Urban Cultivation Amidst Modernization: How Should We Interpret It?

Abstract

Many African cities are currently marked by the decline of the formal urban economy and the simultaneous upsurge of household cultivation by the urban poor. This has generated two types of critical responses, though for very different reasons. The modernization proponents view urban cultivation as a manifestation of rural habits, predominantly relied upon by recent migrants lacking integration into the urban economy and culture. The New-Marxist critics, on the other hand, blame such activities for contributing to the "double exploitation of labor" and for maintaining the status quo of capitalist social relations of production. This paper, based on a survey of 250 low-income households in Zambia, attempts to respond to both criticisms. First, it demonstrates that the modernization proponents' assumption regarding who cultivates and why are basically incorrect. The paper then provides evidence that urban cultivation is an innovative response from below which was initially strongly resisted by capitalist countries. The paper also argues that urban cultivation by the poor reduces their vulnerability to the fluctuations of fortune that currently beset the economies of African cities.

The changing nature of the peri‐urban zone in Africa: Evidence from Dar‐es‐Salaam, Tanzania

“…Indeed, Gefu (1992, 301) has observed that urban agriculture has increased in Nigeria to supplement declining real urban wages 'despite the evident diseconomies of scale and low profit margins'. Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 04:07 08 December 2014 These views, however, have been refuted by others who have noted both the prevalence and resilience of urban agriculture in African cities, as well as the importance of subsistence food production in circumstances where up to three-quarters of the urban poor's income may be spent on food purchases (Sanyal, 1987;Mosha, 1991;Drakakis-Smith 1991;Memon & Lee-Smith, 1993;Egziabher et al, 1994;Maxwell, 1996). In a survey of six towns in Tanzania, Mlozi et al (1992) observe that urban agriculture is seen by people as a sound cash-saving strategy for households, releasing money that can then be spent elsewhere within the household's consumption patterns.…”

“…Some observers have developed the argument that urban farming reduces the social costs of labour reproduction by transferring the burden of maintaining the labour force from the state to labour itself, hence driving down labour costs (Rakodi, 1985;Freeman, 1991). This view has been criticised by Sanyal (1987), however, arguing that the state has consistently opposed urban agriculture through legislation and, if necessary, force. Indeed, it can be further argued that such postcolonial legislation is itself a hangover from colonial planning principles.…”

“…In a Nairobi survey, for example, more than 75 % of farmers cited the need for household food, or even outright hunger in some cases, as a motivation for engaging in urban agriculture (Freeman, 1991). Similarly, in Lusaka 78% of garden (urban) plots and 82% of peri-urban plots were being farmed because of a lack of purchasing power for food within urban households, producing an urban landscape in which Lusaka has been described as the world capital of urban cultivation (Sanyal, 1986(Sanyal, ,1987. A common view of the cause of these pressures rests with the implementation of structural adjustment strategies throughout many African countries (Sanyal, 1987;Gefu, 1992).…”

“…Similarly, in Lusaka 78% of garden (urban) plots and 82% of peri-urban plots were being farmed because of a lack of purchasing power for food within urban households, producing an urban landscape in which Lusaka has been described as the world capital of urban cultivation (Sanyal, 1986(Sanyal, ,1987. A common view of the cause of these pressures rests with the implementation of structural adjustment strategies throughout many African countries (Sanyal, 1987;Gefu, 1992). Indeed, Smith (1998,214) is of the view that 'there has been an expansion of urban cultivation in recent years as structural adjustment reduces incomes and, together with increased capitalisation of food retailing, raises costs of purchased commodities'.…”

“…Interestingly, although urban agriculture has been characterised as a rural residual, there is strong evidence from a number of cities to suggest that the decision to cultivate is taken by people who have been resident longest in the city, and not by recent arrivals from the countryside. The reason is that cultivation has significant resource implications, with the result that people only commit such resources once they are established in the city (Rakodi, 1985;Sanyal, 1987;Lado, 1990;Freeman, 1991;Maxwell, 1995).…”