What constitutes ‘success’ if you have land in the A1 land reform areas in Zimbabwe? This is the question we have been asking of local residents across our study sites in Mazowe, Gutu, Masvingo and Matobo districts. We have held 11 workshops in different sites, involving around 208 people (113 men and 95 women). The discussions were extremely revealing, showing how difficult it is to understand complex change over the 25 years following land reform.
The standard metrics from conventional economic evaluation are not enough, whether focusing on income or asset levels. Nor are the more elaborate assessments of multidimensional poverty or even of qualitative perspectives on ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’, as each offer an externally-defined set of criteria. Of course, when thinking about success different people focus on different elements, making it important to have an open-ended definition that can be located in any particular context. Throwing the question of ‘what is success?’ back to villagers, a composite, grounded view emerges, and this is the basis for ‘success ranking’ of individual households in a village.
Success ranking
‘Success ranking’ is an adaptation of ‘wealth ranking’, but here the focus is on the rather different notion of ‘success’. This was understood in ChiShona as ‘budiriro’ or ‘kubudirira’, while in IsiNdebele it was understood as ‘impumelelo’ or ‘intutuko’ (development, progress, advancement). In our case, we held success ranking sessions in mixed groups, chosen by our local collaborators to represent a range of different people in the community, purposely seeking different perspectives. Following an intensive discussion of what ‘success’ means, drawing out different views from men, women, youth (sometimes in the wider group and sometimes splitting up and feeding back), names of different households were read out and placed in one of three piles. In each of our sites, the discussions were lively and always revealing. Sometimes there was quick agreement, and in other instances discussions continued until agreement was reached.
The groups ranged from 10 to 55 participants and included both men and women of a variety of ages, ranging from 26 to 101! At the beginning of each session, the facilitators emphasised the importance of all participants contributing to the discussions, with all opinions regarded as equally valid. In addition, all participants were informed about confidentiality and were asked for permission to record the discussions. The discussions lasted around 2.5 hours, and at the end of each discussion, the research team gave a brief summary of the success rankings and in particular the characteristics of each success group. Participants were asked if they could correct any misunderstandings or add any other things/people that could have been missed. Upon completion, participants were thanked and given refreshments. Overall, these discussions were enjoyable and full of laughter and humour.
We conducted these workshops this year as a follow up to earlier ones from 2008, 2014 and 2018; 7-17 years before, depending on the site. This allowed us to look at ‘transitions’ between different success groups of households that were present at the two time points. Even if the criteria applied at the two times were different, the understandings of change are interesting as people move between different ‘success groups’. The reasons for moving up or down or remain stable tell us a lot about the dynamics of change within land reform areas, and the possibilities of and constraints to accumulation, as we discuss in subsequent blogs.
Different people involved in the discussions applied different criteria and had different knowledge of the particular cases. The end results are of course subjective, and different rankings cannot be directly compared, but in each site the discussions were incredibly revealing. Not only did the exercise offer a way of stratifying the population sample (our samples include all members in the village, and so are a full census), but they offer insights into the criteria that differentiate them.
No one discussion was the same. Some participants focused especially on assets (ownership of cattle, cars and so on); others emphasised the capacity to sell agricultural goods and raise incomes; others highlighted the importance of social networks and connections for support in hard times and the supply of remittance income in particular; still others emphasised the importance of comfort and convenience in the home, and the advantages of solar electricity, running water and so on; some highlighted the importance of health and sanitation, and the need for cleanliness with good water and toilets; meanwhile, some commented on the standing of individuals in the households with ‘drunkards’ admonished and ‘marrying well’ and family cohesion praised. As the subsequent blogs in this series show, there are many, many criteria, very often linked to local settings and particular livelihood needs. There is clearly no one story of success in Zimbabwe’s land reform areas.
Criteria of success
Criteria of success of course change. A decade ago, the indicators of top success today – having a solar system, having a borehole pump in the home compound, having a car or truck or a stand/rental home in a local town and operating an irrigation system – were not so evident. Instead, in the past criteria much more focused on production (and the assets required, cattle, basic agricultural equipment) and the housing built. These contrasts reflect the different phases of land reform. In the early years, establishing the basics for living and production in the new land reform areas was the focus. Producing surpluses, investing in clearing land, building homes and increasing production capacities through investment in draft power or equipment were central. The production systems then were different too, focusing more on extensive dryland cropping and livestock production rather than patterns of intensification through irrigation seen today. New words such as ‘mbingas’ has entered the language.
As we look across the criteria shared across all our workshops, a number of categories emerge. These were emphasised differently in different sites and by men and women, although in most cases nearly all were commented on at different points. Categories included:
Asset ownership – perhaps the most commonly mentioned criterion, but this included a wide range, including cattle, fencing, farm equipment, tractors, cars/trucks, and included investments in both on and off-farm projects, whether poultry, pigs, horticulture or houses in town.
Surplus agricultural production – here the emphasis was on producing surplus to sell and store and feed the family (and others within wider networks) or raise cash for critical expenditures such as school fees, medical bills, burials etc. Very often investments in irrigation were mentioned where commercialisation opportunities were realised, linking to key assets owned (pumps, pipes etc.).
Investments in the future – many commented on the importance of schooling, and especially access to ‘good schools’, usually private, boarding schools away from the farms, where school conditions remain poor.
Social networks – links to others, locally or further afield, were often crucial, such as through the provision of remittances or investments from those living outside the country, or more locally the ability to negotiate access to draft power (cattle loaning), as well as land leasing/borrowing to expand cropped areas.
Comfort and convenience – these criteria were mentioned in relation to the quality of homes on the land reform farms, and the ability to attract children back to the farms in order to take over. Having good solar energy, access to TVs, internet and so on was highlighted as a way of making the rural areas ‘like town’. Both women and men also emphasised having adequate houses or rooms to sleep for parents and children (separate for male and female children).
Health/sanitation – Many highlighted the importance of having reliable clean water supplies for drinking and for toilets (including flushing ones). Access to health care was also highlighted, with private doctors/hospitals seen as important in the absence of a functioning public health system. Women also highlighted the importance of adequate and nutritional food – ‘eating like in town’.
Commitment/obligation – These criteria were less obvious but frequently mentioned. They related to the sense that the land had been ‘liberated’ through a ‘struggle’ (jambanja land invasions) and had therefore to be respected and well-used, with people committing to the area. Absentees who were not investing substantially on the farm (often holding land for speculative reasons) were often frowned on, even if they were well-off. A further set of comments related to obligations to the state (and party) given that they had got the land, reflected in success being sending grain to the GMB to ‘feed the nation’, or the commitment to pay land taxes or dipping fees.
Off-farm income – Access to a stable and high off-farm income from off-farm businesses and/or employment was also frequently mentioned. However, participants were always careful to point out the differences of those who were investing on the farm and those who were doing nothing on their land, often holding land for speculative reasons. As mentioned above, the latter were frowned upon.
Family togetherness and cooperation – Women in particular emphasised how working together as a couple and family was central to success. The importance of actively involving children at a young age in working and managing the farm was seen as crucial for inheritance and succession, thus ensuring continuity and success.
Overall, we can see how tangible material factors linked to production are connected to the conditions for social reproduction, including better homes, improved education/health, and access to water/energy to reduce women’s labour. Access to all factors that create success are mediated by social relations and networks, which are key in understanding how success is generated socially.
Transitions: pathways of accumulation and differentiation
Looking at the combinations of criteria applied and the cases of ‘transitions’ between success groups over time, we can also begin to understand how pathways of accumulation, stasis or decline occur, and so how patterns of social differentiation emerge. This is not obvious. There is no mechanical formula that predicts accumulation dynamics and class formation in these areas. Patterns of production and social reproduction interact in complex ways and combine to create ‘success’. These processes occur within households, with different household members contributing in different ways, and across households as networks of social relations are mobilised. Patterns of change are intensely social and are necessarily highly gendered and affected by demographic change.
Age is a key factor and emerged repeatedly in discussions of what has happened to particular households. Those who came to the land reform areas after 2000 were in their 30s and 40s. 25 years on, they are in their 50s and 60s, some considerably older. Today, their children have often grown up, with some living away with little interest in farming, while others are demanding land on the parents’ plot. In some of our sites, where the average age of the original male settlers was older, there has been a major change as they have often died and wives or children have taken over, with varying consequences. ‘Success’ is never static. As the saying goes, ‘no condition is permanent’.
In addition to demographic changes, other shocks were highlighted that caused shifts in success. The hyperinflation period of the 2000s was mentioned along with the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as many droughts. Perhaps most pertinent in some of our sites was the catastrophic impact of January Disease (theileriosis), which has devasted cattle populations and so a key asset base for farming.
In the following blogs, we will delve into the specifics of the different areas, highlighting some of the criteria and dynamics discussed here. What becomes apparent is that the trajectory of land reform (and so overall ‘success’) is very much context dependent. As the final blog in the series comments, this becomes important as policies to support agrarian reform are envisaged. How can more success be generated? The answer is not straightforward as the subsequent five blogs in this series show.
This is the first 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