| Criteria for success What defined success for the participants in these ranking exercises? Once again, having access to key farm assets was important, notably owning or having the ability to hire a tractor, owning cars/trucks for transport, alongside having irrigation capacity and associated equipment. The end point was to be able to sell crop products, resulting in a ‘good quality and quantity of food’, ‘good homes’, ‘having furniture and beds’ and ‘educating children’. Successful farming was seen to be associated with having enough land, and particularly now the capacity to lease it in so as to increase areas. This requires both cash (or grain) and good networks/relationships. All this drives towards a commercialised agriculture centred on tobacco, horticulture and maize that generates success, which can be shown in the ability to educate children in good quality schools, including schools in Mvurwi town and boarding schools; ensuring access to effective health care through private practices/hospitals/clinics; and investing in real estate in town (stands, houses, private schools, commercial properties etc.). The emphasis on private services for health and education is significant, as it can result in significant costs, but many opt for this and there is a booming sector providing schools, clinics, pharmacies, hospitals and so on in these areas, fuelled by agricultural financing from resettlement areas. The collapse of state services also prompts community investment in public goods in these areas, including the repair of roads and bridges, the building of schools, creches and clinics and so on. This ‘community’ commitment is seen as central to success, going beyond the individual household. It is also vital especially for women whose caring roles around children, older people and others may shift with such investment, as they have considerable commitments to supporting commercial agriculture and marketing operations. As implicitly acknowledged, in the past ‘success’ relied on state provision for basic public goods, but this is no longer available, meaning that such provision must be realised individually through generating surplus income from farming or through community level mobilisations requiring a degree of collective organisation, trust and commitment. Unlike in Matobo, where on-farm accumulation is lower (or at least intermittent), regular surplus production and sometimes significant tobacco and horticultural incomes are possible in Mvurwi, so there is less reliant on off-farm income, although support from wage incomes, off-farm business and remittances were all mentioned. Links to towns, along agricultural value chains and often involving other family members (young people hiring out equipment, women involved in trading and so on), are significant in this commercialising economy driven by agriculture. Changing fortunes Table 1 shows the transitions between 2014 and 2025 across the 186 households who remained present in the area (even if compositions changed). Table 1: A1 farms in Mvurwi The data show that:
- 48.9% (91 households) remained static (23 households remained in SG1, 31 households remained in SG2 and 37 households remained in SG3).
- 26.3% (49 households) decreased their rank, moving down one or two categories over the period.
- 24.7% (46 households) increased their ranking by moving one or two rankings over the period.
- Overall, 51.1% (95 households) had changed rank.
Around half had changed ranks over 11 years, with the other half shifting up and down in roughly equal proportions. As in our other sites, there is a lot of churn in household fortunes over time, with this, not surprisingly, increasing as the length of time extends between the ranking assessments. What influences these changes? Case studies discussed at the ranking workshops offer some clues. Case studies I: transitions to a higher rank For those who were able to make the transition from SG3 to SG1, the most common pattern was investment in farming realising surpluses that could be invested in diversified business activities, notably real estate and other off-farm business in Mvurwi town, which in turn generated further income for investment in the farm and wider ‘success’ of the family. Very often it was a sequential development towards success, with farming leading to business, leading in turn to more intensive/commercialised farming, with such cycles of investment often repeated over time. Others combined farming with off-farm jobs elsewhere, and were able to combine enterprises successfully, often by splitting labour with wives/children/other relatives supporting the farming element. In Mvurwi these successful households ‘with everything’ – notably fancy multi-roomed, modern homes with solar electricity and running water – were described as ‘mbinga’. This slang term used to describe sometimes ostentatiously wealthy people, with connections beyond the farm. Case 1: KM (from SG3 to SG1). KM’s household acquired a 6ha plot in 2002. 65-year-old KM works as a diesel plant fitter at Harare City Council, while his 56-year-old wife runs the farm. KM’s household was in SG3 category in 2014. At the time, KM and his family were absentees living in Harare. In 2015, his wife decided to become a full-time farmer, while KM retained his job in town. After a long stint growing maize, sweet potatoes and groundnuts, the household took up tobacco farming in 2017, with contract from ZTL. After two years, they abandoned the contract and are now self-financed. Today, KMs are successful farmers of great repute. Apart from tobacco production, they also engage in horticulture. In 2020, in partnership with a neighbouring farming, they also constructed a small weir at the nearby stream for irrigation. They grow water melons, Irish potatoes, cucumbers and red cabbages. They sell these products at their daughter’s stall (musika) at Lusaka market in Highfields. In recent years, the household have purchased two tractors (one was burnt down by wild fires) and three dumpers with proceeds from KM’s wages. Last year, they sunk a borehole using proceeds from farming. A few years ago, they also bought a stand for US$3000 in Mvurwi using proceeds from tobacco. Combining KM’s savings from his job and proceeds from farming, they have also managed to build a modern house in Budiriro 3 suburb “akin to ‘Chirungu’ houses found in affluent suburbs such as Mount Pleasant.” This year, following a good tobacco harvest, the family is planning to build a modern house like in town. Case 2: WM (from SG3 to SG2). WM was born in 1970 and is a retired nurse. WM’s household was in SG3 in 2014. At the time, he and his wife were absentees, living away from the farm. WM was a nurse at Mvurwi hospital, while his wife worked as a cook at a local boarding school in Mvurwi. Since acquiring their plot in 2002, the household straddled between town and the farm until March 2024 when the husband retired from his job because of ill health. Before retirement, they had a couple that was looking after their plot. Upon retirement, they moved to the plot on a permanent basis and they are now full-time farmers. Although most of their cattle died due to January Disease, they own 4 head of cattle. They grow maize and tobacco. Since 2015, they have also been rearing broilers (100 per batch). Case studies II: transitions to a lower rank Not everyone is a successful commercial farmer in Mvurwi. Tobacco is challenging and requires significant labour and other inputs, and contracting carries its own risks. Horticultural production is also highly skilled and requires capital inputs for irrigation, and the marketing of produce in a crowded market is difficult. Both major forms of commercial agriculture require considerable coordination and management skills and making sure that labour is deployed effectively. This usually requires all household members, men and women, to be fully committed. Given the reliance on the market, currency changes, (hyper)inflation and other macro-economic disruption can cause major problems for fragile enterprises. Other reasons for decline are common to other areas, including illness, death, inheritance disputes (where the family of a late husband takes everything from a widow), divorce and so on. The following cases illustrate some of these dynamics. Case 3. RK (from SG1 to SG3). 90-year-old RS’s household was in SG1 rank in 2014. RK’s parents were originally from Tanzania, while her husband was originally from Zambia. Her husband worked as a tractor driver in a nearby farm before quitting the job and moved to Mvurwi town where he got employed as a mechanic for tractors. In 2002, the couple acquired land in Ruia A farm, but struggled to gain a foothold in farming. Eventually, one of the sons who had a qualification in agriculture, and who at the time, was employed as a farm manager at Glenara farm decided to quit his job and (with wage savings and loans from Command Agriculture) pursued farming on a full-time farmer. Equipped with knowledge from both training and experience as a farm manager, the son (IC) quickly established himself as one of the best farmers in the village. He grew maize and tobacco. At one time, he sold 18 tonnes of maize at GMB. In the following years, he purchased tractors, two water bowsers, rollers and discs with proceeds from tobacco farming. He also bought a stand and built an 8-roomed house in Harare using proceeds from farming. He also purchased six cattle with proceeds from tobacco sales, and increased to around 12, but all died due to January Disease in 2021. He also rented in additional land to grow tobacco from struggling neighbours. In 2018, IC passed away due to HIV/AIDS. while RK’s husband passed away in 2021. RK had 10 children. Of these, 8 have since passed on due to HIV/AIDS. She is now left with two sons. She lives alone at the farm, with very little support from the remaining two sons. Because of old age, she is currently renting out the whole of her crop field to others, while she maintains crop farming on her homestead stand and small garden near the river. Survival is premised primarily on small contributions from the two sons, grandchildren and neighbours. As one neighbour commented: “It’s a sorry situation. The son was such a good farmer in this area, but all is gone now”. In fact, RK is very close to ‘dropping out’, although she said that his other son who works in the army is about to retire, and expect him to take over the farm once he has retired. Case 4. NM (from SG2 to SG3). NM was born in Kapondera village in Mutoko in 1968. She and her husband acquired the A1 plot in 2006. In the early years of settlement, the household managed to harvest surplus maize and sold surplus. However, income from maize sales was used to cover her husband’s medical bills. In 2008, her husband then passed away after long illness. The death of her husband was followed by the death of her daughter and another more recently, who left a son who is also HIV positive. In 2014, NM’s household was placed in SG2. This in part, because his only surviving son had taken up tobacco production, which he complemented with ‘maricho’ to support his mother and siblings. However, her now 41-year-old son got married and established his own homestead within the parents’ plot. While he still does independent tobacco production, NM says that his son has been struggling to raise funds to purchase inputs, hence he is farming on a small area. Given that he now has his own family, her son’s income is not sufficient to sustain his own homestead and that of his mother. The confluence of extended illness and deaths of husband and two daughters, and her son’s establishment of his own family has led to the decline of the household from SG2 to SG3. Case 5. AM (from SG2 to SG3). 90-year-old AM acquired an A1 plot in 2002. At the time, he was employed as a cook at Malvern house, a white old people’s home. His household was in SG2 rank in 2014. However, the household has descended to SG3 in 2025 due to old age. The couple arrived with ‘nothing’, but managed to purchase farming equipment (plough, scotch-cart, cultivator) using proceeds from farming. They also purchased cattle with proceeds from crop farming. Their herd grew to 18, but all died due to January Disease in recent years. They grew maize, sugar beans and sweet potatoes in their allotted 6ha crop field. However, in recent years, they have scaled down their operations to 0.4ha (homestead stand). Their main crop field is currently being used by their son-in-law and relative (husband’s nephew) for free, both of whom are growing tobacco. “We are now too old to farm large areas”, she said. Case studies III: continuity and change The 91 households who remained in the same rank in 2025 that they were in in 2014 are also interesting. What prevents improvements in success for those still in SG2 (N=31) and SG3 (N=37)? Why are they somehow ‘stuck’? And what allows those 23 households who remained in SG1 to keep being successful, even improving within this success group? Those still in SG3 have been unable to take off and generate the type of surpluses for follow-on investment either on- or off-farm that others have been able to do. This may be because they are young, have inherited land from a relatively poor parent, or have been unlucky, being struck by illness or other misfortune. There are huge range of scenarios. They are, however, still ‘hanging in’ and in many respects their lot has improved over time, even if not their relative rank. As noted in the first blog in this series, the criteria for success have shifted over time, so it may well be that homes have improved, equipment has been bought, land cleared/acquired, children been educated and so on, but this has not resulted in a step-change in (relative) success, reflected in the rankings. Those still in SG2 definitely have aspirations to move to SG1, and it remains a possibility that they hold on to, looking at others who have improved significantly as examples. But there are often basic constraints. SG2 households may be middle aged and have considerable commitments to schooling costs (including private schooling) as children remain young. They may be reliant on contracts for tobacco and are not able to go it alone and sell directly to auction at a higher price as they do not have the resources and connections, including trucks for transport. They may not have the finance or the labour to expand their land to ramp up their production, nor the ability to invest in anything more than garden-based irrigation so cannot go to scale with horticultural production. There has been much flux with SG1 over the 11 years since 2014. While 23 households may still be classified in this category, some have moved to a different level (as some participants claimed – above SG1). These are the ‘mbinga’, where on- and off-farm enterprises are successfully combined, as well as a few who have been able to channel state patronage resources (like command agriculture) to their operations. Compared to 2014, there have been many changes: the size and quality of homes has improved, the investments in water pumping for domestic, livestock and irrigation use has expanded, and many have solar systems, cars and other trappings of a rich, urban life in the farms. Farming-business connections as a route to success in a commercial centre In sum, ‘success’ in Mvurwi today is very much dependent on a successful connection between farming and business, with economic and social relationships and networks off-farm being crucial. This means that the vagaries of relying on commercial agriculture and all the uncertainties in prices, markets and contracting deals can be offset. Agriculture still remains the driver of success of course, and there is much less reliance on remittances, diaspora investment and migration than in other study sites (although of course these sources remain important for some). Commercial agriculture is always challenging, and the maize/tobacco/horticulture dynamic in Mvurwi is no exception. Over time, people have diversified from maize to tobacco to horticulture, but even more diversified crop mixes and irrigation investments do not offset environmental and market variability completely. Just as white commercial farmers occupying these same areas before on much larger farms, having a diverse portfolio is critical for success. This needs connections, networks, relationships and trust that allows business opportunities to be mobilised. Since 2012-14 when we first started working in Mvurwi area intensively, there have been many changes, reflecting the broader pattern of change in land reform areas. By then the farms had long been established, but there was a rapid process of differentiation on-going with some able to capitalise on the tobacco boom, while others could not, often joining the now former farmworkers (who had their own small plots, see later blog) as part of a (semi)proletarian labouring class. Those who prospered and were able to accumulate (usually ‘from below’, but some few ‘from above’ with the right political connections) could now invest not only in intensifying and diversifying their farm production, but also moving to off-farm activities, prompting the significant growth in Mvurwi as a small town through investments in real estate and other businesses. This phase of integration within the wider economy is an important one, and is reflected in the SG1 success group, with implications for future policy that will be discussed in the concluding blog in this series. |
