CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 89African studies and sociopolitical issuesLand Rights and ReformsAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The new politics of Zimbabwe’s lowveld: Struggles over land at the margins

Scoones, I., Chaumba, J., Mavedzenge, B., Wolmer, W.·2012·African Affairs
DOI 10.1093/afraf/ads057
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article explores the contests over land and resources in the lowveld of Zimbabwe, focusing on three case studies – Nuanetsi ranch, the Save Valley and Chiredzi River conservancies, and Gonarezhou National Park. Each case examines who gained and who lost out over time, from entrepreneurial investors to well-connected politicians and military figures, to white ranchers and large numbers of farmers who have occupied land since 2000. We identify a dynamic of elite accumulation and control over resources that has been resisted by alliances of land invaders, war veterans, and local political and traditional leaders. By documenting this struggle over time, the article demonstrates that, in these marginal areas outside the formal ‘fast-track’ land reform programme, local communities retain the capacity to resist state power and imagine alternative social, economic, and political trajectories – even if these are opposed by those at the centre. While much discussion of recent Zimbabwean politics has appropriately highlighted the centralized, sometimes violent, nature of state power, this is exerted in different ways in different places. A combination of local divisions within political parties, bureaucratic discretion within implementing agencies, and local contests over land create a very particular, local politics, especially at the geographic margins of the nation. As this article shows, this offers opportunities for a variety of expressions of local agency and resistance, which temper the impositions of centralized state power.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/afraf/ads057

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It appears that a wildlife-based land reform model has started to happen, changing the way in which the government addresses land reform.

    “It appears that this has started to happen, changing the way in which the government addresses land reform (Scoones et al., 2012)”

    From The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe (2016) · cites this paper as Scoones et al., 2012

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Scoones, I., Chaumba, J., Mavedzenge, B., & Wolmer, W.
Corresponding author
Scoones, I.
ORCID
Scoones, I.
Venue
African Affairs
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-09-04
Volume
111
Issue
445
Pages
527-550
ISSN
  • 0001-9909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2621
DOI
10.1093/afraf/ads057
OpenAlex
W2103984015
Cited by
89
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
6.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
African Affairs (publishedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/D002621/1, ES/I021620/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › African studies and sociopolitical issues
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Development › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Keywords
land struggle, Lowveld, Zimbabwe, Gonarezhou National Park, fast track land reform, land invasions, war veterans, local agency, resistance to the state, political parties, administrative discretion, resource control, marginal areas

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review