colonial period. By the late 1970s some 2.4 percent of Kenyan holdings accounted for some 32 

percent of Kenya’s total arable land. In 1990, landlessness in Kenya was estimated to affect some 10 

percent of the total population increasing by at least 1.5 percent annually. In the late 1960s, in order to 

deal with the problem of diminishing land availability, the World Bank urged breaking away from the 

community-based systems of land, which ensured security of ownership to certain groups.  

Besides the transfer of land formerly held by Europeans to African farmers and the creation of 

settlement schemes, the Kenyan land use policy was mainly directed at the adjudication and 

registration of land in the “non-scheduled” areas. The rationale for this replacement of customary land 

rights by individual tenure arrangements was to create a collateral for loans and the encouragement of 

long-term investments. A negative consequence, however, has been the creation of a group of landless 

people, as land has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a happy few (Note 5)—African 

farmers constituted particularly of businessmen, politicians and civil servants. This probably explains 

the high political constraints for a real land reform policy within Kenya. 

Furthermore, in spite of a land reform started in the 1950s, under which land in the hands of whites was 

transferred to Africans, the major challenge has been that; an unequal land distribution has remained a 

feature of Kenya. The Maasai pastoralists, in particular, have lost huge amounts of land. After the loss 

of their high-potential lands in Central Kenya, they now face the influx of agricultural groups and 

large-scale capitalist farmers following the individualization of land held under statutory group title. 

This communally-owned private title, introduced in the late 1960s, replaced traditional 

community-based management regulations over resources. 

Moreover, the group ranches failed, mainly because of their sociologically and ecologically 

unsustainable format. Growing negative feelings towards the group ranch concept fueled the ultimate 

call for subdivision into individually-owned plots to bring back flexibility in herd and range 

management in the hands of the individual producers and prevent exploitation of the poor by the rich. 

Most notably, however, has been the effect of the creation of a land market—it is not so much 

individualization as such, but rather the commoditization of land that has been responsible for a rapidly 

growing stratification in the Maasai area. Many Maasai “were not ready” for the reform in land tenure 

(Note 6). They engaged themselves, sometimes tricked, into land transfers to better-off segments within 

society. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

49 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In South Africa “The last few years have seen the wholesale abandonment of economic planning based 

on social property concepts to a planning pattern emphasizing some form of private property rights” 

(Note 7). This “property rights” paradigm is based on neo-classical economic theories—it argues that 

traditional African land-tenure Systems induce inefficient allocation of resources, because property 

rights are not clearly defined, costs and rewards are not internalized, and contracts are not legal or 

enforceable. The theory holds that individualization of land tenure; first, increases the landholder’s 

security of tenure; secondly, increases investments by improving tenure security; and thirdly, will 

transfer land to those who are able to extract a higher value of product from the land as more 

productive users bid land away from less productive users (Note 8).  

Therefore, in South Africa the government land reform policy is to redress the injustices of 

colonialization and apartheid; to foster national reconciliation and stability; to underpin economic 

growth; and to improve household welfare and alleviate poverty. However, the challenge is to find a 

way of redistributing land to the needy while at the same time maintaining public confidence in the 

land market. The issue of restitution has concerned in the first place, the relocation of some millions of 

people dispossessed by racially discriminatory legislation and practice. Restitution can take the form of 

restoration of the land from which claimants were dispossessed, the provision of alternative land, 

payment of compensation or a combination of the above measures. One of the most controversial 

elements in the land reform proposals has been the clause which allows the government to expropriate 

land at payments below market value. 

A major land reform was started in Kenya in the 1950s. It was based mainly on western ideas of 

individual freehold tenure, but also allowed the registration of group titles, especially in the dry zones 

of the country. Recently, South Africa also embarked on the development of a comprehensive land 

reform programme, its goal is to address the legacy of “apartheid” in relation to land distribution and to 

create security of tenure in land rights for South Africans (Republic of South Africa 1996). Could 

Kenyan experiences of group tenure provide a model for the South African land reform policy? Or 

should they adopt “modern” concepts of individual tenure Systems? Both during and after the great 

scramble for Africa by the Western imperialist powers at the end of the nineteenth century 

land-grabbing became a central theme. Throughout the colonial period the colonial Government, by 

legal enactment or other drastic measures, carried forward their policy of slicing away the land from 

the African people. By direct seizure, conquest, pressure on chiefs, trickery swindling, the repudiation 

of pledges and promises, and by every other means open to them, the representatives of the European 

powers took land (Note 9).  

In Kenya, as in other African territories, African land was appropriated for the exclusive use of 

immigrant white colonialists—a good deal more land was alienated than could be put to effective use 

by the immigrant white settlers as explained in large measure by the white settlers’ insatiable need for 

African labour in their estates. As late as 1940, according to Barnett, there remained over one million 

acres within the White Highlands which lay unused for either crops or pasture; so that when Jomo 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

50 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Kenyatta, then general secretary of the Kikuyu Central Association, said, “What Africans want now is 

not commissions but the restitution of their land” (Note 10), he was speaking not only for the Kikuyu 

and Kenyans but for the African majority throughout European colonies.  

Agriculture has continued to be the most important sector of Africa’s economy after independence. 

Nevertheless, the years after independence have witnessed dramatic changes in the agricultural sector. 

The racial division which had earlier marked African agriculture came to an end as most European 

settlers sold their farms and left African countries. The face of rural Africa was also transformed by the 

extension of land consolidation and individual tenure to most of the countries’ best agricultural land. 

Despite these very substantial changes, Africa has experienced rising levels of agricultural production 

since independence years. There still remain significant differences between what can be termed the 

small-farm and large-farm sectors of the agricultural economy.  

In some countries, there was a shift towards the socialization of land by way of co-operatives and state 

farms (for example, Mozambique). In other countries, the privatization and individualization of land 

was either continued or begun (like in Kenya and Malawi). Thirdly, some countries made adaptations to 

existing tenures to modify the relations between the tribal chiefs and the state, as in the Gambia and 

Lesotho. In general, therefore, the switch towards the second type of land policy is what seems to be 

prevailing in Africa at the present time. 

Land reforms which eventually began in the period preceding independence, have been characterized 

by two distinct types of Government programmes; one provided for the transfer of European farms to 

African ownership; and the other provided for land consolidation, registration, and the prevention of 

ownership on the basis of individual tenure in the former African “reserves”. The first type of land 

reform basically consisted of two types of schemes for land transfer; on one hand the Government 

undertook the purchase and subdivision of settler farms for ownership by African small holders (Note 

11).  

Furthermore, land and agrarian reforms have moved up and down the ladder of development priorities 

over the past fifty plus years. Older concerns with ensuring security of tenure, so encouraging 

investment and improving productivity of land are now joined—though often in uneasy tension—by 

newer imperatives for poverty reduction. Despite such shifts, the debates continue to turn on 

distinctions between statutory and customary law, formal and informal tenure systems, and, as the 

introductory essay (Sikor and Mueller) of this issue describes, state-led and community-led reforms. 

Some challenges of land and agrarian reforms emanate from the fact that this process was undertaken 

for economic and political reasons—it was felt that more intensive use by small holders would lead to 

increased outputs and enable the farms to earn higher incomes than they had been able to previously. It 

was also intended, of course, to provide an agricultural livelihood for thousands of landless people and 

to “pay off” the European settlers with as little embarrassment as possible to the British Government. 

Moreover, it has also been argued that one main purpose of the settlement schemes was to preserve 

large-scale agriculture. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

51 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Furthermore, the much better-known Swynnerton Plan—A Plan to Intensify the Development of 

African Agriculture in Kenya—involved consolidating land fragments into single holdings and issuing 

registered freehold titles to individuals. The larger leaseholders would then be able to borrow from the 

commercial banks or from the government on the security of their title. However, the political 

implications were quite explicit—“former government policies will be reversed and able, energetic or 

rich Africans will be able to acquire more land, and bad or poor farmers less—creating a land and a 

landless class. This is the challenge common in the evolution of a country.” (Note 12)  

The Kenyan Harambee scheme, which was originally projected to begin in 1966, got underway in 1969; 

by that time, it had been decided to reduce considerably the size of the programme. The Haraka 

scheme, directed specifically toward squatters on European farms, was hastily established in the 

mid-1960s; and the plots provided to such families were averagely smaller than those under the Million 

Acre programme. The Government soon came to view the results of the Haraka scheme as not very 

satisfactory—they faced challenges such as being established on mismanaged large farms which had 

been poorly developed to start with. The settlement authorities undertook little development work, and 

the farmers received little financial assistance for developing their lands; thus by 1974, both the Haraka 

and Harambee schemes had been supplanted by the Shirika scheme (Note 13). The eventual aim of the 

Shirika scheme was to transfer responsibility for the farm to a co-operative society formed from the 

tenants.  

According to Christopher Leo, however, the Shirika farms functioned to a significant degree “as a 

welfare programme for uncaptured peasants” (Note 14). Whatever the purpose, it became clear in the 

mid-1970s that this development of co-operative group farms was not likely to succeed. Government 

reports noted a clear lack of interest in such enterprises by the African families settled on Shirika 

schemes—most wished to own and operate their own individual holdings. It was also argued that the 

creation of small-scale units held significant economic advantages over the proposed large-scale units. 

The former could generate more employment, had lower costs per unit of output, and could obtain 

market output per hectare at least as high as on larger farms. As a result of such thinking, the standard 

one-hectare subsistence plot on Shirika farms was increased to two in 1978; thereafter, Shirika farms 

were subdivided into small-scale units, not only by the ex-squatters, but also by more affluent farmers 

seeking more land. By 1983, this process of subdivision was largely complete. (Note 15)  

The cost to establish and maintain infrastructure in rural areas is high, urban areas in Africa are under 

pressure due to rapid urbanization and general conditions for the farming and pastoral industries are 

tougher than before. As a consequence, the main problem in the respective case studies is not 

necessarily a shortage of available land on the market for acquisition for the landless, but rather the 

establishment of viable enterprises on such land. The obvious risk, however, to the landless is that they 

may be entering an industry that is virtually on its knees—and rather than addressing poverty and 

unemployment, it may exacerbate social problems. 

Finally, the European land tenure resulted in displacement of groups of Africans and stabilization of the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

52 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

boundaries between various tribes; those who were displaced still claim that the land taken from them 

is rightful property of their people. Thus, tribal rights in land are clearly marked in the minds of the 

people—such a situation presents political challenges for the Government. There are areas with quality 

underutilized land—what is the feasibility of settling outsiders on the land? What would be the 

response of the local people? In some areas where spontaneous settlement by outsiders has occurred, 

inter-ethnic conflicts are common—this poses a serious challenge to the Government as it tries to tackle 

the land question. The demand for land causes discontentment and dissatisfaction with the Government; 

in addition, since many of the landless are also jobless, they are unable to pay taxes which is a further 

challenge to the Government (Note 16). 

2.2 Solutions to Land and Agrarian Reform in Africa 

Colonial and immediate post-independence states’ attempts to resolve the land question through 

reforms such as the Swynnerton Plan and the Settlement Schemes are assessed and mostly found 

inadequate as they were primarily concerned with tenure, rather than distributive aspects of the land 

question. The Njonjo Commission and the Ndung’u Commission Reports are further assessed and 

found inadequate as they were limited by their terms of reference to inquire and report primarily on the 

legal status of public land and their illegal/irregular allocations. It is, however, concluded that the Draft 

National Land Policy, the provisions on land in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and the Land Act No. 

6 of 2012, if implemented, have the potential for positive resolution of the land question—they all 

emphasize equity and due regard for women, children and individuals with disability in land 

distribution, the establishment of a National Land Commission, and decentralization of land 

administration. (Note 17)  

The World Bank evaluates agrarian reforms using five dimensions: first, price and market liberalization; 

second, land reform (including the development of land markets), third; agro-processing and input 

supply channels; fourth, rural finance, and; fifth, market institutions. Therefore, a key precondition for 

land reforms to be feasible and effective in improving beneficiaries’ livelihoods is that such programs 

fit into a broader policy aimed at reducing poverty and establishing a favourable environment for the 

development of productive smallholder agriculture by beneficiaries (Note 18). This can be a suitable 

solution to land and agrarian reforms in Africa. 

International political and economic support for land reforms in especially African case studies is 

crucial to the success of the programmes. African countries simply do not have the resources to deal 

effectively with the land programmes they have embarked upon. When Kenya started with land reform 

shortly after independence it received so much foreign support that only five per cent of costs had to be 

financed by government from own resources. 

Land consolidation and registration is one important solution towards land and agrarian reform in 

Africa. The term land consolidation denotes both the act of eradicating excessive dispersion of parcels 

forming one farm; and, enclosure. The latter means the process in which land being used under 

customary tenure is divided among individuals and boundaries erected, while unused land is parceled 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

53 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

and distributed to individuals on the principle that each member of the clan claiming rights in the area 

should have his own separate piece of land and to hold it absolutely—this distribution of unused land is 

also referred to as the process of “land distribution” (Note 19).  

A key element that impacts upon the way in which land restoration is approached is whether land 

reform is market-driven, non-market driven or a combination of the two. By market-driven reform is 

meant where new tenants or the state have to acquire land on a willing buyer–willing seller basis. 

Whether the state or new tenant acquires the land, experience shows that the process can be very costly 

and is usually driven by land that becomes available on the market rather than acquiring land in a 

cohesive manner in pursuance of a land acquisition plan. Non-market driven reform is where the state 

opts for a policy of expropriation whereby land is taken (with or without adequate compensation) for 

redistribution. It could also include packages to assist new tenants to find their feet, establish their 

businesses and support them for a period of time.  

Therefore, non-market driven reform has the benefit that government can decide where and when it 

wants to expropriate land, but if abused, as in Zimbabwe, it has obvious implications for democratic 

standards and economic development and stability. Hence successful land reform model probably 

requires a combination of market and non-market reform. Any land reform programme should therefore 

be reflective of the social, cultural and economic realities that impact upon the new landowners. In 

essence land tenure systems are not “simply products of planning institutions. They are forms of social 

organization” (Note 20) that reflect the value systems, culture and traditions of people.  

In collaboration with stakeholders, including the private and non-government sectors, the Africans 

Government should set up tenure reform projects in selected test areas to establish best practice. For 

example, it is for this reason that South African NGOs have now turned to other parts in Africa to learn 

from other land tenure reform experiences. Kenya, in particular, is of interest to the South Africans 

because of interesting similarities with the South African situation in the areas of redistribution, 

restitution and tenure reforms. 

It is crucial to determine with clarity which government department is ultimately responsible for the 

overseeing and implementation of land reforms, and of support services following the restitution of 

rights in land. Both centralized and decentralized options carry risks—while the strategic objective is to 

get land reform under way, coordination between tiers of government and departments within the 

respective tiers is crucial to success. In most case studies African Governments, a fragmented approach 

has caused delays and poor focus, which in turn has led to failure. Zimbabwe and Kenya have ample 

examples where intra-departmental factions and conflicts impacted and contributed to the failure of 

projects. In South Africa, the initially overly centralized process stood guilty of the very problems it 

wanted to avoid (Note 21).  

Finally, lessons which can be drawn for African land reforms, in particular experiments in group tenure, 

would include: adaptation—interventions and methods of enforcement should build on local land tenure 

practices; security of tenure—group titles can be instrumental in assisting large groups of less well-off 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

54 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

people. The most appropriate set of tenure rights should be determined by the proper mix of ecological 

conditions and socio-economic situation; timing—movement toward individual tenure reform should 

be initiated only when technical and socio-economic conditions warrant it. Local groups and 

Non-Governmental Organizations should be involved in an open and transparent allocation. Most of all, 

people should be aware of the value of land and the possibilities for sustainable development in the 

individualized plots. 

 

3. Conclusion 

From the foregoing discourse, it is evident that Land reform is probably one of the most difficult 

domestic policy issues to be dealt with by African countries. In most of these countries the process of 

land reforms is incomplete. Zimbabwe, on one side of the spectrum, is facing a crisis in 

democratization due to its radical approach to land reform. On the other side of the spectrum there is 

Namibia, where the winds of change and the pressure to “radicalize” land reforms are increasing. And 

then there is South Africa where systems and policies to deal with land reform are probably the most 

advanced from a legal perspective, but where the resources, patience and other practical issues to 

execute reforms effectively are becoming serious hurdles in implementing policies. 

Access to land is becoming increasingly a problem in Africa today. In addition to a growth in the 

human population, tenure reforms are foremost responsible for this—Statutory law is replacing 

customary laws. The standard argument for tenure reform centres on the role of uncertainty in 

discouraging investment on land that is held without long-term security. Land title that enhances such 

security may induce investment and productivity increases both from the demand side, as farmers 

become more certain of reaping the benefits of investment in the future; and from the supply side, by 

affording farmers better access to credit.  

The rationale for this “replacement” paradigm, however, can be questioned from the economic, 

ecological and social point of view; especially for those regions where agro-ecological conditions are 

limiting and local groups lack the necessary experience and formal education to compete with better 

equipped groups in society. Therefore, solutions to land and agrarian reforms in Africa should seek to 

achieve, in their broadest sense, reforms that entail a wide spectrum of options such as land claims, 

acquisition and distribution of land, access to land for certain purposes, land use planning, 

infrastructure development, farming and commercial support, resettlement programmes, security of 

tenure and training (Note 22). 

 

References 

Barrows, R., & Roth, M. (1990). Land tenure and Investment in Afncan agriculture; theory and 

evidence. The Journal of Modem African Studies, 28(2). 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X00054458 

Bertus De Villiers. (2003). Land Reform: Issues and Challenges; A comparative overview of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

55 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

experiences in Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa. Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Occasional 

Papers April 2003. Johannesburg, South Africa. April 2003. 

Christopher, L. (1984). Land and Class in Kenya. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. 

Csaba, C., & John, N. (1998). The Agrarian Economies of Central and Eastern Europe and the 

Commonwealth of Independent States. In World Bank Discussion Paper (No. 387). Washington, 

DC. 

Fallen, L. E. (1962). Masaai Range Resources. Kajiado District, USAID. Nairobi, Kenya. 

Leys, C. (1975). Under-development in Kenya; The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism 

(1964-1971). In East African Educational Publishers. Nairobi, Kenya. 

Maxon, R. M., & Ochieng, W. R. (Eds.). (1992). An Economic History of Kenya. East African 

Educational Publishers Limited. Nairo, Kenya. 

Mbithi, M. P., & Barnes, C. (1975). The Spontaneous Settlement Problem in Kenya. East African 

Literature Bureau. Nairobi, Kenya. 

Ndege, P. B. O. (2012). From Accumulation of Women and Children to “Land Grabbing”: Agrarian 

Kleptocracy and the Land Question in Kenya. Moi University Press. Eldoret, Kenya. 

Ochieng, R. W. (1977). The Second Word; More Essays on Kenya History. East African Literature 

Bureau. Nairobi, Kenya. 

Peters, B. L., & Malan, N. (2000). Caveats for land reform in South Africa: Lessons from Zimbabwe. 

South African Journal of International Affairs (No. 7). 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10220460009545323 

Riddell, J. C. (1988). Dynamics of land tenure and spontaneous changes in African Agrarian Systems. 

In Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperation (No. 1/2). FAO, Rome. 

Ruth, H., & Lungisile, N. (Eds.). (2007). The Land Question in South Africa: The Challenge of 

Transformation and Redistribution. HSRC Press. Cape Town.  

Swynnerton, R. J. M. (1955). A Plan to Intensify the Development of African Agriculture in Kenya. 

Government Printers. Nairobi, Kenya. 

 

Notes 

Note 1. Ruth, H., & Lungisile, N. (Eds.). (2007). The Land Question in South Africa: The Challenge of 

Transformation and Redistribution (p. 4). HSRC Press. Cape Town, South Africa.  

Note 2. Nation Correspondent. (1996). “What is a Title Deed Anyway”. Daily Nation Newspaper, 

February 29. 1996. Kenya, Nairobi, p. 7. 

Note 3. WCARRD. (1988). The Impact of Development Strategies on the Rural Poor. World 

Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, 1979-1989, 10 years of follow up, FAO, 

Rome. 

Note 4. Ibid.  

Note 5. Leys, C. (1975). Underdevelopment in Kenya; The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economic                   Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

56 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

(1964-1971). East African Educational Publishers. Nairobi, Kenya. p. 63. 

Note 6.  Fallen, L. E. (1962). Masai Range Resources: Kajiado District, USAID. Nairobi, Kenya. 

Note 7. Riddell, J. C. (1988). Dynamics of land tenure and spontaneous changes in African Agrarian 

Systems. Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperation, no. 1/2, FAO, Rome. pp. 39-52. 

Note 8. Barrows, R., & Roth, M. (1990). Land tenure and Investment in Afncan agriculture; theory and 

evidence. The Journal of Modem African Studies, 28(2), 265-297. 

Note 9. Ochieng, R. W. (1977). The Second Word; More Essays on Kenya History. East African 

Literature Bureau. Nairobi, Kenya. p. 110. 

Note 10. Ibid. p. 112. 

NOTE 11. Maxon, R. M., & Ochieng, W. R (Eds.). (1992). An Economic History of Kenya. East 

African Educational Publishers Limited. Nairo, Kenya. p. 273. 

Note. 12. Swynnerton, R. J. M. (1955). A Plan to Intensify the Development of African Agriculture in 

Kenya. Government Printers. Nairobi, Kenya. p. 10. 

Note. 13. Republic of Kenya. (1978). Economic Survey. Government Press. Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 75 and 

76. 

Note 14. Christopher Leo. (1984). Land and Class in Kenya. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, 

Canada. p. 190. 

Note 15. Ibid. pp. 182-184. 

Note 16. Mbithi, M. P., & Barnes, C. (1975). The Spontaneous Settlement Problem in Kenya. East 

African Literature Bureau. Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 79-80. 

Note 17. Ndege, P. B. O. (2012). From Accumulation of Women and Children to “Land Grabbing”: 

Agrarian Kleptocracy and the Land Question in Kenya. Moi University Press. Eldoret, Kenya. p. 4. 

Note 18. Csaba, C., & John, N. (1998). The Agrarian Economies of Central and Eastern Europe and the 

Commonwealth of Independent States. World Bank Discussion Paper no. 387. Washington, DC. 

Note 19. Mbithi, M. P., & Barnes, C. (1975). The Spontaneous Settlement Problem in Kenya. Op. Cit. p. 

60. 

Note 20. Peters, B. L., & Malan, N. (2000). Caveats for land reform in South Africa: Lessons from 

Zimbabwe. South African Journal of International Affairs, no. 7. p. 152. 

Note 21. Bertus, De Villiers. (2003). Land Reform; Issues and Challenges; A comparative overview of 

experiences in Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa. Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Occasional Papers 

April 2003. Johannesburg, South Africa. April 2003. p. 146. 

Note 22. S Batterbury, Report read at workshop, ‘Politics of land reform in the “new” South Africa’. 

London School of Economics, 7 June 2000 <www.lse.ac.uk/depts/destin/simon/safrica> 

 


