Revisiting the Trimodal Agrarian Structure as a Social Differentiation Analysis Framework in Zimbabwe: A Study

Abstract

The study of social differentiation in the countryside is often dominated by the deployment of classical analytical frameworks. This article quantitatively explores social differentiation at the sub-national level (Chiredzi and Zvimba districts in Zimbabwe), through the use of the trimodal agrarian structure (TMAS) framework. It addresses the question of whether variables outlined in TMAS (land sizes, labor, and credit) stimulate social differentiation patterns across various settlement models, which emerged after Zimbabwe’s land reform program. If so, what groups or clusters emerge and what are the differentials at the local level? Through statistical factor and cluster analysis, this article reveals that the TMAS variables do explain social differentiation even at the sub-national level. Land sizes, access to capital, and ownership of cattle are key factors in explaining this differentiation. Beyond the variables presented by the TMAS, we argue that agroecological zones and crop type are also instrumental in shaping social differentiation. From the evidence presented, it is difficult to visualize inter-cluster mobility because of various reasons, which include state-based tenure.

The Reformed Agrarian Structure and Changing Dynamics of Rural Labour Migration in Zimbabwe

“…Overall, three farm classes were created by the land reforms, namely the peasantry, small to medium and large capitalist farms (Moyo 2013;Shonhe, Scoones and Murimbarimba 2021;Mazwi, Muchetu and Mudimu 2021). The peasantry, which includes those who were allocated new A1 farms; existing old resettlement and communal areas are now the dominant category in the share of the number of farm households (98 per cent) and agricultural land owned (79 per cent) (Moyo 2011a: 262).…”

South–South Cooperation in Agriculture: Impacts of Brazil’s More Food International Program on Post-Land Reform Social Organizations in Zimbabwe

“…Trends in rural differentiation in Africa, as well as the recent radical land reforms in Zimbabwe, have produced a tendency toward tri-modal agrarian structures (Moyo et al, 2009), hence, reconfiguring the methods for the internationalization of Brazil’s domestic policies (see, Mazwi et al, 2021; Pierri, 2013, p. 73). Yeros et al (2019, p. 108) argue that the commercial thrust in cooperation encourages the development of a middle layer in rural areas that complement the emerging tri-modal agrarian political economy in Africa, especially Zimbabwe.…”

Zimbabwe’s Command Agriculture: Problems of Planning Under Neoliberalism

“…1,2 In the 2016/2017 farming season, against a background of perennial food shortages, the GoZ introduced the Special Maize Import Substitution Program, commonly referred to as Command Agriculture (CA). This program has sought to increase domestic production and reduce food imports in a state-driven contract-farming scheme that enlists the peasantry and small-scale capitalist farms with funding support from domestic capital (Mazwi et al, 2019).…”

“…This has also been the case in Zimbabwe, where increased focus has been on private-led contract farming after agricultural production declined in 2000–2009, following the implementation of the FTLRP (Binswanger-Mkhize & Moyo, 2012; Chambati & Mazwi, 2022; Mazwi, 2022; Sachikonye, 2016; Sakata, 2016; Scoones, et al, 2016). African states under neoliberalism have generally neglected the financing and production of staple cereals (Binswanger-Mkhize & Moyo, 2012; Mazwi et al, 2019), which for most countries has led to the ballooning of food import bills and a reliance on grain imported from the United States and Brazil (Mazwi et al, 2019; Moyo, 2011). Such neglect of cereal crops has brought to the fore debates on food self-sufficiency, whose importance has grown further in the context of the war in Ukraine, which has rendered food insecure and vulnerable for many African countries dependent on food and fertilizer imports from Ukraine and Russia.…”

“…Within an evolving planning framework for the agricultural sector, the GoZ implemented various interventionist policies to finance cereal production and reduce the nation’s food import bill (Mazwi et al, 2019; Moyo & Nyoni, 2013). Some of these policies included the Agricultural Sector Productivity and Enhancement Facility, Operation Maguta/Inala , and the Farm Mechanization Program (Moyo, 2013).…”