Urban housing for rural peasants: Farmworker housing in South Africa

ABSTRACT

Farmworkers seldom experience place attachment and frequently suffer from social disruption. In South Africa in 1998 one thousand farmworker families were assisted by their employers, via the government’s Housing Subsidy Programme, to access housing in the nearest urban area. We investigated whether their ownership of urban housing did indeed create stability through place attachment, asset building and integration into the community. We discussed this with 32 of these relocated farmworkers in four focus groups and interviewed five key informants. We found little evidence of place attachment or stability and it appeared that discrimination against these farmworkers was reinforcing social disruption.

KEYWORDS:

• Farmworkers
• housing policy
• place attachment
• asset-based welfare
• social disruption

1. Introduction

Governments often propose homeownership as a means of stabilising communities. Asset-based welfare, with its emphasis on homeownership, has been a dominant approach in the Global North. South African housing policy emphasises homeownership, asset creation and restorative justice (to redress the inequalities of apartheid). However, research suggests that housing assets and homeownership may not in fact create stability in some contexts but rather the reverse. Among these contexts are informal settlements (Huchzermeyer, 2001), mine settlements (Ntema et al., 2017) and some of the settlements created by forced relocation under apartheid (Marais et al., 2016). In this paper we assess yet another context in which it is very difficult to create place attachment and social stability through homeownership: the urban areas in South Africa to which farmworkers have been relocated.

Farmworkers are usually dependent on on-farm housing provided by the farmers (Lemke and Jansen van Rensburg, 2014). In 1997, some progressive farmers in the Bothaville District of the Free State Province rethought the living arrangements of their farmworkers. They decided to provide a decent living environment for them in the nearest urban area, Bothaville. This off-farm or urban living environment was supposed to bring stability, ease access to urban services (for example schools for the children) and the urban economy and obviate the risk of homelessness should these workers lose their jobs. They also claim that the move was a preference expressed by their farmworkers. The workers consequently received houses in Naledi, a suburb created specifically for them next to Khotsong, the former black township of Bothaville. The farmers facilitated housing subsidies from the state to construct 1000 houses for the farmworkers and their families, giving them full homeownership. This is the same Housing Subsidy Programme that had until then provided nearly four million housing opportunities in South Africa by 2016 (Department of Human Settlements, 2017). These 1000 farmworkers then had to commute to the farms either weekly or daily. On-farm living ended for them and their families. The system of off-farm farmworkers is common in South Africa and has recently received research attention in a study of the Western Cape fruit industry (Wiltshire, 2016).

Shortly after the Bothaville project was completed, Hartwig and Marais (2005) concluded that, despite some benefits, the danger existed that farmers would abdicate their historical responsibility for housing farmworkers. The state now had to provide appropriate services and housing. But it was too early to draw any firm conclusions about the implications for the farmworker families. This paper revisits the situation nearly 20 years after the project started. We wanted to know how farmworkers or former farmworkers (as some had lost their jobs since relocating to Naledi) and their families were experiencing the urban living environment. We wanted to know whether they had adapted to urban living and whether homeownership and urban housing had created the stability envisaged at the outset of the project. Essentially, we asked the respondents to compare on-farm living with living in town.

Theoretically, we considered the link between place attachment theory, asset-based welfare and social disruption. Place attachment and asset-based welfare are expected to create stability but social disruption upsets it. We note that farmworkers and their families have long histories of social disruption. We argue that a similar level of social disruption continues after relocation to an urban environment. Although these relocated farmworkers share, to some extent, a unified, work-related identity, they struggle to develop an identity related to their new living environment. Our findings show that, despite living in an urban house and being homeowners, nothing much has changed for them and, moreover, they suffer discrimination from the long-time residents of neighbouring Khotsong, who refer to them disparagingly as ‘those people with the spades’. The pressures of living in town and having to commute have created their own problems and served to reinforce social disruption, even into the next generation.

2. Methods

Methodologically, we reviewed the relevant literature and then held discussions with four focus groups, comprising 32 people, and conducted interviews with 5 key informants. We received ethical clearance from the General Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of the Free State.

We recruited the 32 people using a recruitment pamphlet and a community member in Khotsong (Bothaville). Our four focus groups consisted of the following: male farmworkers currently employed on farms (Focus Group 1) (6), female farmworkers currently employed on farms (Focus Group 2) (9), male farm workers no longer employed on farms (Focus Group 3) (9) and female farmworkers no longer employed on farms (Focus Group 4) (8). We did not keep an accurate record of the different farms and the nature of the work, but the participants in that group did represent several farms (based on the memory of the fieldworker and co-author). The interviews followed the same structure. We tried to get an overview of the historical and current relationship with farmwork, experiences of losing a job on the farm, positive and negative aspects of living in Khotsong, social assimilation in Khotsong, migration and the quality of services and housing.

We provided no incentive to the participants other than providing a drink and snacks during the interviews. One of the authors of the paper, whose mother tongue is Sesotho, completed the interviews in Sesotho, transcribed them and helped them to analyse the data. The interviews were all conducted over a weekend. We recruited the five key informants (a councillor, a healthcare worker, a teacher, a farmer and a business person) through a snowballing method. We conducted these interviews during a work week, in English, Sesotho and Afrikaans. The two authors were responsible for these interviews.

We coded the discussion and interview data in Atlas.ti and used descriptive analysis to assess them. To understand the responses, we broadly started by analysing two groups of responses: responses about living on the farm and responses about living in the town. Once we had these responses categorised, we developed sub-themes for each.

3. Place attachment, asset-based welfare, housing policy and social disruption

Place attachment studies originate from a range of disciplines like architecture, geography, psychology and sociology (Riley, 2010), a multidisciplinary approach that renders consistent definition and operationalisation difficult. However, a positive relationship between people and places lies at the heart of a definition of place attachment (Hummon, 1992). Harner (2001: 960) defines place attachment as ‘a cultural value shared by the community, a collective understanding about social identity intertwined with place meaning’. Researchers also use terms like ‘sense of place’, ‘place identity’, ‘community attachment’ and ‘sense of community’ (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001). The benefits of place attachment are well documented. They include social stability, fostering long-term planning by households, ensuring continuity, creating a sense of belonging, and promoting self-esteem, identity and personal aspiration (Brown and Perkins, 2001; Scannell and Gifford, 2010). Low-income households often have higher levels of place attachment than those in the higher brackets.

Sen’s work on capabilities laid the foundation for asset-based welfare. Assets are defined as ‘a stock of financial, human, natural or social resources that can be acquired, developed, improved and transferred across generations’ and that ‘generates flows or consumption, as well as additional stock’ (Moser, 2006: 5). The conceptual argument is that helping the poor to spend more (through income grants) will not take them out of poverty. Rather, they should be encouraged to accumulate assets that might minimise household risks and help them out of poverty. Asset-based welfare has become a common development approach in the Global North. In practice, asset-based welfare uses homeownership, education and savings as core elements to promote development. Asset-based development, which fosters agency, stability (Lemanski, 2011) and long-term planning (Ford Foundation, 2006), thus has strong connections with place attachment. Asset-based development approaches have also gained a foothold in the developing world. The initial work was largely done in rural settings, following the sustainable livelihoods approach. Urban applications soon followed (Rakodi and Lloyd-Jones, 2002). Unfortunately, in the Global South asset accumulation is often narrowly associated with land-titling programmes and the provision of homeownership. Land-titling programmes have been severely criticised in the literature, mainly for being one-dimensional (Gilbert, 2002). Research, however, points to the value of asset accumulation for stability, health, labour-market participation, creation of freedom and a reduction in risky behaviour (Moser, 2006) and highlights the intergenerational value of assets, i.e. that they can be transferred to successive generations (Moser and Felton, 2007).

Both place attachment theory and theories of asset building emphasise the value of creating stability. Closely linked to the theory of place attachment is the theory of social disruption or the disruption of place attachment. Whereas place attachment and asset building are slow processes, social disruption usually happens quickly. England and Albrecht (1984: 234) define social disruption as ‘a period of generalized crisis and loss of traditional routines and attitudes’. They say the crisis

strikes individuals whose mental health, worldview and social networks may all be disrupted. It strikes at the organisational level where existing businesses and associations must struggle to meet the challenge of newcomers. It also reaches the community level as the homogeneous culture is disrupted and services are often taxed.

The consequences of social disruption are poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, marital problems, mental health problems and unemployment (Brown and Perkins, 2001). Social disruption can furthermore undermine people’s world views and impair their mental health. Examples in the literature of events contributing to social disruption are relocation, a major change in economic activity (for example, a new mine opening nearby), loss of economic power (for example, the closure of a mine), loss of social networks, loss of land, burglaries and natural disasters (Brown and Perkins, 2001; Milligan, 2003; Haskell and Randall, 2009). Long-term isolation can spark conflict between insiders and outsiders (Larsen, 2004).

4. History of farmworkers in South Africa, and post-apartheid responses

Farm work in South Africa has a long and turbulent history because of colonial and apartheid labour and land practices. Atkinson (2007: 15) notes that the story of farm labour in South Africa ‘is largely one of the transformation of an independent black peasantry into a landless workforce defined by race’ while Coetzee and Rau (2017) related the current narratives of farm workers to the contexts of slavery and serfdom. Some researchers noted the fear of ex-farm workers to return to farms (Hough and Prosezky, 2013). The various colonial and apartheid governments brought this about through ‘the consolidation of landownership by white farmers, the concentration of black labour on white farms through pass laws and influx control and the entrenchment of a quasi-feudal social order on farms’ (Atkinson, 2007: 15). Farmers’ relationships with their workers were paternalistic and often abusive and it continued into a post-apartheid dispensation (Conner, 2013; Coetzeee and Rau, 2017). Atkinson (2007: 91) describes the position of farmworkers as one of ‘deep deprivation and systematic exclusion’ and holds that ‘many farmworkers have missed out on the acquisition of modern life skills and are increasingly falling behind their peers in towns and cities’. Much of the farmworkers’ social capital originated from their paternalistic relationship with farmers (Lemke and Jansen van Rensburg, 2014). Not only was the farmer their employer, he also provided them with medicine, food and groceries, money loans, the use of a telephone, a school for their children and often transport to the nearest town. The downside of this relationship was that it was based on unequal power relations and sapped the workers’ will to develop and empower themselves (Coetzee and Rau, 2017). By the early 1990s, many farmworkers were unskilled and ill-equipped for a modern, technology-dependent and globalising economy (Atkinson 2007). However, legislation inhibiting worker mobility began to be dismantled from the mid-1980s, and the post-apartheid government that came to power in 1994 immediately prioritised working conditions, contracts, wages and tenure security.

We highlight five post-apartheid changes that apply to the stock- and maize-farming contexts of the Free State Province. First, the removal of influx control in the early 1990s meant that farmworkers, previously restricted to certain areas, in principle, were now more mobile (Wiltshire, 2016). They could now move freely between farms, towns and larger urban settlements.

Second, the post-apartheid government legislated for improved labour practice. Two elements received particular attention: contractual relationships between farmers and farmworkers and a minimum wage for farmworkers (Atkinson, 2007). Much of the farm work under the apartheid regime lacked formal contracting and was not subject to stipulated wages or set working hours. Labour was cheap and abundantly available. With the arrival of the minimum wage legislation in 2002 the farmers’ salary bill, generally small hitherto, now came under pressure. This in turn had the effect of reducing the number of jobs in the agricultural industry, and the long-standing paternalistic relationship started to erode as farmers began phasing out in-kind payments and services. Government also prioritised getting rid of child labour and improving the living conditions of farmworkers (Wisborg et al., 2014).

Third, the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, designed to give farmworkers more on-farm security, was promulgated in 1997 (Sibanda, 2001). Under apartheid, farmworkers living on farms had limited security of tenure. It was easy to evict them, and this was common practice. The main aim of the new Act was to give on-farm security of tenure to farmworkers who had lived on farms for more than 20 years, were older than 55 and had a long history working on farms, or to farmworkers who were now unable to work as a result of disability. The intentions were noble but there were unintended consequences. Since the late 1990s farmers have knocked down farmworker housing (Wisborg et al., 2014) and have been reluctant to build new houses on their farms and have tried to find ways to avoid providing such housing, being keen to reduce the risks associated with farmworkers living long-term on their farms. One could interpret the provision of off-farm urban housing in the Bothaville project as being similarly motivated.

Fourth, these legislative responses came just as the agricultural industry, released from the strict sectoral regulation it had been subjected to under the apartheid regime, was in the process of becoming a more significant global competitor (Williams, 1996). Mechanisation became the norm. Increased global competition in the agricultural industry contributed to a rapid decrease in the number of commercial farmers (some simply being unable to compete), an increase in the size of farms (to reduce production costs) and a rapid decrease in the number of jobs for low-skilled farmworkers (Townsend et al., 1998). Mechanisation, the result of globalisation, meant that many farmworkers became functionally unemployable because they were unable to operate the new technology (Atkinson, 2007).

Finally, on-farm safety and security has lately become a countrywide concern (Pearce, 2016). Both farmers and farmworkers have been the victims of crime, including murder. This reality has made farmers less likely to employ more workers or to allow them to live on their farms, many considering this a security risk.

The result of all these changes has been a rapid decline in farmworker numbers while some researchers argue that the living conditions of farmworkers deteriorated over the last three decades (Lemke and Jansen van Rensburg, 2014). The number of people living on commercial farms in the Free State Province decreased from 430,000 in 1996 to 196,000 in 2011 (Stats SA, 2011). The changes have affected the historical working relationship between farmers and their workers (see Atkinson, 2007, for a comprehensive account of how this has happened). Farmers with farms near urban areas (mostly small towns) have deliberately opted to house their farmworkers there. In some cases, the government has supported the provision of urban housing to farmworkers through the Housing Subsidy Programme.

5. Evaluating off-farm living

Our focus group discussions and key informant interviews focused on five themes we identified in our literature review: farm work and on-farm living, positive aspects of off-farm living, negative aspects of off-farm living, children, and discrimination.

5.1 Farm work and on-farm living

The respondents’ experience of living and working on a farm is key to understanding their experience of life in an urban area. Although there are cases where farmworkers have been life-long labourers on farms (Atkinson, 2007), farmworkers have largely been a mobile group of people.

Working and living on a farm has its positive and negative aspects. One positive that was mentioned was the financial saving of not having to buy food. Historically, many farmworkers were paid in kind in the form of maize meal. Many of the respondents said they were grateful not to have had to buy food when they lived on farms. Respondents also mentioned free water and their own patch on which to grow vegetables as major benefits of on-farm living. Many had also had free electricity on the farms. At least one respondent mentioned that in town they now had to buy their own electricity. One of the focus group participants (Focus Group 3) summed up the material benefits of on-farm-living thus: ‘Others love to be at the farms, because, remember, at the farms they are able to get free milk and free maize meal.’ (Focus Group 2). Some respondents also said they preferred to live in low-density settings. One mentioned the importance of isolated living and considered that not having many neighbours was an advantage of living on a farm (Focus Group 4). On-farm living also made access to employment easier. On the farm one had direct access to the employer (the farmer) and the employer’s networks, whereas living in town this was not possible.

However, we also heard many negatives about the farm experience. Some respondents said they had no desire to return to on-farm living and were critical of farm work (Foucs Group 3 and 4). Their responses revealed seven main reasons for this. First, they contrasted their lack of homeownership on the farms with their ownership of their houses in Naledi. Second, they had found the farm working conditions poor. Their stories reflected their vulnerability and their inability to stand up to their employers in the event of illegal labour practices. Third, they had been unable to challenge the race-based power relations on farms. They made remarks suggesting the presence of racial discrimination, such as: ‘white people are not good these days’, ‘I think white people from the farm are not good’, and ‘There are still white people who do not treat us right’ (Focus Group 4). Fourth, they had objected to the restrictions placed on visitors, the direct reason for this being the security situation on farms. One farmworker said the farmers ‘choose for you who can come to the farm, and then who can’t come – and you must introduce each and every person who comes to the farm’ (Focus Group 3). Fifth, they had suffered from the uncertainty associated with farm work, which also meant that on-farm housing was no longer available when they lost their jobs. One respondent said a particular farmer ‘is able to take your belongings and place them next to the road, then he hires someone else’ (Focus Group 3). Another said: ‘Whenever a Boer person [Afrikaans for ‘farmer’] is fed up with you, he throws you out on the streets and you have nowhere to stay.’ (Focus Group 3) He added: ‘They chase you away like dogs’ (Foucs Group 3). Sixth, they had been worried by the way farmers used their children as unpaid labour and sometimes at the expense of their education (that is, even when they had to be in school). One said: ‘White people at the farm made us work while we were still children’ (Focus Group 4). And seventh, viewed against the background of the above remarks, we did not find it strange to hear them say that moving away from the farms had given them freedom. They often said things like: ‘He [the farmer] even controls your life. How are you supposed to live?’ (Focus Group 4).

These positive and negative descriptions of working and living on a farm reflect a mixture of real-life experiences. Some farmers treat their workers with dignity and some do not. A lack of dignified treatment at work and being dependent on the farmer for housing were the two main complaints. Farmworkers constantly have to weigh up the advantages of living on a farm and thus being close to job opportunities against the inappropriate treatment to which they are often subjected there.

5.2 Positive aspects of off-farm living

The respondents mentioned several positive aspects of their off-farm urban living. Many appreciated being able to own a house that was not under the control of the farmer. One said: ‘If you have a disagreement with him and he chases you away, you’ll have nowhere to go where you can build a house for yourself – that’s why I feel that it is better to live in the township.’ (Focus Group 2). Another said: ‘If you decided to leave that place [the farm], where would you say you are going?’ (Focus Group 2). The notion that homeownership had brought stability featured prominently in the responses. Besides being happy to have urban housing, the respondents also expressed appreciation of the urban services, which contrasted strongly with the generally poor services characteristic of on-farm living. One said: ‘Naledi helped us, because we wouldn’t be having the houses that we have and the free electricity. We have proper, flushable toilets.’ (Focus Group 2). The discussion groups and key informant interviews also revealed that living in an urban area improves access to the South African government’s extensive social grant system, which provides income grants, allocated on the basis of a means test, largely to the elderly and to the parents.

We also found subtle indications in the responses that urban housing has helped to reduce farmworkers’ dependence on farmers. One farmworker described this process as ‘learning to break the chain that you and your children have been chained with on your hands and feet’ (Focus Group 3). Respondents often linked their ‘freedom’ with not having employment, saying, for example: ‘Jobs are not enough here in Khotsong, but there is a lot of freedom.’ (Focus Group 3). Living off-farm provided this freedom. Although the responses were sometimes contradictory, our findings show that urban living did open up job opportunities outside the farming sector. The overall connectivity and networks that come with urban living have indeed helped to create jobs. Where urban living did not directly create jobs it nevertheless provided access to a broader environment.

5.3 Negative aspects of off-farm living

Many negative aspects were also mentioned. Although off-farm living provided networks and thus connections to jobs outside the farming industry, not all were able to get these jobs, and many of the respondents were at risk because off-farm housing delinked them from their farm jobs. One respondent noted that: ‘Ever since their people no longer stay at the farms, commercial farmers have found it easy to fire farmworkers.’ (Focus Group 4). Another said: ‘We are faced with lack of employment opportunities. We have been unemployed for quite some time now. We have been struggling financially.’ (Focus Group 3). Housing their farmworkers in the towns made it easier for farmers to deal with the pressures of mechanisation, increased global competition and the subsequent need to reduce their workforce. It is difficult to ascertain whether this is purely coincidental or the result of deliberate efforts to reduce on-farm living in order to deal with these pressures. The fact remains, however, that farmers dominate the power relations, and the outcomes, despite the government’s endeavours to benefit the farmworkers, largely benefit the farmers.

Many of the respondents complained about now having to buy food and pay for urban services like electricity. Although the municipality provides a limited amount of free electricity, once a household exceeds this limit it has to pay. One of the respondents captured this reality thus: ‘At the farms people are given free maize meal. So, here we have to go and buy it, and do this and that. We must know that those things are bought’ (Focus Group 1). Another said: ‘You must stay like that with that toothache. You don’t have money to buy Grandpa [a cheap headache powder popular in South Africa]. You don’t have money to buy pain block or whatever at the chemist [South Africanism for ‘pharmacy’]. You must bear with that pain, because you don’t have a job’ (Focus Group 4). Farmworkers often perceived the provision of on-farm food and medical care as being ‘free’. Having to buy these items was new to them. Urban living brought with it a commercialisation of goods and services with which they were unfamiliar. Having been dependent on the farmers, they now found it difficult to adjust.

Crime was another major concern about urban living. Often, the respondents blamed it on gangs (‘these boys who walk around the streets at night’) (Focus group 2), the availability of drugs, the nearby taverns, and the widespread poverty. Common crimes mentioned by respondents were housebreaking, assault and rape. The perceived levels of crime made the respondents generally critical of the slow response rates of the police. They also criticised the health services. They said that when they called ambulances, often they did not arrive. One respondent complained that the ambulance staff said they would not come to the ‘dark city’ at night – a derogatory reference to Naledi’s lack of streetlights. Respondents said they had to stand in long queues at clinics, did not receive medication and were treated poorly. The clinic is situated seven kilometres from Naledi, but a mobile clinic visits the area once a week. The respondents were, however, unhappy with this service. A few respondents did complain about the municipal services, particularly about blocked drains, poor sanitation and the lack of street lights. They also felt the municipality was slow to react to their complaints.

5.4 Children

In articulating their concerns and their hopes, the respondents often mentioned their children. Although we did not originally set out to investigate how living in the town affected the respondents’ children, the prevalence of comments about children obliged us to reconsider. A further reason for mentioning the children is that the urban living arrangements could be a springboard for the development of a new generation. One focus group respondent said: ‘Maybe the children will be able to change our lives’ (Focus Group 4).

Urban living meant that the children were now able to access urban education, but the focus groups expressed concern about its quality. Naledi has one primary school and secondary school children attend the nearest secondary school in Khotsong. It would seem, however, that the urban education system has problems of its own. Generally, the respondents were worried about two aspects: the poor quality of the education and the social problems that kept children out of school. We heard many comments about the lack of discipline in the schools. One focus group participant was troubled by the fact that many of the children actually did not attend school, a problem exacerbated by the fact that some parents were away working on the farms during the week. Another highlighted the consequence of this situation: ‘It makes the children suffer’ (Focus Group 2). One of our key informants proposed the following solution: ‘If firms could be built so that these people can work nearby, they would be able to live with their children’ (Focus Group 1). More than the need for job creation in nearby Khotsong, the responses emphasised the need for parents and their school-age children to live together. The split created by urban housing coupled with on-farm work has been detrimental to some families. The same key informant referred to these children as ‘orphans’. The presence of child-headed households also came to the fore during the interviews. A parent interviewee in one of the focus groups described the difficulty of looking after her children when living off-farm: ‘You go out and try to make a living for them. So that’s the reason why you end up leaving them on their own or by themselves’ (Focus Group 2). Two other child-related concerns that were raised were the problems of malnutrition and children going to school hungry. This point was made by one of our key informants who had close ties with the education system in Khotsong. These problems contributed to learner absenteeism and school dropout. There was moreover very little indication that the second generation would be better off than their parents. Focus group participants were concerned that the second generation would be unable to find jobs and would continue to be plagued by many of the current social ills. The poor quality of education and children’s failure to stay in the education system are reducing the system’s ability to provide the second generation with a way out of poverty.

5.5 Discrimination

We have already referred to the poor working conditions and the racial discrimination farmworkers experience on the farms. Yet we also found much emphasis on discrimination and derogatory references to the farmworkers in their new urban setting. The fact of having been moved to the farmworkers-only settlement of Naledi, next to, but not integrated into, the long-established township of Khotsong, did not help with their social integration into their new urban community and in fact aroused negative attitudes on the part of the Khotsong residents.

Farmworkers apparently continue to experience high levels of discrimination in their new urban setting. The respondents felt that the municipality excluded them from local job opportunities, and that they received poor service at the clinic and from the police because they were farmworkers. One respondent encapsulated the problem by saying: ‘When you arrive at the hospital, they look at your status. If they are told that you come from Naledi, they’ll shout at you until you leave the hospital. It’s the same thing with the police. We’re being discriminated against in that way’ (Focus Group 4). They also related experiencing other forms of discrimination outside the formal institutions and in their daily interactions with the broader community: ‘It usually happened when you got into a taxi. They will say, ‘It is those people from Naledi with spades’ (Foucs Group 2). One respondent reported that a resident of Khotsong, in a conversation about a particular person, said: ‘Are you saying she comes from Naledi? She doesn’t look like those people from Naledi’ (Foucs Group 2). This discrimination damages the newcomers’ self-image. One said: ‘Our problem is that we can’t prove for ourselves as farm people. We are little dogs sitting at the corner. When we see big dogs, we bark until we die there’ (Focus Group 4). These comments suggest that many urban residents look down on farm labour and consider farmworkers illiterate, uneducated and capable of working only with spades.

Our interviews with key informants confirmed the existence of many of these negative attitudes towards the farmworkers. In fact, these informants themselves exhibited these attitudes, saying things like: ‘Naledi people are wild’, ‘they commit crimes’, ‘people from Naledi suffer from identity crises’, and ‘Naledi is a very huge burden on Khotsong’. One of the key informants went so far as to claim that the people of Naledi have ‘a problem of an identity crisis – meaning they still see themselves as people from the farms – they disregard themselves’. These comments from well-educated people in the area plainly will not help to create an integrated community by incorporating the farmworkers socially and giving them a sense of belonging.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, we assessed the effects of an off-farm urban housing project for farmworkers in Bothaville nearly a decade and a half after the project ended. We did this by comparing the relocated farmworkers’ on-farm and off-farm living experiences. Our findings were mixed: there was no consensus that farm life was either all good or all bad. The same applied to the respondents’ views on urban living. It is easy to over-emphasise the negativity. Despite some positive reflections on owning urban housing, the historical lack of place attachment, low levels of assets and high levels of social disruption do continue. We found some common identity among the farmworkers, but very little evidence that urban housing has been instrumental in creating that identity. We could see that relocation to Naledi, both at the beginning of the project and more recently, has contributed to rather than lessened social disruption.

We found little evidence that relocating to an urban house with secure tenure guaranteed through homeownership is enough of an asset to create place attachment, enable asset accumulation and ensure stability. The magnitude of historical and current levels of social disruption is overpowering. It seems unlikely that the assets provided will bring benefits to the next generation, partly because of the low level of services (for example education) and, we would argue, because the long history of social disruption inhibits place attachment and prevents asset accumulation. It appeared that social disruption was being perpetuated by the dislocation between the farmers’ home and workplace and by the discrimination to which they were being subjected.

The government housing policy of providing off-farm housing and urban homeownership did not seem to have helped to create place attachment and improve asset accumulation. At best, urban housing has broken the chains of dependency. However, despite having given farmworkers greater freedom, it has been unable to create the stability that place attachment and homeownership were supposed to have provided. The alternative policy option of providing on-farm as well as off-farm housing has also not helped because much of the current lack of place attachment is directly related to the provision of on-farm housing. The answer to creating more stability perhaps lies outside housing, homeownership and place attachment. We argue that the agricultural industry should consider using other means, such as the professionalisation of farm work and appropriate training of farmworkers. Such approaches could improve the status of farmworkers and increase their salaries.

Finally, the question is, what does our case study contribute to asset-based welfare and place attachment? We think there are three important points to be made in this respect. First, homeownership per se is not the only contributor to both place attachment and asset-based development. This confirms criticism of land titling programmes (see, for example, Gilbert, 2002). This also confirms the international literature that focuses on a variety of aspects to building assets. Programme in the US commonly focuses on broader aspects of education, saving and homeownership (Sherraden, 1991) – aspects that have been absent in the application in our case study. A narrow focus on homeownership or land titling in asset-building programmes or as a way to create place attachment do not consider the complexity of dealing with poverty. Secondly, homeownership does not magically deal with creating stability or place attachment if the social system (both farming and the lack of urban acceptance) make people vulnerable. Place attachment literature should accept that broader social and economic realities influence it. The over-emphasis on homeownership (Brown and Perkins, 2001) as a way to create place attachment and to build assets requires rethinking. The literature requires a far more holistic and integrated understanding of what contributes to place attachment and asset building. Thirdly, settling people in a separate section of Khotseng reinforced the negative perceptions of the local people and limited the development of place attachment. A better plan of urban integration might well have assisted in creating more place attachment in the urban context. Place attachment literature should consider wider social implications. Fourthly, in the same way, that literature points to the inter-generational value of assets (Moser, 2006), the long-term intergenerational reality of social disruption should also be understood. Dealing with this reality requires time and a multi-faceted approach.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).