According to Raju and Singh (2014:1), ‘seventy-five percent of the world’s poor live in rural areas and depend on agriculture as their primary source of income’. The majority of agricultural households depend on the smallholder farming sector for their survival (Meemkena & Bellemareb 2020). Aliber and Hall (2010), Hazell (2011), Singh (2012), Nelsona et al. (2014), Raju and Singh (2014) and Aliber and Mdoda (2015) noted that the smallholder farming sector occupies a significant role in producing food worldwide and contributing to the reduction of rural poverty, food insecurity and unemployment. Hazell (2011) and Sarah, Lower and Terri (2016) found that approximately 500 million smallholder producers participate in agricultural activities across the world.

The smallholder farming sub-sector’s role is also emphasised within South Africa’s National Development Plan (NDP), which allocated smallholder producers with a mandate to drive rural development and improve their livelihoods (The Presidency 2012). Jordaan, Grové and Backeberg (2014) and Zantsi, Greyling and Vink (2019) asserted that smallholder producers are distinctively placed to perform a key role in stimulating the rural economy towards alleviating poverty in South Africa. Yet whilst smallholder producers occupy a key role within the agricultural sector, the issue of a lack of land for production remains a challenge (Khapayi & Celliers 2016). Numerous smallholder producers have two or fewer hectares of land (Fan & Rue 2020; Hazell 2011; Sarah et al. 2016; Wiggins, Kirsten & Lambi 2010). Lack of land has negative implications for smallholder farmers regarding market participation, farm income, investments and sustainability. Through planning processes, the local government together with the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development could create measures that would ensure the availability of sufficient productive land for agro-smallholder farmers. The focus of the government is mainly to provide agricultural inputs, tools and extension support services to the farmers, without paying close attention to the issue of insufficient productive land for this sector (Fan & Rue 2020).

The implication of this oversight is dire as it has implications for social instability if smallholder farmers are not supported to enter the mainstream market. Further, and according to Baiphethi and Jacobs (2009), small subsistence farmers can play a significant economic role as they have the potential to reduce vulnerability of the rural and urban poor – cushioning them from high food process.

Smallholder producers share the following characteristics: low market participation, lack of institutional capacity and support, lack of infrastructure, labour intensive, utilising traditional production techniques, located in the rural areas, middle-aged women dominate the sub-sector, size of the land for farming or limited access to land, lack of access to adequate financing and high levels of vulnerability (Aliber & Mdoda 2015; Fan & Rue 2020; Hazell 2011; Nelsona et al. 2014; Raju & Singh 2014; Sarah et al. 2016; Singh 2012).

Garrity et al. (2010) and Schmidhuber and Bruinsma (2011) have found that locally produced goods from smallholder producers are the key to ensure food security. The growing global population will put increasing pressure on farmers to produce more food in the coming years and pressurise governments to deal with food security and other pressing socio-economic challenges (Garrity et al. 2010). The smallholder sub-sector’s growth and development must not be overlooked, as it will be needed to address the critical challenges being experienced by different countries, particularly within rural settings. Van Rooyen, Steward and De Wet (2012) and Jari and Fraser (2012) indicated that smallholder producers cannot be overlooked and will always be relevant in ensuring household food security and income generation.

Numerous researchers explained that development and support of smallholder producers are essential for addressing a number of the issues experienced by rural communities. The smallholder sector’s appropriate support could help redress the imbalances that exist within the agricultural sub-sector (Aliber & Hall 2012; De Satgé & Phuhlisani 2020; IFAD 2014). These imbalances relate to a lack of market access, agrarian business support and land ownership regarding economically viable land for cultivation. Mpandeli and Maponya (2014) noted that the South African agricultural smallholder sector has continued to maintain a livelihood in the face of unfavourable conditions. On the one hand, Van Rooyen et al. (2012), Norton (2014) and Devaux et al. (2016) explained that a successful future for agro-smallholder producers depends on their linkages into the agro-system and commercial value chain. The government and farmers consider unlocking markets for smallholder producers as a vital developmental necessity (Obi, Van Schalkwyk & Van Tilburg 2012). The government’s willingness to unlock markets for the smallholders’ farming sector is indicated in the NDP Vision 2030, identified as the ‘need to utilise procurement programmes to help smallholder producers connect to markets’ (The Presidency 2012:205).

Although South African municipalities have jurisdiction over municipal markets, the smallholder sub-sector continues to find it challenging to participate in those markets because of issues relating to transportation, quantity and quality, infrastructure, pricing and storage systems for their produce, amongst others. Municipal markets refer to the spaces or structures created and controlled by a municipality where the selling and the buying of farm produce occur. Chikazunga et al. (2008) stipulated that most of the municipal markets lack a clear vision in terms of taking the smallholder farming sub-sector forward. The well-developed agricultural markets remain inaccessible to the smallholder farming sub-sector, largely because of lack of resources, poor conditions of infrastructure, poor technical knowledge and skills and absence of market information (Baloyi 2010; Jari & Fraser 2009, 2012; Ortmann & King 2010).

The South African government has created numerous support programmes since 1994 to try to reduce some of the challenges faced by the smallholder farming sub-sector (Jordaan et al. 2014; Sikwela 2013; Statistics South Africa 2011; Thamaga-Chitja & Morojele 2014). These included, amongst the others, the Integrated Food Security Strategy, Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme, Micro-agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa, Linking Producers to Markets Programme, Comprehensive Rural Development Programme, Siyakhula/Massive Food Programme, Extension & Advisory Services Programme and Integrated Food and Nutrition Programme. The main purpose behind the formulation of such programmes was to improve infrastructure, access to land, finance and markets and create an environment in which the smallholder farmers can broadly participate in the agricultural food chain. Aliber and Hall (2010) and De Satgé and Phuhlisani (2020) stipulated that the support activities initiated by different government institutions showed little success in developing and growing the smallholder sector. Lack of coordination is one of the reasons why the support provided is failing, and the initiatives that have been created have focussed only on the ‘food security’ for some poor households and ‘ladders-up’ for a few better-off farmers. (Aliber & Hall 2010). There is a lack of support initiatives or programmes that focusses on ‘accumulation from below’ for a significant percentage of the existing population of smallholder farmers (Aliber & Hall 2010).

Sikwela (2013:78) noted that several ‘farmer support programmes had been instituted in South Africa, but very little is known about their impact on smallholder producers’. Aliber and Hall (2010:3) indicated that the ‘smallholder sector in South Africa has been subject to years of official neglect, despite numerous policies and programmes that proclaim the opposite’. Furthermore, Jordaan et al. (2014) commented that despite the various interventions and the enormous efforts and investment by government institutions, the growth and performance of the South African smallholder sub-sector remain disappointing. Erastus, Stephen and Abdullai (2014:29) also indicated that the structures that have been created to stimulate an enabling business environment for the smallholder sector ‘have not succeeded in providing the requisite opportunities to enhance smallholders’ growth and development’.

Thamaga-Chitja and Morojele (2014) indicated that the government’s institutional support fails to take into account the communal life of rural people, which must be understood before business-oriented interventions in the agricultural smallholder sector can be successful. These authors found that the communal life of ‘sharing and working’ mismatches or clashes with the profit-oriented way of business model. Such mismatches and lack of extensive capacity-building programmes tend to badly affect smallholders’ access to markets and the inability of the support programmes to capture the needs of the smallholder farmers.

According to Aliber and Hall (2010:53), the failure of government initiatives is because they have been ‘too prescriptive about what smallholder farmers produce; their use of technology; the scale of production; and purpose of production (whether for consumption or sale)’. Such factors have undermined the success of the smallholder farmers as the majority of them are still characterised by poor performance, unsustainability and they are required, through government initiatives, to form large groups to achieve economies of scale (Fan & Rue 2020).

The government initiatives have been mainly focussing on turning the smaller number of smallholder farmers into large-scale commercial farmers (Aliber & Hall 2010). Smallholder farmers should choose what to produce, how they should sell their produce, how they should conduct their operations or whether to be part of a cooperative to achieve large-scale production. The unsatisfactory results of the previous and current government policy initiatives mean that the smallholder sub-sector cannot fulfil the desired outcome of addressing socio-economic issues in the rural areas. In addition, the continuation of similar challenges affecting the smallholder sub-sector shows the government’s policies ineffectiveness. Louw and Lulama (2015) indicated that to deal with the limitations that exist within the development of the smallholder sector, a clear explanation of smallholder farmers and comprehensive analyses of livelihood strategies that result from diversification amongst this heterogeneous group is needed. Thus, commercialisation of smallholder farmers should not be the key strategy for the government in supporting the smallholder sector. This is ineffective on the grounds of efficiency and equity; therefore, different strategies should be incorporated to ensure the development of this sector.

A survey conducted by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) in 2010 shows that the government programmes and policies have focussed on commercially oriented producers with little coordination related to the government’s activities for smallholder producers (Stats SA 2011). To ensure the sustainable and successful integration of smallholder producers into the agricultural value chain, the government should accept that this process must involve numerous stakeholders and integrated planning. The preparedness and willingness of all stakeholders to cooperate in developing sustainable and integrated smallholder producers are necessary components in this regard. Government support towards smallholder producers is centred on the lack of planning, coordination and appropriate organising of the infrastructural, financial and human resources processes by the various government departments. Administrative processes, in this article, refers to those functions and principles that are essential to the management of the government institutions to effectively achieve the stated objectives.

Whilst the South African government continues to provide support to the smallholder sub-sector, smallholders’ access to the formal markets remains a challenge (Fan & Rue 2020; Khapayi & Celliers 2016; Simelane, Terblanche & Masarirambi 2019). Numerous researchers have indicated that the government processes and activities aimed at addressing similar problems are not integrated, and limited resources tend to be wasted on siloed projects that do not yield expected outcomes. However, there is a lack of studies on the government processes to improve the smallholder sub-sector’s access to municipal markets. Also, there is a dearth of studies that explore municipal markets’ influences on smallholder growth and development in South Africa. This article explored the influence of the governmental, specifically the provincial and municipal, administrative processes on agro-smallholders’ ability to access municipal markets − exploring the importance of coordination, organising and integrated planning between government departments in shaping the smallholder farming sub-sector. The main objective was to explore the administrative processes that the local government has in place to support agro-smallholder producers for market entry. This article is divided into seven sections, which include: introduction and background; research methods and design; review of literature on the smallholder agricultural sub-sector; theoretical framework; results and discussion; summary of the findings and finally conclusion.

This study was conducted in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province in the eThekwini Municipality, which is one of the eight metropolitan municipalities in South Africa. This article employed an exploratory research design, which enabled the researcher to collect extensive data on the individuals and institution(s) being researched. Exploratory studies are necessary when certain facts are known (see, for example, studies by Aliber & Hall 2012; Louw et al. 2008; Salami, Kamara & Brixiova 2010). This article used a qualitative research approach because it allowed the researcher to understand how figures and themes are created through social processes.

The purposive sampling method was selected for this study because the researcher wanted to include participants who were knowledgeable about the subject matter under investigation. The comprehensive primary data were collected using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with the government officials – KZN Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality. In addition, autoethnography and observation were also utilised to collect the primary data. The qualitative data collected during the semi-structured and focus group interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed using a thematic analysis (TA) technique.

This section commences with an explanation of the structure of the South African government before examining the role of each sphere with regard to agricultural activities, as well as how the country’s public service delivery and public administration is set up. This section entails an explanation on the agricultural sector with specific attention to the smallholder sector – it characteristics and challenges.

In South Africa, Chapter 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 stipulates government institutions that prescribe communication between the three spheres of government at all levels. Within the South African context, intergovernmental relations are the interactions between parts of the state or cooperation amongst government spheres (Kanyane 2014). To achieve governmental goals, including cooperative government, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 provides for an intergovernmental relations system that seeks to improve coordination and alignment amongst the spheres of government. Appropriate instruments such as the Intergovernmental Forum and the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of Ministers (Kanyane 2014) should be available to both public servants and political office-bearers to ensure continuous intergovernmental relations. Section 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 requires that the consultation process at both the vertical and the horizontal levels must be ensured before decisions are made on matters of common interest. This will enable the spheres or institutions involved to coordinate their legislation and relevant activities effectively and efficiently (Kahn, Madue & Kalema 2011).

Coordination is essential in a situation where there is a concurrency of responsibilities. However, the complex environment in which the public institutions operate periodically affects the process of intergovernmental relations.

A lack of integrated strategic planning amongst the spheres of government has been one of the shortcomings of service delivery. In turn, this has led to the government’s inability to render services in a coordinated manner. According to Kahn at al. (2011:117), the ‘strategic planning that cuts across the three spheres of government in South Africa is limited, which leads to fragmented service delivery’. The national and provincial spheres of government share the bulk of social services such as health, education, social security and welfare, housing and agriculture (Republic of South Africa 1996). In these areas, on the one hand, the national sphere of government mainly formulates policies, whilst the provincial sphere implements those policies.

On the other hand, the local government is responsible for the provision of basic services such as refuse removal, water, electricity, municipal markets and municipal infrastructure (Republic of South Africa 1996). The local government performs these functions based on the regulatory frameworks, which the national and provincial governments set. Whilst there are pockets of excellence in government delivery, the challenge remains how to ensure that the best basic services are delivered to the public to aid an outcome-oriented intergovernmental relations framework (Biyela et al. 2018). The quality of public services and the pace of improvements in public services do not match most citizens’ expectations, especially in the rural areas. The NDP Vision 2030 indicated that the agricultural sector is a ‘concurrent function of the national and provincial government, but it is also dependent on basic infrastructure and planning decisions that are functions of local government’ (The Presidency 2012:233).

South Africa’s agricultural sector is referred to as a dual economy (Greyling 2015; Zantsi et al. 2019). This is because it consists of both a large commercial sub-sector and a smallholder farming sub-sector, the latter of which operates mainly in the rural areas (National Development Agency 2013; Zantsi et al. 2019). Most of the population within the rural areas live in poverty, and they are, in one way or another, participants in agriculture-related activities. According to Stats SA (2018), poverty levels in the rural areas of South Africa are markedly higher than in the urban areas, with 45.6% of people living in rural areas being poor compared to 13.4% of those residing in the urban areas. Provinces such as Limpopo, North West, KZN and Eastern Cape in particular have areas with significant poverty. The agricultural sector is one of the primary industries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) with a large smallholder agricultural farming sub-sector that is not part of the mainstream, with most farmers operating in semi-arid and overcrowded areas (Poulton et al. 2010; Sikwela 2013; Zantsi et al. 2019).

The smallholder agricultural sub-sector is a critical source of income generation for many households in rural settings (Fan & Rue 2020; Zantsi et al. 2019). According to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA 2014), the smallholder sub-sector represents 80% of all SSA farms, and makes meaningful contributions to production amongst the SSA countries. Countries that promoted the smallholder sub-sector – for various political reasons – used agriculture as an engine of growth and the basis of their industrialisation.

The smallholder farmers produce fresh goods to meet their families’ needs whilst at the same time, many of them hope to find opportunities in the local, regional and global markets. Yet, numerous constraints block these farmers from quickly accessing lucrative markets for their produce, for example, most smallholder producers are found in remote areas where there is a severe lack of marketing facilities (Sikwela 2013). Additional limitations include poor or underdeveloped infrastructure, ranging from the non-existence of local market spaces to unreliable sources of market information (Fan & Rue 2020; Ngqangweni et al. 2016; Wiggins & Keats 2013).

The smallholder producers who are involved with agricultural activities in rural settings are often unable to access markets effectively because of their failure to constantly supply the right quantity and quality of products to the lucrative market segments (Fan & Rue 2020; Ngqangweni et al. 2016; Salami et al. 2010). A lack of investment by relevant agriculture stakeholders, mainly the government in the smallholder sub-sector, coupled with a lack of access to capital as well as poor infrastructure, have consistently limited this sector’s ability to improve its productivity and the quality of its produce (Van der Haijden 2010; Jari & Fraser 2012). Mamabolo (2017:13) indicated that the ‘inadequate support of agriculture through policy serves as a negative tool for providing, amongst others, food for farmers, food security, and job opportunities’. For the farming sector’s activities to remain attractive, access to resources, output markets, knowledge, information, skills and infrastructure are crucial to ensure that smallholder producers do business within the agricultural sector (Fan & Rue 2020; Raju & Singh 2014). Nicholls et al. (2013:25) noted that connecting smallholders to functional markets are, therefore, ‘crucial to realising sustainable livelihoods for the rural communities’. This must be performed by empowering smallholders to respond to the market demands in terms of volume, quality, consistent supply and traceability.

Several studies have been conducted on the smallholder farming sub-sector. These have included studies on the state of fresh produce markets; direct marketing; factors affecting farmers’ choices of marketing channels and produce; institutional and technical factors affecting farmers’ market choices; the innovative system approach; alternative marketing options; farmer linkages to markets; land grant resources; commercialisation of emerging farmers; cooperative or collective action to improve access; sources of credit for smallholder producers and the contribution of information communication technology (ICT) (Aliber & Mdoda 2015; Arinloye et al. 2015; Battersby et al. 2015; Chisasa 2014; Devaux et al. 2016; Fischer & Qaim 2014; Khapayi & Celliers 2016; Koech et al. 2015; Louw & Lulama 2015; Mpandeli & Maponya 2014; Njelekela & Sanga 2015; Ngqangweni et al. 2016; Poole 2017; Qwabe 2014; Raju & Singh 2014; Range 2017; Thamaga-Chitja & Morojele 2014; Wiggins & Keats 2013).

Furthermore, various researchers have investigated the government processes that relate directly to smallholders producers, whilst others have studied service delivery in general, such as participatory local government planning processes to accelerate service delivery; intergovernmental relations in strategic planning; horizontal bureaucrats’ influence on politicians and political decisions via their crucial role in preparing, coordinating and formulating policy; coordination and organisational performance; the state of collaboration between municipalities; conflict in local-provincial intergovernmental relations (Adepoju & Salman 2013; Aliber & Hall 2010; Bayu 2020; Biyela et al. 2018; Connell & Hergesheimer 2014; De Villiers 2012; Hegele 2018; Kahn et al. 2011; Kanyane 2014; Lowatcharin, Crumpton & Pacharoen 2019; Magagula et al. 2019; Mamabolo 2017; Mubangizi 2010, 2013; Mubangizi, Nhlabathi & Namara 2013; Muchara & Mbatha 2016; Peters 2018; Phakathi 2020; Ubisi, Khumalo & Nealer 2019; Wiewiora et al. 2016). Although several studies have been conducted on the smallholder sub-sector market access, there is a lack of studies that have holistically investigated the impact of government administrative processes on the smallholder sub-sector’s access to municipal markets, and also lack of studies that have explored the influence of municipal markets on smallholder growth and development in South Africa.

This study has adopted the classical theory of organisation, namely the administrative theory. This theory deals primarily with the formal organisational structures that determine the efficiency and effectiveness of those public entities that are responsible for supporting the smallholder farming sub-sector. Based on this theory, if an organisation’s principles have been fully adopted, it can lead to maximum organisational efficiency and economy. Naidu (2005:60) found that the ‘knowledge of elements and principles of administration would provide the manager with the power to organise any operation’. Since 1937, the contribution of Gulick and Urwick to the development of administrative theory has been known for the acronym ‘POSDCORB (Planning, Organising, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting) to describe seven functions of managers’ (Breese 2013:28). The POSDCORB framework, which falls under administrative theory, is considered by the researcher an appropriate framework for this study, as POSDCORB activities are essential for the organisation’s efficiency. Writers on administrative theory indicated that organisations cannot achieve their tasks without proper planning, organising, coordinating, budgeting and reporting.

The administrative theory is still found to be relevant today. In support of this, Breese (2013) commented that the administrative theory is still relevant as most of its principles, such as planning, organising, staffing, coordination, division of work and delegation, are still present and utilised in numerous organisations. The author stipulated that any organisation could not operate without considering some administration principles.

The government’s inability to effectively coordinate the support provided to smallholder producers, such as development planning, allocation of resources and the implementation and monitoring of development programmes, is its main weakness in addressing the challenges facing smallholder producers. This article was guided by three administrative principles: planning, organising and coordinating. The administrative theory was relevant for this article because the nature of the study particularly investigated government institutions’ processes and actions for the benefit of the agricultural smallholder producers. The administrative theory was also relevant to this article to provide the lenses used to explore how the government influences municipal markets to deal with market access by smallholder producers.

In this study, interviews were conducted with senior government officials and agricultural smallholder producers were included. It was decided to address eThekwini municipal officials as ‘MOs’; and for the provincial department of agriculture officials the acronym ‘POs’ was used. It was necessary to use these codes to differentiate the views of the government officials at the provincial and municipal levels. The summary of the findings are presented below which will be followed by the presentation of results and discussion. The results and discussion were based on the three developed themes that relate to the article’s main objective.

The municipal markets are divided into the retail and bulk or fresh produce markets. These markets accommodate all the producers across the country, especially the bulk markets; however, 99% of the fresh produce comes from the large commercial sector. The agro-smallholder producers’ participation in the municipal markets is very low, whilst the participation of commercial farmers is high. There are no mechanisms in place within the municipal markets to disseminate or distribute information to agro-smallholder producers about the municipal markets’ operations. For the municipal markets to be sustainable, they receive a budget from the municipality. It also generates revenue through the nominal fees they charge for rental space, cold rooms and commission.

There is no planning, coordination or relationship between the eThekwini Municipality and the KZN Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on the issues related to the promotion and development of smallholder producers. There is partial municipal internal coordination of activities with other departments that deal with the smallholder sector. There is not much integration of agrarian support programmes between the eThekwini Municipality and the KZN Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

The municipality, through the municipal markets, has the human capacity to assist the smallholder producers. The municipality and KZN Department of Agriculture and Rural Development support agro-smallholder producers by providing certain in-farm infrastructures. In addition, KZN Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has been providing the extension services programme to support the farmer.

The South African government formulates and implements laws and policies regarding citizens’ responsibilities and rights, and the provision of essential services to the public. When the government is formulating any such policies or plans, especially for the smallholder producers, it is essential that these constituents are involved or can participate in the process to incorporate their views. They have to promote governance and inclusive planning strategies at all government levels; stakeholders’ involvement in the planning process is indispensable. A discussion on the economic impact of the weak public administrative processes supporting agro-smallholders’ is beyond the scope of this article. However, the research reported in this article suggests that the smallholder producers’ lack of participation negatively affects the sub-sector, as their issues and views concerning the agricultural sector are not integrated into the municipality’s plans or policies. The lack of collaboration or integration between the activities and/or programmes related to agriculture between the provincial and local spheres of government does not positively contribute to the smallholder sub-sector’s growth. Based on the findings, it is recommended that the government departments create a single planning and coordination structure or forum that could be beneficial to the smallholder farmers. Public institutions must not tolerate excessive levels of incoherence and apparent disorder in government, that is, they must try to seize control of such levers as they can and create greater coordination.

The key challenges of the local and national markets for agro-smallholders remain unchanged. For example, different institutions that assist this sector continue to hold dissimilar views and set of assumptions about this sector’s risks and opportunities, and the large commercial sector still dominates the local and national markets. In addition, the underlying transaction costs, the volume of products and the inability of agro-smallholder farmers to find information regarding prices in urban areas or any other markets are also the main challenges that limit them from fully participating in the local and national markets. The ability of the smallholder farmers to ensure sales to the municipal markets and other markets often depends on them having excellent managerial and logistics skills and an ability to deliver a continuous supply of merchandise and meet challenging quality requirements and food safety standards. It is becoming essential for smallholder farmers to acquire the necessary knowledge that will assist them in taking effective action when participating in the markets. Also, the government should create programmes and policies that could help this sector access local and national markets and programmes that support local market development.

The government departments that directly deal with agricultural activities, especially the smallholder producers, have to create a single joint planning and coordination structure to discuss development priorities and planned projects for the smallholder sub-sector. The article also recommends that the government institutions incorporate stakeholders’ insights, lay a policy foundation for a whole-of-government approach to planning and set the direction for agro-smallholder’s planned future. For future studies, a broader investigation into the impact of agricultural role players in the smallholder sub-sector’s development and growth is required.