example of the reasonableness standard, which was forged by the court in the presence of both clearly enumerated and justiciable constitutional economic and social rights, and a structured limitations clause.24 In Part II, I contrast this approach with proportionality analysis, which has been deployed in civil and political constitutional rights cases in South Africa, but far fewer economic and social rights cases. In Part III, I discuss a more direct integration of proportionality into reasonableness review, and suggest what is gained, and what is lost, by this approach. A final question is whether reasonableness review, developed out of largely common law traditions, will travel as well as proportionality analysis purports to do. I. REASONABLENESS REVIEW The South African Constitution provides a useful case study in which to evaluate the connections between reasonableness, proportionality and economic and social rights. With an expansive text,25 and the rights-promoting legacy of the anti-apartheid struggle,26 the Constitutional Court’s approach to interpreting the constitutional rights to housing, health care, food and water, social security, and education has drawn a great deal of comparative attention. And if proportionality analysis jurisprudence is usually developed 24 Sth. Afr. Const. §§ 26-29 (rights to housing, healthcare, food, water and social security, children’s rights, and education); § 36 (limitations of rights). 25 Id. 26 For analysis, see Karl E. Klare, Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism, 14 S. AFR. J. HUM. RTS. 146 (1998); THEUNIS ROUX, THE POLITICS OF PRINCIPLE (2013). 5