By
matching
households
from
the
earlier
rankings
in
2017,
we
were
able
to
assess
whether
in
2025
a
particular
household
was
placed
in
the
same
rank
or
whether
they
had
moved
up
or
down
in
the
intervening
eight
years.
Through
discussions
in
the
ranking
workshops,
we
were
able
to
explore
why
these
changes
had
occurred
and
what
the
consequences
were.
In
some
cases,
these
were
individual,
idiosyncratic
circumstances
–
a
death
or
illness
in
the
family,
the
sudden
loss
of
assets,
such
as
livestock
and
so
on
–
but
in
most
cases
the
explanations
emerged
from
understanding
the
type
of
constraints
discussed
in
the
previous
blog,
where
demographic
pressures,
generational
change
or
remittance
windfalls
from
diaspora
based
relatives
made
all
the
difference.
Transitions
in
success
over
time
The
following
tables
and
summary
statistics
offer
the
data
on
transitions
for
the
three
sites.
Gutu
South
communal
area,
near
Wondedzo
A1
areas
in
Masvingo
district
|
2025 rankings |
|||||
|
2017 rankings |
SG1 | SG2 | SG3 | Total | |
| SG1 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 18(16.7%) | |
| SG2 | 4 | 23 | 14 | 41(38.0%) | |
| SG3 | 3 | 11 | 35 | 49(45.4%) | |
| Total | 10(9.3%) | 46(42.6%) | 52(48.1%) | 108(100%) | |
Summary:
-
56.5%
(61
households)
remained
static
(3
households
remained
in
SG1,
23
households
remained
in
SG2
and
35
households
remained
in
SG3). -
26.9%
(29
households)
decreased
their
rank
moving
down
or
two
categories
over
the
period. -
16.7%
(18
households)
increased
their
ranking
moving
one
or
two
rankings
over
the
period. -
Overall,
43.5%
(47
households)
had
changed
rank.
Serima
communal
area,
near
Clare
and
Lonely
A1
land
reform
sites
in
Gutu
district
|
2025 rankings |
|||||
|
2017 rankings |
SG1 | SG2 | SG3 | Total | |
| SG1 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 14(12.2%) | |
| SG2 | 1 | 10 | 29 | 40(34.8%) | |
| SG3 | 0 | 14 | 47 | 61(53.0%) | |
| Total | 3(2.6%) | 31(21.0%) | 81(70.4%) | 115(100%) | |
Summary:
-
51.3%
(59
households)
remained
static
(2
households
remained
in
SG1,
10
households
remained
in
SG2
and
47
households
remained
in
SG3). -
35.7%
(41
households)
decreased
their
rank
moving
down
or
two
categories
over
the
period. -
13.0%
(15
households)
increased
their
ranking
moving
one
or
two
rankings
over
the
period. -
Overall,
48.7%
(56
households)
had
changed
rank.
Khumalo
East
communal
area,
near
Vimbi
and
Luma
A1
sites
in
Matobo
district
|
2025 rankings |
|||||
|
2017 rankings |
SG1 | SG2 | SG3 | Total | |
| SG1 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8(6.6%) | |
| SG2 | 0 | 22 | 28 | 50(41.0%) | |
| SG3 | 0 | 8 | 56 | 64(52.5%) | |
| Total | 0(0%) | 37(30.3%) | 85(69.7%) | 122(100%) | |
Summary:
-
63.9%
(78
households)
remained
static
(0
households
remained
in
SG1,
22
households
remained
in
SG2
and
56
households
remained
in
SG3). -
29.5%
(36
households)
decreased
their
rank
moving
down
or
two
categories
over
the
period. -
6.6%
(8
households)
increased
their
ranking
moving
one
or
two
rankings
over
the
period. -
Overall,
36.1%
(44
households)
had
changed
rank.
Across
these
three
areas,
we
see
that
the
largest
proportion
of
households
were
ranked
in
the
lowest
success
rank
(3),
and
that
this
proportion
has
increased
between
2017
and
2025.
There
are
few
ranked
today
in
the
top
success
group
(0-9%)
and
this
proportion
has
declined
over
time.
Very
few
increased
their
ranking
over
this
period,
and
many
had
declined.
In
other
words,
in
terms
of
people’s
perceptions,
the
success
of
those
living
in
these
villages
has
declined,
with
fewer
livelihood
opportunities
and
access
to
assets
and
other
resources.
The
criteria
used
in
the
recent
rankings
are
listed
in
our
earlier
blog.
They
cover
a
range
of
features
from
farm
production
to
asset
ownership
to
having
a
‘good
home’
to
having
access
to
off-farm
work
or
remittances,
as
well
as
less
material
factors
such
as
being
in
‘good
health’.
These
criteria
combine
in
the
composite
ranking
agreed
by
the
group
for
each
household.
Deep
knowledge
of
all
households
and
much
debate
for
some
results
in
agreed
rank.
Of
course,
over
time
criteria
change
as
do
perceptions,
so
there
are
inevitable
limitations
when
comparing
time
periods.
However,
many
of
the
same
participants
were
involved
in
the
recent
rankings
so
continuity
between
the
assessments
did
exist.
These
are
relative
assessments
across
a
sample
and
can
never
be
definitive,
but
the
ranks
ring
true
and
correlations
between
ranks
and
more
conventional
poverty
assessment
indicators
are
always
significant
(see
xxx).
Comparing
A1
and
communal
area
‘success’
The
following
table
compares
the
percentages
of
households
in
each
transition
category
for
A1
(including
self-contained
sites,
SC)
and
communal
area
study
sites.
The
A1
data
has
been
shared
in
a
previous
blog
series,
while
the
communal
area
data
is
repeated
(with
rounded
figures)
from
the
tables
above.
The
communal
area
site
which
is
closest
to
the
A1
sites
is
in
the
column
immediately
to
the
left.
|
|
A1 (SC) |
A1 |
CA |
A1 (SC) |
A1 |
A1 |
CA |
A1 |
CA |
| Clare | Lonely | Serima |
Wondedzo Ext |
Wondedzo Wares |
Sanangwe |
Gutu South |
Matobo A1 |
Khumalo East |
|
| Static | 37 | 52 | 51 | 47 | 47 | 47 | 56 | 56 | 64 |
| Decrease | 31 | 36 | 36 | 6 | 20 | 45 | 27 | 12 | 29 |
| Increase | 31 | 12 | 13 | 47 | 33 | 7 | 17 | 30 | 7 |
Overall,
with
two
exceptions,
the
percentage
of
households
whose
ranks
increased
over
time
was
higher
in
the
A1
sites.
The
two
exceptions
were
Lonely
and
Sanangwe
A1
sites
where
there
were
significant
decreases
in
ranks
over
time.
In
the
Gutu
areas,
Serima
communal
area
had
a
pattern
quite
similar
to
nearby
Lonely,
whilst
the
Clare
self-contained
site
saw
many
more
increases
in
success
rank.
This
reflects
the
particular
story
of
these
A1
sites
(see
earlier
blogs,
here
and
here).
Lonely
A
has
seen
real
challenges
of
generational
transition,
with
previously
very
successful
male
farmers,
who
were
leaders
in
horticulture
production
in
wetland
areas,
passing
on
and
widows
and
children
struggling
to
continue
this
work.
In
relative
terms,
success
groups
2
and
3
in
Lonely
are
probably
higher
in
terms
of
actual
assets
and
production
than
in
Serima
but
the
pattern
of
decline
is
still
clear.
Serima’s
declines
are
for
similar
reasons,
along
with
the
general
lack
of
resources
described
in
the
previous
blog.
Overall,
both
these
areas
are
struggling,
with
around
half
of
households
remaining
static.
In
Clare
farm,
by
contrast,
we
see
people
moving
up,
down
and
remaining
static
in
almost
equal
proportions,
reflecting
an
area
in
flux,
as
new
people
and
investments
arrive
resulting
in
improvements,
while
others
suffer
from
generational
transitions.
In
the
Masvingo
areas,
we
see
big
contrasts
between
Wondedzo
(Extension
and
Wares)
and
Sanangwe
A1
sites.
The
former
show
significant
success,
with
47%
and
33%
of
households
increasing
their
ranks.
By
contrast,
in
Sanangwe,
only
7%
managed
a
positive
transition,
whereas
nearly
half
declined
in
ranks
(47%).
Sanangwe
shows
greater
declines
and
fewer
increases
than
the
comparator
communal
area
because,
as
described
in
the
earlier
blog
series,
this
area
has
been
flooded
by
new
arrivals,
and
in
many
respects
resembles
a
communal
area
with
shrinking
land
areas
and
few
resources.
This
contrasts
significantly
with
the
Wondedzo
sites,
which
show
a
much
more
positive
set
of
transitions,
with
significant
accumulation
from
below.
In
the
Matobo
area,
the
difference
between
the
communal
areas
and
the
A1
areas
is
the
most
striking
of
all.
The
A1
areas
had
30%
of
households
with
rank
increases
compared
to
only
7%
for
the
communal
area.
The
pattern
of
declines
is
almost
exactly
the
reverse
(12%
and
29%)
as
the
proportion
remaining
static
was
fairly
similar.
Has
land
reform
made
a
difference?
With
the
notable
exceptions
where
either
generational
transition
(Lonely)
or
in-migration
(Sanangwe)
had
limited
opportunities,
the
A1
areas
have
shown
more
increases
in
success
rank
over
the
past
eight
years.
These
emerge
substantially
from
‘accumulation
from
below’,
greater
production
leading
to
more
income
and
so
investments,
although
in
all
cases
off-farm
income
sources
are
important
too.
The
increases
in
success
rank
in
the
communal
areas,
by
contrast,
have
not
come
from
such
endogenous
accumulation
dynamics
as
resource
limitations
largely
mean
that
such
opportunities
are
impossible
in
these
sites.
Structural
factors
mean
that
many
are
simply too
poor
to
improve
livelihoods from
locally-based
activity,
even
with
external
aid
subsidies.
Instead,
sustained
improvements
have
come
almost
exclusively
from
investments
from
outside,
notably
through
diaspora
remittances.
Success
comes
from
outside,
as
structural
poverty
limits
opportunities
within
the
communal
areas.
Reasons
for
decline
overlap
between
A1
and
communal
areas,
with
the
challenges
of
generational
transition
on
the
death
of
a
male
household
head
being
especially
prominent
across
all
sites,
whether
A1
or
communal.
In
sum,
answering
the
question
‘has
land
reform
made
a
difference?’
is
difficult.
It
depends
on
the
area
and
the
particular
circumstances.
Overall,
though,
the
opportunities
for
accumulation
(particularly
from
agriculture/livestock
and
so
from
below)
is
greater
in
A1
areas,
although
challenges
remain,
as
our
outlier
cases
clearly
show.
These
particular
experiences
point
to
some
important
policy
considerations:
how
to
manage
generational
transitions
(a
theme
that
we
have
emphasised
repeatedly
in recent
blogs)
and
how
to
avoid
the
re-congestion
of
land
reform
areas
and
sustain
the
benefit
of
having
more
land
through
redistribution.
We
will
be
returning
to
these
challenges
in
future
blogs
as
we
continue
to
analyse
our
longitudinal
data.
This
blog
has
been
written
by
Tapiwa
Chatikobo
and
Ian
Scoones,
with
inputs
from
Felix
Murimbarimba
(who
facilitated
the
workshops).
Prudence
Hove
(Chiweshe),
Sydney
Jones
and
Guidance
Gobvu
(Kumalo
East),
Kennedy
Suwayi
(Gutu
South)
and
Manika
Manaka
(Serima)
helped
to
coordinate
the
workshops.
This
blog
first
appeared
on Zimbabweland.
Post
published
in:
Agriculture