¹ Government of Zimbabwe, Growth with Equity (Salisbury, 1981), para. 22.Google ScholarPubMed

² Meldrum, Andrew, ‘Land Ownership is Again a Burning Issue’, in The Guardian (London), 25 04 1991.Google Scholar

³ See Bourdillon, M. F. C., The Shona Peoples (Gwelo, 1982),Google Scholar and Weinrich, A. K. H., African Marriage in Zimbabwe (Gwelo, 1982).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Geza, Sam, ‘The Role of Resettlement in Social Development in Zimbabwe’, in Journal of Social Development in Africa (Harare), I, 1, 1981, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar

⁵ The Apostolics or Vaspostori tend to form closed, tightly knit groupings. They observe the Sabbath on Saturdays, do not drink, and are enjoined to work hard. They pay low bridewealths, so that polygyny rates are high.

⁶ The reported rates of polygyny are high % 28 per cent for males and 32 per cent for married women % although no systematic national figures are available for comparison. However, according to Weinrich, op. cit. p. 142, the rates for rural Shona people in the mid-1970s were approximately 10 per cent.

⁷ For a discussion of the Soviet agrarian Marxist school, and of these two types of criteria, see Cox, T. M., Peasants, Class and Capitalism (Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar

⁸ See Bush, Ray, Cliffe, Lionel, and Jansen, Valerey, ‘The Crisis in the Reproduction of Migrant Labour in Southern Africa’, in Peter, Lawrence (ed.), World Recession and the Food Crisis in Africa (London, 1986), pp. 283–99,Google Scholar and Roger Leys, ‘Drought and Drought Relief in Southern Zimbabwe’, in ibid. pp. 258–74; and Pankhurst, Donna, ‘Women's Control over Resources: implications for development in Zimbabwe's communal lands’, Review of African Political Economy Conference,Liverpool,1986.Google Scholar

⁹ The fact that budgeting becomes a crucial but onerous chore in conditions of poverty is the usual reason given for egalitarian or female-controlled budgeting patterns among poorer households. See, for instance, Pahl, Jan, ‘Patterns of Money Management with Marriage’, in Journal of Social Policy (Cambridge), 9, 3, 1980, pp. 313–35,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Roldan, Maria, ‘Renegotiating the Marital Contract: intrahousehold patterns of money allocation among domestic outworkers in Mexico City’, in D., Dwyer and J., Bruce (eds.), A Home Divided (Stanford, 1988).Google Scholar

¹⁰ As argued by resource theory. See, for instance, Safilios-Rothschild, Constantina, ‘The Study of Family Power Structure: a review, 1960–1969’, in Journal of Marriage and the Family (Minneapolis), 31, 2, 05 1970,Google Scholar and Lee, G. and Petersen, G., ‘Conjugal Power and Spousal Resources in Patriarchal Cultures’, in Journal of Comparative Family Studies (Calgary), 14, 1, Spring 1983, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar

¹¹ Hanson, Henny from the University of Copenhagen found a similar pattern with regard to the gender division of labour in Mufurudzi R.A. in 1983.Google Scholar

¹² See, for instance, Olivia Muchena/Government of Zimbabwe, Ministry of Community Development and Women's Affairs, ‘Report on the Situation of Women in Zimbabwe’, Harare, 1982, unpublished; Diana, Callear, ‘Small Farmer Maize Production in Wedza Communal Area, Zimbabwe’, Paris, Unesco, 1982,Google Scholar unpublished; Weinrich, A. K. H., African Farmers in Rhodesia: old and new peasant communities in Karangaland (Oxford, 1975);Google Scholar Zimbabwe Women's Bureau, Black Women in Zimbabwe (Harare, 1981);Google Scholar Pankhurst, op. cit.; and Pankhurst, Donna and Jacobs, Susie, ‘Land Tenure, Gender Relations and Agricultural Production: the case of Zimbabwe's peasanty’, in Jean, Davison (ed.), Agriculture, Women and Land: the African experience (Boulder, 1988), pp. 202–27.Google Scholar