Introduction

What have been the enduring agrarian labour questions and social reproduction dynamics in contemporary Zimbabwe, a country which has undertaken an unprecedented and controversial land reform programme; experienced unparalleled socio-economic turbulence and has had an uneasy political transition which has paved the way for it to embark on an increasingly neo-liberal oriented policy trajectory? How have these dynamics implicated on the welfare and wellbeing of the country’s rural population, most of whose livelihoods are dependent on the agrarian sector and utilisation of the country’s abundant natural resources? These are the central questions which this article engages with as it explores agrarian labourFootnote 1 and social reproductionFootnote 2 dynamics in Zimbabwe’s contemporary post land reform context.

Before critically engaging with these questions, it is important to lay a foundation and understand the country’s agrarian context and how it is linked to rural livelihoods and citizen wellbeing. For countries like Zimbabwe, as other formers settler colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa, the agrarian sector has for decades been an important sector which contributes immensely to livelihoods and the economy. In the country, the role of the agricultural sector cannot be underestimated. It has been shown as being central for employment, income and poverty reduction. These dynamics which have been prevalent in the colonial and post-colonial periods, have made the sector be of much importance. In contemporary Zimbabwe, estimates are that the sector contributes between 15–18% of GDP, it provides 23% formal employment and caters (economically) for approximately 70% of the rural population of which 54% are women. Women are an important and well represented constituency who make up 61% of farmers and 70% of the total agricultural labour force, but unfortunately, they are mainly unpaid family workers (FAO, 2017). In addition, the agricultural sector provides 63% of industrial raw materials and its share in manufacturing and exports stands at 60% and 30% respectively (MoLAWCRR, 2018, GoZ, 2020). The agricultural sector has played an important role as a catalyst for growth in downstream industries, but recently this has been in a challenging context due to declining investment and mixed economic performance (MoLAWRR, 2020). These recent developments which have impacted on the sector have implicated in different ways on the national economy, human development, food and nutrition security as well as human and community welfare and wellbeing, an aspect which this article explores.

Despite the significant importance of the agrarian sector in the country, it has a turbulent history. This is attributable to settler colonialism which resulted in the emergence of a racially skewed land tenure system which favoured white minority while dispossessing the indigenes. At independence in 1980, the country inherited a land tenure system comprising of 6 000 White large scale commercial farmers (LSCF) owning 15.5 million hectares of land while 700 000 African households were confined to the marginal and often dry communal lands and former native purchase areas on 16.4 million hectares of land (Moyo, 1995; PLRC, 2003). For Njaya and Mazuru (2010, p. 166) this implied that approximately 97% of the African population occupied 25% of the country while the white minority who made up 3% of the population owned approximately 75% of the country’s most fertile land. The newly independent Zimbabwe government was thus faced with the task of reversing this skewed agrarian structure and it had to do this within the confines of the legal framework as agreed at Lancaster House in 1979 as the different political factions sought an amicable end to the country’s protracted war of liberation. This saw the government embarking on three phases of land acquisition and rural resettlement, a process which lasted for two decades. There was thus witnessed the first and second phases of land acquisition and resettlement which had limited success and the controversial fast-track land reform programme (FTLRP) which was undertaken from the year 2000 with divisive consequences.

The radical and controversial FTLRP resulted in the establishment of a tri-modal agrarian structure and the transformation of agrarian relations. It was radical and controversial in the sense that it followed its own unique processes which were markedly different from all hitherto land reform processes experienced in Zimbabwe and other countries. It was to become one of the biggest contemporary agrarian transformations in modern African history, triggering much divisive and polemical debate (Bhatasara & Helliker, 2018; Moyo & Chambati, 2013). In just over a decade, the FTLRP saw 5.8 million hectares of land owned by 4 500 white LSCF being expropriated without compensation and transferred to 145 775 small scale African farmers in the newly created A1 farming models. An additional 3.5 million hectares was transferred to 22 896 middle class African farmers in the new A2 farming model (Moyo, 2011, p. 498) The change brought about by land reform has meant that the country’s agrarian structure now comprises of 1.3 million small scale farmers (in the old resettlement, A1 and communal areas) on 25.8 million hectares, 31 200 medium scale farmers (who are the A2 and old small scale farmers) on 4.4 million hectares of land and 1 618 large scale commercial farmers on 2.6 million hectares of land (Moyo, 2011, p. 512). The agrarian transformation was not only to a tripartite agrarian structure but also impacted on landholding patterns, land use practices, markets and labour utilisation (Moyo, 2011, 2013). Scoones and Murimbarimba (2022, p. 15) point out that there is now a radically mix in land use, landownership, and geography of the land. Different farm types are integrated within districts as large, medium and small-scale farms now exist alongside each other, implicating on agricultural production activities, politics and local economies.

Critical to the transformation of the country’s agrarian structure has been its implications on labour relations and social reproduction in the resettlement areas, which is an area of crucial concern for this article. This comes in a background where agrarian labour relations since the colonial period have been of much importance given the centrality of agriculture to the economy and rural livelihoods. Given the nature and extent of the FTLRP, it is quite clear that it did implicate on agrarian labour relations and social reproduction in different ways and over the past decades, this issue has been a subject to much scholarly interrogation. Understanding contemporary labour relations dynamics in the resettlement areas has to be contextualised in a background where during the colonial period, the dualistic agrarian system had in place a labour tenancy system as well as temporary labour which had seasonal variations (Rutherford, 2001, 2002). Shonhe et al. (2022) note that in the old dualistic system, farm work could be found on large scale commercial farms (LSCF) with wages being the only source of income but in a context of super-exploitation and meagre wages. There was casual piecework labour in the communal areas and these two areas (the LSCF and communal areas) were intrinsically linked. LSCF could be seen being serviced by foreign migrant labour which was sourced from Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Nyasaland (Malawi) and Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique) (Clarke, 1977). In the colonial period and immediately after independence landless people from the communal areas were forced to either provide employment on LSCS or mines, to seek employment elsewhere or engage in migrant labour in order to augment their livelihoods from small-scale farming, this was referred to as semi-proletarianisation by Moyo and Yeros (2005).

In post-colonial Zimbabwe, agrarian relations need to be understood in a historical context of the specific land labour utilisation which was created by land dispossession and discriminatory agrarian practices. The FTLRP is particularly significant as it transformed labour relations with diverse forms of labour being linked with new livelihood trajectories and new emergent class positions (Chambati, 2017, 2022; Chipenda, 2019a; Moyo, 2011). Changes in labour provision arrangements were witnessed. This is exemplified by former farmworkers, seen taking up farming instead of just selling labour (Shonhe et al., 2022) and in some contexts dynamic processes of agrarian labour exchange and livelihoods between the resettlement and communal areas as well as complex relations between former workers and land beneficiaries (Marewo, 2022, 2023). There has been the argument that since land allocation was mainly to peasants, family, labour became critical with beneficiaries mostly utilising it and hardly utilising wage labour (Hellum & Derman, 2004; Masiiwa & Chipungu, 2004). This is however subject to debate and its accuracy has been dismissed as shall be shown later in this article. The new agrarian structure increased land access and expanded labour demand (Chambati, 2017). There was seen to be a replacement of the stringent labour control of the past with freedom and residential autonomy, allowing farm workers to choose employers of their choice (Magaramombe, 2010). A consequence of this has been better wages (in some instances) and diversified income. Labour relations following the FTLRP have been consequently subject to debate crystallised around how for some it has increased autonomy, bargaining power and freedom (Moyo, 2007; Chambati, 2017). For others it has seen as a continuation the legacy of exploitation that existed during the colonial era (Chiweshe & Chabata, 2019; Pilosoff, 2018; Rutherford, 2018). Recent scholarly focus has been on merging labour relations patterns, unionism in the resettlement areas and the consequences of agricultural commercialisation in a post land reform context. All this has shown that a lot of issues still need to be understood in Zimbabwe two decades after it embarked on land reform (see also Shonhe et al., 2022; Chambati, 2022).

With these dynamics occurring in Zimbabwe’s agrarian sector, the agrarian labour questions in the country in recent years have been of major focus and have transformed. For the purposes of this article, agrarian questions are taken to refer to multiple issues and concepts which relate to the country’s agrarian context in an increasingly capitalist oriented trajectory. The questions are crystallised around the production and reproduction of labour; labour and capital relations; labour market dynamics; the nexus between land, labour, and gender; capital accumulation; class formation and class struggle among other aspects. The concept of agrarian labour questions is a fluid concept which has been subject to much scholarly scrutiny and debate (see Moyo & Nyoni, 2013; Ramachandran, 2011; Ossome & Naidu, 2021). The critical components highlighted above are the dynamics which this article focuses on as it looks at contemporary agrarian issues in Zimbabwe. This is an area which although it has been subject to increased scholarly attention, there are discernible empirical gaps in knowledge. Transitions in the dimensions of the character of agrarian questions in Zimbabwe are partly attributable to changes in the country’s political and economic landscape. To put this into context, we briefly look at the year 2017, a year which for Zimbabwe will be etched in history as a year which saw unprecedented change.

In 2017, the late former President Robert Mugabe, the country’s strongman for 37 years who was responsible for overseeing the FTLRP was spectacularly deposed of in a military coup which was cleverly disguised as a party and parliamentary process that forced his resignation (Beardsworth et al., 2019). The justification for the removal was to fight poverty and corruption which was being committed by ‘thieves surrounding the President’. Mugabe was immediately replaced by his deputy, Emmerson Mnangagwa, who was his long-time comrade and had been a cabinet minister for decades. Mnangagwa’s ascendancy to the Presidency was accompanied by promises of economic revival, dealing with poverty and corruption as well as a reconciliatory local and international re-engagement agenda. Mnangagwa’s administration which was christened the ‘new dispensation’ has seen the country assuming a neo-liberal economic trajectory, marked by a break with the Mugabe era policies. Neo-liberal orthodoxy has been the hallmark of current policies which have slowly side-lined the redistributive and indigenisation policies which Mugabe championed. Macro-economic interventions and policies are becoming more and more aligned with the needs of global capital. The political transition has thus had implications, with the ruling ZANU (PF) seen as increasingly suffering from an ideological and identity crisis (Mkodzongi, 2022, p. 3). The ruling party is increasingly being considered to be a quasi-neoliberal party which is far removed from its revolutionary roots (Mkodzongi, 2021; Mkodzongi & Lawrence, 2019). Neo-liberal trajectories under the new dispensation have been accompanied by elite resource-based accumulation (Mkodzongi, 2021). The comprador bourgeoisie with political connections stands accused of spearheading a new form of accumulation. This is being done through resource grabbing and it is very different from the Mugabe era where it was in favour of national development (Mkodzongi, 2022). National development is thus being undermined perpetuating poverty. The agrarian sector has not been spared with several neo-liberal oriented policies that have a deep capitalist orientation being adopted by the state.

With Zimbabwe adopting what many scholars perceive as neo-liberal policy trajectories, questions are arising on how this has implicated on agrarian labour relations and social reproduction on the resettlement farms. This article explores the implications of neo-liberal trajectories on labour and social reproduction in the resettlement areas and it provides an appraisal of labour relations and agrarian dynamics, two decades after land reform. Empirical evidence which informed the article was gathered in two rural districts in 2022. Unlike other studies which present agrarian labour and social reproduction issues from the viewpoint of farm workers, this article looks at it from the perspective of land beneficiaries in the A1 and A2 farming models created during the FTLRP process. Specifically, conceptualising land reform as a social policy instrument within the Transformative Social Policy (TSP) framework (this is explained in detail in sections below), this paper complements the existing corpus of literature while interrogating the following research questions which are multiple, interlinked and inform the article.

  1. 1.

    What if any have been the agrarian policy trajectories which the Mnangagwa government has embarked upon and what are the discernible impacts of this on labour relations and social reproduction in the resettlement areas?

  2. 2.

    How many casual and permanent workers have been hired by resettled farmers between 2020 and 2022, where do they originate from and how much are they paid?

  3. 3.

    Is household labour playing a role on the farms and what are the implications?

  4. 4.

    Are there any other non-monetary benefits which are provided to hired labour how does this support implicate on their welfare and wellbeing?

  5. 5.

    To what extent has access to land enhanced the capacity of land beneficiary households to provide agricultural labour opportunities in the two districts?

  6. 6.

    What are the plausible implications of current neo-liberal policy trajectories on the country’s Zimbabwe’s agrarian futures and the welfare and wellbeing of land beneficiaries and hired labour?

Another salient objective of this article is to explore the utility of land reform as a social policy instrument which provides an expanded set of policy options for the wider vision of social policy in the African context. It is for this reason that there is the selection and utilisation of the concept of Transformative Social Policy (TSP). In the next section methodological issues are described and as the TSP provides the conceptual framing for the article, I highlight the social policy-land reform and social reproduction nexus in the next section, and this is followed by a brief look at the concept of social reproduction and Zimbabwe’s contemporary agrarian trajectories. Study findings intertwined with a discussion and conclusion are then looked at.

Study Area and Methods

An empirical study undertaken through a survey in the Goromonzi and Zvimba districts of Zimbabwe under a project titled ‘The Social Policy Dimensions of Land and Agrarian Reform in International Perspective’ informs this article. The project is under the auspices of the SARChI Chair in Social Policy, College of Graduate Studies at the University of South Africa. The primary objectives of the project are to ascertain the potential of land reform in transforming social relations and institutions; reducing social inequalities; enhancing the productive capacities of households, individuals and communities as well as its efficacy in averting acute poverty, guaranteeing employment and enhancing food security. The project is premised on the idea that the concomitant redistribution of land has the potential to satisfy the transformative social policy objective of creating a favourable environment for sustainable economic growth and development. While the project has initially covered four rural districts in Zimbabwe, namely Goromonzi, Chiredzi, Zvimba and Kwekwe in 2022, in 2023 there was the addition of Mangwe district. For this article, focus is exclusively on Goromonzi and Zvimba districts. The logic behind the selection of these districts in the project was that they were part of the baseline survey undertaken by the former African Institute for Agrarian Studies (AIAS) now Sam Moyo African Institute for Agrarian Studies (SMAIAS) in its Fast Track Land Reform Baseline Survey in Zimbabwe undertaken in 2005–2006. The aim of the follow-up research is to generate contemporary data to assess trends and new developments that have taken place over the years and make comparisons. The author has been working in Goromonzi and Zvimba in the project and presents some of the findings in this article. Findings from other districts and comparisons will be presented in subsequent publications.

Goromonzi and Zvimba districts are located in the Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West Provinces in Zimbabwe and are in agro-ecological region II. This is one of the best in regions in the country with mean annual average rainfall ranging from 750–1000 mm and average annual temperatures which range from 15 to 24 °C. The districts have prime agricultural land and different rich soil types. These have made them suitable for diversified agricultural production activities. These areas are suitable for intensive crop production, beef and dairy production allowing them to significantly contribute to the country’s agricultural production levels and food security. The land in both districts is largely constituted by farms, fields, homesteads, woodlots, vegetable gardens and pastures which make it suitable for diversified agricultural production activities.

The research was premised on an interpretive research paradigm, and it utilised a mixed methods research approach. In two the districts a survey questionnaire was administered to 300 respondents between July and November 2022 and the breakdown was 100 A1 (small scale) farmers, 100 A2 (middle-scale) farmers and 100 communal farmers (from the former tribal trust lands). For this article focus is primarily on the 200 A1 and A2 farmers. The survey provided in-depth information that included farmer profiles, household demographics, agricultural production activities, asset accumulation, farm investments, social institutions and relations, social reproduction dimensions among other key information. The survey data has provided an in-depth understanding of social reproduction dynamics particularly in relation to labour in the resettlement areas from the perspective of land reform beneficiaries. The data which was collected was analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 29 Software and it provides the empirical evidence which informs this article.

Conceptual Framing: Transformative Social Policy

As we look at agrarian labour and social reproduction dynamics in rural Zimbabwe, the article makes use of the concept of transformative social policy (TSP). From the onset this raises critical questions and concerns on whether a link or relationship can exist between land/agrarian reform and social policy. Such a concern is addressed by Jimi Adesina who together with the late Thandika Mkandawire have been the main proponents of the concept of TSP, arguing for its adoption in the African context. Adesina has argued for structural transformation of economies, social institutions and social relations in the context of a social policy approach (the TSP) which is focused on development and human agency. In this pursuit land and agrarian reform is considered as a part of the expanded sets of policy options and it is an instrument that facilitates the attainment of the wider vision of social policy (Legodi, 2023). It is in this background that some emerging scholarly literature on Zimbabwe’s FTLRP has explored the social policy dimensions of the programme. It has presented nuanced and empirically grounded evidence which suggest that land reform is an overlooked vector of social policy. The FTLRP is seen as being a social policy instrument which has immense potential to improve transformative social policy outcomes. Despite its controversies, the FTLRP is seen as having enhanced people’s productive capacities, having had redistributive outcomes, provides protection against the vagaries of life and the market, as having enhanced social cohesion and allowing for the equitable allocation of social reproduction roles. This evidence is presented in several case studies contained in PhD dissertations under the Social Policy Dimensions of Land and Agrarian Reform Project (2014–2020) undertaken at the University of South Africa which provide empirical evidence from different contexts in rural Zimbabwe (Chibwana, 2016; Chipenda, 2019a; Tekwa, 2020; Tom, 2020).

It is line with following up on issues raised in the above-mentioned dissertations which provide an epistemic grounding of the TSP-land and agrarian reform nexus that this article further explores the labour and social reproduction dynamics of land reform in contemporary rural Zimbabwe. Special focus is on its implications on individual and communal wellbeing. The exploration as indicated earlier is premised on the idea of land and agrarian reforms are a social policy instrument with functional equivalents as other social policies like education, pensions, health, social insurance, social security, labour market reforms and other policies. These policies have been shown as having the potential to enhance the productive and reproductive capacities of beneficiaries while positively contributing to their welfare and wellbeing (Adesina, 2015).

The TSP has its origins from the epistemic conceptualisation of social policy by the UNRISD flagship research programme, Social Policy in a Development Context (2000–2006). TSP is premised on the idea that social policies are ‘… collective public efforts aimed at protecting the wellbeing of people in a given territory…’ (Adesina, 2009, p. 38) and ‘… collective interventions in the economy to influence access to and the incidence of adequate and secure livelihoods and income’ (Mkandawire, 2004, p. 1) For UNRISD (2006), TSP has to be understood as a systematic and integrated understanding of social policy encompassing key instruments or multiple tasks which include production, reproduction, protection, redistribution and social cohesion/nation building. Emphasis is placed on the fulfilment of these multiple tasks and achieving what Adesina (2015) calls ‘…a return to the wider vision of development and social policy.’ This vision is one that supports and enhances productivity and not minimal poverty alleviation which has been a constant feature of the narrow vision and aggressive policy merchandising of the cash transfer agenda in social policy (Adesina, 2020; Meagher, 2022).

Underlying the TSP concept is a commitment to the transformation of social relations and institutions and the pursuit of a transformative agenda that is capable of positively impacting on the economy, human capability functioning, social relations and institutions (Adesina, 2011; Mkandawire, 2007). Its proponents ‘…highlight the need for social policy to support and enhance the range and quality of livelihoods rather than merely topping up precarious incomes’ (Meagher, 2022, p. 1206). TSP is thus not different from industrial or macro-economic policy as it is also capable of offering horizontal social provisioning that is beyond its immediately acknowledged goals (Adesina, 2011).

Figure 1 below illustrates the TSP framework where it can be observed that there is a diversity of social policy instruments including land and agrarian reforms which are linked to multiple functions. Figure 1 demonstrates that land and agrarian reform are a redistributive social policy instrument within the TSP framework. They have utility in enhancing the productive and reproductive capacities of individuals, households and communities. In addition, they also have social protection and social cohesion functions in which they protect citizens from socio-economic vulnerabilities. The figure is thus useful in summarising the idea of TSP. It shows the multiple tasks of social policy (which are synergistic), the diversity of instruments, the ideational and normative framing as well as the ideal social policy architecture which is presented as coherent with an interlocking set of policy instruments. Important for this paper is the issue of land and agrarian reform which is highlighted as a policy instrument. It is within the confines of this TSP framing and how it implicates in different ways on labour dynamics and social reproduction that it was considered suitable in providing analytical lenses for this study.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source: Adesina (2011)

TSP – norms, functions, instruments and outcomes.

Full size image

All the instruments shown in Fig. 1 above have utility in a development context which is geared towards the pursuit of human welfare and wellbeing. For this article, the conceptual framing of the TSP was considered as being useful and having utility in providing a better understanding of the labour and social reproduction dimensions of the FTLRP in contemporary Zimbabwe where in recent years neo-liberal oriented economic trajectories have gained traction.

Social Reproduction and Labour

As the article is interested with the social reproduction dynamics of Zimbabwe’s post FTLRP in relation to agricultural labour dynamics, it is imperative to briefly look at the concept of labour and social reproduction and see how they fit in the discussion and analysis. This is also necessitated by the fact that social reproduction is one of the multiple tasks of the TSP which implicates on individual and household wellbeing. For Tekwa (2023, p.110) TSP is important as it has utility ‘…in highlighting the importance of social reproduction to advance equality on the gender front in addition to the elevation of the State as opposed to the market in social provisioning and its facilitation role in creating social transformation.’ The concept of social reproduction can be best understood from a Marxian perspective where it was singled out as a key component in the capitalist system as a whole. Labour power was presented as a commodity with manifestations as either use value or exchange value (Bhattacharya, 2017). For Marx, the relationship between capitalism and social reproduction is at best contradictory (Marx, 1976). Marx applied the historical materialist concept to place social reproduction at the centre of human society and as a point of departure for the analysis of society. Emphasis was on the mode of production. He argued that ‘…when viewed, therefore, as a connected whole, and in the constant flux of its incessant renewal, every social process of production is at the same time a process of reproduction (Marx, 1976, p. 711). Using this viewpoint, social reproduction is related to production with a presupposition that what is produced has to be reproduced in a cyclic process that allows production to continue. Reproduction becomes a basis for production and vice versa but there are contradictions.

In the past decades Marx’s analysis has been subject to debate and has been expanded. Debates have crystallised around the contradictions of capitalism, production and social reproduction. This has been in a background where there has been witnessed the development of forces of production and the emergence of capital accumulation at the level of the global economy (Ferguson et al., 2016; Bhattacharya, 2017). Marxist-feminists in particular have stood out in presenting perspectives on the understanding of the social relations of life, the reproduction of labour power and the existing interconnections and intersections within the global system of accumulation. Emphasis is on the reproduction of labour power and trying to better understand its dynamics. Focus is also on the role of domestic labour especially unpaid activities, social processes and mechanisms affecting the conditions of the reproduction of labour power and its implications on a daily and intergenerational basis (Ferguson et al., 2016, p. 27). The interdependence between production and reproduction is exemplified by low paid work which forms the basis of capitalist extraction of surplus value, is a source of domination and the basis of the origins of agro-value chains. Marxist-feminists thus build on the analysis and methods of Marx, pointing out that processes of commodity production and human labour are at the centre of the creation and reproduction of society and its relations (Bhattacharya, 2017).

As highlighted above there are a number of contradictions. While social reproduction is necessary for capital accumulation, it is destabilised with discernible exploitative relations emerging and these are gendered, classed and racialised (see Rao, 2021; Fraser, 2017; Stevano et al., 2020). They are seen as being reflective of colonial relations are preponderant in Southern Africa (Cousins et al., 2018). As capital accumulation expands while a large segment of the population strives to access the means of production, new tensions emerge which compromise the reproduction of capital along the same logic of labour exploitation. Recently Gimenez (2019) has proposed what is termed a capitalist social reproduction theory. Through this theory, which expands on traditional theorising on social reproduction, there is emphasis on the determinant role of capital accumulation and the state of class struggles. The reproduction of labour power is considered as inseparable from the reproduction of social classes. Women’s daily domestic labour roles are recognised and so is their daily and generational reproduction. The participation of men in reproduction is acknowledged as are the negative effects of capitalist reproduction upon male workers, the urban poor, those working in the agrarian sector and those who are located in the lower strata of the working class. It provides important perspectives on the contribution of capitalism which can be seen altering the terrain on which workers engage in struggles for economic survival within and outside the workplace. The contradictions of capital accumulation and social reproduction are presented as key issues in a context of expansion and intensification. The dynamics of capital and social reproduction become critical as we juxtapose them against the ideas of Marx that workers become alienated as they lose control over processes of production and work, their autonomy and product of their work which is appropriated by capital through the power exercised in the accumulation process (Elster, 1986).

Through the concept of social reproduction, one is able to explore the social relations established through the market, extra market social relations and categories of oppression that are co-produced simultaneously with the production of surplus value. This is considered as having utility in overcoming the reductionist or deterministic representations of Marxism and creatively exposing the organic totality of the capitalist system (Bhattacharya, 2017, p. 6). The discussion above provides important background information on the concepts of labour and social reproduction. A major question which then arises is their applicability and utility in a rural Zimbabwean context where policy trajectories are increasingly neo-liberal in orientation. These are some of the dynamics which this article explores within the confines of the TSP framework.

The History of Agrarian Labour Relations and Social Reproduction in Rural Zimbabwe

To understand contemporary agrarian dynamics in Zimbabwe, it is important to briefly reflect on the history. The history of the country’s agrarian labour and social reproduction sheds light on dynamics which I would refer to as the country’s contemporary ‘agrarian labour questions’. These labour questions some of which are touched on in this paper are critical in a Zimbabwean context two decades after radical land reform. The agrarian labour questions as highlighted earlier are fluid but for this article they are crystallised around issues of emerging forms of rural labour agency and capitalist trajectories; agrarian labour remuneration, opportunities and character; agrarian rural labour unionism, resistance and associational power; casual and permanent labour dynamics; forms of labour utilisation; labour origin; gender dynamics in agrarian labour relations among others. These issues are of importance as scholars attempt to understand the character of the agrarian labour regime in Zimbabwe two decades after land reform. It is however important to refer to historical dynamics as a foundation.

Settler colonial Rhodesia now Zimbabwe was characterised by land alienation and dispossession. Arrighi (1970) and Clarke (1977) note that there was the use of economic and extra-economic policies and processes which were used to subordinate self-employed peasant family labour to wage labour markets on farms in mining and industry. A residential labour tenancy arrangement which tied employment to accommodation was in place, thus guaranteeing farm labour supplies and control (Clarke, 1977; Tandon, 2001). Such colonial arrangements eroded the capacity of the peasantry to subsist outside of the capital-wage labour relations. In addition to the locals, there were migrant workers who were recruited from neighbouring countries who filled gaps in labour supply (Makambe, 1980; Mhone, 2001). Dynamics during the colonial period set in motion the process of semi-proletarianization (Moyo & Yeros, 2005)—this is however subject to debate. While others argue that there was full proletarianisation, others posit that there was semi-proletarianisation due to the persistence of self-employed family labourers engaging in petty commodity production in the native reserves as semi dispossession of land created worker peasants (Arrighi, 1970; Bush & Cliffe, 1984; Moyo & Yeros, 2005).

During the colonial period, land dispossession of the indigenes through different legal enactments was consciously undertaken to delink them from the productive resource – the land which was a source of prosperity, wellbeing and social reproduction (Tom, 2020, p. 111). The colonial administrators had developed a dualistic agrarian structure which comprised of the LSCF that existed alongside an African peasantry which was confined to the land poor marginal, poor rain fed African reserves which are now known as the communal areas (Moyo, 1995). In a system which was very similar to neighbouring apartheid Union of South Africa which since 1948 had pursued a racialist inspired system of separate development, both countries implemented a state centric agricultural and food policy regime. This system gave preference to white commercial farmers who received state support in the form of subsidies, protection from domestic and foreign competition, favourable producer prices (in South Africa at some point these were even above world market prices), investment in infrastructure and the development of an impressive research and agricultural extension network (Van Zyl & Kirsten, 1992, p. 179). Large scale farms were highly commercialised, and they markedly contrasted with the African peasantry which was not only confined to unproductive land but found itself stuck in an emergent capitalist economy. Reliance for productive activities was on family labour which was usually either self-financed or there was dependency on remittances from urban areas and this made peasants to exist on a subsistence level (Moyo, 1995).

The emergent settler capitalist economy saw the state and capital having an interest in a stable and healthy African labour force, so labour was an economic necessity with the country’s economic prospects being dependent on a cheap African labour force. Settler colonialism and processes of land expropriation and primitive accumulation made the state to be a central actor for the advancement and protection of white agriculturalists and industrialist who were dependent on African labour. The reality for Africans during the settler colonial period was a distortion of rural livelihoods. The racialised bureaucratic state machinery can be seen as having provided support for the productive sectors and it allied with capital in agriculture, mining and manufacturing and to make profit, but it was reliant on non-white labour. The demands of the agrarian, mining and industrial elite were largely successful as they pushed their interests through political institutions which they dominated in a context where the majority African were disenfranchised. These dynamics influenced labour relations in colonial Rhodesia where the labour force was largely insecure and lived in precarity due to land dispossession and alienation, it was thus vulnerable to exploitation.

In post-colonial Zimbabwe, nothing much changed with regards to agrarian labour relations. Up until 2000, one can argue that many of the basic colonial exploitative agrarian relations persisted (Chipenda, 2019b), and it took the FTLRP for there to be witnessed fundamental changes. In Zimbabwe, in the year 2000, the agricultural sector of significant importance. it was reported that the LSCF sector was the largest formal employer, accounting for 26 percent or 350 000 permanent and casual employees of the working class. It was also reported that over two million were self-employed in agriculture in the communal areas (CSO, 2000, p. 111). At that time, cumulatively over 65% of the population was dependent on incomes from agrarian employment through self-employment and wage work in agriculture and non-agricultural activities for their social reproduction (CSO, 2002, p. 16).

The FTLRP had an impact on the workforce and there has been much debate. Scholarly attention has been on farm workers who lost their jobs due to retrenchments and the exact number affected (Hellum & Derman, 2004; Magaramombe, 2004; Sachikonye, 2003). The debates start from the number of those employed. The Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum (ZHRF) and Justice for Agrigulture (JAG) (2007, p. 9) state that employment levels were at 600 000. This contrasts with official figures which put the figure between 320 000 and 350 000 (CSO, 2002; Moyo et al., 2009). From the statistics provided by ZHRF and JAG, it was estimated that an approximate 420 000 or 70 percent of the workforce had lost their jobs due to the FTLRP. Debate is also on how the FTLRP negatively affected labour markets and its failure to absorb the workforce from the former LSCF (Hellum & Derman, 2004; Magaramombe, 2004). Following the FTLRP, a number of studies have been undertaken to better understand agrarian labour relations following the FTLRP.

Chambati (2019) shows that literature has tended to view farmworkers as being a homogeneous category of wage labour with a mistaken assumption that their livelihoods are only based on farm wages. This is in contrast to the reality that half of the jobs entailed lowly paid part time work with workers having to combine commodity production activities in the communal areas. He argues that there is a neglect of the assessment of the quality of jobs lost in relation to new farm work labour created after the FTLRP. Arguments have been raised on how wages earned by farmworkers ensured survival versus starvation and extreme poverty versus access to the basic things of life (Sachikonye, 2003). Literature has also focused on human rights violations of farm workers, physical displacements, violation of residency rights, physical violence and intimidation (ZHRF and JAG, 2007). Of interest has also been issues surrounding citizenship (Chipenda & Tom, 2022) with farm workers being largely viewed as foreigners from Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique and not deserving land (Moyo et al., 2009; Rutherford, 2002; Muzondidya, 2007). Studies have also captured the growth in labour utilisation by land beneficiaries and the increased application of farm labour, the increase in permanent casual and family workers (Chambati, 2013, 2017; Scoones et al., 2010). New livelihoods are discernible as land reform has facilitated formal and informal, access and on and non-farm rural employment opportunities. This is related to the emergence of a differentiated land use and agricultural production patterns which have impacted on production, the market and labour utilisation (Moyo, 2011; Moyo & Nyoni, 2013). It is against this background that we now look at agrarian labour dynamics in contemporary rural Zimbabwe in an increasingly capitalist oriented state.

Results and Discussion

Agricultural Production, Income and Labour

A major objective of this article is to understand labour and production dynamics within the ambit of social reproduction in the resettlement areas after Zimbabwe’s political transition in a context of new policy trajectories which have been witnessed. These need to be put into context. It is worth noting that since assuming power in 2017, the Emmerson Mnangagwa led administration has put emphasis on agricultural production which is considered key for economic transformation and development. Priority has thus been given to the agrarian sector in the national budget to support different initiatives (Chipenda, 2022a, p. 150). Since 2017, the government has embarked on an agricultural transformation programme that is aimed at engendering what they envision as ‘…an inclusive agricultural transformation programme aimed at achieving food security, import substitution, diversified exports, employment creation as well as improved incomes and standards of living (J. Basera the former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Resettlement; quoted by Mataire, 2023). The vision towards agricultural transformation is outlined in the country’s National Development Strategy 1 (2021–2025) which was crafted with the aim of realising Vision 2030. This vision has been accompanied by several sectorial plans in the agricultural sector with the most prominent being the Agriculture and Food Transformation Strategy (2020–2024), the Horticulture Recovery and Growth Plan (2020–2025), the Livestock Recovery and Growth Plan (2020–2025), the Accelerated Irrigation Rehabilitation and Development Plan (2021–2026) and the Agricultural Information Management System (AIMS) (2020–2025) among others. Since embarking on this policy trajectory, emphasis has been on enhanced agricultural production by land reform beneficiaries. Threats to repossess unproductive land have for the past years been issued by Cabinet Ministers and senior government officials and recently it was the President himself who threatened to repossess unproductive land while outlining the new ethos of hard work to feed the nation. Speaking at a church gathering in the Manicaland Province he had said:

They (unproductive farm beneficiaries) should be prepared to go back to the reservesFootnote 3 and pave way for those who can produce and feed the nation. We should work hard to produce enough food. No sweat, no gain. You cannot expect a fruit to walk to your table without producing it and you cannot expect a fish to find its way to your plate without fishing it. Idya cheziya (eat what you work for) … if you slumber you will lose everything. You cannot develop your country in your sleep. (E.D Mnangagwa quoted by Mushawani, 2022)

John Basera, the former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Resettlement had outlined the plans of the government to transition 360 000 A1 farmers and 20 000 A2 farmers into ‘serious businessmen and women’. The focus of the government in the long term was to transition three million smallholder farmers from being largely subsistence farmers to surplus and commercially oriented farmers through a rural development programme initiative. Programmes like the National Enhanced Agriculture Productivity Scheme (NEAPS) commonly referred to as Command Agriculture (targeting farmers across the tenure regimes), the Presidential Input Support Scheme (targeting smallholder households), joint ventures, contract farming frameworks, public–private sector partnerships in irrigation and mechanisation development, the Presidential Climate Proofed Input Scheme popularly known as Pfumvudza/ IntwasaFootnote 4 were singled out by Basera as being key vehicles for agricultural transformation (Basera J, cited by Mataire, 2023). It is important to note at this juncture that the vision of transitioning small and medium scale farms into capitalist-oriented farms is slowly having structural impact with its effects on agrarian labour relations, differentiation, market integration having an impact on social reproduction.

The threat to repossess underutilised land in my opinion has contributed to contemporary agricultural production activities undertaken by land reform beneficiaries. Policy trajectories by the government are worth noting as they mark a major shift of Zimbabwe’s post FTLRP trajectories which are a subject of much attention and still court controversy. There has now been witnessed a policy shift from the Mugabe administration in which the ruling ZANU PF party previously projected itself as a revolutionary party, promoting an anti-imperialist ideology which promoted black economic empowerment under its indigenisation policies (Mkodzongi, 2022, p. 3). Land reform was prioritised and considered as a flagship redistributive and economic empowerment programme aimed at reversing the colonial legacy. The Mnangagwa administration however emphasises agricultural production and has embarked on a path in which it is accused of entertaining overtures of a donor driven land and agricultural policy (Mkodzongi, 2022). This is considered as a contrary trajectory to the founding principles and motivation of the FTLRP which according to Ndhlovu (2022) was aimed at restructuring agrarian relations in favour of the broader majority of citizens especially the peasantry.

With this policy trajectory now in place, it was not surprising to note that land reform beneficiaries are placing primacy on agricultural production activities and by extension utilising farm labour. This highlights to some extent the labour and social reproduction outcomes of the FTLRP. In both Goromonzi and Zvimba, it was noted that land reform beneficiaries are engaging in the production of crops with the major ones being maize, tobacco, groundnuts, sugar beans, roundnuts and Irish potatoes. They also cultivate horticultural products which include watermelons, tomatoes, leaf vegetables, peas, green beans, gem squash, pumpkins, cabbage and butternuts. Livestock rearing is also very common with cattle, goats, broiler and free-range chickens as well as rabbits, ducks, turkeys and donkeys being reared. The major challenge for the farmers was heavily reliance on rain fed agriculture and very low levels of irrigation infrastructure, mechanisation and capital. This is not a challenge unique to the district but has been noted in other contexts and is so serious that the Zimbabwe Lands Commission (2020) in its Preliminary Report Report of the Comprehensive National Agricultural Land Audit Phase 2, recommends that the government should accelerate the resuscitation of non-functional irrigation infrastructure and install new infrastructure,Footnote 5 increase support for farm mechanisation and capacitate the Agricultural Finance Corporation Land and Development Bank to avail medium to long term funding.

These measures were considered to be an important medium to long term measure aimed at reducing the negative impacts of erratic rainfall and droughts and providing the much-needed funding to support agricultural production activities. The study sought to get insight on agricultural production activities being undertaken by the resettled farmers. This was done to understand production dynamics which are at the core of the TSP framework and shed clarity on the argument that land, and agrarian reforms are a redistributive social policy instrument which enhance the productive and social reproduction capacities of individuals, households and communities and protects them from socioeconomic vulnerabilities which include income, food and nutrition insecurity.

Production

Focusing on maize, tobacco, groundnuts and sugar beans, the study thus looked at agricultural production dynamics from the two districts. It was observed that there has been a steady increase in production activities and there is reasonable income being realised from the agricultural production activities. The findings are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Agricultural production activities in Goromonzi and Zvimba Districts (N = 200)
Full size table

Income

Engagement in agricultural production activities has thus had several implications, chief which is the generation of income. From a TSP perspective, engagement in agricultural activities has productive and social reproduction outcomes with income generation being useful for facilitating transformation, advancing status and equality as well allowing for market participation and poverty reduction. From all agricultural production activities undertaken it was noted that for Zvimba A1 farmers, the gross income from agricultural activities in the 2019–2020 season was US$255 230 and in the 2020–2021 season it was US$317 740. For the Zvimba A2 farmers in the 2019–2020 season, gross income was US$ 558 860 and in 2020–2021 it was US$691 925. For Goromonzi the figures were higher with A1 farmers in the 2019–2020 season grossing US$474 329 and in 2020–2021 they managed US$568 808. The Goromonzi A2 farmers were the highest producers with US$1 512 864 in 2019–20 and US$1 803 136 in 2020–2021. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed breakdown of the use of the gross income and the household per capita net income, the findings are sufficient to indicate that the beneficiaries are utilising the land productivity and realising income. Margins of profitability and sustainability will be discussed in subsequent publications of the study, but these findings are enough to highlight the extent to which the productive capacities of land reform beneficiaries have been capacitated. This is in a context where interactions with the farmers revealed that before having had access to land, most could not realise such incomes or levels of agricultural production. They indicated that land reform had enabled them to be productive, to participate on the market in agricultural value chains and to generate income. This had by extension contributed to their social reproduction activities as they were now able to provide for their families and to have the capacity to engage hired labour. The findings support the decades old argument that the new diversified agrarian structure following the FTLRP in Zimbabwe has transformed not only the landholding patterns but also land use practices, agricultural production activities, market integration and labour utilisation (Moyo, 2011, 2013).

The issue of labour utilisation and the character of farm labour in Zimbabwe’s resettlement areas is an issue of interest. Given the levels of agricultural activities being undertaken by the farm beneficiaries, the study sought to establish the nature of labour on the farms which is contributing to production activities and income as highlighted in sections above. It is worth noting that in both districts’ family labour has persisted, reminiscent of similarities in the communal areas. In both districts family labour could be seen co-existing with hired labour, a phenomenon that has been persistent in occurrence for decades. The study observed that family labour still remains a critical feature of the agricultural production process and it is being utilised for the production of food crops as well as cash and export crops. Duties which family members were reported as participating in included land clearing (to a limited extent), weeding, harvesting, marketing, fertiliser application, pest and disease control among others. It was observed that 50% of land beneficiaries in the A1 model in Goromonzi reported utilising family labour. In the A2 model 100% of the farmers reported having at least one household member involved in providing labour. On Zvimba A1 farms, the level of family labour utilisation was higher compared to their counterparts in Goromonzi at 64%. For A2 farmers however, levels were much lower when compared with Goromonzi with 74% of the farmers reporting that they utilised family labour. In terms of numbers, in both districts 480 family members were reported as providing labour on the farms. The number of males was surprisingly higher than females at 247 (51.4%) compared to 173 (36%). Children were also reportedly providing labour with 66 (13.7%). The high number of males utilised for labour on the farms was surprising given that in other contexts it has been noted that the number of women who are household members engaged as unpaid labour on the farms is always higher when compared with men, and their situation is worsened as they are also expected to participate in additional unpaid reproductive relations (see Tom & Banda, 2023; Tekwa, 2023). The utilisation of household labour on A2 farms is of interest and perhaps highlights strategies by the emergent capitalist farms to co-opt their kith and kin (some who are landless) to provide labour at lower costs so as to maximise profitability while also providing for their needs.

In addition to family labour, in the two district it was noted that beneficiaries utilise hired labour which comprises of both casualFootnote 6 and permanentFootnote 7 labour. This type of labour is a common feature in both districts and across the two tenure regimes. The use of family labour has not seen the end of the utilisation of hired labour as had been projected. Striking similarities with the utilisation of hired labour can be seen with observations made in other studies for example by Chambati (2022) in Goromonzi and Kwekwe, Tom and Banda (2023) in Zvimba and Tekwa (2023) in Chiredzi. The use of hired labour is a testimony of the extent to which land reform is providing employment opportunities for citizens in the countryside and to some extent contributing to the welfare and wellbeing of households. It also provides a counter narrative to the traditionally held perception that wage labour is a preserve for the large capitalist farmers in the Southern African context.

The study sought to establish employment levels of the 200 farms in the study and findings are summarised in Table 2 below. The major highlights of the Table are the high reliance on casual labour as opposed to permanent labour by farm beneficiaries in all tenure regimes in both districts. When it comes to casual labour, it was observed that the A1 sector in both districts had large numbers which increased between 2020 and 2022. The A1 sector in Zvimba and Goromonzi had 1 344 casual workers in 2020 and this increased to 1 526 in 2022 marking a 13.5% increase. Increases were also witnessed for casual workers in the A2 scheme were it was recorded that there were 2 371 workers in 2020 which increased to 2 644 in 2022, marking an increase of 11.5%. The number of permanent workers is low when compared with casual workers. In Goromonzi, it was observed that land beneficiaries were having more permanent workers in both tenure regimes. It was interesting to note that smallholder A1 farmers in Goromonzi have more permanent workers than their middle farm (A2) counterparts in Zvimba. This is attributable to production and output constraints reported earlier. In both districts in the A1 sector the number of permanent employees recorded in 2020 was 135 which decreased to 134 in 2021 and rose to 140 in 2020, marking an increase of 3.7% between 2020 and 2022. In the A2 sector, there was witnessed a 2.5% increase between 2020 to 2022 as the numbers rose from 271 to 278. The study noted gender inequities in permanent farm labour, a phenomenon also noted by Chambati (2022) highlighting a pervasive dynamic of the sub-Saharan African context as observed by Tsikata (2016).

Table 2 Casual and permanent workers
Full size table

While the number of female casual workers was significantly higher than their male counterparts, it was noted that when it came to permanent positions, there was a preference to employ males. In 2022, it was noted that there were 294 males (70%) as opposed to 127 females (30%). This highlights that women continue to be marginalised to parttime, poorly remunerated and often precarious work. When it comes to labour, the findings were able to show that in contemporary rural Zimbabwe, labour markets are active and very competitive in the resettlement areas and were not destroyed by the emergence of a transformed agrarian structure. Neo-liberal policy trajectories which favour enhanced productivity and market participation appear to have reinvigorated agrarian labour, but there are challenges which are looked at in sections below. What is clear from a TSP perspective when we look at the labour dynamics in the resettlement areas is that despite the challenges there are discernible social reproduction outcomes worth highlighting. Social reproduction has to be understood as being broader than biological reproduction, family care and childcare (UNRISD, 2006; Tom & Banda, 2023). It also encompasses the capacity to produce food and income, capital formation, accumulation, labour and other dimensions. Through redistributive land reform and the engagement of labour farm beneficiaries are managing to provide for community members who were not necessarily direct beneficiaries of the FTLRP through provision of employment opportunities. Societal sustenance and citizens wellbeing is to some extent being supported through hired labour activities on the farms. Having established the existence of an agrarian labour regime, the question was on the origins of hired labour.

Origins of Farm Labour

The issue of the origins of farm labour in colonial and post-colonial Zimbabwe has always been of much scholarly interest and contemporary Zimbabwe is no exception. The study sought to establish the origins of the casual and permanent workers. The findings highlight that there are complex dynamics when it comes to the origins of farm labour. The findings are summarised in Table 3 below. The study noted that the importation of labour predominates in both districts across as the land beneficiaries have put in place mechanisms to mobilise labour. This is not a new phenomenon and has been observed in other studies (see Chipenda, 2019a; Chambati, 2019; Tom, 2020; Marewo, 2023). With the FTLRP there has been witnessed a shift with reliance on labour not only being on the old LSCF compounds but also on surrounding communal areas and the original communal areas or kumusha of the farm beneficiaries. Table 3 below shows that there is diversity and there are multiple sources for hired farm labour. Critical is the continued role of communal areas in providing farm labour, which is a legacy of settler colonialism where migrant labour and communal areas were a source of a migrant labour system which involved in Southern Africa (Bush & Cliffe, 1984).

Table 3 Area of origin of hired labour
Full size table

In the study, it was observed that for both casual and permanent workers, other communal areas provide a significant amount of hired labour, with 51% of land beneficiaries from both districts tapping into this source while 55% beneficiaries utilised it to get permanent employees. The highest number of land beneficiaries reported utilising former farm workers from the same district and their number was 82.5%. This source was also being utilised for casual labour with 50% reportedly using it as a source for permanent labour. The kumusha of land beneficiaries also stands out as an important source of labour with 14% utilising this source for casual employees while 22.5% use it for permanent employees. The reasons for utilising the kumusha are varied but prominent were easier access and mobilisation, use of kith and kin as well as issues of trust.

Critical takeaways from an analysis of the source of farm labour as presented in Table 3 is the expansion of the boundaries of the recruitment of farm labour. The mobilisation of labour from kumusha and surrounding communal areas to fit the hired labour requirements of land beneficiaries and the continued utilisation of skilled former farm workers from the old LSCF. The expertise of this cohort of workers is indispensable in a context where resettled farmers are slowly embarking on a capitalist trajectory and are being integrated into national and global value chains which require expertise at the point of production. In addition, of note are the dynamics of hiring patterns which have evolved in response to the everchanging requirements and needs of land reform beneficiaries as well as the socio-economic context. An interesting development is an increase in urbanites reportedly participating in casual labour activities, this is an income generating activity which was previously looked down on. The study noted the continued existence of the colonially inspired labour-tenancy arrangements remain popular and are utilised as a reliable source of labour supply. Having established sources of labour, the study investigated issues of hired labour remuneration, non-monetary benefits and residency.

Remuneration, Benefits and Residency of Hired Farm Labour

What are the levels of remuneration for hired labour and are there any non-monetary benefits which are provided by employers? This was an important question which the study looked at which was considered critical for understanding the social reproduction, production and protection outcomes in relation to the welfare and wellbeing of hired farm labour. The study noted that when it comes to farm remuneration, the increasingly capitalist oriented small and medium farms are continuing a tradition of super exploitation which started with the LSCFS. The remuneration provided to hired labour is well below the cost of social reproduction, a situation reminiscent of the practises of LSCFS. Some highlights of remuneration were in the A2 sector in Goromonzi were most of the farmers (96%) pay US$2.50 per task. This was low if compared with Zvimba were farmers in the same tenure regime were reportedly paying US$3 (78%), US$4 (14%) and US$5 (4%). In the A1 sector in Goromonzi, 25 (50%) of farmers were reportedly paying US$2.50, 48% were paying US$2 while 2% were paying US$3 for tasks performed by casual employees.Footnote 8 In contrast in Zvimba there were slightly higher payments with 24% paying US$5, 36% paying US$3 while 26% were paying US$4 for each task. When it came to permanent workers, across all the tenure regimes most workers are in the US$40-US$70 a month bracket. In the Zvimba A1 sector, the number of farmers who paid their workers US$40-US$70 a month was 42%, in Goromonzi A1 it was 100%, in the Zvimba A2 it was 24% and in the Goromonzi A2 it was 100%.

The findings in the two districts in relation to remuneration confirms findings in other contexts and the narrative that in Africa, wage work on farms is very low and one of the worst forms of exploitation and is source of inequality. The situation is worsened by a weak rural trade union movement (Chambati, 2019; Torvikey et al. 2016; Tsikata, 2015). For Chambati (2019) the idea and concept of wage labour as it has been viewed in the context of settler-Southern Africa and the claim that in LSCF it was crucial for the survival of rural people needs a revisit. This is because emerging evidence (supported by this study as well) shows that it has tended to undervalue self-employed jobs within the peasantry which have the potential for better prospects for the livelihoods of the rural people, unlike farm wage labour with inequalities in the material conditions of land reform beneficiaries and hired workers being very clear.

With remuneration on the farms being very low it was observed that some of the farmers provide non-monetary incentives to their workers. Non-monetary incentives are provided to both permanent and casual workers and in the study, it was noted that this is usually at the discretion of the employer. The provision of non-monetary benefits is a common phenomenon across the resettlement areas. Chambati (2019, p. 404) observed this is his study and calls it ‘social wages’. These social wages have included access to formal land for production, access to natural resources, food subsidies, agricultural inputs among other incentives. These social wages from a TSP perspective have had utility in contributing to collective welfare and wellbeing. This is linked to the vision that land and agrarian reforms are a social policy instrument (among other instruments) that can achieve a collective good and holistic well-being (Tom & Banda, 2023). The provision of social wages has been shown as allowing those who receive it to be better off than their counterparts who solely depend on monetary wages for their survival. These as shown in the preceding section are never enough. In the two districts, it was observed that non-monetary benefits which permanent workers receive include groceries and there are agricultural products like maize and sugar beans usually from their productive activities which they are given. Table 4 below summarises the groceries which farmers provide to their permanent workers in each calendar month. The most prominent items include maize meal, cooking oil and sugar beans. The amount provided is at the discretion of the farmers and it differs. For maize meal it usually ranges from 10–20 kg, for cooking oil it is usually a two-litre bottle and for sugar it is usually a 2 kg packet.

Table 4 Non-monetary benefits—Groceries
Full size table

In addition to groceries, farmers also provide other non-monetary benefits. The major benefits are summarised in Table 5 below. They include housing, paraffin and firewood (for fuel), annual leave, protective clothing, health and funeral assistance among others. From the Table it can be observed that the provision of housing, health, firewood and funeral support are the most common benefits which comprise of social wages for hired farm labour. The least common are land for crop and livestock grazing as farmers do not seem comfortable giving a part of their land for temporary use to hired labour. The provision of housing is a critical aspect on the farms which needs additional attention as it is important from a social protection and welfare perspective as well as its linkage to the residency-wage labour nexus. Benefits also extend to working conditions and the general welfare of hired labour with some farmers committing to provide protective clothing, health and funeral assistance as well as annual leave.

Table 5 Non-monetary benefits
Full size table

In the study it was noted that some of the farmers have invested in the provision of housing for their permanent employees. The housing is usually rent free but tied to strict labour-tenancy arrangements reminiscent of the old LSCF. Despite the arrangement having positive aspects in contributing to the livelihoods of hired labour, it has the disadvantage of binding workers to a single employer and constraining their autonomy and agency on the labour market. Cognisant of the challenges of securing reliable permanent workers, housing shortages and the need to provide non-monetary incentives farmers in the study indicated putting in place measures to provide housing for their workers as one of the incentives. Some have built housing for their workers; others utilise the old farm compounds on LSCF while others require their workers to reside in communal areas and come to work on agreed intervals. The location of the residency of permanent workers is shown in Fig. 2 below. For those with permanent employees, most have them residing at their homesteads while others have built new houses. Figure 2 complements Fig. 3 and it shows the type of housing which is being provided for hired labour. The most common type of housing are brick and tin roof as well as brick under asbestos. The provision of housing is an important welfare and social protection outcome of the FTLRP which Chipenda (2019a, 2022b) has emphasised.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Source: Own fieldwork (2022)

Location of residency of hired labour.

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Source: Own fieldwork (2022)

Housing type provided to hired labour.

Full size image

When one looks at the social wages that are provided to hired labour, they demonstrate an important dynamic of rural Zimbabwe’s increasingly capitalist farms where from a TSP perspective there are discernible pathways aimed at achieving the broader multiple instruments and manifold social policy tasks which are inclusive of redistribution, production, protection, reproduction, and social cohesion. Through the provision of social wages gaps in poor remuneration are covered and hired labour is incentivised to keep on providing their labour. A major takeaway from the study when looking at the issue of remuneration is that wages still remain very low with workers subject to super exploitation. The provision of social wages provides temporary relief, but it is not a sustainable solution as it is provided at the whim and discretion of the employers and can be removed without consequence as there is no legal obligation for the employer to provide it. Despite these challenges, the positive aspects cannot be ignored. Through land reform, there have been observed progressive agrarian changes with land and income distribution among the citizens being more pronounced unlike during the LSCF era period. The persistent super-exploitation of the farm labourers remains an issue of serious concern and it makes livelihoods uncertain.

Reflections and Conclusion

The article has attempted to touch on all critical issues which provide a picture on contemporary labour dynamics in Zimbabwe’s resettlement areas and their implications on social reproduction. What is clear from a TSP perspective is that despite some of its serious challenges and shortcomings, the FTLRP has reduced some inequities in landownership allowing for processes of production and social reproduction with the creation of opportunities for hired labour. This has absorbed many poor peasants who are now capacitated to provide for their households and to meet their subsistence costs. Labour and social reproduction dynamics are shown as being implicated on by the states increasingly neo-liberal economic trajectories as resettled beneficiaries scramble to be compliant and are prioritising agricultural production activities. This has shaped agricultural production models and labour utilisation.

Critical highlights from the article centre on agricultural production activities and income generation. While there is potential for enhanced agricultural production activities, several challenges are noted which have negative implications on production. Despite the observed challenges, the article has shown that from a TSP perspective there are positive outcomes and important lessons to learn. Productive activities and income generation are positively impacting on social reproduction outcomes as evidenced by output from agricultural production activities and enhanced income. This has capacitated land reform beneficiaries, enabling them to engage hired labour. Critical to the engagement of hired labour is the ability of land beneficiaries to contribute to citizen and community wellbeing through employment creation and contributing in diverse ways to local rural economies as income and wealth are redistributed and income generating opportunities are availed to locals.

The article also looks closely at remuneration dynamics and emphasises on the ‘social wages’ which in different ways supplement wages while concurrently contributing to social reproduction and enhanced wellbeing. Despite these positive dimensions, challenges remain with poor remuneration and poor working conditions being emphasised. This makes the resettlement farms to be compared with the old LSCF, a largely uncomfortable comparison given the objectives of the FTLRP to reverse some of the exploitative dimensions of the commercial farming system. Heightened precarity, vulnerability and exploitation are synonyms that are increasingly being associated with hired labour on the resettlement farms. This is in a context of poor representation by associational and trade union formations with the state turning a blind eye to the plight of workers. The persistence of exploitative agrarian labour markets, skewed income redistribution and the persistence of super-exploitative relations which negatively implicate on livelihoods is a cause of concern which is a constant feature that cuts across Zimbabwe’s enduring agrarian labour questions.

The study has also been critical in unearthing the role played by household members on the farms. While utilising household labour has its advantages, the study highlights that it is potentially exploitative especially in a context of complex power relations between land beneficiaries and household members who include kith and kin as well as persons to whom they are not related to. Women are shown as being potentially victims of exploitation as hired labour and as household members who provide labour. The challenges faced by women include engaging in unpaid labour activities while also being confronted with the burden of their unpaid reproductive roles, resulting in a double burden. The study also looked at the origins of hired labour, the monetary and non-monetary benefits, and issues of farm residency for hired employees. This is linked to the TSP imperatives of the extent to which the different initiatives enhance the productive, reproductive and social protection capacities of citizens in a redistributive context.

A major takeaway from the article are the social reproduction outcomes evidenced by a dynamic labour regime and an agrarian regime characterised by new sources of food and income; capital formation; accumulation and new agricultural activities. The emergent social reproduction regime has brought to the fore new dimensions and going forward, they require attention by scholars and policy makers. Despite a lot of progress, there are challenges as highlighted in this article which if left unattended, can potentially derail the founding objectives of the FTLRP which were crystallised around transforming the socio-economic wellbeing of hitherto marginalised citizens. The article saliently highlights policy imperatives which need attention. Paramount is the need to improve the remuneration of hired labour with primacy being given to having robust and enforceable farm worker policies which specifically address work conditions and remuneration. From a TSP perspective the FTLRP can be seen as having potential to broaden access of key resources to all citizens unlike the prevailing scenario were a select few are fully benefitting. If this is implemented, it can potentially guarantee socio-economic transformation and enhance the welfare and wellbeing of all. A major takeaway from this article is that in rural Zimbabwe if one looks at the labour and social reproduction dynamics, there are important lessons for former settler colonies grappling with their land questions and are uncertain about agrarian futures following land reform. The Zimbabwe experience shows that land and agrarian reforms can create critical social policy pathways which if consciously adopted can potentially positively affect and effect the wellbeing of citizens and communities.