{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020028612303290415, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003814973772055317, 'mean_word_length': 5.681528662420382, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 3, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Development and Differentiation in the Post-Independence Era: Continuity or Change in ARDA-Sanyati Irrigation in Zimbabwe (1980–1990)

Abstract The Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (ARDA), formerly known as the Tribal Trust Land Development Corporation (TILCOR), is a state agency which manages all the settler or outgrower schemes adjacent to its estates. In Sanyati, the colonial government endeavoured to secure the plotholders on the Gowe Irrigation Scheme but after independence emphasis was on making Gowe a ‘self-provisioning’ asset. With reference to Gowe-Sanyati, this paper explores development and differentiation processes in an attempt to discern elements of continuity or change in ARDA-Sanyati irrigation. The reactions of the Gowe irrigators to state policies that proscribed accumulation are a manifestation of the tension which was informed by Rhodesian-era evictions and resettlements. In pursuance of accumulation the plotholding households in Gowe were reluctant to perpetually serve as a labour repository of the main irrigation estate. Government interventionist policies in the Sanyati schemes are examined. The paper argues that the availability of technical, financial and other resources after independence contributed to the cotton boom and an intensified commercialisation drive which gave rise to greater forms of differentiation compared with the colonial period. In addition, the paper analyses the tenuous or fragile relationships between the plotholders and the estate. The major bone of contention was the inadequacy of the plots allocated to the farmers and the highly detested lease agreement which hindered accumulation. Inconsistencies with people's aspirations after independence led to a ‘crisis of expectations’ among those who believed independence would bring more land and no charge (land rent) for utilising the land. Although various charges impoverished the growers, the paper argues that poverty did not preclude differentiation as distinct categories of resource-rich and resource-poor plotholders emerged in the post-independence era.