As discussed in the previous blog, we carried out repeat ‘success rankings’ in three of our communal area sites, which are all nearby our A1 smallholder land reform sites, where we have undertaken research over the past years. By matching households from the earlier rankings in 2017, we were able to assess whether in 2025 a particular household was placed in the same rank or whether they had moved up or down in the intervening eight years. Through discussions in the ranking workshops, we were able to explore why these changes had occurred and what the consequences were.
In some cases, these were individual, idiosyncratic circumstances – a death or illness in the family, the sudden loss of assets, such as livestock and so on – but in most cases the explanations emerged from understanding the type of constraints discussed in the previous blog, where demographic pressures, generational change or remittance windfalls from diaspora based relatives made all the difference.
Transitions in success over time
The following tables and summary statistics offer the data on transitions for the three sites.
Gutu South communal area, near Wondedzo A1 areas in Masvingo district
| 2025 rankings | |||||
| 2017 rankings | SG1 | SG2 | SG3 | Total | |
| SG1 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 18(16.7%) | |
| SG2 | 4 | 23 | 14 | 41(38.0%) | |
| SG3 | 3 | 11 | 35 | 49(45.4%) | |
| Total | 10(9.3%) | 46(42.6%) | 52(48.1%) | 108(100%) | |
Summary:
- 56.5% (61 households) remained static (3 households remained in SG1, 23 households remained in SG2 and 35 households remained in SG3).
- 26.9% (29 households) decreased their rank moving down or two categories over the period.
- 16.7% (18 households) increased their ranking moving one or two rankings over the period.
- Overall, 43.5% (47 households) had changed rank.
Serima communal area, near Clare and Lonely A1 land reform sites in Gutu district
| 2025 rankings | |||||
| 2017 rankings | SG1 | SG2 | SG3 | Total | |
| SG1 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 14(12.2%) | |
| SG2 | 1 | 10 | 29 | 40(34.8%) | |
| SG3 | 0 | 14 | 47 | 61(53.0%) | |
| Total | 3(2.6%) | 31(21.0%) | 81(70.4%) | 115(100%) | |
Summary:
- 51.3% (59 households) remained static (2 households remained in SG1, 10 households remained in SG2 and 47 households remained in SG3).
- 35.7% (41 households) decreased their rank moving down or two categories over the period.
- 13.0% (15 households) increased their ranking moving one or two rankings over the period.
- Overall, 48.7% (56 households) had changed rank.
Khumalo East communal area, near Vimbi and Luma A1 sites in Matobo district
| 2025 rankings | |||||
| 2017 rankings | SG1 | SG2 | SG3 | Total | |
| SG1 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8(6.6%) | |
| SG2 | 0 | 22 | 28 | 50(41.0%) | |
| SG3 | 0 | 8 | 56 | 64(52.5%) | |
| Total | 0(0%) | 37(30.3%) | 85(69.7%) | 122(100%) | |
Summary:
- 63.9% (78 households) remained static (0 households remained in SG1, 22 households remained in SG2 and 56 households remained in SG3).
- 29.5% (36 households) decreased their rank moving down or two categories over the period.
- 6.6% (8 households) increased their ranking moving one or two rankings over the period.
- Overall, 36.1% (44 households) had changed rank.
Across these three areas, we see that the largest proportion of households were ranked in the lowest success rank (3), and that this proportion has increased between 2017 and 2025. There are few ranked today in the top success group (0-9%) and this proportion has declined over time. Very few increased their ranking over this period, and many had declined. In other words, in terms of people’s perceptions, the success of those living in these villages has declined, with fewer livelihood opportunities and access to assets and other resources.
The criteria used in the recent rankings are listed in our earlier blog. They cover a range of features from farm production to asset ownership to having a ‘good home’ to having access to off-farm work or remittances, as well as less material factors such as being in ‘good health’. These criteria combine in the composite ranking agreed by the group for each household. Deep knowledge of all households and much debate for some results in agreed rank. Of course, over time criteria change as do perceptions, so there are inevitable limitations when comparing time periods. However, many of the same participants were involved in the recent rankings so continuity between the assessments did exist. These are relative assessments across a sample and can never be definitive, but the ranks ring true and correlations between ranks and more conventional poverty assessment indicators are always significant (see xxx).
Comparing A1 and communal area ‘success’
The following table compares the percentages of households in each transition category for A1 (including self-contained sites, SC) and communal area study sites. The A1 data has been shared in a previous blog series, while the communal area data is repeated (with rounded figures) from the tables above. The communal area site which is closest to the A1 sites is in the column immediately to the left.
| A1 (SC) | A1 | CA | A1 (SC) | A1 | A1 | CA | A1 | CA | |
| Clare | Lonely | Serima | Wondedzo Ext | Wondedzo Wares | Sanangwe | Gutu South | Matobo A1 | Khumalo East | |
| Static | 37 | 52 | 51 | 47 | 47 | 47 | 56 | 56 | 64 |
| Decrease | 31 | 36 | 36 | 6 | 20 | 45 | 27 | 12 | 29 |
| Increase | 31 | 12 | 13 | 47 | 33 | 7 | 17 | 30 | 7 |
Overall, with two exceptions, the percentage of households whose ranks increased over time was higher in the A1 sites. The two exceptions were Lonely and Sanangwe A1 sites where there were significant decreases in ranks over time.
In the Gutu areas, Serima communal area had a pattern quite similar to nearby Lonely, whilst the Clare self-contained site saw many more increases in success rank. This reflects the particular story of these A1 sites (see earlier blogs, here and here). Lonely A has seen real challenges of generational transition, with previously very successful male farmers, who were leaders in horticulture production in wetland areas, passing on and widows and children struggling to continue this work. In relative terms, success groups 2 and 3 in Lonely are probably higher in terms of actual assets and production than in Serima but the pattern of decline is still clear. Serima’s declines are for similar reasons, along with the general lack of resources described in the previous blog. Overall, both these areas are struggling, with around half of households remaining static. In Clare farm, by contrast, we see people moving up, down and remaining static in almost equal proportions, reflecting an area in flux, as new people and investments arrive resulting in improvements, while others suffer from generational transitions.
In the Masvingo areas, we see big contrasts between Wondedzo (Extension and Wares) and Sanangwe A1 sites. The former show significant success, with 47% and 33% of households increasing their ranks. By contrast, in Sanangwe, only 7% managed a positive transition, whereas nearly half declined in ranks (47%). Sanangwe shows greater declines and fewer increases than the comparator communal area because, as described in the earlier blog series, this area has been flooded by new arrivals, and in many respects resembles a communal area with shrinking land areas and few resources. This contrasts significantly with the Wondedzo sites, which show a much more positive set of transitions, with significant accumulation from below.
In the Matobo area, the difference between the communal areas and the A1 areas is the most striking of all. The A1 areas had 30% of households with rank increases compared to only 7% for the communal area. The pattern of declines is almost exactly the reverse (12% and 29%) as the proportion remaining static was fairly similar.
Has land reform made a difference?
With the notable exceptions where either generational transition (Lonely) or in-migration (Sanangwe) had limited opportunities, the A1 areas have shown more increases in success rank over the past eight years. These emerge substantially from ‘accumulation from below’, greater production leading to more income and so investments, although in all cases off-farm income sources are important too.
The increases in success rank in the communal areas, by contrast, have not come from such endogenous accumulation dynamics as resource limitations largely mean that such opportunities are impossible in these sites. Structural factors mean that many are simply too poor to improve livelihoods from locally-based activity, even with external aid subsidies. Instead, sustained improvements have come almost exclusively from investments from outside, notably through diaspora remittances. Success comes from outside, as structural poverty limits opportunities within the communal areas. Reasons for decline overlap between A1 and communal areas, with the challenges of generational transition on the death of a male household head being especially prominent across all sites, whether A1 or communal.
In sum, answering the question ‘has land reform made a difference?’ is difficult. It depends on the area and the particular circumstances. Overall, though, the opportunities for accumulation (particularly from agriculture/livestock and so from below) is greater in A1 areas, although challenges remain, as our outlier cases clearly show.
These particular experiences point to some important policy considerations: how to manage generational transitions (a theme that we have emphasised repeatedly in recent blogs) and how to avoid the re-congestion of land reform areas and sustain the benefit of having more land through redistribution. We will be returning to these challenges in future blogs as we continue to analyse our longitudinal data.
This blog has been written by Tapiwa Chatikobo and Ian Scoones, with inputs from Felix Murimbarimba (who facilitated the workshops). Prudence Hove (Chiweshe), Sydney Jones and Guidance Gobvu (Kumalo East), Kennedy Suwayi (Gutu South) and Manika Manaka (Serima) helped to coordinate the workshops. This blog first appeared on Zimbabweland.