In significant parts of rural South Africa, people occupy land not through formal title deeds but through a system of land allocation rooted in the apartheid and pre-apartheid eras. Would formal title deeds improve economic wellbeing and promote investment? Perhaps. But in a survey of rural dwellers in seven former homelands, most residents said they did not want this.

Introduction

Land tenure security remains one of the most contested issues in post-apartheid South Africa. The debate is particularly intense in the former homelands, where institutional arrangements inherited from apartheid continue to shape rural livelihoods and development outcomes. Several contributions in the Econ3x3 forum have engaged this issue from different angles. For example, the article on poor land governance highlights how weak institutional arrangements constrain rural development and generate spillover effects into urban areas. The discussion on spatial inequality emphasises how land access and location reinforce inequality. Another contribution argues that conventional approaches to title deeds may not be suitable for communal areas. Together, these studies show that land reform requires careful consideration of local realities rather than a single uniform solution.

The legacy of communal tenure

Land in the former homelands is formally owned by the state. Under apartheid, these areas were governed as semi-autonomous entities where land was administered by homeland authorities and allocated to households through Permission to Occupy (PTO) arrangements. While the PTOs are no longer widely used, the underlying tenure system has not fundamentally changed. Most rural residents still do not have formal ownership of the land they occupy.

This system is often described as insecure. In principle, secure property rights such as title deeds are expected to promote investment, allow land to be used as collateral, and support the development of land rental markets. Evidence from other contexts supports this view. For instance, studies on Ethiopia show that stronger tenure security can encourage land related investment. However, the South African context presents a more complex picture.

Land use and investment constraints

In many former homeland areas, a significant share of arable land lies fallow. Research by Blair, Shackleton, and Mograbi documents widespread cropland abandonment in communal areas between 1950 and 2010 and highlights several contributing factors, including institutional constraints and changing livelihood strategies. While tenure insecurity is often cited as one factor, it interacts with other challenges such as labour shortages, ageing farming populations, and limited market access.

Uncertainty around land rights also affects external investment. Agribusiness firms that seek to lease land often face difficulties in securing finance because banks typically require formal title as collateral. In addition, agreements between investors and households are not always stable. In some cases, households withdraw from agreements or attempt to renegotiate terms, reflecting both mistrust and the absence of enforceable contracts. These dynamics suggest that tenure arrangements do matter for investment, but they are only one part of a broader set of constraints.

What do rural households want?

To better understand these issues, we conducted a survey across seven former homeland areas between September and November 2025. The study examined land access, land use, and the role of traditional leaders in land administration. A key question was whether rural households would prefer to have title deeds for the land they occupy.

The results were striking. More than 70 percent of respondents indicated that they do not want title deeds.

This finding challenges a common assumption in policy debates that rural residents aspire to individual ownership. When asked to explain their views, many respondents expressed concern that formal title could expose them to taxation. There is a perception that formalisation may lead to increased state involvement, particularly through property taxes, which households may not be able or willing to pay. Municipal services that may come with formalisation are not generally seen as an advantage given the poor state of services in most rural municipalities.

At the same time, informal land markets are active. Households buy and sell land with little formal documentation, with prices typically ranging from R5000 to R20000 depending on location and plot size. Land closer to roads, towns, or universities tends to command higher prices due to stronger demand. These transactions indicate that land already has economic value within locally recognised systems, even in the absence of formal title.

Variation across regions

Preferences for title deeds are not uniform across regions. In parts of Limpopo, particularly in areas such as Zebediela, there is stronger support for formal ownership. Respondents in these areas reported experiences of land dispossession linked to mining activities or development projects. Concerns were also raised about the role of traditional leaders in land allocation. In some areas, residents mentioned that traditional leaders tend to allocate land to the better off, and in at least one case residents were forced to relocate because the leader had agreed to a new development on the land.

In these contexts, title deeds are viewed as a form of protection that could provide legal certainty and reduce the risk of losing land. This suggests that demand for formalisation is shaped by local governance conditions and past experiences, rather than being universally held.

Rethinking the policy debate

The evidence suggests that the question of whether to introduce title deeds in the former homelands is not a simple one. While formal ownership may offer benefits in terms of investment and access to finance, it is not universally desired and may introduce new concerns for rural households.

The contributions in the Econ3x3 forum reinforce this point. Weak governance structures limit the effectiveness of any tenure system. Spatial inequality shapes how land is valued and used. Standard approaches to title deeds may not align with communal systems. Our findings add to this debate by showing that many rural households themselves are cautious about formalisation.

Policy responses should therefore be more flexible and context specific. Options may include strengthening tenure security within existing communal systems, improving accountability in land administration, and recognising locally legitimate land rights without necessarily converting them into full private ownership. In areas where there is clear demand for title deeds, such as parts of Limpopo, more formal approaches may be appropriate.

Ultimately, land reform policy needs to be grounded in the realities and preferences of rural residents. Assuming that title deeds are the preferred solution risks overlooking the complexity of land relations in the former homelands and may lead to unintended consequences.

Written by Siphe Zantsi, Econ3x3