Zimbabwe Now: The Political Economy of Crisis and Coercion

Raftopoulos, Brian; Phimister, Ian

doi:10.1163/1569206043505301

Cited by 76 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rise of an effective political opposition-the MDC-caused considerable political discomfort to ZANU-PF (Bratton and Masunungure 2008). The labour-led MDC was the first opposition party to challenge ZANU-PF's domination of post-colonial politics in Zimbabwe (Raftopoulos 2000;Raftopoulos and Phimister 2004). The rise of the MDC was in part a response to ZANU-PF's policy reforms.…”

Section: Social Cash Transfers Under a Politically Insecure Zanu-pf mentioning

confidence: 99%

Poverty, changing political regimes, and social cash transfers in Zimbabwe, 1980–2016

Chinyoka¹

2017

WIDER Working Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2000, Zimbabwe has been under some pressure to provide more fully for its children. It is not clear whether child poverty has worsened, although AIDS, drought, and economic mismanagement have all compromised poverty reduction. In any case, child poverty has come under increased scrutiny, in part because of the Millennium Development Goals and the growing interest in new kinds of intervention among international agencies and donors. Zimbabwe might have adopted the child-oriented cash transfer programmes or subsidies associated with one or other of the 'models' developed by its richer neighbours to the south (South Africa, Botswana, Namibia). It might also have adopted the models favoured, and promoted energetically, by the World Bank, UNICEF, and other external agencies. But ZANU-PF-which was in power until 2009 and after 2013, and shared power between those dates-resisted cash transfer programmes, favouring instead agricultural interventions (including land reform and farm input subsidy programmes). ZANU-PF's ambivalence towards cash transfer programmes represents political choices informed by the nature of Zimbabwean society and politics.

show abstract

Section: Social Cash Transfers Under a Politically Insecure Zanu-pf mentioning

confidence: 99%

Poverty, changing political regimes, and social cash transfers in Zimbabwe, 1980–2016

Chinyoka¹

2017

WIDER Working Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reflecting now on our many conversations over the years, Sam was always critical of the 'livelihoods approach' that I have advocated (Scoones, 1998(Scoones, , 2009 (Hammar et al, 2003;Raftopoulos and Phimister, 2004). The invaders were cast as 'cronies', agents of the party-state, and the land reform, therefore, was seen as an illegitimate 'grab' by politically-connected elites (Zamchiya, 2013).…”

Section: Methods For Understanding the Political Economy Of Agrarian mentioning

confidence: 99%

Livelihoods, Land and Political Economy: Reflections on Sam Moyo’s Research Methodology

Scoones

2016

Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the methodological lessons from Sam Moyo’s scholarship. Sam’s research is characterised by a combination of detailed empirical investigation, deep knowledge of the technical and practical aspects of agricultural production and farming livelihoods, and big-picture political economy analysis and theory. Sam’s method is an insightful contemporary application of the method originally set out in Marx’s Grundrisse. Many contemporary explorations of agrarian political economy fail to sustain the important tension and dialectical debate, between diverse empirical realities and their ‘multiple determinations and relations’ and wider theorisation of the ‘concrete’ features of emergent processes of change. The implications of Sam’s methodological approach for the analysis of Zimbabwe’s land reform are discussed, especially in relation to the land occupations and the politics of agrarian reform since 2000.

show abstract

“…Zimbabwe so as to understand how ZANU-PF uses them as tools in a complex political play of signs (Booysen, 2003;Raftopoulos, & Phimister, 2003;Chitando, 2005;Kriger, 2005;Mano, 2005;Ndlovu-Gatsheni, & Willems, 2009). As in any study which seeks to understand the uses and meanings of signs, it is worth paying attention to the context.…”

Section: Lessons From Zimbabwe Post-2000mentioning

confidence: 99%