Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRoth, Michael J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBruce, John W.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2007-11-20T15:54:07Z
dc.date.available2007-11-20T15:54:07Z
dc.date.issued1994en_US
dc.identifier.isbn0934519285en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/21895
dc.descriptionxi, 182 p.en_US
dc.description.abstractZimbabwe reached a crucial crossroads in its land reform with the expiration of the Lancaster House Constitution in April 1990, which opened the door for policy debate on alternative land-redistribution options. Proponents of the land reform have aggressively called for an expansion of the resettlement program to help redress the unequal distribution of land resources and to rectify acute land scarcity in communal areas. Opponents of rapid and substantial land reform have emphasized the superior efficiency of the commercial farming sector and the adverse consequences that a substantially expanded resettlement sector would have on agricultural output and the balance of trade. Many key questions lie at the heart of the land policy debate. First, what tenure arrangements might best serve farmers in the different sectors—communal, commercial, and resettlement—and how might they be instituted to provide equitable access, secure tenure, and flexibility in the face of changing economic conditions? Second, what legal framework ought to be instituted to facilitate the movement of land between farmers and enterprises within the system and what outcomes would be expected in terms of the distribution of agricultural landholdings among individuals and groups in society? Third, how would the process of land reform influence output, trade, and income distribution? Specifically, should land reform continue, and if so, what form should it take? What is the comparative efficiency of production in the commercial and communal sectors, and what gains or losses might be anticipated from resettlement? What legislative, institutional, and market reforms are needed to complement resettlement and to resolve the problems of land resource degradation in communal areas? These and other questions serve to focus this study.en_US
dc.format.extent3989350 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherLand Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin- Madisonen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch paper, no. 117en_US
dc.subjectLand tenure Zimbabween_US
dc.subjectAgrarian structure Zimbabween_US
dc.subjectLand classification and use Zimbabween_US
dc.subjectLand markets Zimbabween_US
dc.subjectLand reform Zimbabween_US
dc.subjectLand reform Law and legislation Zimbabween_US
dc.subjectPolicy evaluation Zimbabween_US
dc.subjectAgricultural policy Zimbabween_US
dc.titleLand tenure, agrarian structure, and comparative land use efficiency in Zimbabwe : options for land tenure reform and land redistributionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record