Population Removals¶
Gerhard Mare (1981). Population Removals. Unidentified; the closing note refers to Critical Health.
| Type | other |
| Scope | Economics and economic history of apartheid |
| Method | synthesis review |
| Period studied | 1948–1979 |
| Regions | South Africa, Bantustans, White-owned farms, Southern Africa |
| Themes | bantustans removals influx, agriculture land, labour markets wages, mining migrant labour, inequality poverty unemployment, business and state |
| Citation key | mare1981 |
Argument¶
Forced removals are long-standing state policy. They fall mainly on economically exploited and politically voteless Africans, above all workers, farm dependants, subsistence farmers and the unemployed. Mare says the lack of business protest and the lack of disruption to production show that those removed are surplus, unproductive labour, and that the migrant and commuter systems work efficiently. He sorts removals into three categories: urban/industrial labour restructuring and influx control; agricultural mechanisation and the end of labour tenancy and black spots; and state functions of security, bantustan consolidation and infrastructure. The argument is a short Marxist-inflected state-and-capital interpretation backed by a few statistics, and it ends with questions about conditions in the relocation areas.
Evidence and method¶
Secondary statistics from Mare's own SAIRR report 'African Population Relocation 1980 in South Africa' (1980), the SAIRR Surveys of Race Relations, and Cleary's 'Bantustan Consolidation' (DSG/SARS, 1981). They cover pass-law arrests, bantustan urban population, commuters, black-spot removals, labour-tenant removals and consolidation removals.
Place in the debates¶
- Functionalist/cheap-labour reading of apartheid versus liberal view of apartheid as irrational to capital (see Cheap labour thesis and the function of the reserves). Leans revisionist and structural. Removals follow changes in labour use by industry and agriculture and by state functions serving capitalism. Business silence is read as evidence that the people removed are surplus to production.
- Causes of farm labour shedding and labour-tenant removals (see Farm labour: mechanisation, labour shedding, wages and labour control). Attributes the move to a smaller settled workforce plus seasonal contract labour to mechanisation and agri-business consolidation of farms. State policy runs alongside this.
- Bantustans as 'dumping grounds' for surplus labour (see Homelands, separate development, decentralisation and removals). Treats relocation as enforcement of influx control that moves the unemployed and potentially unemployed out of white South Africa into the bantustans.
Findings¶
-
Removals fall on the voteless black majority, who cannot influence the policy, whereas whites could halt or blunt removals that affected them. (p. 1)
Within South African society black people do not vote in elections that can influence the perpetuation of population relocation.
-
Mass removals have not disrupted production, which Mare takes to show that those removed are surplus labour and that the migrant/commuter systems are efficient. (p. 2)
It appears that what is not being disrupted to any noticeable extent is production. This indicates that people being relocated constitute surplus labour and unproductive people.
-
Urban relocation and tighter influx control are driven by changes in labour utilisation, rising unemployment and fear of unrest. (p. 3)
Relocation occurs when changes in labour utilisation lead to mass and growing unemployment, and the fear of social unrest and disruption of production.
-
Pass-law arrests in main urban areas were high in the late 1970s and rose sharply in 1978, which shows influx control being enforced. (p. 3)
1976: 197 760 (of whom 24 719 females) (250 030 whole country)
-
Agricultural restructuring replaced a large permanent workforce with a smaller settled one plus seasonal bantustan labour. (p. 4)
In its place has come a smaller, but settled, labour force, alonqside seasonal contract (or child) labour drawn from the bantustans.
-
The end of labour tenancy removed very large numbers from white farms to the bantustans between 1960 and 1974. (p. 4)
The number of people affected by the abolition of the labour tenant system and removed from white-owned farms to bantustans between 1960 and 1974 could be as high as 1 400 000.
Evidence ledger¶
Sources used¶
| Source | Kind | Period | How used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mare, African Population Relocation 1980 in South Africa (SAIRR, 1980) - pass law arrest figures 1976-78 | secondary literature compilation | 1976-1978 | Supplies annual figures on arrests for pass law offences, offered as evidence that influx control was tightened. |
| Mare, African Population Relocation 1980 (SAIRR), p. 26 - urban population in the bantustans | secondary literature compilation | 1960-1975 | Gives figures for the rise in the urban population inside the bantustans, taken as evidence of urban relocation across bantustan borders. |
| Mare, African Population Relocation 1980 (SAIRR), p. 26 - commuters from bantustans | secondary literature compilation | 1970-1976 | Gives figures for growth in commuters from the bantustans, to show labour being drawn from the bantustans as relocation occurred. |
| Estimate of Africans relocated from 'black spots' 1948-76, quoted in Mare 1980, p. 7 | secondary literature compilation | 1948-1976 | Quantifies removals from African freehold 'black spots' to the bantustans. |
| Mare, African Population Relocation 1980 (SAIRR) - labour tenant abolition estimate | secondary literature compilation | 1960-1974 | Gives an upper-bound estimate of people removed from white farms as the labour tenant system was abolished. |
| Cleary, S., Bantustan Consolidation, DSG/SARS, 1981, p. 5 | secondary literature compilation | 1970-1979 | Supplies the figure for removals attributable to bantustan consolidation and for bantustan population growth over 1970-79. |
Inference¶
Quantification: Illustrative figures.
Short, theoretical and polemical overview. It sorts relocation into categories (industrial labour restructuring, agricultural change, state functions, bantustan consolidation) and illustrates each with a few secondary statistics. The claims rest on Marxist-structuralist reasoning, and on inference from the absence of business protest, rather than on tested evidence.
Key claims¶
| Claim | Basis | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Relocation has not disrupted production, so the people moved are surplus labour and the migrant and commuter systems are efficient. (p. 2) | Inferred from the absence of business protest; no data are presented. | Asserted |
| Urban relocation and tighter influx control follow changes in labour utilisation that produce mass unemployment and fear of unrest. (p. 3) | Pass-law arrest figures and growth in bantustan urban population and commuters, taken from Mare 1980. The causal link is asserted, not tested. | Partial data |
| Agricultural mechanisation and larger farms ended the need for a large permanent workforce, producing removals of ex-labour tenants and clearance of black spots. (p. 4) | Two secondary estimates: 258 600 removed from black spots 1948-76, and up to 1.4 million from white farms 1960-74. | Partial data |
| Bantustan consolidation caused about 305,000 removals in 1970-79, and the population of the non-independent bantustans grew 54.83% over the same period. (p. 5) | Cleary, Bantustan Consolidation (DSG/SARS 1981). | Partial data |
| The state relocates people to maintain security and stability and to clear land for infrastructure schemes that benefit production, with those affected having no say. (p. 4) | Theoretical argument about state functions under capitalism; no specific cases or sources. | Asserted |
| The categories presented give an initial explanation of the largest types of forced African removal but do not cover all cases. (p. 5) | Author's own judgement, based on the statistics cited above. | Asserted |
The author's caveats¶
The author says the categories do not account for all cases of relocation. He cites one removal estimate as 'could be as high as' and another as 'it has been estimated', which marks them as approximate. He asks open questions about conditions in the receiving areas, so these are not documented.
Gaps in the evidence¶
The argument that relocated people are surplus labour and that production is undisturbed needs sectoral labour-demand, wage and employment data, plus evidence on business-association statements. The removal figures rest on secondary estimates with no stated method, and could be checked against official Bantu Affairs files, the Surplus People Project surveys and population census data, which exist now. Evidence on conditions in the resettlement areas (health, income, survival) is entirely absent, though the author names it as the thing that needs studying.
Replicability: Data poorly documented.