Migration from the farms to towns and its implications for urban adaptation¶
C. W. Manona (1984). Migration from the farms to towns and its implications for urban adaptation. Second Carnegie Inquiry into Poverty and Development in Southern Africa, Carnegie Conference Paper No. 30. Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town (conference held 13-19 April 1984).
| Type | conference paper |
| Scope | Economics and economic history of apartheid |
| Method | survey fieldwork |
| Period studied | 1938–1984 |
| Regions | Albany and Bathurst districts, Eastern Cape, Grahamstown, Ciskei, Port Elizabeth |
| Themes | agriculture land, demography urbanisation, bantustans removals influx, labour markets wages, inequality poverty unemployment |
| Citation key | manona1984 |
Argument¶
Manona argues that black farm workers who migrate from white-owned farms in the Albany and Bathurst districts to Grahamstown differ from 'homeland' oscillating migrants. Being landless, they generally leave permanently and see town as home. The main mechanism is kin sponsorship and chain migration: urban relatives supply first lodgings, guidance and later support, so migrants have a wide choice of how to adapt. Push factors are mechanization, the loss of share-cropping and stock rights, evictions, low wages and poor treatment. Pull factors are freedom, fixed hours, better wages and schooling. The case rests on fieldwork in Grahamstown and on one farm, with two detailed family case histories.
Evidence and method¶
Part-time fieldwork in Grahamstown and on a pseudonymous farm ('Sunridge') at Salem, Albany district. Evidence consists of informant interviews and quotations, family and genealogical case histories, and farm wage and ration data for October 1983. Secondary sources: Roberts (1958) on farm labour, Charton (1970) and Roux and Leger (1971) on unemployment, and population figures.
Place in the debates¶
- Farm-to-town migrants versus 'homeland' oscillating migrants (permanent versus circular migration) (see Farm labour: mechanisation, labour shedding, wages and labour control). Holds that farm migrants, being landless, migrate permanently and treat town as home, unlike homeland oscillators who build rural homesteads and retire there.
- Causes of farm labour shedding and out-migration (mechanization, land rationalization, push versus pull) (see Farm labour: mechanisation, labour shedding, wages and labour control). Treats mechanization, land rationalization, restrictions on stock and share-cropping, and evictions as push factors. Also stresses voluntary pull factors (independence, wages, schooling) and the role of kin networks.
- Urban adaptation: 'homeboy' encapsulation versus kin-based integration (see Influx control, pass laws and African urbanisation). Argues that without restrictive 'homeboy' groups, kin sponsorship gives migrants a wider choice of adjustment, and that the inflow has 'ruralized' the city.
Findings¶
-
Migration from white-owned farms had been neglected, because the literature concentrated on homeland migrants. (p. 3)
Instead, the greater part of migrant studies done locally have concentrat.ed on the migration of people from the 'home-
-
Farm workers frequently moved between farms, a pattern of repeated dislocation before the move to town. (p. 6)
Instead, six to eight moves during a lifetime is a common pattern.
-
A significant share of farm wages was paid in kind, which complicates wage comparisons. (p. 5)
At the same time, as Significant proportion of the total wage paid to farm workers is paid in kind.
-
Cash wages at Sunridge in October 1983 were very low, with tractor drivers earning more than ordinary male workers. (p. 5)
In this sector the basic monthly wage for 'tractor drivers is R40,OO and for ordinary male workers it ranges between R23,OO and R28,OO.
-
Women's farm wages were lower still, at R13,50 per month before bonus. (p. 5)
Women, on the other hand, earn a basic wage of R13,50 per month.
-
Stock-keeping rights, a key attraction of farm life, had been drastically curtailed. (p. 9)
Where' the workers are still entitled to keep their own stock, the limit is usually one beast (e.g. at Sunridge) or two beasts but hardly any more than this.
-
Farm housing tenure depended on a male family member being employed, so family evictions followed a death or desertion. (p. 10)
Moreover, on many farms a family is eVicted if thele is no adult male working on that farm for that particular family.
-
Farm migrants cannot treat the farms as a retirement home, which explains permanent out-migration. (p. 11)
However, it is hardly possible for them to perceive the farms as their permanent homes to which they can retire in old age.
-
Grahamstown's black population grew rapidly, largely through in-migration from neighbouring farms, in a town with little industry. (p. 12)
it has risen from 11 814 in 1951' to 40 101 in 1980.
-
Urban kin provide first lodgings, which is the central mechanism of chain migration. (p. 14)
the farm dwellers who, decide to move to town do so only when they are sure to 'find first lodgings through their relatives already in town.
Evidence ledger¶
Sources used¶
| Source | Kind | Period | How used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author's fieldwork: family and individual case histories and interviews with farm migrants in Grahamstown and on the farm 'Sunridge' (Salem, Albany district) | author survey or fieldwork | c.1983-84 (part-time fieldwork ongoing) | Supplies the case histories, informant quotations and the kin-sponsorship and chain-migration argument that carry the paper. |
| Wage and ration data collected at Sunridge farm, end October 1983 | author survey or fieldwork | October 1983 | Documents cash wages, bonuses, rations and housing of farm workers as an illustration of farm conditions. |
| Roberts 1958, Labour in the Farm Economy (SAIRR), including farmer interviews of 1957 | secondary literature compilation | 1957-1958 | Used for the 1940s-50s outflow of farm labour to Grahamstown and for the 1957 baseline on stock-holding allowed to workers, contrasted with the present. |
| Census population figures for Grahamstown (black population 1951-1980; Appendix graph and 1970-1980 percentage increase) | population census | 1911-1980 (1951 and 1980 black totals cited) | Shows rapid growth of Grahamstown's black population, attributed to in-migration from the farms. |
| Charton 1970, 'The unemployed African in Grahamstown' (SAIRR) | secondary literature compilation | 1969 | Provides the 1969 share of economically active blacks not in formal employment, evidencing unemployment in Grahamstown. |
| Roux and Leger 1971, 'Fingo Village' survey (SAIRR) | secondary literature compilation | 1971 | Gives the share of adult males not in full-time employment as evidence of local unemployment. |
| Historical settlement and housing records of Grahamstown's black areas (1847 houses and population, 1856 Fingo Village title deeds, leasehold plots 1860 and 1870, New Town, 1957-62 housing) | other | 1812-1962 | Provides the historical background on black settlement and housing in Grahamstown. |
| Brief investigation of the 318 freehold sites in Fingo Village | author survey or fieldwork | c.1983-84 | Supports the claim that some early farm migrants bought freehold land on arrival. |
| Map 2 of farm schools in the study area (author's map) | maps spatial data | c.1983 | Used to show that farm schools are few and far apart. |
New data¶
Author-collected family and individual case histories and interviews with farm migrants in Grahamstown and Sunridge farm (Salem), with a farm wage and ration snapshot from October 1983; number of informants not stated.
Inference¶
Quantification: Illustrative figures.
Qualitative case-study and ethnographic analysis: two detailed genealogical case histories plus informant quotations, set against a few secondary figures on population growth and unemployment; comparison with homeland oscillating migrants is asserted rather than tested.
Key claims¶
| Claim | Basis | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Farm migrants largely settle permanently in town because as landless people they have no rural home to return to, unlike homeland oscillating migrants. (p. 23) | Informant statements and the author's reasoning about landlessness on white-owned farms; no systematic comparison data. | Asserted |
| Loss of share-cropping and stock-keeping rights through mechanisation and land rationalisation pushed farm dwellers off the farms. (p. 9) | Informant quotations, Roberts's 1957 farmer interviews versus current practice on Sunridge and other farms. | Partial data |
| Grahamstown's black population grew rapidly, largely through in-migration from neighbouring farms, in a town with little industry, producing high unemployment and low wages. (p. 12) | Population totals for 1951 and 1980 (Appendix graph), Charton 1970 and Roux and Leger 1971 unemployment figures; the link to farm migration is inferred. | Partial data |
| Grahamstown was favoured over Port Elizabeth partly because influx control was applied less strictly there until recently, and because of kin ties. (p. 4) | Case histories and the author's impressions; no administrative or pass-law data. | Asserted |
| Farm wages are very low, partly paid in kind, and conditions (hours, housing, schooling) are poor, motivating migration to town. (p. 5) | Author's October 1983 wage data from one farm (Sunridge) and informant testimony. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
| Most farm migrants find city life more attractive than farm life and tend to leave voluntarily for independence, better wages and education. (p. 11) | Selected informant quotations from interviews. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
The author's caveats¶
The author notes that fieldwork is still in progress and part-time, that unemployment has probably risen since the last cited figures, and that for many older migrants prior urban experience makes it difficult to separate 'migration' from subsequent 'urban adaptation'.
Gaps in the evidence¶
The argument needs systematic data: a sampled household survey of farm-origin migrants with sample size and selection stated, linked to farm-labour records or Albany and Bathurst agricultural census data on mechanisation, labour numbers and tenancy. Pass-law and influx-control administrative records for Grahamstown and Port Elizabeth would test the claim about differing enforcement. Disaggregated census data on Grahamstown's black population by origin would test the claim that farm in-migration drove its growth. Most of this existed at the time, though some can only be reconstructed from archives now.
Replicability: Data poorly documented.