From the year 2000, land became the key signifier for tackling the unfinished business of the decolonisation process in Zimbabwe, notably by rectifying the racially-based land injustices of the past through land redistribution. This took the form of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP). However, the racialised character and focus of the FTLRP tended to mask or at least downplay important gender dimensions to land in Zimbabwe. Colonial and post-colonial Zimbabwe (up to 2000) had instigated, propagated and reproduced land ownership, control and access along a distinctively patriarchal basis which left women either totally excluded or incorporated in an oppressive manner. This patriarchal structuring of the land question was rooted in institutions, practices and discourses. Although a burgeoning number of studies have been undertaken on the FTLRP, few have had a distinctively gender focus in seeking to identify, examine and assess the effect of the programme on patriarchal relations and the socio-economic livelihoods of rural women. This thesis makes a contribution to filling this lacuna by offering an empirically-rich study of land redistribution in one particular district in Zimbabwe, namely, Goromonzi District. This entails a focus on women on A1 resettlement farms in the district (and specifically women who came from nearby customary areas) and on women who continue to live in customary areas in the district. My thesis concludes that the FTLRP is seriously flawed in terms of addressing and tackling the patriarchal structures that underpin the Zimbabwean land question.

Land reform has been going on in Zimbabwe since the state attained independence from Britain in 1980 as a way of enhancing agrarian livelihoods for the formerly marginalized people. This study argues that, the Land Reform Programme in Southern Matabeleland rather than enhancing agrarian livelihoods, well established livelihoods have actually been drastically reduced. This has been exacerbated by the state programme of land re-distribution that prescribes a „one size fits all‟ model. Yet this is contrary to the thinking in development discourse that equitable land distribution increases rural livelihoods. As a way of gathering data this study utilized ethnography and case study methodologies. I spent two years interacting and interviewing purposively selected new resettles, communal residents, migrant workers and gold panners in this region. Results from this study confirm that, land reform has greatly reduced livelihoods, particularly agrarian livelihoods. Also, this research has found out that, the majority of residents now depend on off-farm livelihoods such as gold panning and migration to neighbouring South Africa. This thesis therefore concludes that, despite a massive expropriation of former commercial farms, people of Southern Matabeleland have not benefitted much as the village settlements (A1) and the small size farms (A2) have not received support from this live-stocking community. People in this region pin their hopes on livestock rearing to sustain their livelihoods and this study therefore recommends that, any agrarian transformation programmes should address the issues that promote livestock rearing

The land reform that has unfolded in Zimbabwe since 1980 used different models and had diverse consequences. Since the implementation of the fast tract land reform programme in 2000, Zimbabwe experienced heavy reduction in yield and output at farm level that led to a 70% shortfall in production to meet annual food requirements (Richardson, 2005). The economic crisis in Zimbabwe has been characterized by worsening food insecurity especially in the rural areas where harvests continue to be poor. In the beef sector, Zimbabwe has failed to meet its export quota to the EU. The shortfall in production to meet annual food requirements shows a very grim situation but do not tell us about the performance of resettled farmers who now occupy much of the productive land. The broad objective of the study was to determine and compare the production efficiency of resettled farmers in Zimbabwe across land reform models. In addition, the study determined land use intensity. The study was conducted in the Mashonaland Central Province of Zimbabwe mainly because a wide variety of field crops were grown by resettled farmers. The respondents were stratified into three groups. These were: beneficiaries of land reform before 2000 (resettle scheme), fast track A1 model and fast track A2 model. The three models differ on how they were implemented and supported and this might result in different efficiencies of the models. A total of 245 copies structured questionnaire were administered on the resettled farmers from June to September 2010. Descriptive statistics was applied to the basic characteristics of the sampled households. The effect of model of land reform, gender of the household head, marital status, age of the household head, education, household size, religion, dependence ratio, whether the farmer was fulltime or part-time in farming, experience of the farmers in farming at that environment, total land size owned by the farmers and soil type on revenue per hectare and land use rate were determined using the GLM procedure of SAS (2003). Significance differences between least-square group means were compared using the PDIFF test of SAS (2003). The relationship between Revenue and land utilization was examined using the Pearson‟s correlations analysis. Dependance between response variables that had an effect on either revenue per hectare or land utilization with all the other response variables was tested using the Chi-square test for dependance. To find the effect of arable land used and herd size on revenue per hectare and land use the RSREG Procedure of SAS (2003) was used. Input oriented DEA model under the assumption of constant return to scale was used to estimate efficiency in this study. To identify factors that influence efficiency, a Tobit model censored at zero was selected. The mean land use rate varied significantly (p<0.05) with the land reform model with A2 having highest land use rate of 67%. The A1 and old resettlement households had land use rates of 53% and 46%, respectively. Sex, marital status, age of the household head, education and household size significantly affected land use (P<0.05). Revenue per hectare was not affected by any the factors that were inputted in the model. Results from the DEA approach showed that A2 farmers (large land owners) had an average technical efficiency score of 0.839, while the lowest ranking model (A1) had an average score of 0.618. Small land holders (A1 and the old resettled farmers) are on average less cost-efficient than large land owners, with a score of 0.29 for the former compared with 0.45 for the latter. From the factors that were entered in the Tobit model, age of household head, excellent production knowledge and farmer status affected technical efficiency whereas allocative efficiency was only affected by good production knowledge, farm size, arable land owned and area under cultivation. Factors which affected economic efficiency of the resettled farmers are secondary education, household size, farm size, cultivated area and arable land owned. None of the included socio-economic variables has significant effects on the allocative and economic efficiency of the resettled farmers. Thus, the allocative and economic inefficiencies of the farmers might be accounted for by other natural and environmental factors which were not captured in the model.