There are many different versions of ‘success’ in Zimbabwe’s A1 land reform areas as we found out across 11 different ‘success ranking’ exercises in our sites in Mazowe, Gutu, Masvingo and Matobo districts. A total of 208 people (113 men, 95 women) were involved in different workshops, and all proved lively and incredibly illuminating on the dynamics of change in land reform areas over 25 years.
Defining success
We discovered in our workshops how varied the different criteria for success are, with people highlighting aspects going well beyond standard metrics of asset ownership, income, housing quality and so on. Relationships, networks and connections were seen to be important in generating success, whether within a household through creating family cohesion or beyond, allowing flows of remittances and investment from relatives in far-flung places. A sense of belonging and obligation to the wider community and the appreciation of the opportunities of land reform was important for many too, as this generated the sort of commitment that success requires, they argued.
Success emerges not just from hard work of individuals and families but also as a result of the wider context. If there are no roads, schools, clinics and so on, success cannot emerge, even if private alternatives are sought by some individuals. Investments in public, community goods were seen as important, alongside individual accumulation from agriculture, livestock and off-farm work – ideally in an integrated, diversified way. All this is held together by the work of social reproduction, of unpaid caring labour, supporting children, managing health and so on.
Changes over time
In our work, we are particularly interested in changes over time, in line with our longitudinal study of change of 25 years after land reform. In all sites, we had conducted success rankings before, and it was interesting to compare how different households were placed now as against 2008, 2014 and 2018, depending on the site. Changes are not predictable, and some households moved up, while others moved down. Around half overall were in the same rank as before.
The criteria that define success today are different to when we last conducted success rankings and there was much more emphasis now on making homes comfortable – with solar electricity and piped water – and having the trappings of a ‘modern’, ‘town’ life, with TVs, internet and so on. Success is more than just being a good farmer but making a home attractive and comfortable. Convenience was seen to be at a premium too, with easy access to town, good transport links and the ownership of cars/trucks etc. seen as important indicators of success.
Overall, patterns of differentiation have changed too. While we kept to three success groups as our standard, there were clearly differences between how these were defined now and before, alongside differences within success groups. For example, SG1 (the most successful) included the classic successful farmer (hurudza) of the past; the ones we saw ‘accumulating from below’ in the 2000s, but also now we had those who were clearly much richer (the ‘mbinga’, ‘those with everything’). These richer SG1 households all had links to town and businesses and were combining successful farming with lucrative off-farm options, including in the diaspora.
In the same way, the least successful SG3 households had a much larger variation within the group than before. Some were classically asset and income poor, but others were barely hanging on and had joined classes of highly precarious labour in these areas. Still others had left completely. Not everyone in land reform areas is successful, therefore.
There was also much debate about those people who were simply ‘holding’ land for the future, as part of an investment for children, retirement or speculatively for future sale. Some of these people were known to be rich and successful in town, but there was nothing in the rural home. These people were all allocated a SG3 rank, however, so important was the idea of success being on the farm (even if involving connected off-farm activities).
Generational transitions
As the previous blogs have shown, generational transitions are crucial. As the original settlers become older or more infirm, ensuring a secure transition either to a wife (usually) or to a son (or daughter) is essential. This is why family cohesion is noted as so important, as it helps avoid inheritance disputes. Such transitions are clearly made easier if there are multiple sources of income and wives and/or children have been involved in managing these before a male household head dies.
We have seen across our sites examples of once successful households collapsing in fortunes very suddenly if the right conditions for transition are not there. Conversely, we have seen other households prosper after such changes with new configurations of farming, business, trading and so on created by a next generation or by a widow able to manage by herself.
Succession and inheritance planning are not just something for elites with millions in the bank, but for everyone as we learned across our success ranking discussions.
Changing gender roles
Gender roles have changed significantly over time in the land reform areas as people balanced production and social reproduction. Land reform farms are not the same as communal areas of the past, where women’s spaces were confined to kitchens and small garden plots. As we discussed in the success ranking workshops, women now take on multiple roles in farming businesses as well as in off-farm enterprises, together with husbands and other family members. Very often women are the lead, being more mobile, often good at management and coordination and budget keeping, and with networks that are crucial to successful marketing and trading. The capacity to organise, mobilise people and funds and manage investments is seen as crucial to success on these new farms, and women are very often seen to take a central role.
With investments in boreholes and pumps for domestic water supply, many women and girls in relatively successful households no longer have to walk long distances to collect water, or if not moving themselves manage the process. The same applies to firewood collection and providing cooking fuel, heating and lighting. With solar systems, electric lighting is guaranteed, and with gas easily available, cooking can be done with no labour involved in sourcing fuel. This releases considerable time from formerly arduous social reproduction tasks that were the domain of women.
With women often absent, involved in an array of off-farm activities, resident men may take on caring roles, but more often this involves the employment of maids and cooks in richer households. Female labour can in turn be invested in other activities that allow for accumulation and success. As the original settlers age, often suffering illnesses, caring roles increase. Both men and women can be involved in these roles. Care for elderly parents is an increasing part of ensuring success and household continuity.
Across our workshops, the comment that it is important to ‘marry well’, seeking out ‘good’ wives and husbands, able to generate family cohesion and unity was heard again and again. Effective planning, budgeting and networking are key, and very often we were told that success comes from husbands and wives (together with children) working ‘as a team’. The focus on ‘business’ not ‘just farming’ was a frequent reflection, where these organisational and management skills are seen as essential. Women were often seen to be the most connected – through WhatsApp groups, savings clubs and participating in church groups, for example – and it was very clear that effective empowerment of women was crucial for wider success.
Accumulation, differentiation and class formation
As the discussions in the previous blogs have highlighted, the changes in ‘success’ articulate with changing patterns of accumulation, differentiation and class formation in our sites (see a future blog series on these themes). These are often quite different in apparently similar places. There is no predictable pattern of agrarian and livelihood change as chance, contingency and conjunctural factors intervene in complex processes, affected both by local contexts and the particularities of individuals and their social relationships.
The broad story of ‘accumulation from below’ through agriculture (and livestock) that we reported in our earlier assessments of A1 land reform in Zimbabwe still apply (see also, here). A significant proportion of people are generating surpluses and reinvesting them, and the patterns of investment continue to expand, beyond just homes and farm equipment to cars, solar systems, irrigation kit and rental places in town.
This all drives processes of social differentiation, with some improving while others decline. The emergence of a semi-proletarian class of labour is witness to this, struggling at the bottom of SG3, as is the emergence of a land reform elite at the top of SG1. But these changes are not forever, nor are they predictable. Sudden shifts in fortunes can result in dramatic changes, and these sometimes can be reversed, often quite quickly. As the success ranking discussions have highlighted, it is an incredibly dynamic situation, with a lot of movement up and down ranks over time.
Policy interventions: four approaches to encourage more success?
How should public policy – and potentially donor interventions – intervene in such a complex situation? What might allow for more success to be generated? What might stop people dropping down the ranks? How to prevent people exiting altogether? How can interventions be targeted both to individuals and at a more collective level?
These are all ‘holy grail’ questions, but ones that might help with a more effective approach to supporting A1 land reform areas, which remain a key driver of development more generally, generating food, employment and local economic growth in important ways. Taken together, the success ranking exercises proved incredibly revealing. It is difficult to generalise from such diverse settings, but we will conclude this blog series with four suggestions of what might make a difference.
- An effective land administration system is key in ensuring that the land reform areas continue to have the benefits of relatively larger land areas and so the opportunities for accumulation from below, resulting in all the other employment and growth spin-off benefits through linkage effects. At the moment, there is a lot of land redistribution through leasing and sale through informal, local land markets. The result is fragmentation and shrinking land areas. For those with very small areas of land, such as farmworkers, it is very difficult to gain access to more land as the system is not transparent. While there are important opportunities for intensification through irrigation as we have seen across the sites, this also has limits. A more coherent, regulated approach to land administration is clearly needed, as argued many times before on this blog.
- Many people get stuck in lower success groups as they don’t have the resources to step up and so accumulate further. Over time there has been widespread stagnation. The early opportunities for improvement and generating success have tailed off in some cases. We see this across sites, where overall 38% of households have remained in SG2 or SG3 over time, with a higher proportion being observed (49%) in the former farmworker compounds, compared to 21% in the self-contained A1 farms. Movement upwards is often constrained simply because farmers don’t have $1000 or $2000 to buy a piece of equipment for irrigation, transport of whatever. The lack of rural finance is a big issue in Zimbabwe and small loan arrangements, without complex collateral requirements, could be a vital injection that spurs success for those currently stuck. Well focused and widely available, such a programme would allow many – men and women, from farmworkers to others with established farms – to invest and move towards greater success when capital is the constraint, and without relying on the arduous requirements of collateral financing through commercial banks.
- We have noted the importance of the investment in collective goods across our sites. Roads, reservoirs, schools, clinics and so on are vital to a successful livelihood. Although there is an impressive amount of self-provisioning, these are public goods and appropriately it is the role of the state to invest in and maintain them. This is not happening and means that the multiplier effects of land reform linking to towns and the wider economy become lessened as the costs of operating in land reform areas declines. District-level, area-based planning would allow for strategic investments to encourage such forward- and backward-linkages and so growth. This can be linked to training in appropriate diversification and a revision of restrictive regulations that prevent small-scale business expansion in small towns. Such a district-based approach would chime with a decentralised localisation agenda and could go hand-in-hand with the creation of decentralised land administration system, as discussed above.
- Succession and inheritance are big issues for many households as we have seen, and this will remain so. The first generation of land reform settlers are getting old, and the next generation is taking over. This is not always easy. Advice and support for inheritance planning to allow for smooth succession is clearly needed to avoid the problems of transition that we have previously discussed. This could simply involve some sharing of experiences, supported by legal advice and counselling/mentoring. A campaign to encourage public awareness on legal provisions could complement this, particularly for women inheriting land as happened many years ago with the Neria film starring Oliver Mtukudzi.
The land reform areas of Zimbabwe are fast-changing and sustained, long-term success is often elusive, but if the above interventions could become part of a new set of investments and policy focus on land reform areas – from government and donors alike – then there will be more prospects of success into the future.
This is the sixth and final blog in a series exploring ideas of ‘success’ in post-land reform Zimbabwe. The blog has been written by Ian Scoones and Tapiwa Chatikobo, with inputs from Felix Murimbarimba (who facilitated the workshops), Godfrey Mahofa, Jacob Mahenehene, Sydney Jones (Matobo), Moses Mutoko (Masvingo), Makiwa Manaka (Gutu), Vincent Sarayi/Peter Tsungu (Mvurwi) amongst many others in each of our sites. This blog first appeared on Zimbabweland