widely. The maximum lump sum subsidy, available<sup>for the very poor, is R16,000. As, in most cases, this</sup> is insufficient to cover the costs of a serviced site<sup>and a 40 square meter top structure, households have to</sup> augment the subsidy with a loan (or from<sup>own savings) or embark on an incremental housing process</sup> where only a rudimentary shelter can be provided<sup>at outset. Between April 1994 and September 1999, the</sup> Department of Housing facilitated the construction<sup>of some 920,000 housing units, thus spending some</sup> 70% of the allocated budget. This notwithstanding,<sup>the services provided have, in many cases, not</sup> corresponded to beneficiary demand and failed<sup>to crowd in the private sector or transform beneficiaries</sup> into worthy subjects for the credit market (Tomlinson<sup>1999).</sup>

# 4 **Evidence on land reform implementation**

In this section we use the survey evidence to examine<sup>whether land reform was targeted to the poor; to</sup> what degree the data can provide evidence on a<sup>potential conflict between attaining equity and efficiency</sup> goals; and whether characteristics of successful<sup>projects might be used to inform the overall design of the</sup> land reform program. We start out with descriptive<sup>evidence and then move to econometric analysis.</sup> Main results are that (i) the program was well<sup>generally targeted; (ii) establishment of economically</sup> viable projects did, according to the available evidence,<sup>not conflict with the objective of reaching the</sup> poor; and (iii) successful projects were characterized<sup>by beneficiaries making an own contribution, often</sup> taking out credit from other sources, and adopting<sup>a more streamlined management and decision-making</sup> structure than those that were initially envisaged<sup>by the program administration.</sup>

# **4.1 Household characteristics and targeting**

The data used are from a survey of 1168 randomly<sup>selected beneficiaries in 87 land reform projects that</sup> was conducted in September and October of 1999<sup>as part of the first phase of an on-going monitoring and</sup> evaluation exercise by DLA. The sample was<sup>drawn in two-stages. A first stage selected individual</sup> projects with probability proportional to size. In<sup>a second stage individual households were randomly</sup> selected from a complete beneficiary list drawn<sup>up for each of the projects that had been selected in stage</sup> one. This resulted in a final sample of 1168 randomly<sup>selected beneficiaries plus the associated projects.</sup> Descriptive statistics on beneficiaries are<sup>summarized in table 3. One notes that 75% of program</sup> beneficiaries fell below the poverty line.<sup>7While there was a considerable spread in beneficiary</sup> households' level of expenditure, median<sup>per capita consumption was less than two thirds of the poverty</sup> line and, by that criterion, the most well-off beneficiaries<sup>were found in the Western Cape, followed by</sup> 7As there is no official poverty line in South Africa,<sup>we use the 1993 household subsistence line calculated by the Institute for</sup> Planning Research at the University of Port Elizabeth.<sup>The figure has been adjusted using an adult equivalence scale, and made</sup> comparable to 1999 figures from the survey using the<sup>South African Consumer Price Index provided by Statistics South Africa.</sup> 10