‘Social Relations and Agrarian Labour’: Exploring the Dynamics of Relations Between Former Farm Workers and A1 Beneficiaries in Zimbabwe’s A1 Settlements

Abstract

This article examines the evolving nature of social and agrarian relations between A1 villagised beneficiaries of the Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe (FTLRP) and former farm workers. Using a case study from Zvimba District, Mashonaland West, I investigate how after FTLRP farm workers are accessing land and a host of livelihoods through social relations with the A1 beneficiaries. The article argues that after FTLRP, farm workers have established social relations with beneficiaries of FTLRP, which have enabled them to access land, agricultural inputs, and other socioeconomic benefits.

Keywords

Agrarian labour social relations land reform Zimbabwe farm workers

Introduction

The article examines the manner in which farmworkers have been utilising social relations with A1 beneficiaries to informally access land after the Fast Track Land Reform (FTLRP) in Zimbabwe. The distribution of land through FTLRP is considered by some to have eroded farm workers’ livelihoods and largely excluded former farmworkers from accessing land as most were viewed as migrants (Rutherford, 2008; Sachikonye, 2003). Furthermore, other studies have also argued that FTLRP led to the decline in agrarian labour and displacement of farm work in residency (Hartnack, 2005; Magaramombe, 2004, 2010). By former farm workers, I imply people who were employed on large-scale commercial farms before the commencement of FTLRP; in the paper, I will use the term farm workers to refer to them. It is important to note that the composition of former farm workers is not a homogeneous group; it includes permanent workers who resided on the farms and casual and seasonal workers mostly from nearby farms and communal areas (Chambati, 2011; Moyo, 2009). In this article, focus on former farm workers who resided on farms.

The study uses qualitative research insights, interviews and life histories collected between 2017 and 2019 for my doctoral studies to understand the nature of social relations between farmworkers and A1 farms. This was done using a case study of FTLRP farm, Machiroli Farm, an A1 villagised farm located in Zvimba District, Mashonaland West. There are two models of the FTLRP, that is, A1 (small scale) and A2 (medium and large scale). The A1 model had two variants, which are self-contained and villagised, and the focus of this article is on the villagised (A1) model. Model A2 aimed at creating a cadre of 51,000 small-to medium-scale Black indigenous commercial farmers (Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ), 2001b). Among the objectives of this A1 villagised model, the variant was aimed at decongesting communal areas to benefit landless people using a villagised and self-contained variant A1 model (GoZ, 2001b). The A1 villagised model variant is made up of small-scale farms in resettlement areas, with an average of six arable hectares for farming. Machiroli Farm was categorised as an A1 villagised farm. The farm was allocated to 28 beneficiaries in 2000, and the farmworkers were allowed to remain on the farm compound built to accommodate workers who stayed on the farm. This case study examines the role of social relations in mobilising agrarian labour and enabling access to land and agricultural inputs for farmworkers more than 20 years after the FTLRP.

Chambati (2017) and Moyo (2009) argue that most studies on farmworkers post-2000 have failed to capture the changing agrarian relations as well as the reshaped agrarian labour relations. Farmworkers who were not evicted from the farms have been viewed as ‘displaced in situ’, which meant that although they remained on the farm, farm workers ‘find themselves “separated” from their workplaces or livelihood opportunities, a critical component of the ‘foundations that anchor their daily lives’ (Hartnack, 2005; Magaramombe, 2010: 365). This has been argued by Chambati (2013) who states that FTLRP brought some level of independence which enabled the former farmworkers some level of flexibility needed to negotiate for better wages, while Shonhe and Bvute (2021) further illustrate that farm workers are now able to till their land and compete with landowners of the FTLRP. Scholars have also argued that beyond the identities of farmworkers being viewed as enemies, some managed to benefit by acting as ‘intermediaries between war veterans, ZANU-PF officials and white farmers, and subsequently benefit from the land reform’ (Daimon, 2021: 184). Furthermore, Daimon (2021) argues that farmworkers post land redistribution have taken an active role in mediations that take place between the new farmers, the state and former White farmers.

Although scholars such as Mkodzongi (2013), Chambati (2017) and Daimon (2021) have illustrated the changing dynamics in agrarian relations, there is a need to examine how social relations facilitate these dynamics. Farmworkers’ formal and informal access to land, new livelihoods and non-farm rural employment after FTLRP still has received limited attention (Mkodzongi, 2013). Although several studies have explored the class-related conflicts and complex nature of relations between farmworkers and A1 settlers (Chambati, 2017; Daimon, 2021; Hartnack, 2017; Rutherford, 2016; Scoones, 2018; Sinclair-Bright, 2019), there is a gap in the importance of social relations between A1 settlers and farm workers. While expulsion, segregation and displacement issues have received much attention to date in the emerging land reform literature about farmworkers, the role of social relations in enabling land, agricultural inputs and a host of livelihoods remains under-explored. There is a need to examine the importance of social relations for farm workers post-FTLRP in Zimbabwe particularly using the case of Zvimba District where limited attention has been provided. Thus, this article plugs into this gap to illustrate how through social relations with A1 beneficiaries, former farmer workers are accessing land, agricultural inputs and other livelihoods. This points out the need for more careful and systematic research on social and agrarian relations. I argue that social relations provide a cushion to access land, agricultural inputs and other socioeconomic benefits for people who were not land recipients of the state land reform programme.

To understand the nature of relations in small-scale resettlements, I will engage the framework of social and labour relations. Social relations, in this article, are regular interactions of different individuals and households for socialisation, exchange, consumption and reproduction, such as family, friends, neighbours and workers (Tsikata, 2015). This is also understood in terms of social class, gender, kinship, generation and friendship. These relations can be both formal and informal relationships. In unpacking the evolving agrarian social relations in small-scale resettlement areas, various components of the relations will be explored.

Wutich (2011) states that people in rural communities tend to establish reciprocal social relationships with non-kin, such as neighbours and friends. Madhuku et al. (2022) and Scott (1976) illustrate the importance of social relationships as a platform that enables the exchange and repeated transfer of goods and services in embedded networks. Affiliation and collective action within social relations are often reliant on recognised characteristics of birth, ethnicity or location, but they may also emerge because of shared life experiences or intense socialisation (Morse and Mcnamara, 2013). Family, friendship, cult and gang activities are common examples of such relations. The rights and obligations of members are strongly associated with this identity and are largely developed and maintained through customs (Biggart and Hamilton, 1992). In this case study, social relations are based on communal relations built and maintained through the exchange of favours and the reinforcement of identity, either directly or indirectly (Morse and Mcnamara, 2013). Social relationships entail access to resources such as land and services (Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2008).

Broadly, agrarian labour relations influence who sells, provides or hires labour (see Bernstein, 2010; Moyo, 2011). Labour, in this article, means any person, employed or self-employed in agricultural production, a wage earner, whether in cash or kind, for their livelihood. Worby (2001) argues that in a capitalist economy, labour power is a commodity sold by people as individuals. There are cases where agrarian labour and social relations are complex, particularly where there are multiple identities of people. This is argued by Scoones (2018) who note that understanding rural labour is challenging where wage labour is combined with diverse livelihoods, multiple identities and class positions. This is particularly so in the case of former farmworkers who have had to seek out new social relations post-FTLRP due to the informalisation of agrarian labour (Phimister and Pilossof, 2017; Scoones, 2018). The provision of agrarian labour, in most cases, is anchored on social relations, which entails livelihoods being pursued through complex combinations of wage employment and self-employment (Bernstein, 2010). This is the conceptualisation used to understand social relations and agrarian labour in this study.

The article is organised as follows: the first section provides a contextual background to agrarian and social relations in Zimbabwe. The second section discusses the methodology used to unpack the evolving relations after FTLRP. The section that follows provides insights from the case study, using narratives from Zvimba District, Mashonaland West. The fourth section presents an implication for social relations and agrarian labour. The conclusion in the last section demonstrates that former farmworkers use agrarian labour and social relations to access land and foster relations with the owners of the land.

Agrarian labour and social relations in Zimbabwe

It is important to state that, during the colonial era, farmworkers were not recognised as owners of the land (Rutherford, 1996). In the early years of colonisation, most of the farm workers were migrant workers (Moyo et al., 2000) from countries such as Mozambique, Nyasaland (now Malawi) and Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Arrighi (1970) and Palmer (1977) argue that, as dispossession of Blacks from their areas intensified in the 1960s, most of the farm labour was supplied by domestic labour. Chambati (2018) states that the amount of migrant labour on the farms decreased from 60% in the 1960s to 10% in 2000.

The first land reform of the early 1980s targeted the ‘poor and landless’, mostly people displaced by the war, who were the main beneficiaries of the first programme and included farmworkers who had resettled themselves on abandoned state land (Kinsey, 1999; Kinsey et al., 1998; Magaramombe, 2004). However, during this first land reform, there was no definitive policy on the resettlement of farmworkers. The Land Acquisition Act of 1985 empowered the government to buy more land for resettlement (Kinsey, 1999). This was a shift from resettlement of people displaced by the war to productive and efficient farming based on citizenship. This negatively affected most farmworkers because most of them were migrant workers who did not have Zimbabwean citizenship (Moyo, 1995; Rutherford, 1996). Although the Citizen Amendment Act of 1985 gave a provision that all foreigners who were in Rhodesia before 1980 could get Zimbabwean citizenship, the programme had limited coverage as a majority of farm workers failed to change their citizenship (Magaramombe, 2001; Moyo, 1995; Rutherford, 1996).

Land reform programmes between 1980 and 1997 allocated land to about 70,000 families were allocated land with about 3000 farmworkers benefiting (Kinsey, 1999; Kinsey and Binswanger, 1996; Moyo, 2000). Moyo et al. (2000) argue that farmworkers or ‘people of the farms’ have been more disadvantaged than most other social groups in Zimbabwe. Before the FTLRP, the land reform and resettlement programme framework plan (Phase II) in 1998 acknowledged the need to incorporate farmworkers in the resettlement process (Chambati, 2017; Moyo et al., 2000). The inception phase framework plan recognised land and residential rights of former farmworkers (Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), 2001). Driven by many factors, such as increased demand for land and economic challenges, war veterans led the occupation of White-owned farms, beginning at the FTLRP which disregarded the inception phase framework which had sought to recognise the land and residential rights of former farmworkers (Sachikonye, 2003).

The main objective of the FTLRP was to redistribute land to poor and middle-income landless Black Zimbabweans using the A1 and A2 models (GoZ, 2001b). Moyo and Chambati (2013), Scoones et al. (2010) and Matondi (2012) report that, overall, the land reform benefited ordinary people in Zimbabwe. In classifying ordinary people who received land, Moyo (2009) states that many land occupiers were people from communal areas, small capitalists, bureaucrats and traditional authorities and people from urban areas. Farm workers ‘participated in the processes, albeit a relatively small number’ (Moyo, 2009: 17). However, Zamchiya (2011) argues that although people received land, there were cases of patronage-based allocation of land in Chipinge. Sachikonye (2003) and Bond (2008) contend that not all people benefited as several former farmworkers were excluded from the land reform process and lost their livelihoods, given that most A1 and A2 lands are not able to absorb excess labour (Magaramombe, 2010). A discussion of the implementation of the FTLRP and debates on its outcomes are not within the scope of this article.

The land distribution process negatively impacted farmworkers after FTLRP. Scoones (2018) states that ‘many former farmworkers who continue to live on the farms are vulnerable, subject to precarious livelihoods, poor working conditions and limited access to assets’ (p. 808). The loss of permanent worker status on the farms, resulting in loss of jobs, cutting down of salaries and, in some cases, removal of farmworkers from their compounds, is quite widespread (Kufandirori, 2015; Rutherford, 2001, 2003, 2008). Among the farmworkers are second- and third-generation farmworkers whose parents came from countries such as Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique to provide labour on White-owned farms (Sachikonye, 2003, 2011). Most of the farmworkers were regarded as ‘non-Zimbabwean’ as a number held dual citizenship. This was worsened by the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2001 which prohibited dual citizenship, affecting many White farmers and farm workers who had not renounced their foreign citizenship (Groves, 2020). As a result, most farmworkers could not benefit from the FTLRP as the land was given to Zimbabwean ‘citizens’.

Although in some cases farmworkers joined forces with war veterans to occupy farms, these cases were limited (Sadomba, 2008). More often, most of the former farmworkers were seen as collaborating with White farmers by blocking farm occupations (Chiweshe and Chabata, 2019). In addition, farmworkers were labelled as ‘foreigners’ and supported the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), an opposition political party that was led by Morgan Tsvangirai which was seen to be against land reform (Daimon, 2014; Hartnack, 2009). After land occupations continued, Moyo et al. (2009) argue that many land reform beneficiaries accused farm workers of refusing to work for them while farmworkers accused land reform beneficiaries of poor remuneration. Sinclair-Bright (2019) further illustrates this in her case in Mazowe District that despite the intertwined lives between farm workers and A1 beneficiaries, land beneficiaries assert and naturalise their authority over farm workers and their entitlement to land to create a rural underclass in new resettlement areas (p. 928). Despite these challenges for farmworkers, resettlement areas remained a place called home, a source of livelihood and generational memories. Hartnack (2009) argues, the farm workers who remained on farms used their agency to respond to different scenarios they found themselves in to survive (p. 357).

The percentage of farmworkers who received A1 farms is estimated to be between 2% and 15% (GoZ/IOM, 2005; Moyo, 2009; Scoones et al., 2010). However, a large number of farmworkers were displaced, given that most farmworkers, who used to provide labour, were largely excluded from receiving land from the government through FTLRP (Sachikonye, 2003; Zamchiya, 2011). In addition, Chiweshe and Chabata (2019) argue that because most farm workers did not get land, livelihood options became unreliable and limited. However, although limited farmworkers received land, there has been the agency to develop social relations with A1 beneficiaries to access land and a host of livelihoods. Thus, evidence from this case study illustrates how former farmworkers are using social relations with beneficiaries of FTLRP to meet their livelihoods. This examination will help understand the new and emerging social structures in resettlement areas.

Methodology

To explore farm workers’ access to land through social relations that emerged after FTLRP with A1 farmers, a case study of Machiroli Farm (A1 villagised) in Zvimba District, Mashonaland West, was used. The study was guided by a qualitative research approach. Denzin and Lincoln (2008) argue that qualitative research ‘seeks answers to questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning’ (p. 8). In this regard, this study explored human experiences, values, feelings and beliefs to understand issues related to social relations.

Machiroli Farm, an A1 villagised farm, was used as this allowed the researcher to gain access to detailed knowledge and understanding of a particular topic through relationships created with the respondents (Neuman, 1994). Machiroli Farm was chosen, as it was easily accessible. Machiroli Farm has 28 beneficiaries, and 8 beneficiaries and 6 farm workers resident on the farm were purposively selected for interviews. Selections of respondents on Machiroli Farm were purposively done based on availability basis with an emphasis on the need to balance gender, age and class. In addition, four traditional authorities (Chief, Headman, and Village Heads) and seven government officials were selected. Purposive sampling was used as it allowed to use cases that have the required information for this study (Lavrakas et al., 2019).

Data were collected through interviews, life histories and participatory observations, as well as a review of Government of Zimbabwe reports and policies as secondary sources of data. Semi-structured interviews, as a tool, enabled the collection of narratives from respondents in the case study area. Interviews were used to collect the life histories of both farm workers and A1 farmers which were important in explaining and providing a deeper understanding of the nature of agrarian and social relations on small-scale farms (Hammar, 2007; Mutopo, 2014). These narratives became particularly important, especially about how farm workers’ social relations with A1 beneficiaries have evolved from the time of farm occupation in 2000–2020.

I stayed in the research area during the fieldwork; hence, participant observation was predominantly important to observe the importance of social and agrarian relations on the farm. By doing this, I was able to understand the complex nature of emerging social relations between farm workers and A1 farmers, as well as generate trust through emphasising everyday interactions and observations (Mutopo, 2014). I participated in activities such as farming, herding cattle, church services, funerals, and social and leisure activities, and this helped in building relationships. Although the case study provided important insights, findings from this case study of Machiroli Farm cannot be generalised to the whole of Zimbabwe.

Social relations between former farmworkers and A1 villagised beneficiaries in Zvimba

Machiroli Farm is in Zvimba District, Mashonaland West, which lies in the south-eastern part of the province sharing borders with Harare, the capital city to the south-east, Mazowe to the east, Guruve to the north, Makonde to the west and Chegutu to the south. Machiroli Farm (Ward 21) is a subsection of Donnington, which belonged to the Lowry Family commercial farmer before the FTLRP. Machiroli Farm covers 573 hectares. The farm borders communal areas and is located close to amenities, such as schools and clinics. Before FTLRP, labour provided on the farm was a mixture of compound labour and hired labour from adjacent communal areas. Most of the permanent workers on Machiroli Farm lived on the farm compound, and this was a residential labour tenancy. This is a form of tenancy where accommodation for farm workers in farm compounds¹ or komboni² was linked to their employment rights on large-scale farms (Chambati, 2011: 1048; Moyo, 2011). This was the system that was used on Machiroli Farm, the case study area. The seasonal labour was hired from adjacent communal areas. The farmworkers on the farm comprised a mixture of local people from Zvimba and children of migrant workers from Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique (Marewo, 2020). The farmworkers’ compound at Machiroli comprises 20 homesteads. It is important to note that farm workers are not a homogeneous group.

Agricultural production, and social and labour relations before FTLRP

Machiroli Farm was established by the Lowry Family in the early 1940s, specialising in tobacco farming. It was a family farm, which was passed to the third generation who owned the farm up to the FTLRP. The farm relied on labour from adjacent Zvimba communal areas and migrant workers from countries, such as Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia (Field Interview, 2018). Before FTLRP, Machiroli comprised 60 permanent workers. The former farmworkers in Machiroli Farm lived on a compound. Even after the invasion of Machiroli, the former farmworkers were not evicted. During the farming season before FTLRP, the farm employed 40 seasonal workers from nearby communal areas who worked in the maize and tobacco fields. The labour on the farm was categorised according to the various tasks and parts of the farm. Some focused on cooking and cleaning the farmhouse, some worked in the tobacco section, others with the livestock and others on the maize fields. A former farmworker stated that supervisors and foremen were known as ‘boss boys’; these were the literate farmworkers. They held positions such as farm foremen and supervisors. A respondent stated that ‘most of the supervisors received training from institutions like Blackfordby College in Mazowe’ (Field Interview, 2018, Machiroli Farm). Although the White farmer was no longer on the farm, the former supervisors and foremen who remained on Machiroli Farm still had social capital on the farm, which was reproduced by the creation of a former farmworkers committee, which they lead. This committee is responsible for settling disputes, maintaining social cohesion, and representing the interests of the former farmworkers to headmen and chiefs.

A1 villagised settlers and former farmworkers’ relations after the fast track

FTLRP resulted in the allocation of 28 A1 villagised farmers on Machiroli, which affected the livelihoods and employment of farm workers. Farmworkers on Machiroli were largely excluded from A1 villagised land allocations and, in most cases, were often labelled as ‘foreign’ (Muzondidya, 2007), although some farm workers were from communal areas and were second-generation migrants. On Machiroli Farm, the land was initially acquired through a process of invasion which was later formalised. Machiroli Farm was one of the first farms to be invaded in Zvimba District. On 19 November 2000, the invasion of the farm was spearheaded by war veterans. A respondent explained that ‘[h]ouseholds close to then-President Robert Mugabe’s rural homestead in Zvimba were told by the President to move into the farms across Hunyani River, Machiroli Farm being one of the farms’ (Field Interview, 2017). It was only after this ‘go ahead’ by Robert Mugabe that the people of Zvimba were led to invade Machiroli and surrounding farms. A war veteran based on Machiroli Farm explained this:

I was in the area at that time. I visited a white farmer called Husek, and I had come with the late Chenjerai Hunzvi, a war veterans’ leader. We had a disagreement with him [Husek], as we wanted people to move into his farm. We then decided to move into Machiroli. After that, people started to move in; there was a truck that was offered by war veterans, which ferried people from the communal areas to the farm. (Field Interview, 2017)

On Machiroli Farm, accounts suggested that, although war veterans led the invasion of farms, mostly it was with the support of people from Zvimba communal areas. Other scholars such as Mkodzongi (2013) have noted that not all incidents of the FTLRP were marred with violence on the farms, which was the case of Machiroli Farm where the White farmer was given time to conclude his farming operations. One settler explained,

The white farmer was given time to wind down his operation on the farm. We were told by the DA [District Administrator] that since the farmer had already planted his tobacco, we could not evict him; he was given time to wind down his operations. After the harvest, he packed his belongings and went to Harare. (Field Interview, 2017)

When the farm occupations started, farmworkers on Machiroli Farm tried to protect their livelihoods by trying to block the war veterans from reaching the farm. Some former farmworkers said that the FTLRP compromised their livelihoods through the eviction of their employer, which, in most cases, led to conflicts between them and A1 farmers, particularly in the first days of the FTLRP. A former farmworker supplied the following detail:

When the new settlers arrived here, there was tension, as we knew that our jobs were gone. We had heard what had happened on other farms. When war veterans arrived here, we knew it was over. Some of us tried to confront the war veterans to stop them, but it did not work. (Field interview, January 2018)

Another respondent similarly said,

When the A1 farmers got on this farm, there was so much hatred to the extent that some [former] farm workers would break into the A1 farmers’ huts and vandalise their goods. This got so bad to the extent that the settlers wanted to evict the [former] farm workers from the compound, but it did not work. It was only after those threats of eviction that [former] farm workers retreated. (Field interview, 2019)

This was further explained by another farmworker:

Some of the senior workers, and the foreman believed that the white farmer would come back however, as the years went by there was a realisation that the A1 farmers are here to stay. Through our [former] foreman, he was able to start building relations between farm workers and the A1 farmers.

While the FTLRP provided land to A1 beneficiaries, it threatened the livelihood of farm workers who were employed by the previous White farmer. However, as years have progressed, many respondents showed that new relations are emerging between beneficiaries of FTLRP and former farmworkers.

Farm workers engage in maricho [labour sold by an individual for the work done]. Maricho contracts in both Machiroli Farm and communal areas average three dollars (US$3) per day for an average of 4 to 7 hours per day. The farm workers are employed by some A1 settlers as casual labour. A farm worker gave a life history account of how their labour was of use to A1 farmers; he said,

Murungu [White farmer] enrolled me at Blackfordby College, an agricultural college in Mazowe. I got all my skills from there; this made me good at what I do. . . when the new farmers came onto the farm most of them had no skill and technical knowledge needed for the crops like tobacco and maize. We as the former farm workers had to assist the A1 settlers to understand how to grow crops like tobacco. (Field Interview, January 2018)

For some, the success of tobacco production in Machiroli was hinged on the labour of farm workers who supply technical knowledge to A1 settlement farmers. As a result, the supply of labour culminated in relations. ‘We saw that it was good if we enter into partnerships with the A1 settlers, which eventually led to friendship for some’ (Field Interview, 2018). This is also clear in the various relations which have evolved.

Diverse kinds of relations between A1 villagised settlers on Machiroli Farm and former farmworkers have emerged through a social club. The secretary of Machiroli Women’s Club stated that, for most women, the women’s club enabled them to pool funds to purchase goods in bulk. The women’s club include households in A1 villagised settlements as well as women in former farmworkers’ compounds. The Machiroli Women’s Club has a total of 18 members, and the purpose of the group is to enable women to buy household items, such as kitchenware, blankets, farming equipment and household property. The meetings are rotated among the members, and every member gets to host a meeting at their residence. Apart from improving the livelihoods, this group serves as a socialisation space to share challenges and problems that women face on the farm. The women come together to assist one another in enhancing their livelihoods. This club enabled women to meet some of their household needs that they would not have met on their own. The joint saving group, in which these women are involved, highlights the evolving relations, which are different from those based mostly on kinship networks. Particularly among women in A1 villagised settlements and former farmworkers, there is a sense of identity, which is land, that has transcended into new relations.

Some farmworkers are using some pieces of the land around the farm for agricultural purposes. Other A1 villagised settlers are leasing out land to former farmworkers. Statutory Instrument (53 of 2014) of the Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) states that

land reform beneficiaries shall not cede, assign, hypothecate or in other case alienate or sublet in whole or in part or donate or dispose of land without the authority of the minister [Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement (MLAWCRR)] (2014).

Furthermore, in 2015, the Joint Venture Act (Chapter 22:22) had been passed to allow partnerships on the farms (GoZ, 2015). This was a contrast to the common narrative by state officials that rental or leasing out of the land was not allowed. This was also addressed in a speech by the late Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Perrance Shiri, broadcast on national television, which is reported as follows:

The Minister of Agriculture, Lands, and Rural Resettlement, Retired Air Chief Marshal Perrance Shiri, however, said all farmers who benefited under the agrarian reforms programme are allowed to enter into partnerships with partners of their choice whether black or white as long they follow the state’s laid down procedures.(ZBC-TV, 2018³)

The Minister stated that leasing or subletting land can be done only with the approval or permission from the Minister; however, in reality, beneficiaries of land reform on Machiroli Farm stated that they have not approached the Minister to sublet portions of their farm. This land was mostly leased or rented out based on social relations. Four farm workers stated that they are renting out land in exchange for their labour. Narrating his life history, one of the farm workers had this to say:

I have been working on this farm for many years as a worker when the land reform started, we hoped that we will get pieces of land. However, since we were regarded as aliens, we could not get land. Nonetheless, some of the A1 farmers through friendship and common associations offer land in exchange for labour that is how I have managed to benefit. (Field Interview, May 2018)

The farm workers in these arrangements indicated that they preferred this form of arrangement as it enabled them with the means to multiple livelihoods through farming. These farm workers preferred to plant maize and tobacco which they have vast knowledge in. Such transactions are important in understanding that these new labour regimes are important in grasping new social relations. While, in the years before the Fast Track Land Reform, farm labour in Zimbabwe was linear, with labour restricted to one farm and working exclusively as labour, on Machiroli Farm, there has been dualisation of labour, as some have become producers as well as suppliers of labour.

Some households on Machiroli Farm, both A1 farmers and former farm workers are involved in food for labour to supplement their household livelihoods, whereby people are given a certain part of the land to farm in exchange for a bucket of maize or money. This has been influenced by the failure of households to have productive means. In addition, there has been a substantial increase in trade-offs. This was stated in an informal interview with an A1 farmer who stated that women exchange a gallon of maize for a skirt or blouse or, in some cases, a ‘two-in-one’ blanket for a sack of maize. One woman expressed that

Money is a problem as you know it. I decided to be innovative in how I pay the people that work for me. I employ people from the former farmworkers compound. They have the necessary experience in tobacco and maize production. I normally pay people that come to work for me using clothes from bales⁴ [second-hand clothes] (mabhero) and maize as a means of payment. (Field Interview, November 2017)

In the case of the above quote, former farmworkers are not limited to money in exchange for labour; payment also ranges from maize to clothes. Maize was charged at US$7 measured using a 20-Litre bucket. In most cases, a household worked for three days for the equivalent of a bucket of maize. Clothes were usually second hand, brought from Harare, and range between 1 (us)dollar and 2 (us)dollars; the farmworkers work for their desired clothes. A respondent also explained that ‘We are able to do this mostly with people that we have relations with there are able to understand and accept clothes and food as payment’ (Field Interview, 2019). In addition, beneficiaries of the FTLRP initially viewed farm workers as labour, these relations in some cases have evolved into friendships. One of the farm workers stated that

Here in Machiroli my best friend is from the A1 settlements, we have been friends for the past eight years. For the past two years he has given me a portion of his farm which I pay rent at a discounted rate. I also keep my livestock at his plot. Without his friendship, I would be where I am now. (Field Interview, May 2018)

These social networks that have emerged as highlighted above have provided livelihoods to farm workers as they are now able to own assets such as livestock. Thus, farmworkers can diversify their livelihoods through social relations.

The social relations between farm workers and A1 settlers are evident in the sale of tobacco. These arrangements are based on social networks now created on Machiroli Farm as explained below:

I have a grower number which I have used to sell tobacco on behalf of the A1 settlers here on the farm, some have paid us with livestock, such as goats and chickens, and money. (Field Interview, January 2018).

A government official explained that

Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board (TIMB) assigns grower numbers, which are unique identification numbers of tobacco farmers. In addition, it contains details on grower production history, tobacco input, and third-party debt. Without a grower number, tobacco farmers are not permitted to sell their tobacco. The contractor becomes entitled to the crop after advancing inputs to the farmer. The designated grower number only sells at a specific contract floor until released. (Field Interview, 2019)

Registration of tobacco farmers is required by the Tobacco Industry and Marketing Act (Chapter 18:20) part 5, 25;1a which states that Any person who is not registered and who, by himself or through his agents, grows tobacco shall be guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment (GoZ, 2001a). Most of the farm workers who have grower numbers help A1 farmers with side marketing⁵. The relations between farm workers and A1 farmers are used to facilitate these transactions. This account above indicates that the A1 settlers are working together with former farmworkers in selling products like tobacco to producers who have no grower numbers, which is a prerequisite for selling tobacco at the tobacco auction floors. Through social relations, farm workers can help A1 farmers to sell their tobacco.

Social relations are evident through new burial societies that have emerged in A1 settlements as a way of dealing with limited access to a family as well as the direct cost of death and the risk of being distant from close family members. These burial societies comprised A1 settlers from far-off communal areas and former farmworkers. A respondent explained how the burial society works:

As you can see that my family is now far, in case of death, my neighbours will be the first people to come and help. We decided to start our burial society. We have a few former farmworkers; still, mostly it is us, the A1 farmers in Machiroli. . . We assist by contributing money, which we give to our member or their family in case of death. (Field Interview, December 2017)

The establishment of such organisations implies beyond identifying themselves as a group.

However, it is important to state that not all A1 farmers and farm workers have established relations. Some A1 farmers indicated that ‘these farm workers compounds are a place of high immorality as well as that they have no cultural roots and would pollute others with their wayward life’ (Field Interview, 2018). Some of the reasons also include the belief that farm workers have strong supernatural powers, associated with witchcraft. Despite all these negative sentiments around the farm workers, close relations have emerged between farm workers and A1 settlers.

Narratives from the case study show that relations between households among the former farmworkers and A1 villagised settlers point to the fact that land is tied to labour regimes, livelihood strategies and social relations. As has been highlighted earlier, the relations between these two groups have evolved. Over the years, these two groups acknowledged that they stand to benefit from each other in several ways. These ways could be reciprocating labour for monetary payment, giving land and providing expert knowledge. Both farm workers and A1 settlers are aware of the importance of building new relations in Machiroli Farm. The next section provides a discussion.

Implications for social relations and agrarian labour: discussion and conclusion

This examination of social relations between former farmworkers and beneficiaries of land reform expands the analysis and the impact of land reform on workers that have, over the years, established livelihoods, and social, historical and multi-generational links on the land. Land reforms are in most cases a political process, albeit often with an economic rationale and always with socioeconomic consequences, especially for workers of the land (Bernstein, 2010). Other studies in southern Africa have illustrated those former farmworkers (i.e. workers formerly employed on White-owned farms) have been largely excluded from land reform policies (Hall et al., 2015; Kepe and Cousins, 2002). Insights from Machiroli concur with findings from other parts of Southern Africa and expand the analysis further by showing that where farm workers are excluded from formal land reform processes, they rely on social relations with beneficiaries to access land, agricultural inputs and other socioeconomic benefits.

While some studies in Zimbabwe post-2000 have tended to view and observe farm workers as a homogeneous group (Sachikonye, 2003), insights from this study illustrate that farm workers’ experiences are nuanced. Farm workers as illustrated in this case have established social relations with A1 farmers which are important in accessing land, social networks and agricultural inputs. Berry (1993) thus argues that despite the type of land owned, farmer social relations and identities are important and through social relations de facto land access is negotiated. Thus, access to land is openly rooted in a range of social, political and economic relationships, often overlapping and layered in character.

Although, as indicated in the case study, not all beneficiaries and farm workers have built relations, analysis of narratives indicated the importance and establishment of new social relations among A1 settlers and former farmworkers on Machiroli Farm. The A1 farmers as illustrated here are investing in new social relations on the farms. This has been captured by Mkodzongi (2016) in his case of Mhondoro where new relations on resettlement areas have emerged. There are savings clubs and farming arrangements, such as the provision of labour and work gangs, that have emanated within Machiroli Farm evident through tobacco side marketing. This concurs with studies by Barr (2004), Dekker (2004) and Dekker and Kinsey (2011), who argue that, as a way of coping with being away from their kin households in Zimbabwe’s Old Resettlement Areas (ORAs), people increased their stock of social capital by developing associations and clubs. While these studies reflect on the period before the Fast Track Land Reform, I note that, after the FTLRP, households also created or joined networks in their new areas to cope with or mitigate the risks of being away from kin. Therefore, group networks comprised of non-lineage households have emerged in A1 settlements to cope with the risks of breaking ties or being away from families.

This study has shown that in the case of women’s clubs and burial societies, social relations are of importance in contributing to reciprocity for people in resettlement areas. Madhuku et al. (2022) argue that reciprocity in several instances is not limited, providing material resources and also social relationships. The case study illustrated that women’s clubs open up space for socialisation and sharing challenges that women, that is A1 beneficiaries and former farm workers face in resettlement areas. This is also evident through burial clubs in the case study; Madhuku et al. (2022) and Wutich (2011) also indicate that social relations function as a form of social insurance at the community level; in cases of death, social relations provide some insurance with regard to the assistance to the deceased’s family.

Many of the former farmworkers, half of whom were part-time workers, did not gain access to land (Moyo, 2009), and evidence from this case shows that farm workers have become freer to sell their labour to A1 farmers in addition to their access to small plots to cultivate subsistence crops, albeit under poorly defined or ‘squatting’ tenures (Moyo, 2009; Scoones, 2019). This case proves that, after the FTLRP, agrarian labour has taken many different forms mostly driven by the establishment of social relations. Shonhe (2017) notes that households (including former farmworkers) can now sell their labour through farm or non-farm activities. Former farmworkers have evolved from only providing labour to multiple livelihoods because of the FTLRP. Using agrarian labour by farm workers, it has enhanced relations among households.

Other scholars have argued that former farmworkers have lost their homes because of lack of tenure after the FTLRP disenfranchised them from the right to residency on a farm as it was tied to the employment status of the individual (Hartnack, 2005; Magaramombe, 2003, 2004; Rutherford, 2004; Sachikonye, 2003); however, this is not always the case. Insights from this case study illustrate this as workers of the land can establish social relations as a bargaining asset to negotiate access to land, resources and employment. While there is a presumption that workers of the land (former farmworkers) have no claim or access to the land compared to people who claim land based on citizenship, this study has demonstrated otherwise.

In other parts of Zimbabwe, rental of resettlement land has been documented by A1 farmers (Chambati, 2013; Scoones, 2018; Scoones and Murimbarimba, 2021). In this case, social relations facilitate these transactions. Insights generated show that through these social relations farm workers have escaped the localised economy, in which they were trapped by previous White farm owners, who tied their labour to one farm. Due to their technical knowledge, as highlighted in this case study, most former farmworkers are selling their skills to A1 villagised settlers. This case study concurs with Mutopo (2014) and Chambati (2013), who note that, while it is on a micro scale, additional employment opportunities have been created by the FTLRP in a new framework for land and labour relations. This also concurs with Daimon (2021) who states that farm workers are using their agency to negotiate access to land.

Evidence from this case illustrates that there are evolving relations between beneficiaries of the FTLRP and farm workers evident through the diverse livelihoods that have emerged based on their shared agrarian and social relations. While expulsion, segregation and displacement issues of farmworkers have received much attention in the emerging land reform literature, the social relations in A1 villagised settlements of the FTLRP analysed in this article pointed to a distinct view. This case has provided a nuanced view on how through social relations former farmworkers are accessing land, building relations and providing labour to A1 villagised settlers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the input and critical engagements from colleagues from the Journal of Peasant Studies (JPS) Writeshop 2020 in Critical Agrarian Studies and Scholar-Activism in the writing of this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Malvern Kudakwashe Marewo

Notes

Author biography

Malvern Kudakwashe Marewo, is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for African Studies, University of Cape Town, South Africa. His research areas include agrarian political economy, belonging, agrarian labour and livelihoods, land governance and displacement.

References

Arrighi

(1970) Labour supplies in historical perspective: a study of the proletarianization of the African peasantry in Rhodesia. The Journal of Development Studies 6(3): 197–234.

Barr

(2004) Kinship, familiarity, and trust: an experimental investigation. In: HEnrich

(ed.) Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small Scale Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.305–334.

Bernstein

(2010) Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change. Boulder, CO: Kumarian Press.

Berry

(1993) No Condition Is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Pres.

Biggart

Hamilton

(1992) On the limits of a firm-based theory to explain business networks. In: Nohria

Eccles

(eds) Networks and Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp.471–490.

Bond

(2008) “Response to Lessons of Zimbabwe”. Available at: http://links.org.au/node/815/9693 (Accessed 8 June 2019)

Chambati

(2011) Restructuring of agrarian labour relations after Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(5): 1047–1068.

Chambati

(2013) The political economy of Agrarian labour relations in Zimbabwe after redistributive land reform. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 2(2): 189–211.

Chambati

(2017) Changing forms of wage labour in Zimbabwe’s new agrarian structure. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 6(1): 79–112.

10.

Chambati

(2018) Changing Agrarian labour relations in Zimbabwe in the context of the fast track land reform. Available at: https://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/26800

11.

Chipenda

(2019) The transformative role of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme as a social policy instrument: a case study of Goromonzi District (Zimbabwe). PhD Thesis. Available at: https://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/26308

12.

Chiweshe

Chabata

(2019) The complexity of farmworkers’ livelihoods in Zimbabwe after the Fast Track Land Reform: experiences from a farm in Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe. Review of African Political Economy 46(159): 55–70.

13.

Coleman

(1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–S120.

14.

Daimon

(2014) “Politics of ‘Othering’ and the Struggle for Citizenship in Independent Zimbabwe: Voices from Malawian Descendants.” Africa Insight 44(1): 137–150.

15.

Daimon

(2021) In the shadows of the third Chimurenga? African migrant intermediaries and beneficiaries within Zimbabwe’s agrarian reform matrix. Critical African Studies 13(2): 183–196.

16.

Dekker

(2004) Risk, Resettlement and Relations: Social Security in Rural Zimbabwe. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.

17.

Dekker

Kinsey

(2011) Contextualizing Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: long term observations from the first generation. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(5): 995–1019.

18.

Denzin

Lincoln

(2008) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

19.

Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ) (2001) The impact of land reform on commercial farm workers’ livelihoods. Report, May, FCTZ, Harare, Zimbabwe.

20.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) (2001a) Tobacco Industry and Marketing Act (Chapter 18:20). Harare, Zimbabwe: Government Printers. Available at: https://www.law.co.zw/download/tobacco-industry-and-marketing-act-chapter-1820/

21.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) (2001b) Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme. Harare, Zimbabwe: Government Printers.

22.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) (2014) Statutory Instrument (53 of 2014) of the Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions). Harare, Zimbabwe: Government Printers.

23.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) (2015) Joint Venture Act (Chapter 22:22). Harare, Zimbabwe: Government Printers.

24.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ)/IOM (2005) Zimbabwe Third Farm Workers Survey Report: Labour Dimensions of the Land Reform Programme. Harare, Zimbabwe: Government Printers.

25.

Groves

(2020) Malawian Migration to Zimbabwe, 1900–1965: Tracing Machona. Berlin: Springer.

26.

Hall

Scoones

Tsikata

(2015) Africa’s Land Rush: Rural Livelihoods and Agrarian Change. Melton: James Currey.

27.

Hammar

(2007) The day of burning: land, authority and belonging in Zimbabwe’s agrarian margins. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Roskilde University, Roskilde.

28.

Hartnack

(2005) ‘My life got lost’: farm workers and displacement in Zimbabwe. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 23(2): 173–192.

29.

Hartnack

(2009) “Transcending Global and National (Mis) Representations Through Local Responses to Displacement: The Case of Zimbabwean (ex) Farm Workers.” Journal of Refugee Studies 22(3): 351–377.

30.

Hartnack

(2017) Discursive hauntings: limits to reinvention for Zimbabwean farm workers after fast-track land reform. Anthropology Southern Africa 40(4): 276–289.

31.

Kepe

Cousins

(2002) Radical land reform is key to sustainable rural development in South Africa. Available at: http://repository.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/handle/10566/4242

32.

Kinsey

Binswanger

(1996) Characteristics and performance of settlement programmes: a review. In: van Zyl

Kirsten

Binswanger

(eds) Agricultural Land Reform in South Africa: Policies, Markets and Mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.105–138.

33.

Kinsey

Burger

Gunning

(1998) Coping with drought in Zimbabwe: survey evidence on responses of rural households to risk. World Development 26(1): 89–110.

34.

Kinsey

(1999) Land reform, growth and equity: emerging evidence from Zimbabwe’s resettlement programme. Journal of Southern African Studies 25(2): 173–196.

35.

Kufandirori

(2015) Fast Track Land Reform in Matepatepa Commercial Farming Area, Bindura District: Effects on Farm Workers, 2000–2010. Bloemfontein, South Africa: University of the Free State.

36.

Lavrakas

Traugott

Kennedy

, et al. (2019) Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques That Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment. London: John Wiley & Sons.

37.

Lin

(2008) A network theory of social capital. The Handbook of Social Capital 50(1): 69.

38.

Madhuku

Mujere

Mahamba

(2022) Reciprocity and the moral economy of exchange in African ‘tealess’ tea parties in Salisbury, southern Rhodesia, c.1945–1950s. South African Historical Journal 73: 818–835.

39.

Magaramombe

(2001) Housing, Sanitation and Farm Worker Settlements. Harare, Zimbabwe: FCTZ Zimbabwe’s Farm Workers: Policy Dimension, Panos Southern Africa.

40.

Magaramombe

(2003) Resource base and farm production: Farm labour relations use and needs (Discussion Series Paper). Harare: AIAS.

41.

Magaramombe

(2004) The Impact of land Redistribution on Commercial Farm Workers. Harare, Zimbabwe: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and Institute of Development Studies, University of Zimbabwe, Harare.

42.

Magaramombe

(2010) ‘Displaced in place’: Agrarian displacements, replacements and resettlement among farm workers in Mazowe District. Journal of Southern African Studies 36(2): 361–375.

43.

Marewo

(2020) Fast track land reform and belonging: examining linkages between resettlement areas and communal areas in Zvimba District, Zimbabwe. Available at: https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/32549

44.

Matondi

(2012) Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform. London: Zed Books.

45.

Mkodzongi

(2013) Fast tracking land reform and rural livelihoods in Mashonaland West province of Zimbabwe: opportunities and constraints: 2000–2013. Available at: https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/9717

46.

Mkodzongi

(2016) Utilising ‘African potentials’ to resolve conflicts in a changing Agrarian situation in central Zimbabwe. In: Sam Moyo

(ed.) What Colonialism Ignored: African Potentials for Resolving Conflicts in Southern Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.75–102.

47.

Morse

Mcnamara

(2013) The theory behind the sustainable livelihood approach. In: Morse

McNamara

(eds) Sustainable Livelihood Approach. Berlin: Springer, pp.15–60.

48.

Moyo

(1995) The Land Question in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: Sapes Books.

49.

Moyo

(2000) Land Reform Under Structural Adjustment in Zimbabwe: Land Use Change in the Mashonaland Provinces. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.

50.

Moyo

(2009) Fast Track Land Reform Baseline Survey in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: African Institute for Agrarian Studies.

51.

Moyo

(2011) Changing agrarian relations after redistributive land reform in Zimbabwe. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(5): 939–966.

52.

Moyo

Chambati

(2013) Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe. Oxford: African Books Collective.

53.

Moyo

Rutherford

Amanor-Wilks

(2000) Land reform & changing social relations for farm workers in Zimbabwe. Review of African Political Economy 27(84): 181–202.

54.

Moyo

Chambati

Murisa

, et al. (2009) Fast track land reform baseline survey in Zimbabwe. Harare: African Institute for Agrarian Studies.

55.

Mutopo

(2014) Women, Mobility and Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe: Experiences of Fast Track Land Reform. Leiden: Brill.

56.

Muzondidya

(2007) Jambanja: ideological ambiguities in the politics of land and resource ownership in Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies 33(2): 325–341.

57.

Neuman

(1994) Workbook for Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

58.

Palmer

(1977) Land and Racial Domination in Rhodesia. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Publishers.

59.

Phimister

Pilossof

(2017) Wage labor in historical perspective: a study of the de-proletarianization of the African working class in Zimbabwe, 196P 2010. Labor History 58: 215–227.

60.

Rutherford

(2001) Commercial farm workers and the politics of (dis) placement in Zimbabwe: colonialism, liberation and democracy. Journal of Agrarian Change 1(4): 626–651.

61.

Rutherford

(2003) Belonging to the farm (er): farm workers, farmers, and the shifting politics of citizenship. In: Hammar

Raftopoulos

Jensen

(eds) Zimbabwe’s Unfinished Business. Harare, Zimbabwe: Weaver Press, pp.191–216.

62.

Rutherford

(2004) Desired Publics, Domestic Government, and Entangled Fears: On the Anthropology of Civil Society, Farm Workers, and White Farmers in Zimbabwe. Cultural Anthropology 19(1): 122–153.

63.

Rutherford

(2008) Conditional belonging: farm workers and the cultural politics of recognition in Zimbabwe. Development and Change 39(1): 73–99.

64.

Rutherford

(2016) Farm Labor Struggles in Zimbabwe: The Ground of Politics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

65.

Rutherford

(1996) ‘Traditions’ of domesticity in ‘modern’ Zimbabwean politics: race, gender, and class in the government of commercial farm workers in Hurungwe District.

66.

Sachikonye

(2003) The situation of commercial farm workers after land reform in Zimbabwe. Harare: Farm community trust of Zimbabwe. https://sarpn.org/documents/d0000359/index.php

67.

Sachikonye

(2011) Zimbabwe’s Lost Decade: Politics, Development & Society. Oxford: African Books Collective.

68.

Sadomba

(2008) War veterans in Zimbabwe’s land occupations: complexities of a liberation movement in an African post-colonial settler society. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University and Research.

69.

Scoones

(2018) Land reform in Zimbabwe: challenges for policy. Ian Scoones (self-publisher). Available at: https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/land-reform-in-zimbabwe-challenges-for-policy/

70.

Scoones

Murimbarimba

(2021) Small towns and land reform in Zimbabwe. The European Journal of Development Research 33(6): 2040–2062.

71.

Scoones

Mahenehene

Marongwe

, et al. (2010) Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths & Realities. Melton: James Currey.

72.

Scoones

Mavedzenge

Murimbarimba

, et al. (2019) Labour after land reform: The precarious livelihoods of former farmworkers in Zimbabwe. Development and Change 50(3): 805–835.

73.

Scott

(1976) Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in South East Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

74.

Shonhe

(2017) Reconfigured Agrarian Relations in Zimbabwe. Cameroon: Langaa RPCIG; Oxford: African Books Collective.

75.

Shonhe

Bvute

(2021) Globalization, climate change and uneven development in Africa: the Zimbabwe farmers experience. African Renaissance 2021(si1): 167–197.

76.

Sinclair-Bright

(2019) Ambiguous bonds: Relationships between farm workers and land beneficiaries after Zimbabwe’s land reform programme. Journal of Southern African Studies 45(5): 927–944.

77.

TIMB (Tobacco Industry | Marketing Board) (2019) TIMB has zero tolerance to side marketing. Harare, Zimbabwe. https://www.timb.co.zw/down/TIMB%20Sidemarketing%20Flier%20A5.pdf

78.

Tsikata

(2015) The Social Relations of Agrarian Change. London: IIED.

79.

Worby

(2001) A redivided land? New agrarian conflicts and questions in Zimbabwe. Journal of Agrarian Change 1(4): 475–509.

80.

Wutich

(2011) The moral economy of water reexamined: reciprocity, water insecurity, and urban survival in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Journal of Anthropological Review 67(1): 5–26.

81.

Zamchiya

(2011) A synopsis of land and agrarian change in Chipinge District, Zimbabwe. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(5): 1093–1122.