Our understanding of the past informs and shapes our view of contemporary life on many levels. The past provides our only source of information for evaluating current affairs and making predications about the future.1
Some recent studies on Zambia have suggested that the promotion of agricultural exports and the diversification of exports in general point towards a resolution of Zambia's current economic problems.2 It has been further argued that the diversification of exports would be advanced if there were significant improvements in internal transport infrastructure and marketing system.3 The force of such views partly lies in the fact that they echo persistent pronouncements from the Zambian government leaders and international institutions that lend funds for development so that the country can improve its capacity to created foreign exchange. Sixteen years ago, T.O. Ranger raised a question about the utility of African history. After noting an emerging interest in agricultural history, he observed that "studies like those not only offer some hope of pragmatic responses to the need to know more about African poverty. They also offer an answer to the problem of the significance of African history. For in this respect only African history is fully relevant".4
Yet, the question about the utility and contemporary relevance of African history persists. The utility and relevance of African history continues to record as many scholars and policy makers increasingly become pre-occupied with a search for solutions to Africa's immediate economic problems.5 There appears to be three explanations for this. First, there is a strong attitude to view history as an antiquarian discipline. Therefore, its value, in the main, is aesthetic. And according to William Ochieng, African history was important for reasons of cultural pride; a notion that was responsible for so much limitations in the study and development of the discipline.6 The economic problems that faced Africa since the late 1970s suggested that cultural pride was rooted in sand and therefore, the whole discipline could well be about wasted effort. Second, the force of the social sciences, especially their concern with current issues which make them appear best suited to provide solutions to Africa's contemporary problems and an improved future, tend to diminish the utility and significance of history. The emergence and popularisation of development studies since the late 1950s have increased skepticism about the role of history in development. A third problem is that African history in the 1950s and 1960s was also influenced by anthropological studies and, as such, it was an appendage concerned with a clarification of gaps in anthropological research and findings. This factor is of special significance in Zambia where serious historical works began to emerge two decades after anthropologists had serviced colonialism.7
This paper attempts to explore the development of history as a study and its contribution to the understanding of agricultural change in Zambia. This is done through a brief outline of the meaning of history and its development in Zambia and how historical studies of agricultural change have evolved yet their contributions seem to have minimal impact in influencing development trends.
At the outset, then, it is necessary to state that history is an inquiry into past events which historians select for critical examination in an effort to understand aspects that constitute change and process. The selection is deliberate and entails evoking the past from the present. M. Oakeshott observed that as historians, "we begin in a present, and here in a present related to past".8 Contemporary issues and questions influence historians in selecting a past deserving systematic study. Thus, history is concerned with what happened in respect to its reflection in current phenomena. In attempting to retrieve the present or subsequent forms, Oakeshott emphasised event as a critical element. He discussed it as
....an occurrence or situation, inferred from surviving record, alleged to be what was actually happening, in a certain respect, then and there, and understood as an events or outcome of what went before. And since what went before is also understood to be itself composed of nothing but historical events, the historical character of an event is the difference it made in a passage of circumstantially and significantly related historical events. Thus, an historical past may be said to be composed of passages of related events of various dimensions, durations and constitutions assembled in answer to a historical question: a past constituted not in terms of its situational immobility but of time and change.9
From this context, histiography emerges because current reality is a rapidly changing phenomena. Lichtman and French observed that "contemporary affairs may have influenced the questions asked and the conclusions reached".10 In terms of subject matter, historiography entails recognising issues which historians (or scholars in general) consider to be the main preoccupation at particular times; and in relation to interpretations of others. This notion of change is development and should suggest the relevance of history to contemporary issues. The selection of themes for study, also reflects the social inclination of the historian. This can only be an inclination or consciousness because, as part of the middle class, historians study social classes to which they do not directly belong. It is fundamental, however, that historians recognise social divisions of societies they study and make plain the side for which they have sympathy. It is methodological and philosophical essentials of this kind that led Africanist historians to go beyond the study of `cultural heroes' to the study of societies that created the heroes. A more significant methodological issue is that historians should only consider data to be useful when it is generated by the social class they study. Data outside the group being studied has utility only in so far as it is necessary to enrich context. This is now a common place view in so far as African history cannot be properly done if it is only based on archival sources.
This can hardly be said of the pioneering works of L.H. Gann in the study of Zambian history. His works were holistic, empiricist and set to facilitate colonialism.11 The British South Africa Company commissioned Gann's works in the same spirit that teams of anthropologists and leading intellectuals were assigned to study the colonial empire in the 1930s. Mainga's and Meebelo's works provided a contrast to Gann's works. In her discussion of Bulozi as an example of a pre-colonial state formation based upon a prosperous agricultural economy, Mainga extensively used oral material.12 This Africanist perspective reached the high point in Meebelo's contribution to the debate of the late 1960s and early 1970s on African initiative and agency during the colonial era. In so far as empiricism was a key feature of history at that time, these studies could be placed in the same category.13 The most significant feature of Mainga's and Meebelo's studies was the respect and the value the scholars attached to the data which was generated in the societies they studied. This is also evident in studies of Zambia's labour history.14
This sort of feature is what one would look for in seeking to understand the views of Sano, Wulf and others in their quest to resolve problems of development in Zambia. In their brief review of recent Zambian economic history, Sano and Wulf could be justified to cite Lichtman and French's quotation at the beginning of this paper. Sano's policy proposition and recommendation was based upon his examination of Zambia's economic ills in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He noted that a policy of subsidies had often been identified as the root cause of Zambia's economic problems. He associated this view with those that saw the subsidies policy essentially as an effect to protect urban based groups and their privileges. This is a forceful and persuasive argument in the context of Ian Scott, a political scientist, who concluded that from the late 1960s to the early 1970s the ruling political party, the United National Independence Party (UNIP), had lost support in rural areas and shifted to "its natural and only alternative base of support, the middle class".15 However, Sano saw no benefits to urban-based groups because the cost of living and inflation escalated in the aftermath of a decline in cooper prices from 1975. He sympathised with the agricultural subsidies policy, especially in the form it took in the period after 1975. The policy brought about uniform prices for agricultural commodities, especially maize, and productive inputs such as fertilizers. The subsidies policy also included transportation and handling charges from production to consumption centres. Thus "uniform producer prices and transport subsidies in operation since 1974-5 have facilitated the integration of small-scale farmers from the more peripheral provinces into the national market economy".16
While Sano's sympathy for small-scale and rural farmers in Zambia is clear, it is difficult to see how "export farming should be encouraged in the interest of economic diversification".17 At least two factors raise serious problems. First, and most immediate, even at the highest point of the subsidies policy, small-scale rural producers suffered a variety of discouragements. It is rural producers who received productive resources such as hybrid seeds, fertilizers and seasonal loans well after the prime planting season had passed. They were also not paid promptly for the commodities they sold to national marketing organisations. Such problems were minimal for capitalist producers who are located near the national markets which have better transport and financial support. Second, and as an extension of the first point, agricultural policies in general have had marginal effects on the majority of rural producers. Rural farmers still operate under severe constraints. This is not to ignore Chipungu's finding about Southern Province, and which is valid as a national indicator, that "all major crops appear to be under effective peasant cultivation".18 These largely underlie peasant responsiveness to economic opportunities and this is in spite of the poorly implemented policies.
The significance of my objections is that paternalism is masked in subsidies and populist policies. There may be no dispute about the fact that Zambia's social welfare principles in agricultural policy favoured rural and small-scale producers, especially from the late 1970s. The policy appears to have lacked foresight especially since it became a basis of intervention and victim of the IMF before the policy created conditions for self-sustaining change. Further, the subsidies policy was an idle application of marketing and pricing system inherited from the colonial era. Dodge argued that from the attainment of Zambia's political independence in October 1964 till the early 1970s, the general feature of agricultural policy resembled that of the colonial administration.19 The adoption of such a policy was justified on grounds of creating non-racist practices and this became a cloak for class conflict which shifted policy from benefitting the most disadvantaged group of producers.
Another general point being made here is that the social sciences, and development studies in particular, prescribe solutions to developmental problems without a sufficient historical understanding of institutions and policies that are responsible for the constraints being resolved.20 Any casual familiarity with colonial Zambia's economic history would reveal that the dominance of the mineral export enclave in the Zambian economy caused a lopsided structure. During the colonial era, most of rural Zambia stagnated as a result of labour migration, limited commodity markets and poor transport system. These constraints persisted after 1964 and prospects for an export oriented agricultural economy in the 1980s must be limited and narrow. Moreover, the failure of the Copper export enclave to being about meaningful development would seem to suggest that there are remote possibilities for agricultural exports to be the basis for a sustained and integrated development system. With such a background, it appears imperative to state that Zambian policy makers, and their collaborators in development studies (or social sciences) would benefit from an improved awareness of Zambia's recent development history.
Earlier, I discussed some aspects of the subject matter of history and aspects of its methodology. In drawing attention to the relationship between past and present, I raised the issue of contemporary relevance of the past. Allan and Hellen were among the first scholars who devoted lengthy monographs to the study of African agriculture before and during the colonial era.21 They both appreciated the fact that pre-colonial African agriculture had been developed out of a good understanding of ecological factors that influenced the type of farming systems that influenced the type of farming systems that emerged in various parts of the country.22 They considered this knowledge as lost and irrelevant. The policy to create Native Reserves in the 1920s and the subsequent forced movement of people into the reserves caused pressure of population and land deterioration on a scale that had not been realised before. This tendency to ignore the agricultural expertise of African producers, and the failure to provide adequate preparation for adjusting the new land arrangements created irreconcilable conflicts: the colonial administration persisted in imposing its policies and most African producers resented the land policies.
The mood of historical writings after 1964 differed remarkably from that of Allan and Hellen. Both were concerned with rural development and were not historians though their studies have had considerable influence in the study of Zambian agricultural history. In a thought provoking appeal for a study of agricultural history, Ranger deduced from Allan and Hellen that "the story of Zambian African agriculture in the twentieth century has been a depressing one. Many of the systems have gone through long periods of crisis; there has been little development of `modern agriculture'.23
M.S. Muntemba produced the first serious account of why "little development of `modern' agriculture" extended beyond the colonial era to the first six years of independence. According to Muntemba, the triumph of "capitalist labour resource demands" had created rural underdevelopment in Zambia. Muntemba's conceptual tool was that labour productivity and the struggle to control it was the key to understanding Zambia's agrarian history.24 E. Colson and K.P. Vickery have shown that there was a significant tendency among the Tonga of Southern Province to acquire ploughs and other implements in order to expand family labour and to increase productivity.25 This practice enabled the Tonga to rely on their farming for cash and avoid labour migration. This also applied to Kabwe rural in the pre-independence era. The significance of `labour resource' and `labour power storing' instruments is a central issue in S. Chipungu's examination of peasant differentiation in the Southern Province. The issue of labour and technology in the post-colonial study of agrarian change in Zambia points to an obvious policy recommendation of what is essential in redressing rural underdevelopment. Only a misunderstanding of what constitutes history can make one fail to see its role in development.
The potential contribution of history to agrarian change in Zambia can also be seen in the reconstruction of peasant response to new technology. In the post colonial period, the Zambian Government made several attempts to make available tractors for hire by peasants. This would probably not have been a policy recommendation from the historians I have discussed here, that is, Muntemba and Chipungu, who document peasant keenness in renewing their stock of implements from time to time whenever the old stock needed replacement. Yet, the Zambian Government adopted a recommendation of the Seers Mission in 1964 to provide tractors and repeated this effort several times in the 1970s and 1980s.26 Both the Zambian government and Zambian peasants recognised and understood the importance of increasing instruments of labour. The Zambian Government relied on the advice of development experts. It ignored a long history of peasant enthusiasm for increasing labour productivity and commodity production. Muntemba also stated that the government failed to understand that "lack of appreciation of the producers' sense of economic judgement and awareness of market principles sometimes resulted in decreased production".27
Chipungu, Muntemba and Vickery validate the opening quotation in the periodisation of their studies. Muntemba discussed rural change in Kabwe Rural from 1850 to 1970 while Chipungu covered the period from 1930 to 1986. Vickery must have extended a substantive coverage of the period 1890-1939 to the 1980s on the ground that "our understanding of the past informs and shapes our view of contemporary life on many levels".
Post-colonial historical research was in the forefront in raising the question of women. To be fair with historical reality, anthropological studies noted the problems which women faced in rural areas when men left rural areas for wage labour. However, colonial policy that evolved tended to increase the burden on women through restricting their movements and access to productive labour opportunities. Muntemba's pioneering work on rural women and their economic conditions has significantly increased both scholarly and action-oriented attention to women issues.28 In the main, it can be argued that history made an indirect contribution to the issue of women in the Zambian society. There is still a demonstration here that historical research does and can make contributions to current issues of development. This is often not realised and the dangers of failing to use the full range of information and skills available to society might perpetuate certain facets of underdevelopment.
This is pertinent to the point I noted earlier about the need for historians to be aware of the sections of society which are the focus of their intellectual work. As part of the middle class, historians share with other scholars, a consciousness which makes them agents or representatives of the groups (they are part of) with which they sympathies and identify. I have suggested here that in historiographical revisions of the 1970s, Zambian historians contributed to understanding problems of African agricultural producers. This does point to the relevance of historical research in current concerns for improving living standards of the rural poor. Historians are counterparts of social scientists who are easily projected as leading experts on issues on development.
In referring to the methodology aspect of historiography, I referred to the need to ensure that data generated by the object of study is taken into account. This is the other value of the three recent studies on Zambian agrarian history which I have referred to. Their data was collected from a variety of written primary and oral sources. The data reflected the opinions and perspectives of those directly involved in agrarian history. One of Muntemba's informants commented that
the greatest suffering was connected with soils. We used to have good soils here. What do I have here? Swamps, swamps, hold well; not even potatoes can grow. How could we grow maize for sale.29
With data of this nature, it should be unlikely to make a policy recommendation of the kind that opened the discussion of this paper. Clearly, the point is that a direct dialogue between Muntemba's informant and Sano would not have led to a lazy solution which Sano Zambian leaders and the IMF prescribe for Zambia's economic problems in the 1980s.
The diction of some oral informants has a historical depth and analytical clarity that dwarfs that of those formulating development strategies. The quotation immediately above is illustrative and not isolated. In the Eastern province, one rural farmer remarke
Look, we had our own water well which the Department of Agriculture sank for us in 1942 before we actually constructed our village. Here there are five villages and only one well. During the dry season when the water level gets lower, women actually fight for water because it runs out before noon, and they have to walk a mile away to draw water which is often dirty anyway because domesticated animals also use stagnant ponds of water which are the only sources of water during the dry season.30
These informants have a historical perspective in which they stress the importance of planning from concrete and realistic data before the formulation of strategies for action. These hollow formulations receive stern indictments from those expected to be the agents and beneficiary of development. Commenting on an aspect of rural development policy concerned with agricultural extension services, one informant observed.
Even if the government withdrew all the Agricultural Assistants at Kalichero, people here would not even notice it. We are only about 2 miles from Kalichero Camp and I can tell you that none of those Agricultural Assistants there have visited our fields.31
Development strategies that lack a historical perspective in which targets of a policy developed a defined consciousness (or conditioning) are bound to be ignored. They would not be noticed. There is a serious weakness in a tendency that a general awareness or a brief (and casual) historical background of agrarian change is necessary in dealing with current issues. Manning has made a criticism that African "economic historians, for their silence on matters of contemporary economic policy".32 The superior methodology of historians of agrarian change in Zambia justify the practical relevance of history to contemporary economic problems in Zambia.
Historians of agrarian change in Zambia during the post-colonial era are also concerned with theory. The general theory of their theoretical perspective is the dependency-underdevelopment paradigm. I am not going to repeat the key facets of this framework nor the criticisms made on it because these should be familiar to reputable scholars.33 This theoretical construct has drawn out issues of primitive accumulation when productive resources were transferred from (African) non-capitalist forms of production to emergent capitalism. Constraints imposed on non-capitalist agriculture were considerable because of limitations in terms of land, labour, capital and unequal exchange in commodity markets. One of the major findings has been that capitalist penetration and the accompanying primitive accumulation generalised commodity production and social differentiation.
Advancing from a study of a political scientist, Lionel Cliffe, labour migration and varying involvement in commodity production have been identified as causal factors of social differentiation. Chipungu moved further in asserting that in the late colonial period and the post-colonial era, social differentiation was not at a formative stage. It was a consolidated process in which poor, middle and rich categories of peasants were identifiable. A survey done in 1944 by a team of anthropologists and agriculturalists combined with critical examinations of special developments projects from the late 1940s offered another line of explaining the process of differentiation. It has been measured in terms of livestock, cultivated acreage, marketed commodity and income. Despite Chipungu's firm observation about a consolidated process of class differentiation no serious effort exists on the long-term implications regarding further transformation to more distinct class categories. This notwithstanding, agrarian capital exists. It is a continuation of predominantly white settler elements and the indigenous factor only emerged as a consequence of political independence and occupation of administrative positions in the post-colonial state.34 Thus, a long historical tradition of orienting the state favourably to agrarian capital became strengthened by new demands. Therefore, contemporary development recommendations need to take this background into account and be sufficiently discriminating. The policy focus should be on particular categories of producers rather than defining it in terms of a mythical need for food self-sufficiency.
However, there appears to be a serious flow in analysing the articulation of non-capitalist and capitalist processes of production as responsible for the upper strata of the peasantry. The various farming schemes are exclusively not the explanation for the creation of rich peasants. Some of these rich peasants, like the post-colonial indigenous landed capital, would seem to have resulted from much broader processes of social differentiation and class formation such as education and proletarianisation. They descended upon or became installed on farming communities after having been fully blown and processed elsewhere as elements of different social classes rather than the peasantry. This process of class de-formation when either middle class elements or workers retire from wage employment to settle on the land is not sufficiently recognised. Their savings are significant in acquiring instruments of production but their level of farming skills must have varying effects on their contribution to agrarian change. Archival documents show how during the 1950s and 1960s colonial officials herded some of their African auxiliaries into farming schemes.35 A significant tendency during both the colonial and post-colonial periods has been the notion of returning in order to `die at home'.36 Emphasis of food self-sufficiency or growing for export would lead to scarce resources being wasted on emergent producers lacking second farming skills. Since historians are little known for pioneering theoretical and conceptual advances, the gulf noted here bequeaths a danger to development studies, especially in the light of its limited appreciation of history. There is need for generational life histories of rich peasants. In this way, consolidated social continuities would strengthen analysis of social differentiation as a dynamic in development. Otherwise, peasant differentiation in Zambia is historically a series of transient jumps into `rich' peasant status from which on one is able to grow further. They become frozen there or die out because they have a weak hold on resources for dynamic expansion (development).
A related issue which studies of agrarian history in Zambia must address is whether the link between state agricultural policy and statistics on production and farming equipment constitute agrarian change. Existing studies identify official statements on agriculture and advance from there to discuss the results in terms of yield, availability of production inputs and marketing services. There is need to examine aspects of the peasant household as a production unit: it is necessary to know the factors that influence producers to grow particular crops and how labour time is distributed between the various crops. With rural to urban migration as a persistent phenomenon in Zambia, it would be useful to examine attitudes towards farming in relation to other non-farming economic activities in which members of households become involved. In households where a collective commitment to farming is strong, the search for other forms of income would also be regarded as sources for agricultural capital other than an end in themselves where members develop professionalism detached from farming.37 It is possible for historians to study such patterns over long periods and such information would assist in formulating a realistic agricultural perspective.
Without analysing issues of this nature, it is easy to make the error of agricultural policy passing for agrarian history. Ranger's familiar comment on twentieth century Zambian agricultural history as a `depressing one' or `one of stagnation, crisis and failure' may be more telling about agricultural policy than about agrarian activity. In Zambia, production and marketing policy was based on maize, tobacco and pastoral products. Small grains such as millet and other food crops such as cassava have not been part of major policy issues yet they are widely grown in the country. One cannot write a complete history of agriculture in Zambia without detailed discussion of these crops. As far maize and wheat, deliberate price and marketing incentives have been important during this century to popularise their production and consumption. This was partly because of the needs of non-agrarian capital which sought to minimize production cost and because white settlers found maize to be the easiest crop to grow.38 A serious agrarian change in Zambia should be based on a critical historical appreciation of the full range of aspects that constitute agriculture.
In conclusion, it should be stated that in the 1960 and 1970s Zambia was not an isolated island during the historiographical division in African history. This change resulted both from intellectual and practical considerations. In terms of agrarian history, I have argued that historians were best equipped for uncovering concealed realities because of the breadth and sophistication in their methodology. They have also made serious efforts to theories change from a solid empirical base and the actual experiences of those directly involved in agricultural production. Thus, I have attempted to show that the intellectual rigour and aesthetic objectives in producing social knowledge make history peculiarly suited for formulating policies that would meaningfully transform agricultural and economic development in Zambia.
Peter Waterman observed that history "explains the development of present economic, social, ideological and political structures".39 This discussion recognised Waterman's critical observation; and even more, this position is widely accepted. All serious discussions of Africa's underdevelopment stress the historical explanation as an essential pre-requisite to formulating solutions. Waterman's discussion of `radication' in African studies defined the terms primarily as a commitment to fundamental change and following Basil Davidson, considered history as a frontline discipline in such change. In Zambia, as elsewhere in Africa, ignoring the role of and lessons from history could lead to serious pitfalls in development.
1. A.J. Lichtman and V. French., Historians and the Living Past (Arlington Heights., III: AHM Publishing Corporation, 1978), p.1.
2. H. Sano., "The IMF and Zambia: The Contradictions of Exchange Rate Auctioning and De-Subsidization of Agriculture", J. Wulf, "Zambia Under the IMF Regime", African Affairs, 87, 348 (1988), pp.563-577; 579-594.
3. K. Good., "Systematic Agricultural Mismanagement: the 1985 `Bumber' Harvest in Zambia", Journal of Modern African Studies", 24, 1 (1986), pp.257-284.
4. T.O. Ranger, "Towards a Usable African Past", C. Fyfe (ed.), African Studies Since 1945 (London: Longman, 1976), p.26.
5. P. Manning., "The Prospects for African Economic History: Is Today Included in the Long Run?", African Studies Review, 30, 2 (1987) pp. 49-62.
6. W. Ochieng, "Undercivilisation in Black Africa". Kenya Historical Review 2,1 (1978).
7. The Rhodes-Linvingstone Institute (now the Institute of African Studies at the University of Zambia) was established in 1938. The variety of scholars, which was dominated by anthropologists produced important and numerous publications which are still important sources of historical data.
8. M. Oakeshott., On History, (Oxfor Basil Blackwell, 1983), p.9.
9. M. Aokeshott., On History, p.62.
10. Lichtman and French The Living Past p. 246.
11. L.H. Gann., The Birth of a Plural Society (Manchester: MUP, 1958): A History of Northern Rhodesia (London: Chatto and Windus, 1965).
12. M. Mainga bulozi under the Luyana Kings (London: Longman, 1973): H.S. Meebelo, Reaction to Colonialism (London: MUP, 1971).
13. Meebelo has moved to studies of theoretical nature, see as an example, African Proletarians and Colonial Capitalism (Lusaka: KKF, 1986).
14. See note 13; and for example, J.L. Parpart, Labour and Capital on the African Cooperbelt (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983).
15. I. Scott, "Middle Class Politics in Zambia", African Affairs 308, 77 (1978), pp.333.
16. Sano, "The IMF and Zambia", p.571.
17. Sano, "The IMF and Zambia", p.577.
18. S.N. Chipungu, The State, Technology and Peasant Differentiation in Zambia: A Case Study of the Southern Province 1930-1986 (Lusaka: KKF, 1988), p.210.
19. D.J. Dodge, Agricultural Policy and Performance in Zambia (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, 1977). p.16.
20. See for example A. Seidman, "The Economics of Eliminating Rural Poverty", R. Pamer and N. Parsons (eds.) The Roots of Rural Poverty in Central and Southern Africa (Berkeley: UCP, 1977), p.417.
21. W. Allan., The African Husbandman (Edinburg, 1967); J.A. Hellen, Rural Economic Development in Zambia 1890-1984 (Munchen: Welt Forum, 1968).
22. Allan, Husbandman pp. 3-5.
23. T.O. Ranger, The Agricultural History of Zambia, HAZ. 1 (Lusaka: KKF, K71), p.17.
24. M.S. Muntemba., "Expectations Unfulfille The Underdevelopment of Peasant Agriculture in Zambia: The Case of Kabwe Rural District, 1964-1970', Journal of Southern African Studies S.1 (1978-9, pp.59-85).
25. E. Colson, "The Tonga and Shortage of Implements", Rhodes-Livingstone Journal, 14 (1954) pp.37-58; K.P. Vickery, Black and White in Southern Zambia (N.Y. Greenwood Press, 1986).
26. Muntemba, "Expectation Unfulfilled" 62-63.
27. Muntembe, "Expectations Unfulfilled" p.74.
28. In addition to note 27, see also M.S. Muntemba, "Women and Agricultural Change in the Railway Region in Zambia: Dispossession and Counter-Strategies, 1930-1970", in M. Bayled) (ed.) Women and Work in Africa (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1982) pp.83-103.
29. Muntemba, "Expectations Unfulfilled", p.76.
30. Cited in S.H. Phiri, "Some Aspects of Spatial Interaction and Reaction to Governmental Policies in a Border Area", Ph. D. Thesis, University of Liverpool (1980), pp.417-18; See also a similar view on p.387.
31. Phiri, "Aspects of Spatial Interaction", p.397; also p.422.
32. Manning, "African Economic History", p.50.
33. See for example, A. Kanduza, The Political Economy of Underdevelopment in Northern Rhodesia 1918-1960 (Lanham: University of America Press, 1986) esp. Introduction and Conclusion; idem. "The Northern Rhodesia Tobacco Industry, 1912-1938", International Journal of African Historical Studies 16, 2 (1983) pp.201-229.
34. I am deliberately grouping together the first works referred to here on social differentiation and class formation. L. Cliffe, "Labour Migration and Peasant Differentiation: Zambian Experiences", B. Turok (ed.) Development in Zambia (London: 2nd Press, 1979) pp. 149-69 Chipungu, Technology and Peasant Differentiation pp.4. C. Baylies, "The Emergence of Indigenous Capitalist Agriculture: The case of Southern Province", Rural Africana 4-5 (1979), pp.65-81: W. Allan et al., Land Holding and Land Usage Among the Plateau Tonga of Mazabuka District: A Reconnaissance Survey: Rhodes-Livingstone Papers, No. 14 (1948).
35. See for example, C.W. Tembo, "Peasant Farming Schemes in Lundazi District, 1954-1980", A.M. Kanduza (ed.), Socio-Economic Change in Eastern Zambia (forthcoming).
36 There are several cultural practices that need to be explored relating to labour migration and the link with agriculture. In pastoral economies, such as the Ngoni, a man is expected to buy cattle during the early period of wage employment. Among the Tonga it is well documented that labour migrants returned home soon after purchasing ploughs. An understanding of such practices at household level should improve our knowledge of peasant agriculture.
37. See for example, A. Low., Agricultural Development in Southern Africa: Farm Household Economics and the Food Crisis (Cape Town: David Phillip, 1986).
38. Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Maize and Small Grains Industry of Northern and Southern Rhodesia (Salisbury: Government Printer, 1963).
39. "On Radicalism in African Studies", P.C.W. Gutkind and P. Waterman (eds.) African Social Studies: A Radical Render (London: Heinemann, 1977) p.11. Also - W. Rodney, - How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Washington D.C.: Howard University Press, 1982): A. Alpus and P. Fontaine (eds.), Walter Rodney; Revolutionary and Scholar: A Tribute (Los Angeles: Center for Afro-American Studies and African Studies Center, 1982).