The Southern African Regional Formation: A Geographical Perspective¶
Jonathan Crush (1982). The Southern African Regional Formation: A Geographical Perspective. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 73(4). Royal Dutch Geographical Society / Blackwell.
| Type | journal article |
| Scope | Economics and economic history of apartheid |
| Method | synthesis review |
| Period studied | 1860–1914 |
| Regions | Southern Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Natal and Zululand, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana |
| Themes | origins segregation, mining migrant labour, agriculture land, bantustans removals influx, comparative theory |
| Citation key | crush1982 |
Argument¶
Crush argues that the southern African regional formation (1860-1914) cannot be explained by generalised models of capitalist penetration, forced labour or labour-reserve functionalism. The routes by which African societies were drawn into migrant labour, peasant commodity production and impoverishment varied widely. Explanation requires attention to three things: the form of capital, the internal dynamic of each African social formation, and the local ecological base. He tests this on Lesotho, where an existing chiefly surplus-extraction system produced both grain and labour supply before coercion, and on Swaziland, where reserves were designed around the pre-colonial spatial structure and did not simply create labour reserves. He concludes that migrant labour and commodity production must be disaggregated and that a de-mystified articulation approach can guide this.
Evidence and method¶
Secondary literature on the region, especially the unpublished work of Judy Kimble on Lesotho and the work of Bundy, Webster, Delius, Beinart, Keegan and Unterhalter. Tables from Christopher (1976) and Palmer (1977) on land expropriation and man-land ratios, and Swaziland National Archives material on reserve carrying capacities. Maps of Swazi royal elements and chieftaincies in 1907.
Place in the debates¶
- Articulation of modes of production vs. world-systems and functionalist accounts of capitalist penetration (see Cheap labour thesis and the function of the reserves). Takes a qualified, critical position. Rejects the high-level abstraction of 'mode of production' and the passive treatment of African societies, but accepts a 'de-mystified' articulation framework as a starting point for historical-geographic analysis. Also rejects the universalism of world-systems analysis.
- Labour reserves as functional creations of capital (cheap labour thesis: Wolpe, Burawoy, Magubane, Wallerstein & Martin) (see Cheap labour thesis and the function of the reserves). Argues against conflating the origins of reserves with their later labour-reserve role. Reserve creation was shaped by local struggles between African, settler, Boer and company interests. Swaziland shows land was not reduced below subsistence in order to force labour out.
- Coercion and external inducement vs. internal African dynamics in the origins of migrant labour and peasant production (see The mine migrant labour system: origins, recruitment, foreign labour and stabilisation). Stresses internal dynamics: chiefly appropriation of surplus labour in Lesotho, and the social division of labour generally. He calls explanations resting only on coercion or market demand 'fundamentally misleading'.
- Universality of the Bundy peasant-to-proletarian sequence (see Agrarian transition to capitalism and the fate of the African peasantry). Disputes that the sequence was universal. Some societies (Swazi, Zulu) had no 19th-century commodity production, while others (Pedi) had migrant labour before it.
Findings¶
-
Frames the regional formation as forged by capitalist penetration between 1860 and 1914. (p. 1)
a regional social formation was forged in southern Africa on the anvil of capitalist penetration of African societies
-
The peasant-to-proletarian sequence was not universal; Swazi and Zulu societies lacked 19th-century commodity production. (p. 3)
In both Swazi and Zulu social formations, for example, commodity production absented itself from the 19th century historical stage
-
Among the Pedi, migrant labour preceded commodity production, showing varied sequences. (p. 3)
migrant labour actually preceded any notable development of commodity production
-
Labour supply from Swaziland and Zululand was late, contradicting a simple distance or availability logic. (p. 4)
Indeed, no significant labour movements were to emanate from Swaziland and Zululand until the 1890s.
-
After 1900 a regional labour market emerged dominated by Rand mining capital, despite earlier competition from local employers. (p. 4)
Nevertheless, particularly after 1900, a regional labour market was forged, dominated by the demands of South African mining capital.
-
Centralised recruiting for the Rand was slow and difficult to achieve, not a simple outcome of coercion. (p. 5)
centralized recruiting for the Rand mines was achieved only with a great deal of difficulty, and then not fully until as late as 1920.
-
Basotho migration was already large before coercive measures, organised largely by chiefs. (p. 6)
In 1879, an estimated 15,000 Basotho males were engaged in migrant labour, the majority of whom were sent out by the chiefs.
-
Basotho grain exports boomed in the 1870s, demonstrating an early commodity-producing response. (p. 6)
Exports of grain rose from 50,000 muids in 1871 to between 200,000 and 400,000 muids by the end of the decade
-
Reserves long predate the industrial-capital 'labour reserve' function; the first were created in Natal in 1840. (p. 7)
The first reserves were created in Natal as early as 1840
-
Swaziland's 'native requirement' calculation allocated land for current subsistence plus a 50% population increase. (p. 8)
A total of 621,907 ha (some 37% of the area of the country) was calculated as necessary to provide subsistence for the existing population and a 50% population increase.
-
The Swazi case does not support the thesis that land expropriation was meant to push households below subsistence. (p. 9)
Such a contention is not in fact supported by the actions of the colonial state in Swaziland,
-
The colonial state preserved pre-colonial landholding forms and chiefly control in the Swazi reserves. (p. 10)
the colonial state preserved these forms within the reserves through legislation prohibiting private property and individual tenure, and vesting control of land distribution with the Swazi chiefs where it had hitherto been.
Evidence ledger¶
Sources used¶
| Source | Kind | Period | How used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christopher 1976 (Southern Africa: An Historical Geography), data on land expropriation in Table 1 | secondary literature compilation | 1860-1911 | Supplies area and percentage of land in European farms by colony in 1860 and 1911 to show the extent of land expropriation. |
| Palmer 1977 (Land and Racial Domination in Rhodesia), data on man-land ratios in Table 2 | secondary literature compilation | 1914 | Provides hectares per head of reserve population and of total African population, showing wide discrepancies in African land access. |
| Swaziland National Archives, File DO9j2 (carrying capacity of the 32 Swazi reserves) | state archives | early 20th century (land partition) | Source of Table 3 giving area, population, stock, estimated carrying capacity and hectares per household for each reserve, used to show how the 'native requirement' was calculated. |
| Colonial tax records used to calculate Swazi total population for the 'native requirement' | official statistical series | early 20th century | Described as the basis for the colonial state's population calculation when determining reserve size, not examined directly by the author. |
| Kimble (1976, 1977, 1978) unpublished work on Lesotho, including the M.A. thesis (Towards an Understanding of the Political Economy of Lesotho) | secondary literature compilation | 1830-c.1885 | Supplies the Basotho account and the figures on grain exports (50,000 muids in 1871 rising to 200,000-400,000) and migrant numbers (about 15,000 in 1879). |
| Unterhalter (1979) study of migrant labour from the Nquthu district, Zululand/Natal | secondary literature compilation | 1879-1910 | Used for the three phases of migration (1879-90, 1890-1901, 1901-14) illustrating temporal fluctuation in labour supply. |
| Board 1967, Southern Africa, in Africa in Transition (basis of Fig. 1 map of labour reserves c.1914) | maps spatial data | c.1914 | Map of land still controlled by Africans in 1914 used to show the patchwork of reserves. |
| Swaziland maps of royal elements, chieftaincies in 1907, and reserve boundaries (Figs 2-4), drawn from Crush 1980b | maps spatial data | 1907 | Shows that reserve boundaries were drawn around existing locations of royal households, cattle posts, graves and chiefly homesteads. |
Inference¶
Quantification: Descriptive tables.
Historical-geographic synthesis of the secondary literature, set against the 'articulation of modes of production' framework. Comparison across regions and societies (Basotho, Swazi, Zulu, Pondo, Pedi) is used to argue for disaggregation, with two case studies (Lesotho from Kimble's work, Swaziland from archival land-partition material) and three descriptive tables.
Key claims¶
| Claim | Basis | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Paths of African incorporation into the regional formation varied, so the peasant-to-proletarian sequence was not universal. (p. 202) | Comparison across societies drawn from secondary studies (Guy, Bonner, Beinart, Kimble, Webster, Delius); no primary data presented. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
| Basotho commodity production and migrant labour before 1886 were driven by the internal social division of labour and the BaKoena chiefs' control over labour-time, not by coercion. (p. 205) | Kimble's unpublished thesis and papers, including grain export and migrant labour figures. | Partial data |
| Labour supply from particular societies fluctuated over time and space, with no simple relation to distance, because local and regional employers competed for labour. (p. 204) | Secondary studies (Ballard, Unterhalter, Gordon, Van Onselen, Vail & White). | Illustrative or anecdotal |
| Land expropriation was extensive by 1860 and continued to 1914, and reserves differed widely in size (man-land ratios). (p. 206) | Table 1 (Christopher 1976) and Table 2 (Palmer 1977), both secondary compilations. | Partial data |
| Swaziland reserves were sized to supply subsistence plus a 50% population increase, so land expropriation did not itself force labour release; taxation and tenancy did. (p. 208) | Swaziland National Archives File DO9j2 (Table 3) and the colonial 'native requirement' calculation, with 621,907 ha (37% of the country) reserved. | Partial data |
| The Swazi colonial state froze the pre-colonial spatial structure by drawing reserves around royal and chiefly sites, while 55% of commoner households had to relocate, reinforcing the chiefs' dominance. (p. 209) | Maps of royal elements and chieftaincies in 1907 (Figs 2-4) and the author's earlier work (Crush 1980b). | Partial data |
| Reserves were not created only as labour reserves; many predated industrial capital, and agrarian capital sometimes opposed them. (p. 206) | Secondary literature (Palmer, Lacey, Murray, Crush 1980a) and Table 1. | Asserted |
The author's caveats¶
The author acknowledges reliance on unpublished work (Kimble) and calls the carrying-capacity estimates a 'subjective analysis' by colonial officials. There are no other explicit caveats on data quality.
Gaps in the evidence¶
The paper depends almost wholly on secondary literature and unpublished theses, so its claims about migrant numbers, grain exports and reserve land cannot be checked against the underlying primary series. Colonial tax and population returns, hut-tax registers, recruiting and labour-supply statistics and magistrates' reports would test the comparative claims on labour supply and land. These records existed then and survive in colonial archives, but are not used directly.
Replicability: Data poorly documented.