Mechanizing farming: implications for employment, incomes and population distribution¶
Michael de Klerk (1984). Mechanizing farming: implications for employment, incomes and population distribution. Second Carnegie Inquiry into Poverty and Development in Southern Africa, Carnegie Conference Paper No. 27. SALDRU, School of Economics, University of Cape Town.
| Type | conference paper |
| Scope | Economics and economic history of apartheid |
| Method | survey fieldwork |
| Period studied | 1968–1981 |
| Regions | Western Transvaal, Bophuthatswana, Transkei, South Africa |
| Themes | agriculture land, labour markets wages, bantustans removals influx, inequality poverty unemployment, demography urbanisation |
| Citation key | klerk1984 |
Argument¶
Using a survey of 61 maize farms in six Western Transvaal districts, de Klerk shows that combine harvesters, bulk handling and chemical weedicides, together with larger farms, sharply cut seasonal (and to a lesser extent permanent) employment in 1968-81, mostly in 1973-77. Seasonal jobs shifted from workers in black rural areas (Bophuthatswana etc.) to families of resident farm workers, and men were replaced by women and children. Farmers cite labour unavailability, but cost calculations show combines were cheaper on nearly all farms, so the change is ascribed chiefly to new technology abroad and a rural 'labour push' rather than an urban 'labour pull'. State policy (tax write-offs, relocation) was at most a minor cause. Men probably found urban work, but women in rural areas bore the brunt of the job losses, and black families grew more dependent on urban incomes.
Evidence and method¶
Survey of 61 maize farms in six magisterial districts of the Western Transvaal (Coligny, Delareyville, Koster, Lichtenburg, Schweizer-Reneke, Wolmaransstad) covering 1968-81; Department of Agriculture annual cost-of-production wage data; census data on permanent farm workers; cost calculations from Department time studies; farmer interviews on reasons for mechanizing; Fisher's California harvest-labour study; Marais Commission report; Surplus People's Project.
Place in the debates¶
- Causes of farm mechanization (labour shortage/urban pull vs. technology/economies of scale/rural push) (see Farm labour: mechanisation, labour shedding, wages and labour control). Takes farmers' labour-shortage complaints seriously but concludes mechanization was chiefly driven by foreign technology and economies of scale, stimulated by farm enlargement and men's reluctance to take farm jobs; so a rural labour push rather than an urban labour pull.
- Role of state policy and the relocation programme in farm mechanization (see Farm labour: mechanisation, labour shedding, wages and labour control). Finds state policy (tax write-offs introduced 1977, removals, labour control boards) at most a minor cause; mechanization and consolidation were rather an informal, perhaps unintended, element of relocation.
- Mechanization and control over labour (deskilling) (see Farm labour: mechanisation, labour shedding, wages and labour control). Argues farmers sought greater control over the labour process, and that the loss of strength-based 'skills' weakened the bargaining position of reserve communities, though remaining machine operators gained marketable skills.
Findings¶
-
Combine harvesting spread from a quarter-to-30 percent of maize area to almost all of it, mostly 1973-77. (p. 3)
between 25 and 30 percent of the area planted with maize was being harvested by combine. By the end of the period, in 1981, this had risen to about 95 percent.
-
Per-hectare seasonal and permanent jobs in harvesting and delivery fell steeply. (p. 9)
the decline in the number of jobs is seen to have been almost 70 percent for seasonal and 50 percent for permanent workers.
-
Seasonal weeding jobs also contracted sharply after the introduction of weedicides. (p. 9)
On a constant (per 1000 ha of arable land) scale, the contraction turns out to have been much greater - about 60 percent.
-
Estimated number of seasonal workers in weeding/harvesting in the survey districts fell from about 105,000 to 40-45,000. (p. 10)
it appears to have been approximately 105000 in 1968 and 40 000 - 45 000 in 1981.
-
Seasonal harvest jobs shifted from workers in external black rural areas to families of permanent farm workers. (p. 10)
At the start of the period 66 out of every 100 seasonal harvest workers came from Bophuthatswana. By the end, no more than 44 out of every 100 did.
-
Jobs for external seasonal workers collapsed, while internal workers gained little in net terms. (p. 11)
could count on about 100 workplaces per 1 000 ha of maize harvested, by 1981 the number was less than 20.
-
Real wage gains were modest for seasonal workers but larger for permanent workers. (p. 7)
For seasonal workers, between 1969 and 1981, it is no more than 20 percent.
-
Cost calculations show combines were cheaper on nearly all farms, so mechanization was largely a matter of time. (p. 18)
the critical harvest tonnage above which it was cheaper to use combines was only 250 tonnes
-
Mechanization is ascribed mainly to technology from abroad and a rural labour push rather than an urban pull. (p. 19)
it is chiefly to the development of new technology abroad that harvest mechanization should be ascribed. This suggests that the reduction in farm employment was due mainly to a "rural labour push"
-
Women in black rural areas suffered most from job losses, lacking alternative employment. (p. 24)
It is women living in black rural areas who have borne the brunt of technological change on farms.
Evidence ledger¶
Sources used¶
| Source | Kind | Period | How used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author's survey of 61 maize farms in six magisterial districts of the Western Transvaal (Coligny, Delareyville, Koster, Lichtenburg, Schweizer-Reneke, Wolmaransstad), covering harvesting, delivery and weeding 1968-81 | author survey or fieldwork | 1968-1981 | Main evidence for technology adoption, farm size, yields, seasonal and permanent employment, worker composition, and farmers' stated reasons for mechanizing. |
| Department of Agriculture annual surveys of costs of maize production (about 80 farms visited in Western Transvaal) | official statistical series | 1969-1977 and later years | Supplies average cash wages of seasonal harvest workers and all-inclusive annual wages of permanent workers, set against the author's 1981 survey estimates. |
| Department of Agriculture time studies (labour-saving reorganisation of threshing) | official statistical series | 1960s | Used to calculate the share of the seasonal employment decline due to reorganised hand-harvesting before combines. |
| Agricultural census data on permanent farm workers in the region (1969 and 1978) | agricultural census | 1969-1978 | Shows permanent farm workers in the region fell only from about 30,000 to 26,000, much less than proportionately to harvest-related jobs. |
| National and regional wage and employment statistics for mining, manufacturing, construction and domestic service | official statistical series | 1970s | Used to infer that men leaving farms found industrial jobs and that women had few alternatives; also to show real farm wages fell relative to industrial wages. |
| Recruitment statistics of black mine workers (South Africa and Bophuthatswana) | official statistical series | 1970-1976 | Supports the argument of rising urban/mining labour pull on rural men. |
| Government Gazette notices on Abolition of Labour Tenancy | legislation gazette | 1970s | Shows only one of the six survey districts was affected, so labour tenancy removals and relocation were minor drivers of mechanization. |
| Surplus People's Project (1983), evidence on Western Transvaal | secondary literature compilation | 1983 report on removals | Cited to show only a few recorded removals of black families from white-owned land in the region. |
| Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture (Marais), Second Report, RP 84/1970 | commission or official report | 1970 | Quoted for the claim that farmers adopt implements that make tasks or life easier before considering economics. |
| Fisher, L.H., The Harvest Labor Market in California (1953) | secondary literature compilation | 1953 | Analogy used to treat farmers' labour shortage complaints with caution. |
| de Klerk, Conference Paper No. 26, 'The Incomes of Farm Workers and Their Families: A study of Maize Farms in the Western Transvaal' | secondary literature compilation | 1984 | Companion paper from same survey supplying survey method, wage estimation, and findings on family incomes and workers per family. |
| Farmer interviews on tax write-off provision, labour tenancy and relocation | interviews oral history | c.1981-83 | Establishes that the 1977 tax provision and labour control/relocation were not significant drivers of mechanization. |
New data¶
Author's survey of 61 maize farms in six Western Transvaal magisterial districts, with retrospective information for 1968-81 on harvesting, delivery and weeding technology, employment, worker composition and wages.
Inference¶
Quantification: Descriptive tables.
Descriptive comparison over time (1968-1981) using retrospective farm survey data, with cost-threshold calculations (break-even tonnage for combines), a decomposition of seasonal job losses by technology, and qualitative reasoning using farmers' stated motives and indirect national wage/employment trends to infer displaced workers' fate.
Key claims¶
| Claim | Basis | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Combine harvesting, bulk handling and chemical weeding spread rapidly, mostly between 1973 and 1977, with combine harvesting rising from 25-30% to about 95% of area. (p. 5) | Author's survey of 61 farms (Figure 1). | Partial data |
| Seasonal jobs per 1,000 ha fell by about 70% (harvest) and 60% (weeding), and permanent jobs by about 50%, with seasonal workers numbering about 105,000 in 1968 versus 40,000-45,000 in 1981. (p. 9) | Survey employment data scaled per 1,000 ha plus constant maize area; district totals extrapolated. | Partial data |
| Seasonal harvest work shifted from Bophuthatswana-based external workers to families of permanent farm workers, with women and children replacing men. (p. 10) | Survey data on residence and composition of seasonal teams (Figures 4-6). | Partial data |
| Real wages of permanent workers rose substantially (about two-and-a-half-fold) while seasonal real wages rose no more than 20%, though the series are not fully comparable. (p. 7) | Department of Agriculture wage series linked to author's 1981 estimate, deflated by cost of living. | Partial data |
| Combine harvesting was cheaper on nearly all farms (break-even about 250 tonnes), so mechanization was mainly driven by foreign technology plus a rural labour push (farm enlargement, men's reluctance) rather than an urban pull. (p. 18) | Cost calculations from survey farms' tonnages, farm size data, and farmer responses. | Partial data |
| Mechanization also served farmers' control over labour (smaller, female/child, resident teams; deskilling), and technological changes were cumulative (bulk handling then combines then weedicides). (p. 17) | Survey-based composition changes and farmers' ranked reasons, interpreted by the author. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
| State policy (tax write-off, relocation, labour control boards) was at most a minor cause of mechanization; mechanization was instead an informal element of relocation. (p. 23) | Farmer responses, Gazette notices for one district, Surplus People's Project evidence. | Partial data |
| Men displaced from farms probably found urban industrial work, whereas women in black rural areas bore the brunt of job losses. (p. 24) | Inference from national/regional wage and employment statistics; no direct tracking of displaced workers. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
The author's caveats¶
Author notes that the Department of Agriculture wage estimates and his own 1981 estimate may not be comparable (one may be too high or the other too low); insufficient data to compute an all-inclusive seasonal wage; the total number of seasonal workers cannot be calculated accurately; little information on permanent workers; data cannot identify relocated workers; the research design gave no direct answer on where displaced workers went; there are no records of informal-sector employment.
Gaps in the evidence¶
The study never traces displaced workers, so the unemployment and 'urban pull' conclusions rest on aggregate national wage and employment series and are unverified. A panel of worker households or origin-area surveys in Bophuthatswana, and Department of Agriculture and census farm-level records, would test the claims better; some of these existed in the 1970s-80s. The retrospective recall survey of 61 farms, with no stated sampling frame, limits the reliability of 1968 figures and generalisation beyond the Western Transvaal.
Replicability: Data described but not public.