Commodity boom and socio-economic differentiation among peasants in zimbabwe



Download 1.95 Mb.
Page1/27
Date conversion18.06.2018
Size1.95 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27
THE HARVEST OF INDEPENDENCE


COMMODITY BOOM AND

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIFFERENTIATION

AMONG PEASANTS IN ZIMBABWE

Mette Masst

Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo

and

Department of Geography and International Development Studies, Roskilde University

Dissertation for the Ph.D. degree in International Development Studies

at Roskilde University, 1996


CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... I

LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES .......................................................................... X

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. XI

MAP OF ZIMBABWE ...................................................................................... XIV

PREFACE ............................................................................................................ XV



CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. SETTING THE PROBLEM 1

1.2. DATA AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 5

1.2.1. Required and available data 5

1.2.2. Sources of primary data 7

The village survey 8

The case households and their life histories 11

1.2.3. Households as units of analysis 12

1.2.4. Research ethics and cross disciplinarity 15

1.3. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 16


Part One
LANDSCAPE 18


CHAPTER 2:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 19

2.1. CONCEPTUALISING AFRICAN PEASANTRIES 19

2.2. PERSPECTIVES FROM THE LITERATURE ON SOUTHERN AFRICAN PEASANTRIES 23

2.2.1. Labour migration and underdevelopment 23



The "linear proletarianisation" thesis 23

The influence of the dependency paradigm 26

2.2.2. Approaches transcending the "linear proletarianisation thesis" 28

2.2.3. Post-independence studies documenting peasant differentiation 30

2.3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIFFERENTIATION AMONG AFRICAN PEASANTRIES 32

2.3.1. Peasant differentiation and development determinism 32

2.3.2. Peasant differentiation and labour migration - the impact of straddling 34



Life cycles and migration patterns 36

Straddling, investments and accumulation 38

Sources of cash for recurrent production costs and living expenses 40

Means of mobilising money income 42

Conclusions 44

2.3.3. Differentiation and «accumulation from below» 45



Exploitation disguised through traditional, co-operative practices 45

Exploitation by state and state-connected agents 48

2.4. STRUCTURE AND AGENCY IN PEASANT STUDIES 50

2.4.1. The structural bias of modern development studies 50

2.4.2. The theory of structuration 51

2.4.3. Real actors, objectives and strategies 53

2.4.4. Actor-oriented approaches to the study of agrarian change and development 58


CHAPTER 3:
POST-INDEPENDENCE COMMODITY BOOM IN ZIMBABWEAN PEASANT AGRICULTURE 61

3.1. AGRARIAN STRUCTURE AND INEQUALITY AT INDEPENDENCE 61

3.2. AGRARIAN REFORM AND AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN THE 1980s 68

3.2.1. How comprehensive agrarian reform? 68

3.2.2. The Resettlement Programme 69

3.2.3. Improved access to agricultural support services in the communal areas 70



Improved marketing facilities 71

Expanded agricultural extension services 74

Access to commoditised seasonal inputs 75

Agricultural pricing policies 79

3.3. COMMODITY BOOM IN PEASANT AGRICULTURE 83

3.3.1. Massive expansion, subsequent stagnation and recent decline in maize production 83

3.3.2. Cotton boom in the communal areas 86

3.4. GREATER EQUITY? 87

3.5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE EVIDENCE 90



CHAPTER 4:
THE FIELD STUDY AREA 91

4.1. MOUNT DARWIN DISTRICT AND KANDEYA COMMUNAL AREA 91

4.1.1. Land, population and ecology 91

4.1.2. The image of Mount Darwin 103

4.2. KANDARE VILLAGE 105

Part Two

HISTORY 109


CHAPTER 5:
PEASANT PRODUCTION AND AGRARIAN CHANGE DURING THE COLONIAL PERIOD 110

5.1. HISTORY AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS 110

5.2. PEASANT PRODUCTION AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN MOUNT DARWIN DISTRICT 1900-1960 112

5.2.1. Uneven development and interventions by the colonial state 112



Chibaro, taxation and the creation of labour reserves 113

Development of social and material infrastructure 117

5.2.2. Life and production in Kandeya Reserve before World War II 118

5.2.3. Kandeya Reserve after 1945: Rapid agrarian change and commoditisation 121

Reduced migration and changing division of labour 123

Commoditisation of the peasants' consumption 124

5.2.4. Concluding discussion 127



The impact of changing macro conditions 127

Commodity expansion and social differentiation 130

5.3. CONSERVATION AND DEMONSTRATION: STATE INTERVENTIONS IN THE RESERVES 1925-1965 132

5.3.1. Agricultural demonstration and development efforts 132

5.3.2. Compulsory conservation and interventions in the labour process in African agriculture 135


The Native Land Husbandry Act 136

5.3.3. Centralisation and the Native Land Husbandry Act in Kandeya Reserve 1945-1965 138

5.3.4. Interpreting the Native Land Husbandry Act 143

5.3.5. Concluding discussion 144


Conservation and differentiation 144

Winds of change - except in Southern Rhodesia 147

5.4. AGRICULTURAL DECLINE AND DESPERATE CONDITIONS IN THE AFRICAN RESERVES 1960-1980 149

5.4.1. Reforms and experimentations with African peasant agriculture 150

5.4.2. Crisis in the reserves: Declining yields, landlessness and labour migration 152

5.4.3. Mount Darwin District towards the end of the colonial period 157

Continued differentiation and stagnant levels of production 157

Emerging land pressure 160

Labour migration and limited commoditisation of consumption 161

Partial intensification and commoditisation of the labour process 163

Impacts of the armed Liberation War 1976-1980 165

5.5. CONCLUSIONS 166

ANNEX 5.I.
POPULATION DEVELOPMENT AND THE VALIDITY OF POPULATION DATA IN SOUTHERN RHODESIA 170

ANNEX 5.II.


EXPANSION OF PEASANT MAIZE PRODUCTION IN MOUNT DARWIN DURING THE 1950s 173

ANNEX 5.III


MAIZE SALES BY PEASANTS IN KANDEYA RESERVE IN THE 1970s 178

CHAPTER 6:

AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION AND ACCELERATED COMMODITISATION IN POST-INDEPENDENCE KANDEYA COMMUNAL AREA 180

6.1. MOUNT DARWIN AND KANDEYA AT THE EVE OF INDEPENDENCE 180

6.2. COMMODITY BOOM IN KANDEYA 182

6.2.1. Expansion and contraction of maize production 182


Maize production in Kandare Village 186

6.2.2. Cotton cultivation 188



Cotton production in Kandare Village 191

6.2.3. Diversification and expanded tobacco cultivation 192

6.2.4. Alternative findings from Kandeya: The Report of Farm Management Data for Communal Area Farm Units 1988/89 193

6.2.5. Kandare and Kandeya - How representative? 195

6.3. WHAT CAUSED THE EXPANSION OF PEASANT PRODUCTION? 197

6.3.1. Observations from Kandeya Communal Area 197



Increased number of producers and expansion of the cultivated area 197

Agricultural credit and use of commoditised seasonal inputs 198

Improved access to marketing facilities 201

Expanded agricultural extension services 202

6.3.2. Observations from the country as a whole 203

6.3.3. Conclusions and future prospects 207

6.4. KANDEYA - NO MORE A LABOUR RESERVE? 209

6.5. CONCLUSIONS 213

ANNEX 6.I.


TO ESTABLISH THE MAGNITUDE OF MARKETED MAIZE PRODUCTION IN KANDEYA COMMUNAL AREA ON THE BASIS OF DATA WITH DUBIOUS RELIABILITY 214

CHAPTER 7:

COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS 222

7.1. SHARPER DIFFERENTIATION 222

7.1.1. Unequal levels of farm production 222

7.1.2. Uneven agricultural output: Real inequality or only a reflection of uneven household size? 227

7.1.3. Gross versus net income from crop sales 229

7.2. WHY SUCH UNEQUAL LEVELS OF FARM PRODUCTION LEVELS OF FARM PRODUCTION AND CASH CROP INCOME? 232

7.2.1. Demographic differentiation? The impact of household size and stages in household development cycle 232

7.2.2. The impact of unequal access to other means of production 238

7.3. CONCLUSIONS 244


Part Three
PEASANTS AND DIFFERENTIATION 246


CHAPTER 8:
STRATIFICATION AND CLASS FORMATION 247

8.1. DEFINING THE TOOLS OF ANALYSIS 248

8.1.1. Classes and strata 248

8.1.2. Stratification criteria 249

8.1.3. Methodological considerations 250

Calculating levels of off-farm and farm cash income 250

Classifying the individual households 252

8.2. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION IN KANDARE VILLAGE 255

8.2.1. The economic strata 255

Poor peasants 255

Middle peasants 256

Relatively wealthy peasants 256

8.2.2. Marginalised rural dwellers: the landless and unemployed generation 257

8.2.3. Unequal standards of living, security and life chances 260

Perceptions of wealth 260

Unequal standards of everyday living 261

Unequal life chances 264

Social security 266

8.3. SOCIAL - OR ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION ONLY? 269



Political manifestations 269

Social manifestations 271

Religious affiliations 273

8.4. CONCLUSIONS 275


CHAPTER 10:
STRATEGIES, RESOURCES AND DIFFERENTIAL ACCESS TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION 298

10.1. PROBLEM AND PERSPECTIVE 298

10.2. SOCIAL RESOURCES IN RURAL ZIMBABWE: CATEGORY, STATUS AND POSITION IN KIN-BASED SOCIO-CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS 301

10.2.1. The kraal 301

10.2.2. The household 303

10.2.3. Networks and ethnic groups 305

10.3. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO LAND 308

10.3.1. The system: Communal Land Tenure 308



Formal and actual entitlements 309

An egalitarian landholding pattern 311

10.3.2. Strategies to maintain and enhance entitlements to land 313

10.3.3. Women's (lack of) control over land 315

10.3.4. "Land grabbing" and concentration of land 320

10.3.5. Land pressure and struggles over land 323

10.3.6. Socio-economic differentiation and access to farmland 330


Renting and borrowing 332

(Limited) Pressures from external land-accumulators 334

10.3.7. Conclusions 336

10.4. RELATIONS, MARKETS AND MOBILISATION OF AGRICULTURAL LABOUR 339

10.4.1. Fluctuating labour demands and declining supply 339

10.4.2. Gendered division of labour and unequal labour burdens 343

10.4.3. Non-wage forms of mobilising labour 346


Expanding the size of the household 346

Recruitment of extra-household labour through the use of social resources 349

10.4.4. Labour recruitment through the market: Wage labour in the communal areas 355



The labour hirers 355

The labour sellers 359

10.4.5. Conclusions 360

10.5. INPUTS AND IMPLEMENTS 362

10.5.1. Cattle and farm equipment 362



Cattle ownership 362

Ownership of farm implements 368

Ways of obtaining access to draught power and implements possessed by others 370

The gender dimension of access to cattle and other assets 372

10.5.2. Seasonal inputs 374

10.5.3. Conclusions 377

10.6. KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS 379

10.6.1. Farming skills 379

10.6.2. Academic education, values and «horizon» 382

10.7. CONCLUSIONS 385

Part Four
CONCLUSIONS 389


BIBLIOGRAPHY 409

Published sources 409

ARCHIVAL SOURCES 430

TABLE ANNEX ................................................................................................. 411


LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES

MAPS

MAP OF ZIMBABWE................................................................................................................XIV


Figures

LIST OF TABLES


FIG. 3.1.
LAND APPORTIONMENT IN (SOUTHERN) RHODESIA AND ZIMBABWE 62

MAP 3.1.
LAND APPORTIONMENT (1968) 64

MAP 3.2.
NATURAL REGIONS 65

MAP 3.3.


LOCATION OF MATERIAL INFRASTRUCTURE 66

MAP 3.4.
LOCATION OF COTTON PRODUCING AREAS AND CMB FACILITIES 73

TABLE 3.1.
SALE OF HYBRID MAIZE SEED AND FERTILISER TO SMALLHOLDERS1 (in mega tonnes) 78

TABLE 3.2.


NOMINAL PRODUCER PRICES FOR MAIZE AND COTTON1 (in Zimbabwe Dollars/Cents) 80

TABLE 3.3.


ANNUAL GROWTH RATES OF OFFICIAL PRODUCER PRICES
(1979-1989) 81

FIGURE 3.2.


TOTAL PRODUCTION AND SALES OF MAIZEFROM THE COMMUNAL AREAS 1975-1991 84

FIGURE 3.3.


COTTON PRODUCTION FROM THE COMMUNAL AREAS 1975-1991 86

TABLE 4.1.

HOUSEHOLDS AND TOTAL POPULATION IN MOUNT DARWIN DISTRICT, 1969-1992 102

TABLE 5.1.

STANDARD RECOMMENDED ALLOCATIONS OF LAND AND STOCK UNDER THE NATIVE LAND HUSBANDRY ACT 136

TABLE 5.2.


TOTAL INDIGENOUS AFRICAN POPULATION IN SOUTHERN RHODESIA 171

TABLE 5.3.


POPULATION DEVELOPMENT IN MOUNT DARWIN DISTRICT, 1903-1992 171

TABLE 5.4.


REGISTERED MAIZE SALES FROM AFRICAN CULTIVATORS, 1937-1965 (in 202lb/91kg bags) 174

TABLE 5.5.


MAIZE SOLD BY AFRICAN CULTIVATORS TO GRAIN MARKETING BOARD (in 91kg bags) 179

TABLE 6.1.


REGISTERED MAIZE SALES FROM SMALLHOLDERS (in 91kg bags) 184

TABLE 6.2.


COTTON SALES TO COTTON MARKETING BOARD (in tonnes) 188

Table 6.4.


MAIZE SALES TO GRAIN MARKETING BOARD (in 91 kg bags) 215

TABLE 6.5.


AGRITEX' MAIZE CROP FORECASTS* FOR KANDEYA COMMUNAL AREA (in 91 kg bags) 217

TABLE 6.6.


MAIZE SALES TO GRAIN MARKETING BOARD: SHARE OF TOTAL DELIVERY FROM THE RELEVANT SUB-SECTOR (in 91 kg bags) 220

TABLE 6.7.


MAIZE SALES TO GRAIN MARKETING BOARD: AVERAGE SALES PER HOUSEHOLD (in 91 kg bags) 221

FIGURE 7.1.

DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL MAIZE PRODUCTION AND TOTAL INCOME FROM CROP SALES IN KANDARE VILLAGE 225

FIGURE 7.2.

DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL INCOME FROM CROP SALES IN KANDARE VILLAGE 228

TABLE 7.1.


HOUSEHOLD LABOUR AND MARKETED FARM PRODUCTION 236

TABLE 7.2.


STAGE IN LIFE COURSE AND MARKETED FARM PRODUCTION 237

TABLE 7.3.


ARABLE LANDHOLDING AND MARKETED FARM PRODUCTION 238

TABLE 7.4.


LANDHOLDING, LAND QUALITY AND MARKETED FARM PRODUCTION 239

TABLE 7.5.


POSSESSION OF DROUGHT POWER AND MARKETED FARM PRODUCTION 241

TABLE 7.6.


ACCESS TO FARM EQUIPMENT AND MARKETED FARM PRODUCTION 241

TABLE 7.7.


ACCESS TO COMMODITISED INPUTS AND MARKETED FARM PRODUCTION 242

TABLE 7.8.


CONTACT WITH AGRITEX AND MARKETED FARM PRODUCTION 243

TABLE 8.1.


QUALITY OF MAIN HUT BY ECONOMIC STRATA 261

TABLE 8.2.


STANDARD OF LIVING BY ECONOMIC STRATUM 263

TABLE 8.3.


ADULT CHILDREN’S AVERAGE EDUCATION LEVEL BY ECONOMIC STRATUM 265

TABLE 8.4.


LEADERSHIP POSITIONS BY ECONOMIC STRATUM 270

TABLE 8.5.

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION BY ECONOMIC STRATUM 273

FIGURE 9.1.

DISTRIBUTION OF CASH CROP INCOME AND CASH FARM INCOME AMONG HOUSEHOLDS IN KANDARE VILLAGE 278

FIGURE 9.2.


DISTRIBUTION OF CASH INCOME FROM FARM SOURCES VERSUS INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES (FARM AND NON-FARM) IN KANDARE VILLAGE 279

TABLE 9.1.


DISTRIBUTION OF OFF-FARM AND FARM CASH INCOME IN KANDARE VILLAGE 1989-1991 280

TABLE 10.1.


AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND SIZE OF LANDHOLDING 329

TABLE 10.2.


ECONOMIC STRATUM AND ARABLE LANDHOLDING 330

TABLE 10.3.


ECONOMIC STRATUM AND QUALITY OF LAND HOLDING 331

TABLE 10.4.


ECONOMIC STRATUM AND CULTIVATED AREA 332

TABLE 10.5.


ECONOMIC STRATUM AND ACCESS TO UNPAID HOUSEHOLD LABOUR 346

TABLE 10.6.


SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP AND ACCESS TO UNPAID HOUSEHOLD LABOUR 348

TABLE 10.7.


SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP AND EMPLOYMENT OF CASUAL LABOUR 356

TABLE 10.8.


SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP AND TYPE OF CASUAL LABOUR HIRED 356

TABLE 10.9.


SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP AND EMPLOYMENT OF PERMANENT LABOURERS 358

TABLE 10.10.

ECONOMIC STRATUM AND ENGAGEMENT IN CASUAL, AGRICULTURAL WAGE EMPLOYMENT LOCALLY 359

TABLE 10.11.

CATTLE OWNERSHIP IN KANDARE VILLAGE 365

TABLE 10.12.


ECONOMIC STRATUM AND ACCESS TO DRAUGHT POWER 367

TABLE 10.13.


ECONOMIC STRATUM AND OWNERSHIP OF FARM IMPLEMENTS 368

TABLE 10.14.


GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND CATTLE OWNERSHIP 373

TABLE 10.15.


GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND OWNERSHIP OF FARM EQUIPMENT 373

TABLE 10.16.


ECONOMIC STRATUM AND ACCESS TO COMMODITISED INPUTS 375

TABLE 10.17.


SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLUSTER AND CONTACT WITH THE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORKER 381

TABLE 10.18.


SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLUSTER AND EDUCATION LEVEL 383

TABLE A1
MAIZE BAGS PRODUCED, ANNUAL AVERAGE 1980-81 431

TABLE A2
MAIZE BAGS SOLD, ANNUAL AVERAGE 1980-81 433

TABLE A3
MAIZE BAGS PRODUCED, ANNUAL AVERAGE 1989-91 434

TABLE A4
NUMBER OF MAIZE BAGS SOLD, ANNUAL AVERAGE 1989-91 436

TABLE A5
NUMBER OF COTTON BALES SOLD, ANNUAL AVERAGE 1980-81 438

TABLE A6

AVERAGE NUMBER OF COTTON BALES SOLD PER YEAR 1989-91 439

Mean 2,3 Median 2 439

TABLE A7

AVERAGE COTTON SALES AMONG THE COTTON PRODUCERS 1980-81 440

TABLE A8
AVERAGE COTTON SALES AMONG THE COTTON PRODUCERS 1989-91 440

TABLE 9
THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LEVELS OF MAIZE AND COTTON PRODUCTION (1989-91) 442

TABLE A10


TOBACCO PRODUCTION 1991 443

TABLE A11


TOBACCO PRODUCTION 1992 443

TABLE A12


TOBACCO PRODUCTION AND AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD (1991) 444

TABLE A13


TOBACCO PRODUCTION AND TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD (1991) 444

TABLE A14


TOBACCO PRODUCTION AND AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD (1992) 445

Chi-Square: Pearson: DF 10 Signific.: ,12932 445

TABLE A15
TOBACCO PRODUCTION AND TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD (1992) 446

TABLE A16


GROSS INCOME FROM CROP SALES (ANNUAL AVERAGE 1989-91) 447

TABLE A17


CONTACT WITH AGRITEX 449

TABLE A18


TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 449

TABLE A19


CURRENT PRIMARY OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 450

TABLE A20

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LEVELS OF CROP SALES (ALL CROPS) AND LEVELS OF MAIZE PRODUCTION 450

TABLE A21

HOUSEHOLD AND PER CAPITA LEVELS OF CROP SALES (ALL CROPS) 451

TABLE A22


TOTAL CASH INCOME 452

TABLE A23


ECONOMIC STRATUM BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 454

TABLE A24


ECONOMIC STRATUM BY GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 454

TABLE A25


THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ECONOMIC STRATUM, ANNUAL SCHOOL EXPENDITURES AND SHARE OF TOTAL CASH INCOME SPENT ON EDUCATION PER YEAR 455

TABLE A26


TOTAL CASH FRM INCOME 460

TABLE A27


TOTAL OFF-FARM INCOME 462

Mean 1,503.6 Median 650 463

TABLE A28
SIZE OF LANDHOLDING AND GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 464

TABLE A29


LAND USED AND GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 464

TABLE A30


AVAILABLE HOUSEHOLD LABOUR (GROUPED) 465

TABLE A31


AVAILABLE HOUSEHOLD LABOUR
(ABOSLUTE VALUES OF «LABOUR POWER POINTS»*) 466

TABLE A32


HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS’ EMPLOYMENT AS CASUAL, AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN THE LOCALITY: WHAT WORK 467

TABLE A33


ECONOMIC STRATA AND EMPLOYMENT AS CASUAL, NON-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN THE LOCALITY 467

TABLE A34

HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS’ EMPLOYMENT AS CASUAL, NON-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN THE LOCALITY: WHAT WORK 468

TABLE A35

CATTLE HOLDING BY ECONOMIC STRATUM 468

TABLE A36


ACCESS TO DRAUGHT POWER BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 470

TABLE A37


ACCESS TO FARM EQUIPMENT BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 470

TABLE A38


CONTACT WITH AGRITEX BY GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD 472

MAP OF ZIMBABWE

PREFACE

The plan to make this study was conceived in 1982/83, when I was about to complete my Magister Artium dissertation on peasants and social change in Kenya. Zimbabwe had recently gained independence, and the Mugabe Government was busy attacking the discriminating regulations that had been the backbone of the racially segregated Rhodesian society. The agricultural production of the peasants showed a phenomenal increase, and the former African reserves appeared to be undergoing a transformation from impoverished labour reserves to commodity producing localities with greater degree of socio-economic differentiation. The transformation seemed to have many similarities with changes that took place in Kenya in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The transformation from a settler colony to an independent African state had in Kenya, among other things, resulted in much sharper differentiation among the peasants. My research background from Kenya would therefore provide the basis for fruitful comparisons in a study of a similar transition in Zimbabwe.

The work on the dissertation on Kenya had furthermore taught me how essential it is to have intimate, broad and multidimensional knowledge about the society one studies. I felt that literature studies combined with a localised field work of limited duration would never give me sufficient basis. Only by living in Zimbabwe over some time, could I acquire a necessarily broad and deep «sense» of the society. From 1986 to the end of 1989, I was living in Harare, working for the Norwegian Agency for International Development (NORAD).

The study itself was made possible by a three and a half years’ doctoral research grant from the Norwegian Research Council. I started on the research in 1990 and worked on it until the middle of 1995, with some long and short interruptions connected with other engagements (including giving birth to my son Øyvind). The research funding ran out half a year before that, and after draining the family resources for some months, I eventually had to find a paid job. Over the last year, I have again been working for NORAD, this time in Maputo. These necessities of life have delayed the completion of the dissertation, and certainly tested the patience of my family as well as my own stamina.

Two academic institutions have been of particular value during the research process. The Centre for Development and the Environment at the University of Oslo has provided a stimulating multidisciplinary environment and an amicable frame for the daily work. It has also offered excellent working facilities and technical assistance. I thank you, my colleagues at the Centre, collectively for the interest, encouragement and useful advice and comments you over these years have given. The other institution is the Institute for International Development Studies at Roskilde University, where I have been a distance Ph.D.student. I have benefited greatly from participating in a large number of researcher training courses organised by IDS. I have also benefited from researcher training offered by the Institute for Sociology at the University. of Oslo. In Zimbabwe, I have throughout been affiliated as research associate with the Centre for Applied Social Sciences at the University of Zimbabwe. I am grateful for the practical assistance and constructive comments I have been given by the permanent staff and research students there.

I am indebted to many people - in Zimbabwe and in Scandinavia. Above all, I am indebted to Mary Sandasi. Mary acted as my research assistant during three of the four field works, and continued working in Kandare Village during my long absences in Norway. Without her professional and patient asssistance, I would not have been able to obtain all the rich material we collected in Kandare Village. She is also a particularly nice and easygoing person, and staying together with her in Mount Darwin made the field work periods all the more joyful. Among the others I am indebted to, are the people of Kandare Village, who generously spent hours and hours with us and gave us the requested information, even though they sometimes questioned its value. Neriso and Erani housed us whenever we stayed in the village. Officials of the Department of Agricultural and Technical Extension Services (AGRITEX) and other government departments in Mount Darwin shared with me their knowledge and facilitated the field work. Juliana Kadzinga gave me the best possible introduction in the district and the village, and provided me with transport and accomodation.

I also stand in debt to my supervisors in Denmark, Mogens Buch Hansen, Henrik Secher-Marcussen and Peter Gibbon. Over the last two years, the latter two have given me invaluable criticism and advice. Peter Gibbon, in particular, has, through his great knowledge of the area and his exceptionally thorough reading of draft chapters, done far more than can be expected from a supervisor. Jan Hesselberg, Tore Linné Eriksen, Norbert Tengende, Elias Madzudzo, Tawana Kupe, Mungai Lenneyie and Roger Leys have all read and given useful - at times very critical - comments to earlier drafts of selected chapters. Roger has also «polished» the English in most of the chapters. My gratitude to them all. Above all, am indebted to my husband, Helge Rønning. He has patiently read, commented and discussed several drafts of this dissertation, from the first scetches to the final version. Over the last couple of years, he has also had to put up with having a wife whose mind was constantly engaged elsewhere. His great intellectual skills, love and patience have all been of invaluable assistance.

Having acknowledged my indebtedness to many people, I wish to emphasise that none of them should be held responsible for the possible mistakes, views or judgements expressed in this work.

Oslo/Maputo, June 1996.


CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION

1.1. SETTING THE PROBLEM

This study deals with two related topics: 1) The expansion and commoditisation of Zimbabwean peasants' agricultural production after 1980; and 2) Related processes of differentiation among the peasantry.

When Zimbabwe in 1980 obtained independence, it had an extremely uneven economic and social structure, where underdeveloped, overpopulated and impoverished African reserves existed side by side with European farming areas, towns and cities that had the most advanced production and infrastructure in Africa north of the Republic of South Africa. The African reserves functioned primarily as labour reserves. A large proportion of the households in the reserves did not even produce enough on their plots to satisfy their subsistence food requirements, and more than half of all men aged between 15 and 55 years were at any time absent from the reserves, engaged in - or looking for - migrant wage employment. Although about 65% of the total African population resided on peasant plots in the reserves, they accounted for only a negligible proportion of the country's registered agricultural commodity production.

By the mid-1980s, this picture was substantially altered: The peasants in the former African reserves - now called communal areas - had multiplied their agricultural output, and produced over 40% of Zimbabwe's cotton crop and between 50% and 60% of the marketed maize crop. Over the subsequent decade, this pattern has largely been maintained. In this study, I will try to identify which forces have stimulated and which have constrained the cash crop boom, and also assess the sustainability of the expanded peasant production.

It has become evident that this impressive commodity expansion is a very uneven one. It is largely confined to a few communal areas located in favourable agro-ecological zones in the northern part of the country, and even within those areas commodity production is concentrated to a small stratum of the peasantry. It has thus been assessed that at most 20% of Zimbabwe's peasants have benefited from the post-independence expansion in cash crop production (Moyo 1986:188). A central objective of this study is to answer the question why the agricultural expansion has been concentrated to such a small minority of Zimbabwe's peasants. This concentration of production has two dimensions, one spatial and one social. The spatial concentration of peasant cash crop production to a few communal areas located in favourable agro-ecological regions, can easily be explained by the fact that in the remaining communal areas, rainfall is too low to permit substantial production increase with the production techniques currently applied. I shall, therefore, not spend time exploring the spatial dimension. In stead, I shall concentrate on the social dimension, and investigate why commodity production is so heavily concentrated to a small stratum of the peasantry even within the cash crop producing localities.


This skewed expansion of agricultural commodity production appears to have created sharper socio-economic differentiation among peasant households than there used to be prior to independence. But the increase in cash crop production is not the only factor which has influenced processes of differentiation among Zimbabwean peasants after 1980. Given their traditionally heavy dependence upon income from migrant wage labour, two other developments are of particular importance:

Firstly, the removal of racial barriers and deliberate "indigenisation" (meaning Africanisation) of both the public and the private wage employment sectors. During the colonial period, Africans were only able to obtain jobs as manual workers or low-level office workers. The highest possible career was to become a teacher or nurse. The removal of those racial barriers has opened up unprecedented career opportunities for people who possess a certain level of education and the right connections. One effect of this has been reduced inequality between white Zimbabweans and a small stratum of the black population. However, it also brought about a sharp increase in the social differentiation among black Zimbabweans. The inequality between, on the one hand, this groups of well educated Africans in remunerative (wage or self-) employment, and, on the other hand, the peasants (as one social class), is very much greater that the socio-economic differentiation that today exists within the peasantry. But because many of the privileged employees maintain close ties to their home village, either by sustaining a plot and agricultural production there or more indirectly through supporting parents and other close relatives, their upward mobility influences the social differentiation within the peasantry as well.

Secondly, mass unemployment has since the mid-1980s emerged in Zimbabwe. Unemployment is not a new - or post-independence - problem, but it is now taking much greater proportions than before. As reliable statistics are missing, there are no generally accepted unemployment figures. It is clear, however, that in the 1980s, job creation in the formal sector absorbed not more than 10% of school leavers. And the problem has been aggravated in the 1990s, for the liberalisation of the economy under the structural adjustment programme has resulted in large retrenchments and closing down of a number of industrial enterprises. As a result, peasant households who wish to combine (female) peasant farming with (male) labour migration, find it increasingly difficult to do so. The situation is further exacerbated by severe land pressure in the communal areas, which causes widespread landlessness. In order to eke out a living, therefore, people increasingly engage in various kinds of temporary and ad hoc activities in the so-called informal sector, which in most cases yield very meagre income. The mass unemployment and growing "informalisation" of the economy are impoverishing those affected, and thus have great impact upon differentiation processes in the communal areas. Both landlessness and unemployment hit young people of peasant background particularly hard, so they make up a large proportion of the rapidly growing stratum of impoverished Zimbabweans who are excluded from the peasantry, but not fortunate enough to become proletarianised wage workers.

Little is known about the current processes of differentiation within the Zimbabwean peasantry. Among the many unanswered questions are: How sharp socio-economic differentiation is there among peasant households today? What is the inequality based on? What counteracting forces exist, and how powerful are they? Which are the most significant changes that have occurred since independence? How does the skewed expansion of agricultural commodity production relate to the broader differentiation processes in the communal areas? What are the future prospects?

The broad ambition of this study is to answer - or at least elucidate - these questions, through an analysis of the contemporary processes of differentiation among the inhabitants of a selected commodity-producing locality in one of the communal areas. In this analysis, the post-independence changes in the wage labour market will not be examined in any detail - only the impact they have upon differentiation processes among the peasantry. The focus of the analysis will be on changes related to the expansion of commodity production in the communal areas.

1.2. DATA AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

1.2.1. Required and available data

The general objective of this study is to analyse social change. More specifically, it is to analyse certain key features of social change which have occurred in the communal areas of Zimbabwe over the last 15 years. To study social change implies by necessity so study society as process. The focus of analysis is on processes of transformation and reconstruction, on the forces that stimulate and constrain those processes, and on their - principally temporary - outcomes. Such analysis presupposes diachronic data.

An underlying perspective guiding this study is the conviction that «Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both» (Wright Mills 1959:3). A complete analysis does not only investigate macro structures and macro level changes, or individual strategies, values and actions, but also how macro level changes manifest themselves at lower levels of analysis, how actors respond to them, and what effects their responses have for themselves, for broader social groups, and for society as a whole. Such analysis presupposes data at several levels of analysis; macro (national and regional society), meso (village and community) and micro (individual and household).

I aim, furthermore, through this study to reach certain general conclusions about the «commodity boom», the processes of rural differentiation, and the relation between the two. This presupposes data that allows for generalisations beyond one specific, single locality. And finally, to answer the concrete research questions posed, I need quantitative data on a wide range of distributions, as well as qualitative data on, among other things, historical changes, inter-relations, individual perceptions and priorities. This study, in other words, necessitates triangulation of several methodological approaches.

The actual collection of data, however, has been restricted by three factors. The first is the general shortage of historical and socio-economic data from African societies. Although there are more - and apparently more reliable - data available from contemporary Zimbabwe than there are from most other African countries, existing information is still highly incomplete and often of dubious quality. And for the colonial period, information on conditions in the African reserves is extremely scattered indeed. This situation severely limits the scope both for comparing my own findings with other data sets, and for situating them within a national context. On the other hand, these conditions also imply that it is more gratifying to do research on Africa than it is on over-documented societies in the first world. For even if a study should not be among the most brilliant and innovative ones, there is little doubt that it will provide useful new information and insights.

The second constraint is my limited command over the local language - chiShona. In virtually all communication with local informants, I have depended upon the assistance of an interpreter. Such language constraints restricts what issues one can meaningfully investigate, for our ability to grasp the concepts and lifeworld of a Zimbabwean villager without even understanding her language, is very limited indeed. In this concrete study, however, I am convinced that the language constraint does not represent any serious limitation. Firstly, because the issues investigated are not very philosophical or conceptual. Secondly, because I throughout the long period of data collection was helped by a very good Zimbabwean research assistant/interpreter who fully understood what kind of information I was searching for.

The third constraint, is the limited time and resources available in an individual research project such as this one. For that reason, the collection of primary data has been confined to one locality only. The primary data obtained through observations and interviews with peasant households, have all been collected from one village, located in the fertile Kandeya Communal Area in Mount Darwin District, about 200 km.s north of Harare. The written primary data from the field study area is generally on a more aggregated level of analysis, namely communal area or district level.

The advantages of concentrating the collection of primary data to one locality are obvious. It enables one to obtain rich in-depth information on a wide variety of issues, and to contextualise the information. Because the informants are neighbours who know a lot about each other, it also allows one to cross-check information given by individual informants. The disadvantage is equally obvious. It severely limits one’s scope for generalisation of the findings. Ideally, my study should have comprised of equally rich in-depth studies from at least 3-4 different localities. That being impossible, I have put emphasis on making as systematic as possible comparisons between my own findings and data in available secondary sources. Reports from other contemporary research, national statistics and historical studies together broaden the scope, enrich the field and assist in identifying what is unique for this locality, what is general for the communal areas as a whole, and what is representative only for the fertile communal areas in the northern part of the country.

The village was carefully selected through a process which aimed to end up with a field area that is «typical» for localities in the surplus-producing communal areas. Kandeya Communal Area was chosen for two reasons. Firstly, because it was one of the communal areas which in the 1980s had exhibited very strong increase in marketed peasant production. Secondly, because I already was quite familiar with the area and had very good local contact persons there, who could introduce me and obtain acceptance from the villagers, local leaders and District officials. The actual locality - Kandare Village - was selected upon the recommendation of the district agricultural extension services (AGRITEX). In my own assessment, Kandare was a suitable locality, which has proved to be a quite «typical» example of the surplus-producing villages in Zimbabwe.

1.2.2. Sources of primary data

Four main sources of primary data have been used in this study:

i) A comprehensive village survey;

ii) Life histories and other types of qualitative information obtained from 30 case households in the village;

iii) Qualitative information obtained through observation, interviews and conversations with other key informants;

iv) Written sources found in the National Archives and in the local archives such as those of the District Administration, District Council and Community Court.

To complement these primary sources, I have made extensive use of national statistics, available research and consultancy reports, official documents, maps and areas photos, and fiction literature.

The primary data were collected over a very long period, stretching from August 1990 to April 1994. From August 1990 to December 1991, I myself and/or my trusted research assistant were continuously collecting interview- and observational data from the village. Repeated field visits in October-November 1992 and April 1994 gave me the opportunity to fill important lacunae discovered in the material, and also pursue new issues which the process of analysis had alerted me to.

The village survey

The village survey has been the principal data source for the synchronic analyses of the skewed distribution of peasant production, of the extent of socio-economic differentiation, and the relationship between inequality and access to material, social and cultural resources. It includes background data on the households (size, ages, composition, education levels, employment careers), assets (house quality, land holding, domestic animals, farm equipment and other valuables), data on production and marketing of main crops, inputs used, other major and regular expenses, access to loans, remittances and positions of power and authority.

As much as 50% of the 160 resident households in the village were selected as units. This sample is stratified and weighed, and thus reflects a representative picture of the residents of the village. The units were selected through the following process: After first having explained the objective of the study to the villagers in a large public meeting, we sat down for 3-4 days with the village leadership and other selected key informants, who gave us key information about each household. The key information included sub-village, age of household head, household size, arable land holding, cattle holding, levels of production of the principal crops, and engagement in wage labour. On this basis, I temporarily, as a methodological aide only, classified the units into three broad socio-economic groups («rich», «middle» and «poor»). The groups were further subdivided on the basis of sub-village, age (of household head) and engagement in wage labour. From each sub-category, 50% of the households were randomly selected.

The main weakness of this sampling method, and of any sampling method that uses a village as the universe, is that it excludes a large number of de jure village members who de facto live more or less permanently outside it1. In Kandare Village, this group represented as much as 60 households, and the vast majority of them were landless and rather young people. These marginalised, young households reflect a very important aspect of the communal areas today - namely the great and ever more serious land hunger. Special efforts were, therefore, made to ensure that, although being excluded from the village survey, substantial qualitative information was obtained from some of the young absentee households.

Data were collected from the 80 sample households annually in 1990, 1991 and 1992. These repeated efforts enabled me to check the consistency of their responses from one year to another and thus improve the reliability. It also enabled me to minimise the impact of annual fluctuations (caused by variations in rainfall and other natural conditions), because I could use the average for the three years.

The survey data were meticulously collected. The responses were to the extent possible checked against observation and information from other informants. All land holdings were actually measured by myself or an assistant2. In 1990, I did most of the interviews myself, and the remaining interviews were done under my close supervision. In 1991 and 1992, however, all the interviews were made by a research assistant, and the quality of those data is lower. To improve both validity and reliability of the most «difficult» variables, such as magnitude of remittances, main expenses, inputs used, labour applied and yields harvested, survey data were between October 1990 and November 1991 collected on a monthly basis from 26 of the sample households.

The case households and their life histories

The most important data sources for the diachronic analyses have been the life histories of 30 selected case households, and written archival material. Additional, useful data were drawn from other oral sources and from secondary material. In the absence of diaries and other written sources, the life histories, like other oral accounts of past features or events, had to be reconstructed through the informants’ own recollection.

Recollection has the weakness, that it is selective and filtering. When we recall the past, we reconstruct it in accordance with our present ideas about what is important and not. It has, therefore, been important to confront the oral accounts with written sources from the relevant historical periods. Such sources are, first and foremost, reports from the colonial district commissioners for Mount Darwin, and other documents in the local archives of the District. Unfortunately, their information lies at more aggregated levels of analysis. The written sources refer to the district, or at best the African reserve, as the unit. The life histories, on the other hand, provides information at the level of household and locality. But in the absence of other sources, this archival material is still the best to check the life histories against. The fact that all the life histories were collected from the same locality, also reduces the problem of selective and filtered recollection: It allows me to cross-check much of the information, and goes a long way towards eliminating individual misrepresentations of the local reality. It does not provide the same scope, however, for correcting collective misrepresentations or misrepresentations in accounts of individual and household life trajectories.

Through the use of these oral and written sources, I have attempted to reconstruct the social and economic history of the field study area through the 20th Century. That account has some value in itself, for this history has not been written before. But more importantly, it provides context for analysing the life histories, and historical background for analysing the post-independence developments.

My interest in life histories as a methodological tool, has its basis in research from other African societies (Kitching 1980, First 1983). Reading this, inspired the hypothesis that the key to understanding contemporary rural differentiation, is to be found in the study of past wage work careers and economic dispositions of the peasant households. In the absence of detailed, longitudinal household budget studies and large statistical data sets on education and work careers, oral recollection of life histories is the best available source of information (Hagestad 1990, Bertaux 1994).

Life histories were collected from 30 households, which had been selected as cases. To be treated as cases, meant that the households were studied intensively and situated within (historically changing) contexts. In addition to their life histories, we obtained information from the case households through detailed, monthly survey interviews, observation and informal conversations. In 8 of the cases, I also engaged a household member (a secondary school student) to write a daily record of main events in the household, with particular emphasis on labour processes, division of labour, incomes and expenses. Most of these diaries cover the whole period between October 1990 and November 1991.

The case households were selected on their virtue of promising rich and interesting information. Extreme and exceptional cases, e.g. the poorest and richest households, were overrepresented. I thus make no claim that the case material is statistically representative. I will argue, however, that it is substantially representative. Given the fact that the life trajectories of peasant households in Kandare Village exhibit very limited variety, 30 cases should be safely above the «saturation» point, i.e. the point where additional cases yield very little new information (Bertaux and Bertaux-Wiame 1981:186-188).

1.2.3. Households as units of analysis

In the greater part of this study, the unit of analysis is the household. Most importantly, the analysis of socio-economic differentiation is structured around the household as the principal conceptual unit. I am fully aware that this choice has certain negative implications. As pointed out over the last two decades, not least by feminist anthropological literature, households are neither natural, nor stable units (Guyer 1981, Roberts 1991). Household does not necessarily coincide with family. African households, in particular, may frequently have non-family members who are co-opted into themselves for periods of varying lengths, on the basis of different contractual relationships. This practice, together with the prominence of labour migration, also imply that size and composition of the households tend to fluctuate a great deal over time. Moreover, the dominant concept in international peasant studies, of the household as a solidary, harmonious unit, is a gender-blind, false concept which neglects the inequality, conflicts and negotiations that take place within the households. The fallacy of that concept is particularly obvious in Africa, where «there are social units centering on an adult male with authority over land and over his wife/wives and children who often have their own separable stocks of property and authority» (Guyer and Peters 1987:207).

I have, still, found household to be a feasible conceptual unit for my analysis of peasant differentiation in Zimbabwe, for two reasons. Firstly, in contemporary rural Zimbabwe, the household (which consists of/is centred around a nuclear family) is the primary point of reference in the peasants’ social and economic strategies, as well as the principal locus of their production, reproduction and consumption. Broader socio-cultural institutions, such as the clan or extended family, still play an important role. It is, however, in most respects secondary to that of the nuclear family. The economic autonomy of married women in rural Shona society of Zimbabwe is also far more limited than studies have shown it to be in a number of West-African societies (Hill 1972, Berry 1985, Batezat and Mwalo 1989).

The second reason for choosing household as the principal unit of analysis, lies in the fact that it is in line with the whole tradition of peasant studies. It thus allows me to link up with important debates in that literature, and more specifically make comparisons with relevant research from Zimbabwe and other countries in the region.

In this study, the main weakness in using household as unit of analysis is the inherent inability to capture intra-household inequalities and conflicts. I have attempted to overcome that by specifically addressing issues of gender-based inequality as regards power and access to resources, subordination and exploitation within the households. I have, furthermore, attempted to minimise the problem of fluctuating size of the households, by using the respective households’ averages for the three years survey data were collected. During that period, we actually did not find very great fluctuations in the sizes of the households included in our sample.3

In this study, households are defined as economic rather than residential units. Absentee husbands in migrant employment are counted as members of the rural households, even though they live elsewhere for the larger part of the year. In several other contemporary studies from Zimbabwe, migrant husbands are not considered to be full household members, and only the proportion of their income that actually reaches the rural home is taken into account (Govaerts 1987, Pankhurst 1989, Stack 1992). That contribution is regarded as "remittances". For my purpose, however, it has been more relevant to take the migrant husbands' total wage income into account. It is the total household income which expresses the households' room for manoeuvre, and thus that total which is most relevant for analysing their economic strategies4. There are also additional reasons for defining households as economic rather than residential units. One is the fact that it tends to be the migrant husbands who, in their capacity as household heads, make the far-reaching decisions regarding farm production as well as uses of incomes. Another reason is the fact that this definition corresponds to the Kandare villagers’ concept of a household, and thus reduces the «translation problems» in our communication.

1.2.4. Research ethics and cross disciplinarity

The cross-disciplinary character of this study poses certain challenges of research ethical character. The sociological analysis of socio-economic differentiation and the peasants’ strategies to secure and enhance their access to material, social and cultural resources, rests on information which the villagers have given me in confidence. This information had to be anonymized in order to protect the informants. Qualitative life history data poses particular challenges, because it is quite easy to identify the individuals behind the stories. I have, therefore, avoided to refer to particular cases, and in stead presented imagined, but realistic, life trajectories that are based upon the «real» life histories. I have also found it necessary to anonymize the village where the field study was undertaken.

However, this study is not only a general sociological analysis of differentiation processes among Zimbabwean peasants. It is also an account of the economic and social history of a particular area of Zimbabwe. It would be meaningless to present that historical analysis without situating it in its real context. The sources used for that analysis are public records or oral information which cannot easily be associated with the informants, so the concrete references pose no ethical problem.

To balance between the need to protect the informants and the need to localise the historical analysis, I have chosen the following compromise: When referring to the more aggregated units of analysis, I have used the real names. Mount Darwin District, Kandeya Communal Area and Dotito Ward are the actual names. Only from the level of the village and downwards, have I attempted to anonymize the units. Kandare Village is thus an acronym, and so are all the names of kraals, households and individuals.

1.3. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS


Chapter 1: Sets the research problem and discusses data and methodological issues.

Chapter 2: Outlines the theoretical framework for the study.

Chapter 3 and 4: Are two descriptive chapters which provide factual background for the study. Chapter 3 outlines the changes since independence in key policy areas and in production trends in the communal areas. Chapter 4 presents the village, the communal area and the district where the field study was undertaken.

Chapter 5: Provides historical background for the post-independence changes I am investigating. The social and agrarian changes in Kandeya African Reserve during the colonial period are situated in a wider national context, so the outline helps to identify in what respects Kandeya differs from most other communal areas and in what respects it is more generally representative, and also identifies trends and features which help to explain the current patterns and processes of differentiation.

Chapter 6: First analyses the magnitude of the post-independence commodity expansion in Kandeya Communal Area and subsequently identifies which factors have stimulated and which have constrained this expansion. More general conclusions is drawn on the basis of comparing the experience in Kandeya with data from other localities and from statistics at the national level. Thereafter, social changes in Kandeya related to the post-independence cash crop expansion are identified.

Chapter 7: Investigates the distributional effects of the agricultural commodity boom in Kandeya Communal Area.

Chapter 8: Explores the current social differentiation among the peasants in Zimbabwe in general and in Kandeya particular, considering not only their farm production, but also their engagement in other economic activities. After identifying the main economic strata among the peasantry, it discusses the significance of the stratification.


Chapter 9: Explores the relationship between the present socio-economic position of the respective households and their (current or past) wage labour careers.

Chapter 10: Investigates the respective strata’s (unequal) access to the essential means of production in peasant farming, and explores the strategies households use in order to secure and improve their access to them.

Chapter 11: Summarises and highlights the most important conclusions from the study.




  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page