The struggle over land has been the central issue in Zimbabwe ever since white settlers began to carve out large farms over a century ago. Their monopolisation of the better-watered half of the land was the focus of the African war of liberation war, and was partially modified following Independence in 1980. A dramatic further episode in this history was launched at the start of the last decade with the occupation of many farms by groups of African veterans of the liberation struggle and their supporters, which was then institutionalised by legislation to take over most of the large commercial farms for sub-division. Sustained fieldwork over the intervening years, by teams of scholars and experts, and by individual researchers is now generating an array of evidence-based findings of the outcomes: how land was acquired and disposed of; how it has been used; how far new farmers have carved out new livelihoods and viable new communities; the major political and economic problems they and other stakeholders such as former farm-workers, commercial farmers, and the overall rural society now face. This book will be an essential starting place for analysts, policy-makers, historians and activists seeking to understand what has happened and to spotlight the key issues for the next decade. This book was published as a special issue of the Journal of Peasant Studies.

The Fast Track Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe has emerged as a highly contested reform process both nationally and internationally. The image of it has all too often been that of the widespread displacement and subsequent replacement of various people, agricultural-related production systems, facets and processes. The reality, however, is altogether more complex. Providing new and much-needed empirical research, this in-depth book examines how processes such as land acquisition, allocation, transitional production outcomes, social life, gender and tenure, have influenced and been influenced by the forces driving the programme. It also explores the ways in which the land reform programme has created a new agrarian structure based on small- to medium-scale farmers. In attempting to resolve the problematic issues the reforms have raised, the author argues that it is this new agrarian formation which provides the greatest scope for improving Zimbabwe's agriculture and development. Based on a broader geographical scope than any previous study carried out on the subject, this is a landmark work on a subject of considerable controversy.

The Fast Track Land Reform Programme implemented during the 2000s in Zimbabwe represents the only instance of radical redistributive land reforms since the end of the Cold War. It reversed the racially-skewed agrarian structure and discriminatory land tenures inherited from colonial rule. The land reform also radicalised the state towards a nationalist, introverted accumulation strategy, against a broad array of unilateral Western sanctions. Indeed, Zimbabwes land reform, in its social and political dynamics, must be compared to the leading land reforms of the twentieth century, which include those of Mexico, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Cuba and Mozambique. The fact that the Zimbabwe case has not been recognised as vanguard nationalism has much to do with the intellectual structural adjustment which has accompanied neoliberalism and a hostile media campaign. This has entailed dubious theories of neopatrimonialism, which reduce African politics and the state to endemic corruption, patronage, and tribalism while overstating the virtues of neoliberal good governance. Under this racist repertoire, it has been impossible to see class politics, mass mobilisation and resistance, let alone believe that something progressive can occur in Africa. This book comes to a conclusion that the Zimbabwe land reform represents a new form of resistance with distinct and innovative characteristics when compared to other cases of radicalisation, reform and resistance. The process of reform and resistance has entailed the deliberate creation of a tri-modal agrarian structure to accommodate and balance the interests of various domestic classes, the progressive restructuring of labour relations and agrarian markets, the continuing pressures for radical reforms (through the indigenisation of mining and other sectors), and the rise of extensive, albeit relatively weak, producer cooperative structures. The book also highlights some of the resonances between the Zimbabwean land struggles and those on the continent, as well as in the South in general, arguing that there are some convergences and divergences worthy of intellectual attention. The book thus calls for greater endogenous empirical research which overcomes the pre-occupation with failed interpretations of the nature of the state and agency in Africa.

Challenges the commonly held myths about Zimbabwe's land reform.

The Fast Track Land Reform Programme implemented during the 2000s in Zimbabwe represents the only instance of radical redistributive land reforms since the end of the Cold War. It reversed the racially-skewed agrarian structure and discriminatory land tenures inherited from colonial rule. The land reform also radicalised the state towards a nationalist, introverted accumulation strategy, against a broad array of unilateral Western sanctions. Indeed, Zimbabwe's land reform, in its social and political dynamics, must be compared to the leading land reforms of the twentieth century, which include those of Mexico, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Cuba and Mozambique. The fact that the Zimbabwe case has not been recognised as vanguard nationalism has much to do with the 'intellectual structural adjustment' which has accompanied neoliberalism and a hostile media campaign. This has entailed dubious theories of ëneopatrimonialismí, which reduce African politics and the state to endemic ëcorruptioní, ëpatronageí, and ëtribalismí while overstating the virtues of neoliberal good governance. Under this racist repertoire, it has been impossible to see class politics, mass mobilisation and resistance, let alone believe that something progressive can occur in Africa. This book comes to a conclusion that the Zimbabwe land reform represents a new form of resistance with distinct and innovative characteristics when compared to other cases of radicalisation, reform and resistance. The process of reform and resistance has entailed the deliberate creation of a tri-modal agrarian structure to accommodate and balance the interests of various domestic classes, the progressive restructuring of labour relations and agrarian markets, the continuing pressures for radical reforms (through the indigenisation of mining and other sectors), and the rise of extensive, albeit relatively weak, producer cooperative structures. The book also highlights some of the resonances between the Zimbabwean land struggles and those on the continent, as well as in the South in general, arguing that there are some convergences and divergences worthy of intellectual attention. The book thus calls for greater endogenous empirical research which overcomes the pre-occupation with failed interpretations of the nature of the state and agency in Africa.

The study attempted to analyse the impacts of the fast track land reform on maize production in Zimbabwe. This purpose was tackled by constructing a partial equilibrium model that depicted what could have happened if no further policy shifts had taken place after 2001. Setting up a partial equilibrium model required a sound understanding of the functioning of the Zimbabwe's maize market. The institutional structure of the Zimbabwean maize market was explored to inform the model development process that would allow for the development of the baseline model. Developing the model started off with the estimation of single equations which were collapsed into a simultaneous system of equations through the use of a combination of ordinary least squares and generalised least squares techniques. The development of the simulation model required that assumptions be made for exogenous variables, and crafted assumptions were based on the 2000 macro-economic and institutional environment as well as agricultural policies. The re-simulated baseline model that was constructed in this study was used to make projections based on the various trends of exogenous variables in 2000. This means that the model generated an artificial data set based on what the maize market would have looked like under a set of the pre-2000 existent policy conditions. As such, all the shifts in the political and economic environment that took place after 2000 were not introduced in the model. The fast track land reform policy was thus assessed based on the performance of the baseline model using a range of what if assumptions. Therefore, the re-simulated baseline solutions discussed result not only from policy shifts that occurred before 2000, but also from the convergence of hypothetical political and economic stability within the period in question. The results of the re-simulated baseline indicated that the commercial area harvested was negatively affected by the expropriation of commercial farms. The arguments in literature that the fast track land reform policy shift contributed the loss in area planted owing to the stalling of farming operations due to political unrest, economic instability and input shortages were supported by the model results which showed that total area harvested would have been higher under pre-2000 conditions. From the re-simulated baseline results, the difference between actual and would be outcomes revealed that the total maize production was 13.27% less than what could have been produced in 2001, the year that the fast track land reform policy was formally implemented. In view of the 2002/03 drought, output was 57.44% less and 33.53% less than what could have actually been produced for the 2002 and 2003 seasons respectively. In the 2005 drought season, the total maize production was 41.8% less than what could have been produced without the fast track land reform. This may imply that droughts would have been less severe if the fast track land reform was not implemented. In 2007, the baseline showed that the nation could have produced almost 48.03% more than what was actually produced. Therefore, according to the model results, the assertion that the fast track land reform contributed, to a fair extent, to the underperformance of the maize sector still holds. The model developed in this dissertation contributes to an understanding of not only the general structure of the maize market, but also of the impact of the fast track land reform policy on the Zimbabwean maize market based on how the market itself could have performed under the absence of these land reforms. The baseline model revealed that the maize sector performed below potential within the period of the fast track land reform. The maize market model could thus be used as a tool that may assist policymakers to design future strategies that will help enhance maize sector performance.