The Political Economy of Agricultural Commercialisation in Malawi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIALISATION IN MALAWI Blessings Chinsinga Centre for Social Research (CSR) Chancellor College, University of Malawi WP 17 Working Paper August 2018 CONTENTS Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. 7 1. Setting the scene ........................................................................................................................... 8 2. Political landscape and agricultural commercialisation .......................................................... 10 2.1 Contemporary political history ......................................................................................... 10 2.2 Malawi’s political fragility in perspective ........................................................................... 10 2.3 Local governments and the agricultural sector ................................................................ 11 2.4 Configuration and re-configuration of elites ..................................................................... 13 2.5 Dynamics of rents, political patronage and elite configuration.......................................... 14 2.6 Corruption, and NGOs as alternative channels of service delivery ................................... 17 2.7 Continuities and discontinuities in the patterns of patronage ........................................... 18 2.8 Agricultural commercialisation in perspective .................................................................. 19 3. Agricultural commercialisation: narratives, actors and interests ........................................... 22 3.1 Estate-smallholder agriculture development phase (1964–1994) ..................................... 22 3.2 Failed smallholder commercialisation phase (1994–2009) ............................................... 31 3.3 Rhetoric large-scale agricultural development phase (2009 to date) ................................ 38 3.4 Up close with maize and tobacco value chains ............................................................... 44 4. Concluding remarks .................................................................................................................... 47 References List of figures Figure 1 Patronage flows and linkages List of tables Table 1 The performance of the agricultural sector between 1994/95 and 2015/16 Table 2 Land area and tenure of Malawi 1964–1978 Table 3 Evolution of number and area under agriculture and non-agriculture estates 2 Working Paper 017 | August 2018 Table 4 Estate characteristics by size and ownership Table 5 Production and yields between estates and smallholders Table 6 Land use status for agricultural estates Working Paper 017 | August 2018 3 ACRONYMS ACB Anti-Corruption Bureau ACE Agricultural Commodity Exchange ADMARC Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa AHCX Auction Holdings Commodity Exchange ASWAp Agriculture Sector Wide Approach CBRLDP Community Based Rural Land Development Project CSO Civil society organisation DCGL Dwangwa Cane Growers Limited DEMATT Development of Malawi Traders Trust DFID Department for International Development DPP Democratic Progressive Party ECA Electoral Commission Act ESCOM Electricity Supply Commission of Malawi ETIP Extended Targeted Input Programme EU European Union FISP Farm Input Subsidy Programme FMB Farmers’ Marketing Board GBI Green Belt Initiative GDP Gross domestic product IMF International Monetary Fund IRDP Integrated Rural Development Programme KADP Karonga Agricultural Development Project 4 Working Paper 017 | August 2018 LGA Local Government Act LLDP Lilongwe Land Development Programme LSADP Lakeshore Agricultural Development Programme MACE Malawi Agricultural Commodity Exchange MACRA Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority MCP Malawi Congress Party MDF Malawi Defence Force MDG Millennium Development Goal MEGS Malawi Economic Growth Strategy MERA Malawi Energy Regulatory Authority MERP Malawi Economic Recovery Plan MGDS Malawi Growth and Development Strategy MHRC Malawi Human Rights Commission MMF Malawi Mudzi Fund MPRSP Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper MPS Malawi Police Service MPTF Maize Productivity Task Force MRA Malawi Revenue Authority MUSCCO Malawi Union of Savings and Credit Cooperatives MYP Malawi Young Pioneers NABW National Association of Business Women NASFAM National Smallholder Farmer Association of Malawi NES National Export Strategy NRDP National Rural Development Programme OPV Open Pollinated Variety P4P Purchase for Progress PLO People’s Land Organization PMERW Promotion of Micro Enterprises for Rural Women Working Paper 017 | August 2018 5 SAP Structural adjustment programme SEDOM Small Enterprise Development of Malawi SMEF Small and Medium Enterprise Fund SP Starter Pack SVADP Shire Valley Agricultural Development Project TIP Targeted Input Programme UDF United Democratic Front USAID United States Agency for International Development WFP World Food Programme WWB Women World Banking YCS Youth Credit Scheme 6 Working Paper 017 | August 2018 ABSTRACT This paper examines the political economy of how food security can be achieved and guaranteed agricultural commercialisation in Malawi over the past at national and household levels. For example, the three or so decades both in a contemporary and contemporary vision of large-scale agriculture as the historical perspective. Drawing insights from Keeley primary driver for agricultural commercialisation has and Scoones (2003) and Chinsinga and Poulton (2014), not been effectively implemented due to pervasive the underlying argument of this paper is that the twists chronic food security challenges since the late 1990s, and turns in the country’s agricultural commercialisation epitomised by the implementation of the Farm Input processes have been shaped and influenced to a very Subsidy Programme (FISP) and the political sensitivity large extent by the changing configurations of political of the land question upon which its success depends. elites and their underlying interests, incentives and The commercialisation agenda is further dictated by the motivations, including the influence of donors, especially primacy of politics over ideas, which makes it extremely since the transition to democracy in May 1994. The difficult for policy makers to forge ahead with the manner in which agricultural commercialisation has practical implementation of certain ideas because they been conceived, contested and promoted has reflected are generally seen as being less politically expedient. either the degree of attachment or detachment of the The conclusion is that transformative and sustainable political elites to the agricultural sector as a source agricultural commercialisation can only stick if the of political patronage, fraud and corruption. Overall, questions of land tenure and ownership, as well as food however, the texture of agricultural commercialisation insecurity, are addressed in a manner that creates win- is very much shaped and influenced by debates win scenarios for all key stakeholders. about the land question and competing notions of Working Paper 017 | August 2018 7 1. SETTING THE SCENE This paper examines the political economy of framework was instrumental in tracking the competing agricultural commercialisation in Malawi both from a narratives about agricultural commercialisation, the historical and a contemporary perspective. The key stakeholders (including networks and coalitions) behind question is: how has agricultural commercialisation these narratives, and the stakeholders’ (networks and evolved in the past three decades or so, with particular coalitions) underlying interests in advancing particular focus on patterns of accumulation across social strata, narratives. The narratives advance a particular noting winners and losers in the process? In addressing world view (in this case in relation to agricultural this broad question, the paper identifies the factors that commercialisation), which essentially entails a desired have driven, shaped and influenced developments in state of affairs, the benefits of attaining the desired state the domain of agricultural commercialisation. There are of affairs, and the consequences of failure to attain the other critical questions: who have been the main actors desired state of affairs. The narratives form the basis driving, shaping and influencing Malawi’s agricultural for engagement and contestation between and among commercialisation story? What incentives have been stakeholders in a particular domain. Chinsinga and driving them and whose interests have they been Poulton (2014) emphasise the critical importance trying to serve? To what extent have the changes in of the political context in shaping development and the economic and political landscape influenced and programme and/or project implementation outcomes. shaped the outcomes of agricultural commercialisation? What have been the key outcomes as well as their The main argument is that the underlying interests of implications for Malawi’s overall agricultural agenda? the governing elite are paramount in driving, shaping These questions are quite pertinent because Malawi is a and influencing development and programme and/or predominantly agrarian economy. It is estimated that the project implementation