Page Title

This paper examines the effectiveness of social protection programs in Zimbabwe and their impact on poverty alleviation and the reduction of inequalities. Social protection initiatives are crucial in addressing poverty and inequalities in developing countries like Zimbabwe. Since the Fast Track Land Reform Program (FTLRP) launched in the year 2000 in Zimbabwe, the country has been fraught with challenges including economic instability, political unrest, and limited access to basic services, which exacerbated poverty and inequality, especially among rural communities. The government and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have made efforts to address these challenges through various social protection projects targeting vulnerable populations through cash transfers, food aid, subsidised health services, and education support. These programs aim to improve the well-being of marginalized groups in the country. This paper uses the case study of the Murehwa district to evaluate the effectiveness of one selected social protection scheme in alleviating poverty and reducing inequalities in rural Zimbabwe. It uses qualitative research methods including interviews and focus group discussions with beneficiaries of the various social protection programs to get their lived experience and their view in terms of whether or not the programs were effective in alleviating poverty and improving their access to basic amenities like health and education.  By revealing empirical evidence of the effectiveness of social protection programs in dealing with inequality, this study contributes to our understanding of the nature, manifestation, and evolution of inequalities over space and time.

 

Background

 

Inequality is cited as the major challenge to poverty alleviation in the world, especially in developing countries. Globally, it is recognised that wealth is growing but it is in the hands of a few individuals.[1] Consequently, power is concentrated in the hands of a few, and policies and laws are biased in the interest of elites, undermining democratic governance, development, poverty reduction, environment, social cohesion, and wellbeing.[2] The inequalities manifest in diverse forms, such as between rich and poor, men and women, rural and urban populations, migrants and citizens, and divisions related to ethnicity, caste, religion, sexuality, and disability. Put together, these inequalities create high barriers to human rights and sustainable development. Social protection has been cited as one of the remedies to address challenges relating to inequalities in the developing world. This study examines the economic crisis in Zimbabwe since 2000 to analyse the impact of social protection in addressing rural poverty using the case of the implementation of the food assistance program in Murehwa District to remedy food poverty in rural Zimbabwe.  Murehwa District is in Mashonaland East Province of Zimbabwe 90km away from the capital, Harare with 90% of its population living in rural areas.

Inequalities in Zimbabwe can be traced from the colonial era when indigenous Africans were alienated economically, socially, and politically in favour of the colonial state. The colonial state was skewed in a way that reduced Indigenous people to mere labourers who were restricted to the rural areas and subordinate to the economic interests of the privileged urban white settler community.[3] The urban areas were designed for white settlers while the Blacks had to maintain their rural homes in the ‘native’ communal areas. Mseba notes that under colonialism settler powers took over the land an important source of economic well-being, and designated the indigenous people to poor, diseased, semi-arid, and wretched places known as native reserves.[4] These areas were dry and overpopulated which impoverished many Africans who could not join wage labour in farms, mines, and towns. In these areas, crops could hardly grow, leaving the majority of Black Africans in rural areas poor while land and the means to economic prosperity were in the hands of the small white population.

At independence in 1980, President Mugabe pledged the government’s commitment to redressing the inequalities through so-called socialist policies. This was through the creation of a welfarist state where the government introduced policies like free education and health for all, minimum wages for urban workers, and the conception and operationalization of village development programs and District Development Fund (DDF) in rural areas.[5] These measures were aimed at reducing the economic, social, and developmental inequalities that were created by colonialism.

However, these measures did not succeed in addressing inequalities in Zimbabwe. Instead, the socialist era created a balance of payments challenge which led to the adoption of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP), which entailed cuts in government spending on social programs. ESAP resulted in massive job losses, a rise in inflation, and a rise in poverty such that by 1998 60% of the population earned less than US$1 a day and  80 per cent of these lived in rural areas (UNDP 1999).[6] In 1999, Zimbabwe was ranked 130th out of 170 on the Human Development Index.[7] There was little investment in rural development in terms of the provision of good quality education, access to better medical facilities, good roads, and rural electrification among other basic amenities. Therefore, the first two decades of independence in Zimbabwe exacerbated economic, social, and developmental inequality.

In 2000 the government initiated the Fast Track Land Reform Program (FTLRP) which seized the estates of white landowners and transferred them to landless indigenous farmers, which had catastrophic results in the agricultural sector and the economy. The FTLRP destroyed commercial agriculture, the economy’s backbone, causing a major decline in food production and provision, job losses and economic sanctions against the country. This paper seeks to examine the challenges brought by the 2000 FTLRP and how social protection schemes in the form of food assistance managed to remedy the challenges brought by the land reform program.

Methodology

This study is an empirical qualitative research study which relies on oral interviews as primary sources of information. The research was conducted in Murehwa District Ward 13 and Ward 14 with 30 randomly selected participants, 10 of which were men and 15 women and 5 leaders in the community and NGO workers. Primary data gathered from the interviews has been triangulated with existing secondary data from newspapers and journal articles to make inferences and come up with conclusions in the paper. The food assistance program was selected as a case study to get a detailed and meaningful analysis of the implementation and outcomes of the social protection schemes in Zimbabwe.

The Fast Track Land Reform Program and Beyond

The government launched the FTLRP in 2000  aimed at fast-tracking the land distribution process to reduce the colonial legacy of inequality. However, the FTLRP  was characterized by violence, massive destruction of commercial agriculture, and the displacement of experienced and capitalized white farmers. Land invasions and seizures by former freedom fighters and the general masses led to the displacement of White commercial farmers and their replacement them with inexperienced and undercapitalized black farmers. Food production plummeted, so that within four years (by 2004) food production had dropped by 30%.[8]

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) indicated that in 2001 at least 705,000 people in rural areas and 250,000 people in urban areas were experiencing food difficulties due to a sharp increase in food prices which resulted from the destruction of the country's agriculture followed by a drought season.[9] Commercial maize planting was down to 45,000 hectares from 150,000 hectares in the 1990s.[10] The national herd of cattle dropped by nearly 20% and inflation topped 100% per annum by November 2000.[11] Food shortages were rampant, especially in the rural areas, which necessitated the intervention of the Government and non-governmental players to assist with food aid.  In February 2002 the WFP began emergency food distribution in rural and urban Zimbabwe. Ngwenya et al's work highlights that soon after the FTLRP there was an increase in the number of players and investments working towards the implementation of food security initiatives in Zimbabwe.[12] Some of these players include the Government of Zimbabwe (GOZ), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), World Vision International, USAID and Catholic Relief Services (CRS). The initiatives by these players have been critical in remedying food poverty in rural, although there are limitations and flaws in the implementation of the programs which curtail their ability to address food access and food security problems in rural Zimbabwe.

 

Food Assistance Initiatives In Murehwa

The food assistance initiatives in Murehwa District include emergency food aid, social safety nets, school feeding programs and nutrition-specific interventions. Emergency food aid is implemented in years of crisis where people are given direct food handouts. The food assistance comes in the form of grains (maize, sorghum, wheat), beans, peas, cooking oil, and porridge amongst others. The kind of food given varies depending on the levels of vulnerability of the target population. Respondents highlighted that they are happy with the kind of food assistance they receive because they are not given foreign foods but their usual maize and beans which make the aid more acceptable and well appreciated by the community members. In 2008, they were given a certain cereal they named bulgar which they ate out of desperation but never really appreciated.

Food handouts have been cited as crucial in alleviating food poverty in the communities. One respondent had this to say;

We receive maize every year but the aid does not come all year round. We are given in the dry months after we have finished our previous season’s harvest from around August to December of each year. This is very important to us because nowadays we cannot produce maize sufficient for us to eat until the next harvest. However, my only worry is that they only give us maize or sorghum but we are not given relish which is also a challenge in most seasons. In the past, we used to do gardening to grow vegetables for relish but nowadays water is becoming scarce so by August it will be very difficult for us to continue gardening. We need support with relish.[13]

This view was shared by many respondents who believe food assistance is more meaningful when it can support a proper meal rather than just focusing on providing one part of the meal.  

The interviewees expressed concerns over the selection criteria of the beneficiaries, citing many cases of corruption, nepotism and politicisation of aid in their communities. One respondent, Ms Msindo, indicated that ever since her children started working in Harare, she has been discriminated against from receiving food aid on the pretext that her children can support her when the children will be living their own lives in the city which makes her struggle to feed herself.  Ms Msindo feels food aid is a weapon of segregation rather than a way of assisting those in need. In her own words “If aid is meant for everyone it should be given to everyone regardless of their social status, the government is for all.”[14] She also indicated that despite herself, some members of the community are left out of the programs and are even more vulnerable than some people who are given food. Therefore, food aid is a sensitive issue for many people in the villages, with most of the interviewees expressing their disgruntlement over the selection criteria of who should and who should not receive support. Instead of remedying food poverty food assistance creates hatred among villagers. On the other hand, food assistance also creates entitlement and dependency among the communities which affect their productivity and ability to fully utilise their capacity.  According to one NGO worker, “Food distribution is frustrating especially when the available food is not enough for everyone. There are a lot of complaints and fighting amongst community members, people are very dependent on the maize that we give them.”[15] 

School feeding programs are also a common food assistance program in Murehwa District. Participants highlighted that social welfare supports school feeding programs every term for elementary school children and it spreads to the primary and secondary schools in times of crisis like the 2008 economic crisis or when there is a drought. According to the interviewed parents, the feeding program is key in supplementing the nutritional needs of the children which they cannot get at home.[16] According to a teacher at St Paul’s primary school, school feeding programs not only benefit students nutritionally but encourage students to attend school, in years when students are given porridge or sadza[17] after school attendance rises compared to when there is no food at school.

However, in as much as the food assistance programs help alleviate food poverty in Murehwa, food security remains a big challenge, especially in the rural areas. Many households testified that they barely afford three meals a day. Of the twenty respondents only five indicated that they could afford three meals per day. Many others eat a combined breakfast and lunch then supper at night, during the day they survive on various fruits depending on the season. The fruits range from mangoes, wild berries, sugarcane, and avocadoes among other fruits. According to the World Bank people are food secure when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.[18] The interviews indicate that people still struggle a lot to access and afford their daily meals.

Conclusion

Food assistance has been prominent in Murehwa since 2002 assisting vulnerable populations to address food shortages. The direct handouts continue to be rolled out each year during dry seasons and when there is a crisis. This creates a cycle of dependency on handouts amongst community members who feel more should be given to them and not them coming up with ways to produce food sufficient for their households in a sustainable manner. Food assistance temporarily remedies food shortages there is a need for ways of helping communities produce more food so that they become self-sufficient rather than depending on aid. Moreover, food assistance initiatives should target improving food production rather than promoting direct handouts. They create dependency and worsen rural poverty which broadens inequalities in food access, especially amongst people in the rural areas.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference List

Devereux, S., ‘Social protection mechanisms in southern Africa,’ Regional Hunger and vulnerability programme, 2006.

 

Hujo, K., ‘Social protection and inequality in the global South: Politics, actors and institutions,’ Critical Social Policy, Vol. 41, No.3, 2021.

 

Kabonga, I., ‘NGOs and poverty reduction in Zimbabwe: challenges and the way forward,’ SN social sciences, Vol. 3. No. 6, 2024.

 

Kunambura, A., ‘Parliament calls for NSSA overhaul, Financial Gazette,’ https://allafrica.com/stories/201507020777.html,  2015, Accessed (27/07/2024).

 

Maushe, F., ‘In search for the right to education: the role of the Basic Education Assistance Module (BEAM) in promoting access to education in Zimbabwe’ Journal of Development Administration, Vol. 4, No.1, 2019.

 

Mseba, A., ‘Notes from the Icehouse: Inequalities in the Land: Colonial Legacies and the Quest for Land Equity in Zimbabwe,’ Global Environment,  Vol.17. No. 1, 2024.

 

Mtapuri, O., ‘A review of social protection programmes in Zimbabwe: lessons learnt,’ Southern African Journal of Social Work and Social Development, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2014.

 

Mtetwa, E.,  and Muchacha, M., ‘Towards a National Social Protection Policy: Knowledge and Lessons from Comparative Analysis of the Design and Implementation of Public Assistance and Harmonised Social Cash Transfer in Zimbabwe, ’IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science,  Vol. 11,  No.3, 2013.

 

Nhapi, T., G.,  and Mathende T., L., ‘Strengths and weaknesses of Zimbabwe’s National Social Security Authority: a critical point of view,’Public Sciences & Policies, 2016, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2016.

 

Pindiri, C., et al, ‘Agricultural free input support schemes, input usage, food insecurity and poverty in rural Zimbabwe: Advanced policy-focused poverty analysis in Zimbabwe,’ ZEPARU Working paper,  2021.

 

Uledi, P., Hove, G., ‘Developmental inequality and living on the margins in post-colonial Zimbabwe: the case of Musana District,’ Africa Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2021.

 

World Bank, “What is Food Security?”, available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-update/what-is-food-security#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%201996%20World,an%20active%20and%20healthy%20life, (Accessed 12/09/2024)

 

Interviews

Focus Group Discussion in Ward 13, Murehwa District, 6 July 2021.

 

Focus Group Discussion with parents at St Paul’s Primary School, Murehwa District, 23 August 2024.

Interview with A. Mutemachani, Ward 13, Murehwa District, Zimbabwe,  5 July 2024.

Interview with Mr Mapara, Musami Township, 20 August 2024.

 

Interview with Ms Msindo, Chigombe Village, 23 August 2024.

 

Interview with Ruramai, Ward 13, Murwhwa District, Zimbabwe,  5 July, 2024.

 

Madzima in Focus Group Discussion in Ward 13, Murehwa District, 6 July 2021.

 

[1] K. Hujo, ‘Social protection and inequality in the global South: Politics, actors and institutions,’Critical Social Policy, Vol. 41, No3, 2021, pp 343-363.

[2] Ibid.

[3] P. Uledi, G. Hove, ‘Developmental inequality and living on the margins in post-colonial Zimbabwe: the case of Musana District,’ Africa Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2021, pp 56-79.

[4] A. Mseba, ‘Notes from the Icehouse: Inequalities in the Land: Colonial Legacies and the Quest for Land Equity in Zimbabwe,’ Global Environment,  Vol.17. No. 1, 2024, pp 172-181.

[5] Uledi and Hove…2021

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Zikhali, Precious. "Fast track land reform and agricultural productivity in Zimbabwe."Environment for ADevelopment Discusion Paper Series. (2008).

[9] FAO, "Food Supply Situation Tightening in Southern Africa," Africa Report No. 3, December 2001, available at www.fao.org.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Human Rights Watch, Land Reform in the Twenty Years After Independence available at https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2002/zimbabwe/ZimLand0302-02.htm

[12] Ngwenya, Sifelani, Wilfred Lunga, and Elize S. Van Eeden. "Learning from past and current food security efforts and challenges in Zimbabwe: The years 1430–2020." Jàmbá-Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 14, no. 1 (2022): 1210.

[13] Interview with Mrs Mungisha, Tabikira Village, 20 August 2024.

[14] Interview with Ms Msindo, Chigombe Village, 23 August 2024.

[15] Interview with Mr Mapara, Musami Township, 20 August 2024.

[16] Focus Group Discussion with parents at St Paul’s Primary School, Murehwa District, 23 August 2024.

[17] Stapple food in Zimbabwe

[18]WorldBank, “What is Food Security?”, available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-update/what-is-food-security#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%201996%20World,an%20active%20and%20healthy%20life, (Accessed 12/09/2024)