CHAPTER TWO

THEORETICAL OVERVIEW OF WOMEN DEVELOPMENT

2.1. Introduction
The previous chapter (Chapter 1) gave the problem and background of this research. Chapter two will begin by reviewing available literature on studies done on the topic. This chapter will provide a substantially better insight into the dimensions and complexity of the problem and how others have contributed to the topic. A variety of sources will be used to review literature, including research reports, dissertations, government publications and theses; accessed through journals, textbooks and internet. The chapter will end by giving an overview of approaches that paves the way for a clearer understanding of the research problem and identifies the knowledge gap this study seeks to fill. Women in Development (WID), Women and Development (WAD) and Gender and Development (GAD) approach will be discussed in relation to women access to land in Zimbabwe.
2.2. Customary law and land question
For many people, customary law is the most important law in their lives, controlling areas of their lives like their marriages, their property, and their right to inherit. Due to customary law in Zimbabwe like in many other African countries with patriarchal systems, women can only access land through marriage or other male relatives. According to Ghosh (2010) customary law refers to African traditions which have become an intrinsic part of the accepted and expected conduct in Zimbabwean black communities. This law defines roles which women should play in society as well as what kind of businesses or economic activities they should venture into. Customary laws emerge from unwritten social rules derived from shared community values and traditions. Customary laws limit women’s rights on land to secondary rights mainly derived from their membership in patriarchal households (WLSA, 2001). This law underpins patriarchal system of traditional authority to reinforce patriarchal values which disadvantage women and place them to subordinate position in society (Walker, 2001).
The hallmark of African customary law is the dominance of older male members over property and lives of women and their juniors. The women-unfriendly customary law has gradually developed as African societies have undergone change most of which can be seen arising from colonisation and privatisation. The battle of the sexes at customary law is in one sense therefore a struggle over scarce resources and power as overlords in the form of colonial powers and states in modern African states have assumed control over all aspects of the lives of Africans, prompting the African males to consolidate the one bastion of their authority, namely customary law. In some cases, notions of customary law such as the concern for women have been dropped making women very vulnerable. The removal of protection has not been accompanied with fewer roles for women within the community. Their roles of reproduction and production have remained intact.
Ghosh (2010) notes that studies carried out by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2002, on Zimbabwe land reform indicate that customary law and practices have been major stumbling blocks for women's access to land. These customary norms are not necessarily advanced by men alone but by women too. This reality calls for a shift in the mind-set of both women and men so that women can access more land in the land reform process. Land rights in societies in which customary social structures and practices are predominant are generally determined by socio-cultural and religious institutions, such as inheritance, marriage, and community land authorities. These customary tenure systems are diverse and encompass a large variety of social relations and rights related to land and other natural resources. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, land ownership rights are often vested in a community or other corporate structure such as a lineage or clan. A significant proportion of the land is not controlled by individuals but rather by a group and managed according to community rules.
Land allocated to individuals or households on a long-term basis tends to be parcels for producing food, building a home, or raising animals; rights to these parcels are generally inheritable. How this land is initially allocated to households depends on the local customary system. Most land parcels under individual or household control are transferred through inheritance, not the market.
Members of the community have different types of rights to land and natural resources depending on their lineage, ethnicity, status, gender, and marital status. In most societies, women, particularly married women, are not full and active participants in customary institutions. As secondary community members, their rights to land are generally derived from a man relative or husband. In many countries, cultural if not legal norms dictate that men are the owners of land and that women have access to land only through their relationship with a man relative, such as a father, husband, brother, or even brother-in-law. Because the men in the community usually control land allocation, they are able to claim individual rights when land scarcity converts the land into an asset and when family land becomes private property.
Women’s problems of access to land translate to limit their capacity to provide food and welfare for their household. Marriage has been primary means of getting access to land under customary system of tenure. In Sub-Saharan Africa, unmarried women have little access to land because, they are not allowed to inherit property in most patrilineal societies while wives have better access to their husbands’ land through marriage. Security of marriage thus becomes major requirement for security of tenure (Davison, 1988). By marrying a member of a clan, women can use the clan’s land but when the marriage link is severed, so are these rights. The institution of levirate, by which a widow is to marry a brother or other close relative of the deceased upon his death, ensures her continued rights to use the land of the clan.
On the other hand, customary laws give sons exclusive right to inherit land and other property whereas wives and unmarried daughters have the right to be maintained. Pre-existing customary norms in some patrilineal societies in Africa used to allow widows continued lifetime rights on their marital land which passes on to male heirs after their death (Nizioki, 2002). But, this practice is not necessarily adhered to as land gained value. Women are becoming vulnerable being forced off their deceased husbands’ land by their in-laws or by their sons. Under customary law, married women are not allowed to own property jointly with their husbands, and widows cannot inherit the estate of the husband because a man’s claim to family inheritance takes precedence over a woman’s, regardless of the woman’s age or seniority in the family. Customary laws generally sanction male authority over women.
Men control household land because, community customs and traditions support land allocation to male. Under customary laws all property acquired by the spouses except, personal goods belong to the husband. It is contended by Muntemba (1989) that in discussing women’s relations to the natural resource base, especially land, there is a need to consider issues of access and control; relations to tools of production including aspects of technology and knowledge; and the areas of power and social structures. She is of the view that usually existing structures and decision-making machineries and processes tend to determine access and control. This power and decision-making structures include those which operate at the local community level such as chiefs, headmen and other male kin, i.e., husbands, uncles or brothers.
At the next level are national power structures which put in place policies and legal provisions guiding access to and control over land and other factors of production. These legal structures are either customary or statutory. Manuh (1989) is also of the view that in most parts of pre-colonial Africa; women’s use rights in land were usually inferior to those of men. However, in matrilineal systems, women, like men, had usufructuary rights in land. These rights could be exercised when they were single, during marriage, upon divorce or widowhood; and women could inherit land and pass it on to their children. Married women whose husbands stayed in the wife’s village were able to acquire and own land over which their husbands had no rights or control. This land was obtained from their matrikin, although husbands could also give them plots of land (Muntemba, 1989).
Whilst tradition and custom in the Shona society recognized the roles of women in agricultural production, women had no direct access to land. Land belonged to men and women’s access to land was mediated through men. Male members of the patrilineage had the power and authority to distribute land to other male members who were heads of households (Peters and Peters, 1998).With this type of system women will never own or control land in their own capacity.

2.3. Marriage laws and women’s rights
Marriage practices in customary societies include marital residence and asset transfers, both sets of practices determine how family land is allocated and who has rights to family land. In most patrilineal societies, residence after marriage is patrilocal, and family land is handed down from father to son. Women who marry into the community do not have rights to their husband’s family land or community land. When a woman has the right to inherit from her birth family, the move to her husband’s village reduces her ability to manage inherited land. This is one reason daughters give up their inheritance rights in favour of their brothers. Separated and divorced women leave their husband’s house with no claim to any of his property. A widow, particularly if she has children, is generally permitted to stay on and work her dead husband’s land until her sons can assume its management.
Most of the control exercised by women on land is biased towards use rather than control and ownership. In marital contexts, men assume a superior position as they have control over their wives’ property. This subordination of women socially and economically weakens their position in society since their economic power, limited to use only in most cases, does not make them as competitive as they should be under the current economic structuring of society.
The distribution of land rights is clearly gendered and is frequently associated with the institution of marriage. Zimbabwe has two marriage laws: the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:11], and the Customary Marriages Act [Chapter 5:07] (Government of Zimbabwe, 1993). Due to the dual system of customary and general law that is used in Zimbabwe, these types of marriages have been given different status by the law with negative consequences on women’s rights. In addition there is an Unregistered Customary Law Marriage which unlike the former two marriages is not valid at law. Upon separation or divorce, a spouse can only get property or a share of it if she can prove to have purchased or contributed towards it because the Matrimonial Causes Act does not apply to this type of marriage. Moreover, in 1997, 82 percent of marriages in Zimbabwe were unregistered customary marriages according to Anglophone Africa (2004). This means that the majority of women face serious property inheritance problems and find themselves without any recourse to redress.
This intensifies poverty, as many rural women found themselves in unregistered customary marriages which exclude them from owning the land. Women may not only lose the use rights to their husband’s land but will also most likely be unable to claim temporary use rights to birth family land because their brothers will claim individual and private rights to the land they inherit from their fathers. Therefore, women`s lack of access to and control over land makes them unable to acquire credit, marketing facilities and excludes them from decision- making powers over agricultural production activities and benefits.
It can be noted that Zimbabwean women can be married under civil marriage and customary marriage. The Customary Marriage Act does not always protect women’s rights to property because of the application of Customary Law. Under Customary Law, women do not have traditional rights to individual pieces of land but only secondary rights mediated through brothers, husbands or fathers. Izumi (1999) noted that the government forgot that most of the rural women have unregistered customary marriages thus suffer unsecure access to land upon divorce. In the absence of registered marriages the customary law is usually applied. Whereas the application of customary law varies with social realities, for example when widows inherit land, it is still embedded in the constitution and the existence of dual laws puts women in difficult situations.
Women observed that legislation which grants men a greater share of property upon divorce is discriminatory and will seriously affect a woman’s practical ability to divorce her husband, support her family and live in dignity as an independent person. One reason for the unequal distribution of wealth can often be found in the neglect to take appropriate account of women’s non-financial contributions such as childcare and domestic work when the marital property is divided. “Since non-financial contributions by the wife often enable the husband to earn an income and increase matrimonial assets, financial and non-financial contributions should be accorded the same weight” (WLSA, 2001).
The Matrimonial Causes Act was meant to protect women’s rights to property and part 7 (a) and (b) refer to “division of property and state that upon dissolution of marriage each partner is entitled to any property that forms part of marriage”. However, evidence show that the Matrimonial Causes Act is ambiguous on equality and it is inherently interpreted in favour of men. In addition, the ministry for women was only cosmetic as the patronization of women continued. Generally, a divorced wife has a right to take her personal effects, presents given to her by her husband and gifts given to her by her family. All other property including the house, furniture and land given by the husband or his family, remain with the husband. In that regard, women are excluded because of the prevailing patrilocality culture in which women upon marriage move to their husbands’ homes.
While frequently interpreted as a social safety net that ensures women the possibility to continue to exercise use rights of clan resources, allowing for their children’s food security, it is first and foremost an institution that preserves male property rights. In this system, women can never own the land (Tsikata, 2003). A case study of the Lou of Western Kenya by Villarreal (2006) describes the mechanisms that link marriage and land use. A woman who loses her husband should be “inherited” by another man, frequently the elder brother of the deceased or, in his absence, by younger brothers. If there are no brothers, the late husband’s family decides on an appropriate “inheritor.” The property of the deceased, including his land is then inherited along with the wife and children.
Strong social and economic pressures impel women into being inherited. Widows cannot restart agricultural chores until they are inherited. Women who refuse to be inherited become outcasts and those who have done so attest to enormous difficulties to survive. They lose access to land and in-laws strip them of any other productive resource to reinforce the idea that out of the clan structure they will not be able to make their living. As ownership is transferred to the inheritor, many feel that they can be denied access more easily than in marriage and that their sons may not receive their due share of land. In Shona culture land is given to sons but not to daughters as these are seen as belonging to the clan into which they will marry. This has further marginalised women in access and control over land in most rural areas of Zimbabwe.

2.4. Gender and land question
Gender inequalities are pervasive across many dimensions of societal life including households, social, economic and political institutions in Zimbabwe. The UN recognized that gender inequality resulting from women’s low status persist in all societies although the extent of the gap varies across countries, cultures and time. The UN presented the burden of this inequality as follows: “Women, who comprise half the world's population, do two thirds of the world's work, earn one tenth of the world's income and own one hundredth of the world's property” (UN, 1980). A World Bank study in regional patterns of gender inequalities in basic rights and in access to and control of resources reflect that disparities exist all over the world and no woman in the developing regions has equal rights with man (World Bank, 2001).
Gender inequality is difference in rights and privileges between women and men reflected in legal statutes, customary laws and community practices. These differences are reflected in marriage, inheritance, property ownership and management, in household and community activities and decision-making. Deprivation of women’s land right through customary practices regarding land inheritance and property distribution after divorce is a challenge in patriarchal societies in Zimbabwe. Men remain central heirs and holders of land rights in patrilineal communities.
Women’s direct access to land is often limited in traditional societies. Women have indirect access to land in terms of use rights acquired through kinship relationships and their status as wives, mothers, sisters or daughters (Davison, 1988). However, these use rights may not grant enough security for women when family structures break due to various reasons. Breach in marriage is a serious issue in women’s access to and control over land because it makes women become more vulnerable especially single parents, widows and divorcees.
The gendered face of poverty in Zimbabwe makes gender an issue in women’s access to and control over land. The outcome of a study carried out by UNDP in Zimbabwe reflected that poverty has a gendered face and that women are poorer than men (United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2000). This UNDP study carried out on selected countries of Sub -Saharan Africa showed the GDP per capita figures for women were less than that of men. Comparative figures in 1998 were US$1,142, per woman and US$2,079, per man (UNDP, 2000). International human rights instruments related to women’s property ownership and inheritance revealed that denial of these rights makes women’s land rights a human rights issue. Gap exists between international human rights provisions and national legal provisions because national laws of property rights in Zimbabwe are influenced by customs, attitudes and perceptions (Benschop, 2002).
The interaction of statuary laws and community customs and traditions will determine how women’s legal rights on land are actually realized in practice in Zimbabwe. Gap between legal systems and customary practices is obvious and nature of the gap defines the extent to which women’s rights are neglected or promoted in access to and control over land in communities. Therefore, women’s equal right on land is a human rights issue. Women’s equal access to and control over land is an issue of equity, poverty reduction, food security, sustainable development and even human rights. Therefore, these issues as discussed above make gender a critical issue in access to and control over land.

2.5. Gender and land policies
Since the 1970s, there has been a great concern by governments in developing countries on the condition of women in agricultural policies and rural development programmes (Endely 1991). The concern by policy makers and governments is that these programmes have tended to discriminate against women in most third world countries, especially those in Africa, but favoured the men folk and yet women are the major food producers. It is argued that women are denied equal access to means of production such as land, credit, appropriate technology and extension services. Although historically land has been treated as a common property resource in many African societies, there is an increasing shift to individual ownership resulting from the process of modernization and commercialisation. While this change is taking place it is observed that “women farmers are being limited in having access to land and other productive resources although they continue to do most of the farm work” (Gittinger, 1990). Therefore, their contribution to national effort and household food security and national food self-sufficiency goes unnoticed.
Ascertaining gender equality in rights and using regulatory policies to address specific areas of gender inequalities are critical roles of the state since gender equality has been formally acknowledged as a goal by most governments (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1995). Addressing women’s particular disadvantages in relation to land ownership, access and control should be major focus in drafting new land policies. However, creating gender equality is a principal challenge for land policies and land administration systems. This is mainly because of lack of understanding on complex nature of property rights in existing gender relations in society.
The basic gender policy within the context of land administration should promote secure access to land and other natural resources for women, independent of men relatives and independent of their civil status. Such a policy stance is the basis for identifying and establishing instruments that eliminate, or at least decrease, gender bias with regard to natural resource tenure in land administration programs, including titling and registration, privatization and natural resource management.
However, governments are not able to provide effective institutional structures that can protect and strengthen equitable access to land within the framework of a country’s land policy goals. There are evidences where outcomes of land reforms and land administration systems resulted in different repercussions for men and women (Agarwal, 1994). Disparities exist between land policy goals and implementation practices in many countries. In the face of these limitations land policies and land administration systems need to consider impacts of land reforms from a gender perspective. Policy makers should take gender equality as major component in land policy formulation. Progress achieved on issuing gender-equitable land policy became deficient at level of implementation in most African countries (Jacobs, 2001). Patriarchal norms prevail even where land legislation specifically recognizes women’s equal rights on land.
According to Stiles (1994) Zimbabwe's land policy can best be defined as brutal for rural women. Married women are not considered as heads of household, even in their husband's absence. Lack of access and ownership militates against women's power over the earnings from the land for which they are the major producers. Thus the problem of ownership and control of land has ripple effects to other issues such as the power to determine how the proceeds from the land should be used. Mgugu (2008) cited by Bhatasara (2010) notes that 70 percent of agricultural exports came from women in small scale farming. However, Bhatasara (2010) notes that “despite their crucial roles in national production, women constitute the majority of the poor in Zimbabwe”. This basically describes the situation in most communal areas in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe's public sphere is dominated by men. Thus when it comes to policies that govern the distribution, ownership and utilisation of land and other related resources, decision makers mainly come up with policies that favour of men. Women are excluded from the public sphere. Their participation in it is marginal, their roles reduced and their influence limited. One can argue that policy inconsistency on the part of the Zimbabwean government has continued to exacerbate the inequalities between men and women in relation to access and control of land and other related resources.
Constitutional and legislative provisions on women’s equal access rights to land become quite worthless unless effectively enforced. Land policy implementation basically needs efficient land administration system and strategy to address gender inequality and to ensure gender equality. Agarwal provided explanation on why gender equality should be major component of land reform policies in her book A Field of One's Own (Agarwal, 1994). Agrarwal (1994) emphasized on the need for land policy focus on women’s access to and control over land. She particularly stressed on the need for policy to address women’s control over land and identified four main reasons on the need for women’s control over land in addition to getting access to it. Agarwal (1994) identified welfare, efficiency, equity and empowerment as major reasons for women’s need in gaining access and control over land. With respects to welfare she stated that women’s control over land improve their households’ livelihood and thus, improves household food security.
In terms of efficiency, women’s control over land increases agricultural productivity. Equity is gaining justice for women so it is recognizing women’s equal access to land. With regards to empowerment, she emphasized that gaining control over land strengthens women’s ability to struggle for equality, dignity and additional economic rights. Agarwal (1994) justified and stressed on significance of women’s access to and control over land to achieve economic, social and political equality with men.
In recent years land administration reforms have been projected in the notion of good governance focusing on decentralization and democratization of land administration institutions (Adams, 2001). This is practiced through initiating community participation at local levels and restructuring local land administration within the framework of statutory laws. Land administration system includes land ownership or holding rights registration and entitlements. In such documentation whose name(s) is/are registered on certificates or records will be an issue. Land titling is an area where most gender issues prevail in access to and control over land. Land titling tend to be vested on men either by legal condition or by socio-cultural norms (World Bank, 2001). Even where formal title is given jointly to husband and wife, women might lose decision-making power in management of household land (Rocheleau and David, 1997). In this regard unregistered marriages, divorces and polygamy have major impacts on women’s rights to land. Polygamy is a significant complicating factor in issuing land titles. In most cases the husband owns, controls and does the decision making of the family land.
Land administration institutions have got problems with respect to registering full information, documentation and updating. Land registers could not be reliable sources of information on all rights related to land because registers record limited set of rights in most cases (Ethiopia Land Tenure and Administration Program (ELTAP), 2006). Such limitations could result in significant impacts on women’s land rights. The situation becomes more complex when documents or registers are not kept safely and in cases where registers are not updated. Updating is very important since changes in landholdings and entitlements could occur in course of time.
Moreover linkage of land tenure legislations with other relevant legislations is very important. Land tenure legislations may not cover whole issues that affect gender equality unless the remaining part is addressed by other relevant legislations. A major step is to establish basic equal rights in family laws for protection of equal rights on marital property within marriage or at divorce (Agarwal, 2001). Such targeted laws and regulations can address critical gender inequalities on rights to land if implemented effectively. Effective implementation of these laws depends on the degree of access to law enforcing institutions, ability to finance litigations and level of support provided by the family and the community (Ogendo, 2005). This is critical to rural women because they lack family and community support due to gender biases and their low economic status affect their capacity to finance litigations. Land policies should also explicitly address gender inequalities in inheritance to ensure equal landholding rights of women. Land policies have been developed but as Moyo (2000) argues that there has been inconsistent implementation of these policies by the government of Zimbabwe.

2.6. Women and land tenure systems
Land tenure refers to terms and conditions under which land and other related resources are held and used. A tenure system reflects who holds what land under what conditions. According to (Grigsby, 2004), tenure refers to “a bundle of rights and in this context the right to land and the resources it can produce. On the other hand, (Adams, 2001), defines land tenure as “a system of rights and institutions that govern access to and use of land”. The latter definition of land tenure lends well to this study as it recognizes land tenure as not only comprising a system of rights, but also highlights the issue of governance of these rights, which plays an important role in determining land rights of women especially in rural areas of Zimbabwe. Access to land is a prerequisite for any efforts for agrarian reform in African societies. Women’s access to land in the rural areas forms the basis for the peasant based agrarian model. The right to use and control land is central to the lives of most rural people in the developing societies. Lack of land rights deprive women and girls the right to economic empowerment and their struggle for equity and equality within a patriarchal society (Wiggins, 2003).
Land tenure systems vary from community to community and are influenced by historical development of each community. Terms and conditions under which rights to land are acquired, retained, used, disposed or transferred are influenced by gender relations (Moyo, 1996). Gender disparities in rights constrain women’s choices in many aspects of life and limit their opportunities to participate in economic activities of society. Access to land and land tenure relations are critical as most communities depend on land to ensure food security (FAO, 1997). Access to land is a means to access membership in agricultural associations, to access agricultural inputs and credit. Lack of access to rural land is an obstacle to agricultural productivity and to increase rural women’s income as they cannot access these resources without holding land and securing tenure.
Gender power relation has serious influence on land tenure systems because it determines roles and statuses of women and men in society. Intra-household gender relations reveal gender power imbalances (Young, 1992). These relations are reflections of inequalities in access to resources, intra household distribution of income and decision-making power. These inequalities are directly related to level of household poverty and food insecurity. Ensuring property rights is considered as one mechanism to enhance women’s bargaining power at household and community levels (Agarwal, 1994). In Africa, predominance of the patriarchal system induces gender power relations which downgrade women to inferior position. The patriarchal system influences socio-economic and political structures, government policies and strategies and this has impact on accessing, managing and controlling resources.
Writing about contemporary trends regarding tenure and gender in Sub-Saharan Africa, Birgegard (1993) has remarked that women are increasingly being marginalised. He adds that in traditional indigenous tenure systems, women are with few exceptions ascribed inferior tenure rights to men (Birgegard 1993). While men have primary rights, women have secondary rights; while men get access to land through their lineage or clan, women usually get access to land through their husbands, who are obligated to allocate land to their wives. Women do not inherit land rights because they hold only secondary rights.
With respect to the direction of change in women’s tenure rights, Birgegard (1993) contends that women are losing ground. He adds that commercialisation of production, individualization of indigenous tenure systems and formal titling schemes are all working into the same direction in which women’s land tenure rights are eroded. The introduction of cash crops and increasing land scarcity are all contributing to this erosion of women’s land rights, since land, which is allocated to women for food production, is reduced in preference to land, which is retained by husbands for cash crops.
To understand and abolish women’s marginalization, it is essential to examine the process by which gender characteristics are defined, and gender relations are constructed (Connell, 2000).The patriarchal society socially constructs roles for women and men, ascribed to them on the basis of their sex. Gender roles depend on a particular socio-economic, political and cultural context (Chinkin, 2001). These roles are not natural, but just social constructs that a society produce and ideologically conscientise its members to believe in. The construction of gender involves the creation of gender hierarchies that include power relations between men and women. This deferential allocation of power to men and women determines their access to resources, be they political, social or economical (Chinkin, 2001).
The material base of patriarchy is embedded in men’s control over women’s labour power. This control is maintained by excluding women from access to essential productive resources (Connell, 2000). It is common in Africa that land and property in the household is controlled by men, who give access to women and the young. Customarily, women are not considered heirs to the land or property of their husband or father. In instances were widows are left with children after the death of their husband, they can continue to use the parcels of land. However, those without male children their situation might be different. The land might revert to their husbands relatives (Jacobs, 2001).
Poverty is predominantly rural given that 70 per cent of Zimbabwe s population resides there (Moyo, 2006). However, the majority of those who are poor are the women, the children and the elderly. These in other words, women are trapped in poverty through a plethora of factors that include traditional and societal values that keep them and these other groups at the lower echelons of society, as well as restricting them to the work that is attached less value (Mbaya, 2003). Patriarchy plays a major role in women’s impoverishment through alienating them from the means of production. Thus, given the importance of land in food security, there is a need to address the social-cultural barriers to women access to land. By failing to do that, the gender and class characterization of poverty and landlessness will continue to prevail in Zimbabwe, as well as well as in most African countries. In other words, poverty in Zimbabwe is predominantly feminine as well (Mushunje, 2001).
Because legal rights for women do not necessarily ensure ownership and control of land, it is argued that African women’s bundle of rights to land do not ensure sufficient security of tenure. Usually, such bundle of rights for women do not guarantee the right to rent, lease, sell or bequeath, and therefore, the breadth of security of tenure as well as the duration of tenure are a matter of concern for women (Fortmann, 1998). As a result of these insecure rights in land, the fruits of a woman’s labour on the land often belong to her husband and not to her. The husband may appropriate the proceeds from sale of the crop and women may not have the ability to influence the distribution of the produce and income from her husband’s fields. This usually has negative consequences on women’s ability to maintain household living standards.

2.7. Women and land reform programme
Harvey (2004) says that the struggle for land is global because land forms the basis of wealth in the home. Different forms and models of land reform have been instituted world over as people try to control wealth and gain political favours. Harvey (2004) asserts that most of the land reforms are a change of ownership from the former colonial masters to the peasants. Land reform is generally accepted to mean the redistribution and/or confirmation of rights in land for the benefit of the poor; and as one major type of intervention by the state. “Land reform in Zimbabwe is a means (not an end) to address issues of inequality, historical injustices; inefficiencies in production and distribution, poverty in communal areas among other things” (Derman, 2006). Land reform, involves “a planned change in the terms and conditions on which land is held, used and transacted, e.g. through converting informal rights to formal rights, establishing mechanisms for managing common land rights, and recognizing customary rights of occupation” (Adams et al, 1999). Land reforms have different purposes in African countries. Objectives of tenure reforms vary from an intention to address land question in view of equity and bringing change in rural livelihoods like in Zimbabwe.
In African cases most land tenure reforms are male dominated and patriarchal in focus (Moyo, 2002). The predominant male scholarship on land questions neglected gender issues and there were cases where land tenure reform programs promoted gender inequalities (Boserup, 1970). Women’s access to land was complicated by legal land tenure systems, traditions and social norms, and women were affected by it. It might not be possible for land reform laws to address wide diversity of traditional laws within a country (Bruce J., Migot-Adholla, 1994). Socio-cultural factors act as barriers because customs and traditions often fail to recognize women’s enforceable rights to access and control land.
Reconciling statutes and contradictory customary laws continue to be persistent challenge to land reforms programmes. Gender issues are mostly over looked or misunderstood in land tenure measures. This results in long lasting negative impacts on development. Emerging social, economic and technological changes are requiring land administration programs and institutions to re-examine individual and group rights to land and other productive resources in order to effectively address gender issues (FAO, 2002). Changes occurred with commoditization of land and the modern economy has resulted in change in roles and functions of households. Land is no longer a relatively abundant non-marketable resource now days, it is bounded, finite and has price (Moyo, 2003). Women often get marginalized when the value of land increases as a result of external investments. They can even lose benefits they gained before and miss opportunities to be accommodated in such situations.
The role of women in land reform has over the past decade developed into a central subject among feminists and gender equality activists. In Zimbabwe as well as in most African countries women were regarded as minors when it comes to issues to do with land. In Zimbabwe women spaces on land revolves around the system of tenure, cultural and political practices which unfortunately recognises and reinforces male domination in all spheres of life. There is no enabling legal framework to ensure equality in the redistribution of land.
The early phases of the land reform, from 1980 to 1998, while alleviating poverty to some extent (Kinsey, 2000), perpetuated patriarchal land policies that favoured men over women. Research by Gaidzanwa (1991) indicated that the percentage of resettlement permits issued to female-headed households was less than the percentage of female-headed households that held land in communal areas. In the early stages of land reform, government policy was that a settler had to be either married or widowed, thereby discriminating against married women (since permits were issued in the name of the husband) and single, unmarried women (Ruswa, 2007).
The government side-lined gender as an important category in land redistribution and it shows the dishonest of the government to formalize women’s rights by laws at the same time demobilizing women’s rights by courting customary practices. The government, being male dominated and protecting its own interest, subsumed gender issues beneath the discourses of a conservative nationalism, nation building, “sustainability”, productivity and efficiency.
The sources of this gendered inequity in land allocation relate to a number of constraints faced by women in applying for land, including bureaucratic constraints, gender biases amongst the selection structures, which comprise mainly men, the lack of information on the process, and poor mobilisation of women’s activist organisations around the issue of applications (Moyo, 2007). Even though the government selection procedure for A2 applicants gives more score points to women, the proportion of beneficiaries who are women remains low. The Presidential Land Review Committee report noted that the marginalisation of women during implementation of land reform is related to the preponderance of men in decision-making structures (Presidential Land Review Committee, 2003).Gender equality was not considered in Zimbabwe`s land reform programme. This resulted in men getting a lion`s share in the ownership of land in most communal areas of Zimbabwe.
It is important to critically analyse the patterns of land ownership that emerged from the Fast Track Land Reform Programme. By August 2002 when President Mugabe announced that the FTLRP had been officially completed, the land quota for women had not been put into law and the number of females allocated land was very low countrywide. According to the 2003 Utete Land Report, female- headed households who benefited under Model A1 (peasant farmers) constituted only 18% of the total number of households while female beneficiaries under the Model A2 (commercial farmers) constituted only 12%. Overall, men own more land than women in all provinces in the A1 and A2 models. The government designed land models that targeted different beneficiaries; however, this became a basis of exclusion.
On the other hand, patterns vary greatly throughout the country. Matondi (2005) found that in Mazowe District, an area of prime agricultural land, only 13% of the beneficiaries were women in the A1 resettlement model, while 11% of the A2 beneficiaries were women. Women fared better in Zvimba District, as research by Murisa (2007) found that 25% of the A1 and 22% of A2 beneficiaries were women. These figures are actually higher than those found by the Presidential Land Review Committee (2003). In addition to the data provided above, in areas studied by Mpahlo (2003), which are Masvingo, Midlands, Mashonaland East, Mashonaland Central, and Matabeleland South, shows that 95% of men own land in A2 model as compared to 4.88% of women. Similarly, in the A1 model, 85% of men own land, whilst only 14.8% of women own land. Land for A2 model was allocated to financially endowed, experienced, and qualified farmers who should practice commercial farming.
After the FTLRP, a study carried out in Masvingo by Alison Goebel in 2005 revealed that land was allocated unequally to men and women. It was noted that in most cases men's names appeared on the offer letters or permits issued to new settlers by government. This is despite the fact that women were the most important players during the land invasions which preceded the official adoption of the FTLRP. A research conducted by Goebel (2005) in Masvingo shows that only 12 percent of households allocated land had a woman name as the land holder on the permit or offer letter. The policy of government is to offer spouses joint tenure but they do not force couples to decide to apply for joint ownership or to register as individuals. What this means is that women's spaces in land reform in Zimbabwe are limited because men dominate decision making structures in Zimbabwe.
Chingarande and others conducted a research in Nyabamba A1 resettlement area and came up with conclusions similar to those in Masvingo. Chingarande et al (2010) note that “…in Nyabamba A1 resettlement although women played an active role in acquiring and clearing land through the land invasion process that preceded the FTLRP, their names appeared on offer letters as sole land recipients in less than 15% of cases.” They also emphasise the importance of offer letters arguing that they are used as prerequisites to the granting of land permits to the land holders by the government. Furthermore, the process of getting the offer letters itself had limited the chances of women to acquire land in their own right.
The situation in Masvingo and Chimanimani is supported by the Utete report of 2003 which exposed that the land redistribution at national level was skewed in favour of men. Government led land distribution programmes since 1980 failed to eliminate the imbalance between men and women regarding access to land. But it is vital to stress that since the government of Zimbabwe is part to a number of regional and international instruments which seek to end gender disparities, it is important to inculcate the principle of equality in all its policies.
Then again, Mpahlo (2003), in her study, noted that among married women, it is mostly ex-combatants and those married to foreign husbands who own land in their own capacity. Among the single women who own land, 71% of them are widowed, 25% are divorced, and the rest were never married. Women war veterans comprise 20% of all war veterans who own land. Mpahlo (2003) noted that of the 25,569 war veterans’ families resettled; only 2,221 were female headed household.
The disparities can be explained largely by the failure to target women as a special group in the FTLRP policy and implementation phase. Furthermore, many men than women have attended Master Farmer Training, thus many poor and uneducated rural women could not qualify for the model. Goebel (2005) is of the view that, women have been considered ineligible for modern development in the FTLRP. Therefore, these are clear cases of economic deprivation as women were allocated much less land in all models and they cannot produce beyond mere subsistence, thus, their livelihoods remain unsecure.
Furthermore, the huge disparity in the A1 model is based on the approach by the government to base it on the family farm or household model. The family farm or household model means the land is given to the family or household not individuals within these institutions. There are certain assumptions on what constitutes a family according to tradition. Customary practices assume that men are the heads of families, thus, are given land and land is registered in their names.
The above responses show the grim extent to which women were not specifically targeted for land allocation as a disadvantaged group. Considering the cultural constraints women face within marriage and family institutions, spaces for women to control land are limited. This has precarious consequences for women’s poverty. This is a case of economic deprivation by the failure of the FTLRP to secure women ownership of land. Another dimension that can be extrapolated is the perpetuation of dependence of women on men. The positions of women continue to be compromised and their subordination further amplified. Women may still become landless at the three points of vulnerability in their lives, which are marriage, divorce, and widowhood because they do not have land of their own.

2.8. Land reform and women challenges
Many of the 12% of women who benefited from A2 resettlement are not able to fully utilise the land because they cannot access resources such as finance from financial institutions, which demand collateral in the form of a house or shares, which most women do not own (Gunduza, 2008). Most of these women lack social and economic support, access to information, and they themselves are not assertive and confident. Furthermore, they have to compete with their male counterparts who already own properties and can access finance and other resources more easily because of the existence of social and economic networks to support them (WLZ, 2006). Research carried out by WLZ revealed that most of the land allocated to women under the A2 scheme was being used for subsistence farming, with very few women doing commercial farming (WLZ, 2006). Only 10% of the land that was allocated to women was being utilised productively. The research also found that the main challenges facing both A1 and A2 women farmers were access to resources such as finance, inputs, labour, extension services, farming equipment and human capital development (WLZ, 2006).
The FTLRP subsumed women’s interests under the unitary household without any reference to women’s capability to control production and consumption decisions. For example, female farm workers were considered as part of male headed households (Sachikonye, 2003). The fact that there is a multiplicity of female-headed households was not seriously considered. Sachikonye (2003) noted that 19% of farm worker households are headed by women but only 16% of female farm workers got land. Structural materialist feminist scholars argue that this over-romanticization of the domestic domain in land reform weakens women’s bargaining power. Scholars, such as Frenier (1983), are of the view that ownership and control of land by women contributes significantly to women’s economic wellbeing and bargaining power in the household.
These disparities among women also affect how different women can command economic and social resources in order to be capable to sustain their lives. Studies have shown that female heads of the households are more vulnerable to poverty incidences than married women who may depend for economic resources on husbands. Mbaya (2005) noted that in view of feminization of poverty, land reform has been limited in the extent to which it has attempted to alleviate poverty. Sachikonye (2003) also noted that one of the principal outcomes of the FTLRP and is poverty exacerbation.
The FTLRP had negative impacts on women’s poverty because of unclear land tenure systems and unclear land rights. According to Li Ping (2003), from her studies in China, women can secure their livelihoods when their land rights are legally recognizable, socially recognizable, and enforceable by authorities. The FTLRP failed to acknowledge women’s rights to particular capabilities, such as land rights and the specific contexts, which make women more vulnerable. It was implemented in the context of a constitution that discriminates against women. Section 23 (3) i and b of the Zimbabwean constitution discriminates against women by applying customary law.
However, because no reference was made to human rights, the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, just like the previous land reform policies, deprived women of the capability to claim legitimate rights to land. The government remains indifferent or pays only lip service by the administrative arrangements that are easily overlooked. Women may own land, but without any legal right to claim ownership, they remain vulnerable. Most rural women in Zimbabwe do not have the capability to claim rights to land in the event of widowhood or divorced under customary marriages and, to make matters worse, most of the marriages are unregistered (Bhatasara, 2010).
Additionally, it can be noted that there is ambiguity in land tenure arrangements in Zimbabwe. The government responded to calls to resolve the tenure issues by issuing leases. The so called 99 year leases have been issued out, so far, to a few farmers under the A2 model and they remain not well defined. The government in 2007 decided that beneficiaries under the FTLRP be given leases for 99 years and the government owns all the land. The 99 year leases also do not allow inheritance of land, thus widows cannot inherit their late husbands’ land. In light of this, one can argue that the FTLRP failed to address women’s poverty in terms of their capabilities to claim their rights to land.
Furthermore, the 99 years leases and offer letters given to beneficiaries of the FTLRP cannot be used as collateral for borrowing loans from banks to improve production. In reality, the government owns all the acquired land. Commercial banks are refusing to offer loans to farmers because the 99 year lease is not transferable to third parties. Although men are also affected, women have been more adversely affected because they lack alternative sources of income or means to access credit (Women and Land in Zimbabwe, 2007).
It is interesting to note that the government amended the constitution in 2000 and 2001, thus had more power to acquire more land. However, it did not revise Sections 23(3) i and b. These sections do not protect women’s land rights within marriage and in the event of divorce; they legitimize customary law. This shows that FTLRP did not consider how gender differentiated land ownership affects women’s survival, capabilities, and gender power relations beyond the marriage boundaries. There are no laws that define women’s land rights within the family or household.
Inheritance laws in Zimbabwe are “legally” recognizable, but not socially enforced, so women may lose land to their spouses’ kin members. Frenier (1983) noted that when women have secure land rights, they can have the ability to produce more and have control over production. Additionally, secure land rights will incentivize women to invest in land and ensure sustainable growing conditions and, ultimately, ensure a steady supply of food and other basic needs. The capability to pursue long term sustainable livelihoods hangs in balance, for some women, in the new resettlements in Zimbabwe, thus, their poverty has been entrenched.
The FTLRP failed to fully consider the women’s land ownership within the broad framework of agrarian reform. Women have been deprived of the capability to develop sustainable livelihoods and earn incomes by the inability to utilize land. Jacobs (2002) noted that women may have access to land, but they face gender-based constraints to utilize it. Mpahlo (2003) is of the view that one of the main problems affecting women’s productivity in resettlement areas is lack of basic infrastructure, such as clean water, transport systems, and health services. Goebel (2005) also noted that lack of infrastructure is burdening women.
The Land Reform and Resettlement Phase 2 and the Inception Phase Framework Policy gave reference to infrastructural development, but this has not materialized. Studies show that more than 60% of female farmers in resettlements have less than average farming implements. Mpahlo (2003) noted that close to 54% of women in the A1 model have no draught powers in the provinces she studied, as compared to 31% of men. The failure of the FTLRP to consider the wider framework of land use is negatively affecting the women’s potential to engage in productive agriculture. Alexander (2009) is of the view that the processes of acquiring inputs from the government, such as seeds and fertilizer, have been militarized and politicized. In the A1 model, women continued to cultivate small pieces of land because of the limited inputs, thus; they are incapable to expand production beyond subsistence.
According to the Women and Land in Zimbabwe, (2008), because of household demands, women may sell the little produce they are getting in order to get income. This eventually has implications for food security because they cannot sustain consumption till the next agricultural season. According to Mbaya (2005), the Inception Phase Framework made reference to training women to cater for special needs. However, not much has been done. Mgugu (2008) noted that the provision of technical expertise and extension services in the new resettlements is biased against women. According to Mgugu, the Farmer Development Trust trained 10,000 farmers in tobacco farming and an insignificant 5% were female heads of the household.
Although one cannot assume direct causal relationship, women may have the potential to expand production or engage in other income generating activities if they have adequate technical and production support. On another note, the Product Market Programme (PMP), introduced by the government in 2004, is also depriving women in new resettlements the budding to earn higher incomes from agriculture. The Product Market Programme is a form of price control of agricultural produce and targeted mainly at maize. Women are affected more since they predominantly grow maize whilst men are benefiting from less controlled cash crops, such as tobacco and cotton.
Furthermore, Mpahlo (2003) noted that the politics of resource utilization and management in the new resettlements is taking a gender dimension which, the study views it, as not democratic. Women’s capability to control production decisions and land use is being curtailed by the lack of adequate and appropriate representation in the new decision-making structures that are guiding and enforcing land use and natural resource management. Chaumba, Scoones, and Wolmer (2005) present the “four axis of authority” that emerged during the FTLRP, which are the war veterans, new land committees, traditional leaders, and local elites in most areas of the country. These structures have not departed from patriarchal and customary tendencies.
Studies have shown that only 8% of women in new resettlements have positions in village and ward committees (Mpahlo, 2003). Robeyns (2005) noted that: “For some capabilities, the main input will be financial resources and economic production, but for others it can be political practices and institutions, such as the effective guaranteeing and protection of freedom of thought, political participation, social or cultural practices, social structures, social institutions, public goods, social norms, and traditions”. This leads to capability failure as women occupy minor roles in communities. The FTLRP failed to create spaces for women farmers and labourers to express their views and assumed leadership in determining issues that affected their positions in communities, families, or households.

2.9. Theoretical framework guiding the study
Deprivation of women’s land right regarding land inheritance and property distribution is a challenge in patriarchal societies in Zimbabwe. Women have indirect access to land in terms of use rights acquired through kinship relationships and their status as wives, mothers, sisters or daughters (Davison, 1988). Women play a prominent role in their national economic systems, yet the failure to integrate women into the development process prevented them from realizing their full potential. Women’s development approaches emerged to remove these inequalities and to bring change in women’s lives.

2.9.1. Women in Development (WID)
Women in Development (WID), was the first gender policy approach that focused on the integration of women into global processes of economic, political and social growth. Liberal feminists proposed the WID framework, which called for the integration of women in development planning. This paradigm sees women marginalization resulting from lack of political, social and economic conditions for development to take place (Connelly et al, 2000).WID advocates found that it was more effective if demands for social justice and equity for women were strategically linked to mainstream development concerns. In other words, arguments for equity tend to be more powerful and persuasive if they are combined with the pursuit of some overarching goal from which a large majority of people may gain.
The term "women in development" came into use in the early 1970s, after the publication of Ester Boserup's Women's Role in Economic Development (1970). This approach had been prompted by Boserup’s observations that women were excluded from social and economic opportunities (Rogers, 1980). As a result, integrating women into development programs was seen as the solution to end women`s subordination to men. WID advocates placed primary emphasis on the development of strategies and action programs aimed at minimizing the disadvantages of women in the productive sector and ending discrimination against them.
Boserup(1970) argued that, women`s traditional roles in agricultural production allowed men to monopolise new technologies and cash crop production that were associated with the modern sector. This contributed to the demise of the female subsistence agricultural sector, resulting in women`s loss of income, status and power relative to men. Thus, far from “creating an egalitarian society, modernisation increases women`s economic and social marginality and had disruptive effects on accessing agricultural resources” (Moser, 1993). It is also with this perspective that we must discuss the role of Zimbabwean rural women in agriculture as a means to integrating them in national development.
Modernisation drew men away from production based on family labour and gave them near-exclusive access to economic and other resources. WID view gender inequality as the effect of women’s displacement from productive resources caused by imperfections in the modernization process. The economic survival and development of Zimbabwe would depend heavily on efforts to reverse this trend and to more fully integrate women into the development process. As a result, eradication of poverty and food security can only be achieved if women become full economic partners in development.
Armed with Boserup`s work, liberal feminists continued to articulate their vision of integrating women in the development process. Women should possess the same rights as men to access and control land, which in the long term amounts to sustainable development for Zimbabwe. The emphasis of this WID perspective was on women's productive roles, fuelled by a belief that by simply improving women's access to land, technology, credit and extension services, women's productivity would increase and this would positively influence the development process.
To increase commitment to integrate women, the state is seen as an “essential benevolent institution that will both design and implement legislation to ensure women`s access to land and other social and economic arenas” (Wilson, 1986). In Zimbabwe women has been mobilised into grassroots associations to enable them to effectively participate in key sectors of the economy such as Women in Mining, Women in Tourism Trust, Women in Agriculture, the Zimbabwe Women Farmer’s Association and various women’s clubs. In short, the big challenge remains for government to integrate land reform and policy into a broad rural development strategy in the context of a wider social and development vision.
Land reform in Zimbabwe has been constrained partly because it has not integrated women into the national development strategy. Most land reform programmes throughout the world have failed to mainstream the interests of women, and land reform processes in Southern Africa have been no exception (Sachikonye, 2004). Land reform programmes must give adequate attention to mainstreaming of gender concerns into land policy and implementation. This means ensuring that land reform programmes specifically address the interests and meets the needs of women. The increased uncertainties and risks that women face in their production activities, compounded by the lack of access to land, is pushing many of them out of traditional agriculture in Zimbabwe.
The WID approach advocated for the implementation of ‘separate’ or ‘integrated’ projects for women to existing activities. This approach views women in isolation, making resources more directly available to them as a means facilitating their involvement. In other words, their demands for the allocation of development resources to women hinge on economic efficiency and what women can contribute to the development process. The underlying rationale being that development activity would proceed better if women were integrated into the process and thus as an untapped resource able to provide an economic contribution to development (Moser 1993). It is thus extremely important to address the specific hurdles faced by women in becoming empowered, politically and legally. Specific attention needs to be dedicated to the different impact of policies and programs on men and women, so as to ensure not only the consideration of gender differences, but also the proactive promotion of gender equality. Women’s lack of access to and control over land is a key factor contributing to poverty, and needs to be addressed for sustainable poverty reduction.
In the Zimbabwean agricultural sector, development projects have not taken adequate account of women's responsibilities, participation and priorities in their specific local conditions to determine factors constraining them in the achievement of the objectives of the programmes. In addition women's access to development projects is more limited owing to cultural traditional and sociological factors. In particular, the "head of the family" concept which is used as the basis for allocation of resources in the rural area has historically ignored both the existence of female-headed households and the rights of married women to a joint share of resources (Sachikonye, 2004).
In addition to the WID agenda, there was the simultaneous effort by liberal feminists to get equal rights, employment, equity and citizenship for women. Liberal feminists insist that all that is needed to change the status of women is to change existing laws that are unfavourable for women and that will open up more avenues for women to prove themselves as equal to the opposite sex. No longer, therefore, should women be seen as passive recipients of development assistance, but as active agents capable of transforming their own economic, social, political and cultural realities. Women can thus be seen as a “missing link in development, a hitherto undervalued economic resource in the development process” (Tinker, 1990).
Although WID interventions have been a necessary step in the right direction, this approach has proven incapable of raising questions about the role of gender relations and male structures of power which restrict women’s access to economic resources. This non-confrontational approach avoided questioning the sources and nature of women's subordination and oppression. By refusing to ask questions about why resources are so unevenly distributed between the genders in the first place, the issue of power asymmetry is effectively brushed aside. WID does not pay sufficient attention to the way in which powerful gender relations can subvert resources directed at women.
A further limitation of the framework is that it does not recognize that equality cannot exist in a capitalist system as it ignores the structures of inequality, based on sex, which are intrinsic to capitalism. WID is accused of, above all, of ignoring the impact of global inequality on women in the developing countries and failed to acknowledge the importance of race, ethnicity, history, culture and class in women`s lives. WID seems to categorize women as separate and homogeneous entities while in fact, they are diverse groups. In a society divided along class lines and driven by economic exploitation, women are at a fundamental economic disadvantage.

2.9.2. Women and Development (WAD)
A closely related approach was known as "women and development" (WAD). Derived from a political economy perspective, it focused on the relationship between women and development processes, rather than on strategies for integrating women into development, noting that women have always been important economic actors in their societies. It argued that women have always been "integrated” in development processes and their work inside and outside is critical for the maintenance of society. However, “women integration serves primarily to sustain existing international structures of inequality” (Parpart, 1989). In essence, the WAD approach begins from the position that women always have been an integral part of development processes in a global system of exploitation and inequality.According to this perspective; women were not a neglected resource but overburdened and undervalued. Thus, it is from this perspective that we need to examine why women had not benefited from the development strategies of the past decades, that is, by questioning the sources and nature of women's subordination and oppression.
WID advocates were primarily influenced by the rise of radical feminist thinking. They put sexuality, reproduction and patriarchy at the centre of political discussions (Mannathoko, 1991).Proponents of this approach argued that women would never get their equal share of development benefits unless patriarchy and global inequality are addressed. What are needed are a re-evaluation of women’s considerable contribution to the development process and a redistribution of the benefits and burdens of development between men and women. The perspective implicitly assumes that women's position will improve if and when international structures become more equitable. In the meantime, the under-representation of women in economic, political and social structures still is identified primarily as a problem which can be solved by carefully designed intervention strategies rather than by more fundamental shifts in the social relations of gender.
The WAD framework called for the recognition of “women as the mainstay of agricultural production in developing countries” (Rathgeber, 1995).Women contribute tremendously to agricultural output but unfortunately they hardly, benefited from agricultural incentives and innovation because of economic suppression and social and traditional practices which undermine the constitutional provisions on the equality of men and women. Women exclusion in development programmes is the reason for the lack of women participation in agricultural programmes and projects. If Zimbabwe is to develop a more productive, sustainable, and equitable agricultural sector, it cannot afford to neglect women. Moreover, the constraints that women face must be addressed if agriculture is to be the engine of economic growth.
African women's fundamental contributions in their households, food production systems and national economies are increasingly acknowledged, within Africa and by the international community. However, the growing recognition of their contributions has not translated into significantly improved access to resources or increased decision-making powers. There has been insufficient political will and sustained commitment to meeting the needs and interests of women by local authorities and governments. Without meaningful commitment in the form of policy changes and the provision of resources to deal with the root causes of women's conditions, Zimbabwe cannot hope to see a breakthrough in its development and renewal.
WAD offers a more critical view of women's position than does WID but it fails to undertake a full-scale analysis of the relationship between patriarchy, differing modes of production and women's subordination and oppression. Since the WAD perspective does not give detailed attention to the overriding influence of the ideology of patriarchy, women's condition primarily is seen within the structure of international and class inequalities. Critics also argued that it was too inclined to see women as a homogenous class ignoring differences among women, particularly women`s racial, class and ethnic divisions which may exercise powerful influence on women's actual social status (Connelly et al, 2000). Finally, it focussed on women and gender as a unit of analysis without recognizing the important divisions that exist among women and the frequent exploitation that occurs in most societies of poor women by richer ones. So within the international development community, there has been a shift in thinking from the "women and development" (WAD) approach, which focused narrowly on women's productive roles, to a broader "gender and development" perspective, which takes into account all spheres of women's lives and seeks to bring gender analysis into the core of development policy.

2.9.3. Gender and Development (GAD)
The third policy approach to emerge was Gender and Development (GAD). Gender and Development (GAD), which has been underway since the 1980s, was partly borne out of recognition of the inadequacies of focusing on women in isolation. It emphasised on “social and historically constructed relations between women and men” (Moser, 1993), which allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the relational nature of gendered power, and of the interdependency of women and men.
The GAD approach commenced on integration of gender issues into the design and implementation of development programs. It finds its theoretical roots in Marxist-socialist feminism. Capitalism and patriarchy become effective mechanism for marginalising and exploiting women.
Most significantly, the GAD approach starts from a holistic perspective, looking at "the totality of social organization, economic and political life in order to understand the shaping of particular aspects of society" (Young, 1987). The GAD approach was projected towards addressing strategic gender needs which can empower women and transform gender relations. It examines women material conditions, class positions, and patriarchal structures responsible for women subordination (Moser, 1993).
The GAD framework then attempts to these concerns over patriarchy, capitalism, and the global economy and their impacts on development for women. It argues that women experience subordination according to their race, class, colonial history, culture, and the international economy. The GAD approach was projected towards strengthening the effectiveness of development work in improving the situation of both women and men, and achieving progress towards social and gender equality.
In most African societies women are isolated from production outside the home and are confined to the home. Because of this, women are compelled to rely on the “man of the house” for their living, which marginalizes and limits their autonomy and access to resource (Rathgeber, 1995). The GAD approach emphasizes the reduction of the gender gap between women and men in order to achieve gender-balanced development. Unequal gender relations in Zimbabwe, deny women from accessing or obtaining land, credit, education, technology and agricultural extension. Women’s inequality exists not because they are bypassed or marginalized by development planners, but because women are not part of the power structures.
“Beyond improving women’s access to the same development resources as are directed to men, the GAD approach stresses direct challenges to male cultural, social and economic privileges, so that women are enabled to make equal social and economic profit out of the same resources” (Goetz, 1997).
A GAD perspective leads not only to them design of intervention and affirmative action strategies which will ensure that women are better integrated into on-going development efforts. It leads, inevitably, to a fundamental re-examination of social structures and institutions and, ultimately, to the loss of power of entrenched elites, which inevitably will have effect on women as well as men. Projects designed from a GAD perspective would question traditional views of gender roles and responsibilities and point towards a more equitable definition of the very concept of "development" and of the contributions made by women and by men to the attainment of societal goals.
The GAD approach seeks to correct systems and mechanisms that produce gender inequality by focusing not only on women, but also by assessing the social status of both women and men. Moreover, it emphasizes the role of men in resolving gender inequality, and places importance on the empowerment of women, who are placed in a socially and economically weaker position than men. At the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing Conference) held in 1995, the international community acknowledged the concept of gender mainstreaming as a method of entrenching the GAD approach. Furthermore, the United Nations Millennium Summit held in 2000 adopted the Millennium Declaration, which included, among the eight goals to be achieved by 2015, the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women. The declaration also acknowledged the importance of mainstreaming the gender perspective in all initiatives undertaken by the international community toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The goal of gender mainstreaming is to achieve gender equality in all fields of society. It seeks to identify men’s and women’s development issues and needs, as well as development impacts on men and women at all stages of development, through planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of development policies and measures and projects, on the premise that all development policies, measures, and projects have different impacts on men and women.
The GAD approach recognises that improving the status of women is not a separate, isolated issue but needs to be addressed by taking into account the status of men and women, their differing life courses and the fact that equal treatment will not necessarily produce equal outcomes (Young, 1987). It seeks to address these differences by mainstreaming gender into development planning at all levels and in all sectors, focusing less on providing equal treatment for men and women and more on taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure equal outcomes.
In insisting that women cannot be viewed in isolation, it emphasizes a focus on gender relations, when designing measures to “help” women in the development process (Moser, 1993). Hence, these insights will be used to tailor policies and programmes that will improve overall productivity. In order to assume a leading role in all aspects of gender and development, planning and budgeting, and ensuring the mainstreaming of gender into all sectors, the Zimbabwean government is making efforts to support the strengthening of the capacity of the National Gender Machinery through the Gender and Community Development and Ministry of Women Affairs.
The GAD approach blames women`s subordination on the impact of the capitalist mode of production, patriarchy, and the international division of labour. These explanations for women subordination are embedded in Marxist-socialist feminism. It argues that the ideology of patriarchy operates within and across classes to oppress women (Maguire, 1984). Engels (1972) argued that the establishment of private property in land, tools, and livestock created the possibility for men to exercise control over the means of production. In order to ensure legitimacy of heirs and control private property, men established a patrilineal and patriarchal form of society. For many Marxists, this has made “oppression on the basis of sex derivative from the development of a social surplus, the beginning of production for exchange and the institution of private property, thus providing an economic explanation for this form of oppression” (Hale, 1995).
O`Brien (1981) challenges the original thesis proposed by Engels that links male power and control over property. First, Engels all oppression of women is a result of private property in the means of production, and no other factors are considered. If there are cultural or other factors that originally played a role in this, or continue to exist, then removing private ownership may not eliminate women's oppression.The material base for of the gender hierarchy is the means of reproduction of children rather production of material goods. O`Brien (1981) suggest that men seek to control property in order to control women`s sexual and reproductive powers, not the other way round. The inheritance of property from father to son is also of paramount importance in the social assertion of the principle of paternity over biological maternity.
In addition, by focusing on what separates women and men, GAD neglects the social relations that also connects them, as well as how changes may be brought about in men's and women's respective roles. By not emphasizing social relations sufficiently, it has been argued, the GAD perspective cannot explain how powerful gender relations can subvert the impact of resources directed at women or adequately identify women's interests and what trade-offs they are willing to make to fulfil their ideals of motherhood or marriage (Africa Recovery Paper, 1998).

2.10. Towards a theory of women`s land question
However, regardless of the various well-founded criticisms of GAD approach, it has proven to be a useful conceptual tool in order to underscore the specificity of rural women’s access to land in Zimbabwe. The GAD approach will help the researcher to understand the phenomenon which surrounds rural woman land rights in Zimbabwe. GAD seeks to ensure that all decisions concerning development be reached through the local, equitable participation of women and men in the development process. It is increasingly recognized that the socio-economic needs of these women and men must be a priority in any sustainable strategy to resolve development problems.

Gender and development serves a point of reference to determine the judicious use of resources, provides a basis for analysis to improve upon the nation’s efforts in dealing with gender, poverty and development issues and helps in bridging the existing gap between men and women and ensures gender equitable and sustainable development. The gender and development approach sees gender as a crosscutting issue with relevance for and influencing all economic, social, and political processes. A gender-focused approach seeks to redress gender inequity through facilitating strategic, broad-based, and multifaceted solutions to gender inequality.
Inherent in the GAD approach is gender mainstreaming which is a means of addressing women’s concerns more holistically and effectively. Gender mainstreaming is a strategy for making women as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral part of any development plan, by addressing their specific identified needs. The process requires extensive gender analysis and planning, taking into account current and past information and experiences. It requires gender planning to be applied to all development operations and projects, and allows women to be factored into economic and development policy.
In brief, this section has noted that GAD is a strategy for making the concerns and experiences of women as well as of men an integral part of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres, so that women and men benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated. Since GAD approach includes the participation of both women and men, sample of the study will also include both sexes. The aim of gender and development is to ensure that change benefits both women and men. The GAD approach will help the researcher to understand the phenomenon which surrounds rural woman land rights in Zimbabwe.
The reason why the study could not use WID and WAD is that both were too inclined to see women as a homogeneous class ignoring differences among women, particularly ethnic divisions, culture, race, history and class. In a society divided along class lines and driven by economic exploitation women are at fundamental economic disadvantage. Furthermore, rather than challenging male bias WID operates within the environment where it prevails and so largely ignores the real problem of women’s unequal position to men. Although it was a necessary step in the right direction, this approach has proven incapable of challenging gender stereotypes and male structure of power. Even though WAD offers a more critical view of women`s position than WID does, it failed to undertake a full analysis of the relationship between patriarchy, differing modes of production and women’s subordination and oppression.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, S. 2001. Women’s Voices, Women’s Power: Dialogues of Resistance from East Africa, Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Adams, M., Cousins, B., & Manona, S. 1999. Land Tenure and Economic Development in Rural

South Africa: Constraints and Opportunities. London.

Agarwal, B. 1994.A Field of One's Own.Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Agarwal B. (2001). Gender and Land Rights Revisited: Exploring New Prospects via the State, Family and Market. Draft paper prepared for the UNRISD Project on Agrarian Change, Gender and Land Rights. UNRISD, Geneva.
Africa Recovery Briefing Paper .1998.Women in Africa’s Development: Overcoming Obstacles, Pushing for Progress. Afr. Recovery, UNDP.
Anglophone Africa. 2004. Women of the World; Laws and Policies Affecting their Reproductive Lives, USA: The Centre for Law and Policy.
Benschop M., (2002). Rights and Reality: Are Women’s Equal Rights to Land, Housing and Property Implemented in East Africa? UN-HABITAT, Nairobi.

Boserup. E. 1970. Women’s Role in Economic Development. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Birgegard, N.1993 .Doctrines of Development, London and New York: Routledge.

Bhatasara, S.,(2010).Land Reform and Diminishing Spaces for Women in Zimbabwe: A Gender Analysis of the Socio-Economic and Political Consequences of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, MSc Thesis at Maastricht School of Governance, Accessed online@www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/governance-elibrary.on 2 September 2011
Bruce, John and Migot-Adholla, S.E (Eds), (1994). Searching for Land Tenure Security in Africa. Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Connelly, Patricia M., MacDonald, Murray Li, Tania. And Parpart, Jane L.2000.Feminism and

Development: Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and Development, IDRC Books.

Connell, D. 2000. Interviewing Women: Issues of Friendship, Vulnerability, and Power, in Women’s Studies International Forum: Journal of Social Science 15 (5/6).

Chingarande, S.D. (2010). ‘Gender and livelihoods in Nyabamba A1 Resettlement Area,

Chimanimani district of Manicaland Province in Zimbabwe’. Livelihoods after

Land Reform in Zimbabwe Working Paper 5.Livelihoods after Land Reform

Project. South Africa: PLAAS.

Chinkin, C. M. 2001. Gender mainstreaming in legal and constitutional affairs: a reference

manual for governments and other stakeholders. London: Commonwealth

Secretariat

Davison J. 1988. Land and Women's Agricultural Production.London Boulder. West view Press.
Derman, B (2006) After Zimbabwe’s Fast-Track Land Reform: Preliminary Observations on the near Future of Zimbabwe’s Efforts to Resist Globalization. Norwegian University of the Life Sciences, AS, Norway.
Endely, J. B. 1991. Strategies and programmes for women in Africa’s agricultural sector. In

‘Alternative strategies for Africa: Environment [and] women, edited by M.

Suliman, 132-139. London: Institute for African Alternatives (IFAA).

Engels F. 1972. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. New York.

ELTAP, (2006).Standardization of Rural Land Registration and Cadastral Surveying Methodologies: Experience in Ethiopia. Ethiopia - Strengthening Land Tenure and Administration Program (ELTAP) Proceeding of a National Conference, 20-24 March 2006, Addis Ababa.
FAO, (1997).Gender: The key to sustainability and food security. Retrieved on June 22, 2011 from Http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/ WPdirect/WPdoe002.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002.Gender and food security: Synthesis report of regional documents:Africa,Asia,Online].Available:http://www.fao.org/sd/WPdirect/WPre0001.htm.[2 March 2011]
Fortmann, L. 1998. Why women’s property rights matter. In Proceedings of the international

conference on land tenure in the developing world with a focus on Southern Africa,

edited by Michael Barry, 147-159. Cape Town: Dept. Of Geomatics, University of

Cape Town.

Frenier, M.D. (1983). The Effects of the Chinese Communist Land Reform on Women and their Families. Women’s International Study Forum, 6(1), 41-55.
Gaidzanwa, R. 1991. ‘Low income transport in Zimbabwe’. A UNIFEM survey, Harare.
Gittinger, J. P. 1990. Household food security and the role of women. World Bank

Discussion Paper no. 96. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Goetz, A.M .1997. Getting Institutions Right for Women in Development. Zed Books, London and New York.
Goebel, A., 2005. Zimbabwe’s ‘fast track’ land reform: what about women. Gender, Place and Culture,12, p.145-172.
Government of Zimbabwe’s White Paper on Marriage and Inheritance, 1993. 38 J. of African Law 67. 1994.
Gunduza, E. S. 2008. ‘Empowering women through land rights: Field study report’, December 2008, commissioned by Women and Land in Zimbabwe, Harare.
Grigsby W. 2004, The gendered nature of subsistence and its effects on customary land tenure. Journal of Society and Natural Resources,17(2): 207-222.
Ghosh, T.2010. Zimbawean Women Are Deniad Access To Land, Women News Network (WWN) accessed@http//womennewsnet work.com on 13-10-2011
Hale, S.M.1995.Controlversies in sociology. Copp Clark Pitman. Canada.
Harvey, P. 2004. HIV and humanitarian Action, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Jacobs S, (2001). Land Reform: Still a goal worth pursuing for rural women? Conference Paper presented on by the Development Studies Association. Different Poverties, Different Policies.10th-12th September, 2001, Manchester University.

Kinsey, B. H. 2000. ‘The Implication of Land Reform for Rural Welfare’, in Bowyer-Bower, T. A. S. and C. Stoneman (eds), 2000. Land Reform in Zimbabwe Constraints and Prospects. Ashgate, UK.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. (1995) Policy Guidelines for Incorporating Gender in Natural Resource.Wisconsin: Land Tenure Centre

Li Ping, J.D. (2003) (Staff Attorney and Beijing Representative for Rural Development Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA). Rural Land Tenure Reforms in China: Issues, Regulations and Prospects for Additional Reform .Land Reform Special Edition, 2003
Manuh, M. 1989 Changing Gender Relations in Southern Africa: Issues of Urban Life, ISAS,

National University of Lesotho, and Roma, Lesotho

Matondi, P. 2005. ‘Mazowe District Report: Findings of Land Reform’. Volume II. (First draft). Harare.
Maguire.M. 1984: Women in Development: An Alternative Analysis. Amherst, MA. Centre for international Education.
Mannathoko, C. 1992.Feminist Theories and the Study of Gender Issues in Southern Africa. SAPES

Books

Moser, C .1993.Gender planning and Development: Theory, Practise and Training. Routledge. London.

Moyo, S. 2007. ‘Emerging Land Tenure Issues in Zimbabwe’, Monograph Series, Issue No.

2/07, African Institute for Agrarian Studies (AIAS), Harare.
Moyo, S. (2006) .Agricultural Growth and Land Reform in Zimbabwe.World Bank.
Moyo, S, 2003. ‘The Interaction of Market and Compulsory Land Acquisition Processes with Social

Action in Zimbabwe’s Land Reform’, in Ibbo Mandaza and Dani Nabudere (eds.), Pan
Africanism and Integration in Africa, Sapes Books, Harare. Moyo S., (2002). The Land Question and Land Reform in Southern Africa. The Practice and Effectiveness of Development Policies in South Africa. Conference Paper presented on Implementing Development, National Institute for Economic Policy (NIEP). Pretoria, South Africa.

Moyo, S. (2000).The political economy of land acquisition and redistribution in Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies, 26 (1), 5-28.
Moyo, S.1996 .Land Policy, Poverty Reduction and Public Action in Zimbabwe.ISS/UNDP Land, Poverty, and Public Action Policy Paper No.11.Hague: ISS/
Murisa, T. 2007. ‘Social Organisation and Agency in the Newly Resettled Areas of Zimbabwe: The Case of Zvimba District’. Monograph Series; Issue No. 1/07, African Institute for Agrarian Studies (AIAS), Harare.
Mbaya, L. 2003. HIV/Aids and its Impact on Land Issues in Malawi, FAO/SARPN Workshop on HIV/AIDS and Land, Pretoria

Mbaya, S. (2005).Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Lessons and Prospects from a Poverty Alleviation Perspective. Paper presented at the Conference on Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa, The Southern African Regional Poverty
Network (SARPN).

Mpahlo, R., 2003. Women and the land reform programme in Zimbabwe. Institute of Development Studies, Agrarian Reform and Development Project.pp 6-15

Mushunje, M. 2001. Land Administration: Women’s Access to Land in Communal Areas.

Presentation prepared for the National Land Tenure Conference: Finding

Solutions, Securing Rights held 26-30 November 2001 at the ICC, Durban.

Muntemba , S.1989 . HIV/AIDS and its impacts on land tenure and livelihoods in Lesotho. Unpublished study commissioned by FAO and SARPN.

Mgugu, A., 2008.Womens’s Land and Economic Rights in Zimbabwe: Gender Audit Report. Women Land and Water Rights in Southern Africa (WLWRSA), Harare

O’Brien .M.1981.The politics of Reproduction, London and New York: Routledge.
Ogendo-Okoth, (2005).Access to land in Africa: A fundamental human right. Paper presented on the 14th Commonwealth Law Conference, London, United Kingdom.
Parpart Jane L. 1989. Women and Development in Africa: Comparative Perspectives. University Press of America, USA.

Rathgeber, E.M. 1995. Gender and development in action. In: M. Marchand and J.L. Parpart, eds.

Feminism /Postmodernism / Development, London: Routledge

Rocheleau D. and E. David, (1997) on Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and

agrarian landscapes. World Development, Vol. 25, No.8

Robeyns, I. (2005). The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey. Journal of Human

Development, 6(1).

Ruswa, G. 2007. ‘The Golden era?Reflections on the First Phase of the Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe’.Occasional Research Paper Series,Number 01/2007, African Institute for Agrarian Studies (AIAS), Harare.
Sachikonye, L, M.2004.Inheriting the earth. Land reform in Southern Africa. Catholic Institute for International Relations. London

Sachikonye, L.M. (2003). The Situation of Farm Workers after the Land Reform in Zimbabwe. A Report Presented for Farmers Community Trust of Zimbabwe.
Stiles, M., Zimbabwe Land Reform: What is going on? Southern Africa Report Archive vol 9 no 5/vol 10 no 1,July 1994 page accessed online@www.africafiles.org/article on 23 July 2011
Tinker, I. 1990. (ed.). Persistent Inequalities, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tsikata, D. 2003. Securing women’s interests within land tenure reforms: Recent debates in Tanzania’. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1–2):149–83

Izumi, K., 1999. Liberalization, Gender, and the Land Question in Sub Saharan Africa. Gender and Development, Vol7, No.3, pp 9-18

Peters, Beverly and John Peters (1998), “Women and Land Tenure Dynamics in Pre- Colonial, Colonial, and Post-Colonial Zimbabwe,” Journal of Public and International Affairs, 9(0), 183-203.
Presidential Land Review Committee. 2003. The Utete Committee Reporton Agrarian Reform, Government of Zimbabwe, Harare.

UN, (1980). UN Action for Women Press information. Women Aid international. Retrieved On July 16, 2011 from http: www.highbeam.com UN+1980 html.

UNDP UN/DESA/DAW, (2000). United Nations Development Program and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for the Advancement of Women: Assessment of Gender Mainstreaming in Sub-Saharan Africa. UN, New York.
Utete, C.M.B., 2003. Report of the presidential land review committee. To His Excellency the
President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.Zimbabwe Government Printers. Volume 2, Special Studies.

Villarreal, M. 2006. Changing customary land rights and gender relations in the African context. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1):12-15

Walker C, 2001. Land reform in southern and eastern Africa: Key issue for strengthening women’s access to and rights in land. Report on study commissioned by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Sub-regional office of Southern and Eastern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Wilson S, J.1986. 2nd Edition.Women. The Family and The Economy.McGrall-Hill Rycerson

Limited.Canada.
Wiggins, S. 2003. Lessons from the Current Food Crises in Southern Africa: Report on SARP/CARE/IFAS meeting.No.3. Johannesburg HSRC/SARPN. p. 23-34. Women and Land in Zimbabwe. 2008. Women’s Harvest. Vol 2, Issue 1

WLZ (Women and Land in Zimbabwe). 2006. ‘Women’s Access to Land, Challenges and Constraints’, Research report, Harare, August 2006 .
Women and Land in Zimbabwe. (2007). Women and Land in Zimbabwe: It’s Formation, Strategies used and Lessons Learnt. Vol 1, Issue 3, September2007

World Bank, 2001.Engendering Development through Gender Equality in Rights,
Resources and Voice. World Bank, Oxford University Press, Washington.

WLSA, 2001.A Critical Analysis of Women's Access to Land in the WLSA Countries: Women and Law in Southern Africa. Research and Educational Trust, Harare

Young, K. 1987. "Gender and Development." Notes for a Training Course on Gender and

Development sponsored by the Aga Khan Foundation, Toronto.

Young K., (1992). Household Resource Management, Gender and Development: A practical
Guide. Ostergaard L. (ed.). Routledge London and New York.