The paper begins with an ethical case for land redistribution in Zimbabwe, based on principles of social justice and equity, drawing from a brief history of land in Zimbabwe from the first European expulsions up to independence. Both the moral and economic arguments for land redistribution are widely and fiercely contested. The paper considers and rejects two specific criticisms of the economic arguments: that farming in the commercial sector is more efficient than in the peasant sector; and that land redistribution will not benefit the land-poor, but rather transfer land to an alternative privileged group. These arguments are explored through an examination of previous land resettlement programmes in Zimbabwe in these two respects. The paper also evaluates the objections to land reform related to issues of compensation and legality. It is concluded that radical redistribution is desirable and feasible, and urges the British government to finance land development and, if necessary, compensate commercial farmers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neil Thomas (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: