Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »



The main purpose of this chapter is to provide details about the conceptual framework that I use in this thesis. The chapter is divided in three sections. The first section builds on the previous chapter by providing a nexus between land reform and social policy. As has been demonstrated in the preceding chapter, there have been several approaches that have been used to write on both the process and the outcomes of the FTLRP. This chapter therefore adds to that literature by providing a perspective that has not been used before of viewing land reform as a social policy tool. The second section of the chapter provides an analysis of the transformative social policy framework which is my analytical tool of both existing data and the data that I collected from Kwekwe District. The last section of the chapter explores the nexus between social policy and development. The exploration of the nexus between social policy and development has been necessitated by the fact that social policy outcomes are measured through social development indicators. It therefore becomes imperative to interrogate this relationship.

Returning to the wider social policy vision

As has been noted earlier, at the core of social policy is an aspiration to ensure quality of life for citizens in a ‘given territory’ (Adesina, 2007a, 2007b). This notion had been noted by Marshal (1950) in his Citizenship and Social Class where he argued that ‘citizenship is essentially a matter of ensuring that everyone is treated as a full and equal member of society. And the way to ensure this sense of membership is through according people an increasing number of social rights’ (Marshal, 1950). Marshal divided citizenship rights into three categories namely civil rights, political rights, and social rights which included public education, health care, unemployment insurance and old age pension’ (Kymlicka and Norman, 1994). Esping- Andersen (1990: 21) took Marshal’s argument further by noting that ‘if social rights are given the legal and practical status of property rights, if they are inviolable, and if they are granted on the basis of citizenship rather than performance, they will entail a decommodification of the status of individuals vis a vis the market’ (ibid).
The foregoing arguments have been key in social policy debate with Titmuss (1974:31) adding that social policy is supposed to be ‘beneficent, redistributive and concerned with economic as well as non-economic objectives’. This implies that for social policy outcomes to be achieved, there has to be a symbiosis between social policy and economic policy. Chang (2001) refers to Polanyi (1946) in backing this notion when the latter notes that the ‘economic is inseparably linked to the social’. Arguments contrary to this view had been prompted mostly by neoliberals who believed that ‘economic growth is a precursor to social development’ (Udegbe, 2007). These scholars’ argument was that economic growth subsequently leads to social development. This neoliberal thinking inevitably prompted a lot of debate among scholars over time. The neoliberal persuasion is however contrary to documented experiences where significant growth did not really translate to reduction in poverty, inequality and unemployment. This ‘residualist welfare’ approach, though it has persisted in some quarters, has been challenged by scholars (Titmuss, 1974; Myrdal, 1984; Sen, 1999; Adesina, 2011b; Mkandawire, 2002b; UNRISD, 2006; Fine, 2009) who argue that social policies are intricately linked to economic policies and there should be emphasis on human development, as a conduit for economic development. In conclusion, as Mkandawire (2004:20) notes:
Studies on the linkages between social policy outcomes and economic growth show that at both microeconomic and macroeconomic levels, social development outcomes have beneficial effects on economic growth.
While there is not much contention on social development indicators, there is, however, considerable contention on the classification of social policy systems. Scholars like Titmus (1958,1974), Korpi (1980), Korpi and Palme (1998), Esping-Andersen (1990), and Bonoli (1997) have taken pains to come up with various welfare state classifications that summarize how some countries’ social policy systems are structured.
Some countries established their social policy architecture on the basis of the various schools of thought, with United Kingdom heavily influenced by the Fabian Society established in 1884.10 The society developed a social policy paradigm, which tapped into, the evidence emerging from the research conducted by Booth and Rowntree (Alcock, 2012:23). The research indicated that poverty was widespread and serious in Britain at the end of the nineteenth century despite the existence of Poor Laws. This research finding challenged conservative political assumption that economic markets could meet the welfare needs of all (ibid). The Fabians used the findings of the research to convince those of contrary persuasion, who believed in the commodification of welfare services, that policy intervention through the state was needed to provide the support and protection which markets could not. Scholars that followed like John Maynard Keynes were informed by the thinking that was already prevailing. Keynes, who was a liberal, played a key role in helping Europe recover from the Second World War of 1939–45 – in contrast to the failures after the First – and in establishing the Bretton Woods institutions and the welfare state (Townsend 2004). In 1936, his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money was published which made a clear distinction between macro and micro economic theories (Townsend 2004). Keynes’ macroeconomics was linked to his insistence on planning and social development. One of Keynes’ major contributions to social policy was his view of the state ‘as [the] ultimate protector of the public good and has a duty to supplement and regulate market forces’ (Alcock 2012:24). Later, Beveridge came up with his report, which sought to address the ‘five giants on the road to reconstruction’ (Beveridge 1942) while giving the state a central role in driving the processes.
In his report, Beveridge proposed a system of national insurance for Britain to deal with the infamous ‘giants’ namely want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness’ (ibid). The primary emphasis of Beveridge was on addressing want which later dominated the social policy discourse of Europe. On the basis of Beveridge’s recommendations to address the five ills of the British society, the Labour Government introduced key legislations namely the 1946 National Insurance Act, which implemented the Beveridge scheme for social security; the National Health Service Act 1946; and the 1948 National Assistance Act, which abolished the Poor Law while making provision for welfare services (Bonoli 2007). The laws became an example of a welfare state using inter alia ‘flat rates’ of contribution and subsistence. The insurance scheme classified the population into six classes namely (Beveridge 1942):
Employees, that is, persons whose normal occupation is employment under contract of service; others gainfully occupied, including employers, traders and independent workers of all kinds; housewives, that is married women of working age; others of working age not gainfully occupied; below working age and retired above working age. The category of below working age were covered by children’s allowances.
The Beveridge Report of 1942 created the bedrock of a welfare state because it built on the macro economic analyses that had been done by Keynes in 1936 which envisaged the state playing a key regulating role.
Under Otto von Bismarck, Germany in 1883 introduced sickness insurance, Accident Insurance in 1884 and later came up with an old-age and disability social insurance program in 1889. By giving substantial advantages to workers, he was able to buy their allegiance since this was the group that potentially was a threat to the politics of the day (Alber, 1986; Baldwin, 1990). The Bismarckian social policies were based on social insurance while providing earnings-related benefits for employees. Entitlement to the social insurance was conditional upon a satisfactory contribution record. The financing thereof was mainly based on employer/employee contributions (Bonoli, 1997). In essence the Bismarckian policy did not have a concern on poverty, but for the section of the population which was in the labour market and crucial for the country’s economic development. The policy became a powerful instrument to enhance the position of the workers in the Germany market economy (ibid). The foregoing developments informed the social policies architectures of several countries. There were efforts to establish contextually relevant architectures as can be exemplified by countries like Sweden (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 52) which combined different ways of achieving the objective of wellbeing for all in its territory.

READ  The dorp, Unionstad: macrocosmic implications of small-town politics and organization

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Land reforms in a global context
1.3 Historical Background to land reform in Zimbabwe
1.4 Post-Independence Land Reform
1.5 Wedded To Monopoly-Finance Capital
1.6 Statement of the problem
1.7 Scope Of The Research
1.8 Research Questions
1.9 Research Objectives
1.10 Limitations To And Scope Of The Study
1.11 Importance Of The Study
1.12 Organisation Of The Thesis
1.13 Conclusion
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Right of conquest justification for redistribution.
2.3 The fast track land reform process
2.4 Diction of ideological framing .
2.5 Approaches To FTLRP Outcomes Debates
2.6 The ‘Two Lefts’
2.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: Conceptual framework: Transformative social policy
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Returning to the wider social policy vision
3.3 Transformative Social Policy Conceptual Framework
3.4 Development and Social Policy: A Nexus
3.5 Conclusion
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Positivism
4.3 Interpretivism
4.4 Emic and etic approaches in research
4.5 Background information on research site- Kwekwe District
4.6 Kwekwe Demographics
4.7 Research design
4.8 Research techniques
4.9 Data analysis
4.10 Administration of the study
4.11 Ethical considerations
4.12 Conclusion
5.1 Introduction
5.2 First phase: 2000-2006
5.3 Second phase: 2007-2008
5.4 Sanctions .
5.5 Historical inflation
5.6 Political polarity
5.7 Social policy in crisis times?
5.8 Phase 3: 2009 to current
5.9 Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The redistributive function of social policy
6.3 The new agrarian structure
6.4 Land access in Kwekwe District
6.5 Profiles of land beneficiaries
6.6 Educational levels of land beneficiaries
6.7 Ages of land beneficiaries
6.8 Gender composition of land beneficiaries
6.9 Land ownership versus land access
6.10 Gender dynamics amongst farm workers on the resettled farms
6.11 The tsewu
6.12 Place of origin of Kwekwe land beneficiaries .
6.13 Farm residency and homesteads
6.14 Conclusion
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Production and productivity- whose productivity?
7.4 Tobacco production
7.5 Maize production
7.6 Agricultural Inputs and financing
7.7 Livestock production patterns
7.8 Agricultural labour
7.9 Support services for production
7.10 Media and production
7.11 Agricultural markets
7.12 Non-farm income generating activities
7.13 Conclusion.
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Social protection conceptual handle
8.3 Land reform as a social protection tool
8.4 Beyond livelihood diversification to accumulation
8.6 Food sovereignty and social assistance
8.7 Conclusion
9.1 Introduction
9.2 What is social cohesion?
9.3 Social cohesion in the African context
9.4 Social organisation in the aftermath of the FTLRP
9.5 Strangers all around!
9.6 Witchcraft
9.7 Agency and norms of solidarity
9.8 Horizontal agency in action
9.9 Whose water?
9.10 Social organisation and agency
9.11 Conclusion
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Education as an ex ante social policy tool
10.3 Education in Zimbabwe
10.4 Education legislative framework in Zimbabwe
10.5 State of education in satellite schools
10.6 Accessibility
10.7 Acceptability
10.8 Adaptability
10.9 Conclusion
11.2 Summary of the discussions
11.3 Contribution to debates and knowledge
11.4 Policy Recommendations
11.5 Conclusion

Related Posts