Contents - Previous - Next

This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at

5. Land tenure and agricultural development

The land tenure system of Zambia and agricultural development
Land tenure systems and agricultural production in Malawi
Land tenure and agricultural production in Swaziland

The land tenure system of Zambia and agricultural development

M.A. Amankwah
Department of Law, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

M.P. Mvunga
Law Development Commission, Lusaka, Zambia


At the attainment of independence in 1964, Zambia inherited three categories of land. These are State land, reserves, and trust land. State land, previously Crown land, was earmarked for European settlement and economic development while reserves and trust land were mainly reserved for African interests. A historical picture of the changes in land tenure and land policy is presented elsewhere (Banda 1986). In this paper, the discussion of land tenure is confined to tenure aspects with particular reference to agricultural development.

Interests in reserves and trust land under the customary law domain are characterized essentially by individual titles. Thus, a person resident in a reserve or on trust land can assert a claim to a particular parcel of land to which there is no prior claim and use such land for as long as he wishes until he dies or abandons it. He may also acquire a field by inheritance or transfers inter vivos.

From the point of view of customary law, there is no difference in interests between reserves and trust land. Historically, there was a difference in the lease period allowed to Europeans. Currently, this distinction is disregarded in practice by grants of leases in either category of land for a period of 99 years.

Implications of Land Tenure for Agricultural Development

Basically, two factors have implications for agricultural development: security of tenure and regulation and planning of land use.

Security of Tenure

Although the impression may have been created that individual title exists in State land, reserves, and trust land, this title in the latter two categories of land is generally not registered. On account of the unregistered state of title in these lands, security of tenure has in practice proved wanting. Provisions of the law relating to registration of land have in practice been applied only to State land. Due to the lack of finances and the scarcity of qualified surveyors, surveying facilities have been available so far only for State land. Since registered title is only granted to a landholder on the fulfilment of surveying requirements as stipulated by statute, a landholder in reserves and trust land continues to find it difficult to secure title to land.

Most of the State land, especially the urban areas, has already been surveyed because it mainly constitutes that strip of the country which had been earmarked for European settlement. State land constitutes about 6 per cent of the entire land mass of Zambia while the remainder is accounted for by reserves and trust land. The position of securing registered title in reserves and trust land has further been complicated by the repeal, inadvertently perhaps, in 1975 of the Reserves and Trust Land (Adjudication and Titles) Act. This provided a formula for reserves and trust lands for obtaining registered title other than by means of complying with survey requirements. Although before its repeal this act was not extensively used, it nonetheless was a useful facility for rural areas. Malawi continues to retain a similar act, which appears to have achieved remarkable success (Customary Land Development Act 1976). Perhaps it is time Zambia reenacted the repealed act.

Implications for agricultural development manifest themselves in the concentration of commercial agriculture on State land. A person who wants to invest his money in commercial agriculture invariably opts for State land, where his investment is assured by security of tenure on the issue of registered title documents. Thus, the denial of the registration facility means less investment in agricultural land in other rural areas.

The significance of registered title is also revealed in attitudes of money lending institutions, which, in practice, refuse to lend money to agricultural ventures which have no registered title to land. Money lending institutions insist on some kind of assurance or guarantee for the money lent. Thus, the rural farmer outside State land is denied access to borrowing. The money lending institution for the rural peasantry is the State-owned Agricultural Finance Company. This company provides seasonal loans to rural farmers. The amounts involved, however, are not very large and there is no provision for long- or medium-term loans. The company recovers its loans from farmers from the proceeds of sales at the end of each crop season.

Related to the subject of security of tenure is the abridgement of freehold estates to statutory leases in 1975. One of the reasons advanced against the conversion-of-interests move has been that this would discourage commercial farmers from investing in agricultural land held on much less a duration than freehold estates entail (Mvunga 1978). This apprehension, however, does not in fact appear to be supported. There were many more commercial farmers (mainly Europeans) who abandoned their farms after independence than those who might have left the country after 1975. Two years after independence in 1964, about 460 European commercial farmers left the country. For 1975, there are no known figures of commercial farmers who abandoned farming. The present statistics, according to the Land Use Unit, put the number of European commercial farmers at 740. This figure has remained quite constant after the post-independence exodus of European farmers from the country. One could conclude, therefore, that there has been no noticeable adverse effect on commercial agriculture on account of converting freehold tenure to leasehold tenure.

Regulation and Planned Land Use

With regard to land use, the implications of land tenure on agricultural development have been quite obvious due to the customary tenure system now existing in the country. Reserves and trust land have visibly suffered quite considerably from the lack of regulation and planned land use.

This is because land in reserves and trust land basically fall within the domain of customary law. It was assumed that this system of law was adequate to regulate interest and land use in reserves and trust land. On account of this premise, important statutes that apply to State land do not apply to reserves and trust land. The most important of these acts are the Agricultural Lands Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. The Agricultural Lands Act provides a formula of regulation and control in good management of agricultural land which is in State land. The Town and Country Planning Act provides a formula for organized and planned development of land which falls within State land.

Regulation and control over reserves and trust land have mainly, particularly at the present time, remained in the hands of the chief within whose jurisdiction a particular parcel of land is situated. But the chief no longer has the means of enforcement, let alone technical know-how and modern skills that he can impart to his people. With regard to the means to enforce regulation, it is quite apparent, for example, that the chief cannot prevent his people from settling in areas that have been known to be grazing land. As for the lack of technical know-how and skills, the deteriorating conditions in reserves and trust land in the form of bush fires and soil erosion speak for themselves. The chief has been doing nothing to abate these ills. This is diminishing the production potential of the land.

The situation has been aggravated by the negligible extension sevices provided throughout the country. Soil conservation measures also appear to be on the decline, if not non-existent altogether. In the period 1958-1963, the colonial Government put up a scheme of soil conservation in the worst-affected provinces of the country. This was done under the Catchment Conservation Project. This project has, however, declined gradually during the period 1964-1978.

Suggestions for Improvements

With regard to the aspects of land tenure discussed above, some suggestions for solving the problems may be made.

Security of Tenure

On security of tenure, a simplification of the means of obtaining registered title in reserves and trust land is suggested. For instance, the repealed Reserves and Trust Land (Adjudication and Titles) Act should be re-enacted. This act makes provision for the obtaining of registered title on the basis of local adjudication to ascertain who has exclusive title to land within the customary law domain. After such ascertainment, a landholder can obtain registered title.

Furthermore, surveying facilities within the reach of the rural peasant must be made more extensively available. This can be achieved by abandoning the costly fixed boundaries system based on cadastral survey. The suggestion has been made that Zambia should consider shifting to the general boundaries system (Mvunga 1978). Under this system, there would be no need for surveyors to make field trips in order to come out with the required on-the-spot survey diagram. The system would essentially rely on the physical features of the country in determining the deliniation of any particular parcel of land, the subject of registered title. But for this to succeed it would require detailed and updated maps of the physical features of the country. On account of the expense, the surveyor-general of Zambia favours aerial photography, which he says has already reached an advanced stage. This, the surveyor-general has assured, would facilitate grant of title to land anywhere in Zambia.

In the immediate context, however, the suggestion can be made that the Government provide more funds for loans to peasants through the State-owned Agricultural Finance Company. The experience of this company in dispensing loans without the requirement of registered title is something the Government can be guided by.

Regulation and Planned Land Use

Regulation and planned land use in reserves and trust land are now more compelling than ever. There is need for Government intervention in liaison with the chief in this regard. Agricultural development must be systematic and planned and not unregulated and haphazard.

In this regard, useful provisions of the Agricultural Lands Act and the Town and Country Planning Act should apply to reserves and trust land. The former act could provide the legal framework for regulation while the latter act could provide the framework for planning. Specialized agencies of the Government such as the Department of Planning and the Land Use Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture could come together, evaluate the solid potential in respective areas, and conclude a regional plan for any particular region. Agricultural activities would then have to be pursued within the ambit of the plan.

But for these efforts to be meaningful, the expansion of extension services to rural areas and a determined soil conservation scheme throughout the country are required. The size of the cattle population in the rural sector is frightening. It has resulted in severe overgrazing which in turn transfers the pressure onto the available arable land.

Access to Land for Agricultural Pursuits

Four methods are distinguished, to make land available for agricultural use. They are:

  1. individual holdings;
  2. land consolidation and redistribution;
  3. settlement; and
  4. formation of co-operatives.

Individual Holdings

Individual holdings are one of the prevalent means of agricultural production in Zambia. Both small-and large-scale commercial farmers in the country fall within this category. As already indicated, most commercial farmers are on State land. Small-scale farmers are, however, found on State land, reserves, and trust land. The eastern province of the country, in particular, has more small-scale farmers in both reserves, trust, and State land. As already pointed out, the constraint on small-scale farmers in the two latter categories of land continues to be registered title.

Land Consolidation and Redistribution

A programme of consolidation aims at the creation of continuous regular plots in areas where excessive fragmentation currently tends to inhibit efficacious use of land. A corollary of land consolidation is acreage limitation. This entails that no individual should be allowed to hold an excessive estate while some of his fellow citizens are without land. In contrast with countries such as Tunisia (Mifsud 1967) and Kenya (Rogers 1973), the policy of land consolidation has not been vigorously pursued in Zambia for fragmentation has not been a major problem. There has, however, been provision in the repealed Reserves and Trust Land (Adjudication and Titles) Act, which empowered the erstwhile Title Adjudication Committee "to make adjustments in the boundaries of any area of land allocated" including the consolidation of two or more pieces of land. Land consolidation under the provisions of this repealed law has only been experimented with in the Chipangali district of the eastern region. The impact of this programme on agricultural production is, however, difficult to assess at this time.

A policy of acreage limitation is provided for under provisions of the Land (Conversion of Titles) Act. But acreage limitation has not been implemented in practice, so that some persons hold more than one farm each.

Given Zambia's present trend of commercial farming, it is perhaps imperative for the Government to place some limitation on the quantity of land which one commercial farmer may acquire, so that fertile land is available for small-scale farmers. So long as good management and modern skills are employed by small-scale farmers, this could ensure production by the masses instead of mass production by a few commercial farmers.


The settlement scheme involves the twin objectives of giving a group of people a new home as well as agricultural land for development. The scheme may be necessitated by natural catastrophe, such as floods, earthquakes, or hurricanes, or by a deliberate policy of agricultural development.

The word settlement in Zambia denotes various agricultural schemes on State land designed to assist local small-scale farmers to improve their agricultural output. It has also included the Government's Rural Reconstruction scheme. In 1975, the Government inaugurated a 40,000person rural rehabilitation programme which was christened Rural Reconstruction. Initial government investment in the scheme was put at K 17.5 million. Fifty centres were established throughout the country. The idea was to encourage young school leavers and dropouts to take an interest in an agricultural scheme that would give them the means to a livelihood and so take them away from the streets in the cities. The Zambia National Service was given the responsibility of supervising the running of the centres. It was to provide instructions and agricultural equipment and other requisites. It would appear, however, that during the recruitment stage, the impression was created in the minds of the youth that they would be awarded some kind of diplomas at the end of a three-year study period which they had hoped would enable them to seek employment elsewhere as tractor drivers, farm hands, artisans, etc., rather than applying skills they were to acquire in agriculture in developing their own farms in the settlements. And since this expectation was not met, the young deserted their camps. The mass exodus compelled the Government to convert the centres into co-operative farms in 1979. However, in reality, nothing has changed and Government investment in the scheme has so far not yielded any dividend. This kind of situation is not peculiar to Zambia but is a common African problem.

Typical settlements in Zambia have involved both Government and private initiatives. There are schemes on State land, invariably a former commercial farm, which is demarcated into smaller units with applications invited from intending settlers. Expenditure on subdivision and further developments is the responsibility of the settlers, who should have suitable financial standing.

The Government-initiated settlement schemes have involved the surrender of the title deeds of a parcel of State land to the Department of Agriculture, which in turn has subdivided the land and allocated plots to settlers. These schemes are then supervised by the Department of Agriculture by providing settlers with the necessary skills.

The privately sponsored schemes are mainly in the southern province, where a non-profit company called Family Farms Limited plays the same role as the Department of Agriculture in Government schemes.

Comparing the performance of settlers with that of village or peasant farmers, all indications are the settlements are doing much better. This is because of supervised management and provision of skills in agricultural production. The success of settlements, however, depends on continued expert supervision. Without this supervision and control, there is always the danger that settlements could revert into villages on account of the lack of control on both the cattle and human populations. A settlement could then have more pressure on it than the size of the land could accommodate. With any decline in agricultural standards, the soil would deteriorate.


Of special relevance to African countries is the system of cooperative effort. It is indigenous to some societies. The pooling together of family resources in the development of land is a common phenomenon. Ingrained in the traditional cooperative are two antithetical concepts: the fostering of individual interest, which is a necessary ingredient in the provision of incentive for individual attainment, and the cultivation of an attitude of dependence on the community in time of need. Individual initiative is thus pressed into the services of community dependence.

Today, co-operation in Africa does not have the character of the traditional systems. Co-operation is invariably an imposition by the Government, designed "to remedy the shortcomings of small scale farmers, and to make available to the smallholder the facilities for obtaining capital and credit, the benefit of technical know-how and managerial skill which would otherwise be beyond his reach; as well as bolstering his economic position, which would otherwise be vulnerable" (Mifsud 1967, 283). Much of this Government involvement in cooperative matters is epitomized by the tendency towards the "unionization" of farmers for political purposes. They are often creatures of legislation.

In Zambia, although the history of co-operatives goes as far back as 1949, it was not until 1964 that indigenous Zambians were persuaded to be involved (Quick 1978). President Kaunda saw at independence that rural development was to be the cornerstone of his party's national policy. He set about this by selling the idea of co-operatives to the people. To President Kaunda, co-operation fitted into his idea of communal sharing. It implied love of one person for his neighbour. It meant ''humanism." Instead of leaving the people to organize their associations themselves voluntarily - for that is the essence of co-operation - important party officials cajoled their constituents into forming co-operative societies. The Government provided copious loans as an inducement for the formation of the societies. Loans were made available for stumping and for the purchase of fertilizers, seeds, and tractors. Given the high incidence of illiteracy among the people, ignorance of modern scientific farming, the novelty of the whole co-operative idea, and its bureaucratic complexity, it is not surprising that by 1972 the whole venture had been declared a gigantic failure (Quick 1978). By 1972, the president had been persuaded to abandon the communal co-operative system and to accept the demarcation of the communal farms into small individual holdings, which are today called ''family farms.'' Thus, although the name co-operatives, now linked in a federation, remains very much in currency, it is obvious that the spirit in which the programme was conceived has evaporated. Dependence on the Government minimizes the federations's chances of success (Zambia Daily Mail 20 June 1981.1 A cooperative can be successful only if it is free to determine the pattern of its organization, elect its own officers, and determine its own policies (Dumont 1967).

Basically, the failure of co-operatives in Zambia can be attributed to the lack of a system of cooperation and the lack of criteria in constituting such co-operatives. A group of people have assembled together in a co-operative without any system devised to determine how much labour a cooperator must put into the enterprise and how the profits or proceeds of the enterprise should be distributed commensurate with a co-operator's input. In another situation, a co-operative may turn out to be a partnership between the skilful elite and the ordinary farm worker. In this situation, the elite is completely in control of the partnership under the disguise of providing management skills and capital while the worker toils without any participation or commensurate reward in the enterprise.

It is suggested that to remedy the situation, Government supervision of co-operatives should be limited to the definition of criteria for constituting a co-operative and provision of the legal framework of the system. A cooperative enterprise should be initiated by those actively interested in farming co-operation.

Strategy for Promoting Increased Agricultural Yields

Let us now review other related strategies aimed at boosting agricultural production.

Loans and Credit Facilities

The problem of capital and financing of farm projects is a perennial one; most farmers, we have noted, are poor and engaged in subsistence agriculture. Farming can be a success, or a catastrophe if a sound financial basis is lacking. Governments have often provided lending facilities to help needy farmers. The vigorous procedures of banks and their insistence on landed property as security for loans has on occasions stultified the good intention of the Government.

In Zambia, the Land and Agriculture Bank was initially established in 1953 to provide farmers with credit facilities. Experience with the bank's lending practices has shown that they are wary about extending credit facilities except on the availability of freehold property as security. One of the dilemmas which faced the peasant farmers, as we have already seen, was that, since they held land under customary tenure, they were unable to produce evidence of title in freehold tenure. Thus, in the colonial days, the beneficiaries of the credit facilities which the Land and Agriculture Bank provided were usually the white commercial farmers who had freehold title in land. To remedy the plight of the majority of farmers who were Africans, the Peasant Farming Scheme was established under which was operated the African Farming Improvement Fund. Unfortunately, loans were not always properly used. For example, in the heyday of the co-operative farms, as we have noted above, a great deal of Government money was wasted and much remains still unaccounted for in loans granted to farmers for stumping and purchase of seed and fertilizer. Production did not equal the vast sums in loans the Government granted farmers. The revelation of colossal dissipation of Government money in this way led to the dissolution of the Credit Organisation of Zambia, which sometimes lent money in the absence of landed security.

Yet, it was obvious that, in order that farmers should be able to make a meaningful contribution towards solving the country's agricultural problems, they would still have to be assisted financially by the Government, which meant that more loans would have to be granted. The Farmer's Debt Consolidation Act was therefore passed. The act established a committee "to consider applications for and grant of certain loans to farmers, to make special provision for the liquidation of debts owed by farmers who qualify for such loans" (emphasis added). Farmers' indebtedness has thus become a perpetual affair and a vicious circle out of which many may never hope to extricate themselves. And while concerned citizens are questioning the wisdom of the policy of the Government in this regard and calling on the State to discourage the granting of cash loans to farmers in favour of technical services and tractors (Chibuluma in the Zambia Daily Mail 29 June 81), some continue to urge farmers to obtain Government loans (Mulimba, M.P., in the Zambia Daily Mail 29 June 81).

There is an urgent need for the Government to institute a stricter system of accountability by farmers for loans granted them. The impression always created that loans can be written off at will does not provide the requisite pressure which can compel farmers to appreciate the necessity of making bona fide use of loans towards solving the nation's agricultural problems. They must be made to understand that ultimately the taxpayer must provide all the money which the Government makes available to them. In misusing Government money, they place a greater burden on the taxpayer.

State-Operated Agricultural Institutions

The egalitarian approach of some African governments to problems of development often leads them to the point where they seem to forget that the Government alone cannot satisfy all the needs of every citizen, and that, therefore, private and individual initiative must be actively encouraged. The individual peasant farmer has traditionally produced all the food that the bulk of the masses consume. Yet Government officials sometimes believe that State farms can do the job better.

In Zambia, the setting up of State agricultural institutions was necessitated by two considerations: provision of personnel to fill in gaps created by departing expatriates, and diversification of agriculture and the pioneering of new agricultural enterprises. The institutions include State farms, co-operative farms, agricultural centres, agricultural research stations, and commercial and marketing agencies. The institution of these bodies generated its own problems. Take the State farms and their adjunct, the co-operative farms, for example: the Zambian environment would not guarantee their viability. Zambians as a people have been small-scale individual farmers; State farms and the political philosophy on which they are founded, which is "collectivization," would appear to some to be antithetical to traditional Zambian concepts of ownership. State farms would thus probably not be well understood. It would require a great deal of Government coaxing for ordinary people to appreciate and accept them. Then, if the farms are to prove productive, they need good management, planning, and supervision; hence, the setting up of the Rural Development Corporation which is charged with the duty of overseeing the activities of State farms. The national Agricultural Marketing Board was set up to buy, store, and distribute.

The State-owned agricultural enterprises have attracted not the well-intentioned workers but the parasitical who view State property as a fruitful source of plunder (Pozen 1976). Successful individual entrepreneurs cannot be cajoled into accepting appointments and jobs in this kind of environment (Quick 1978). Invariably, the running costs of these institutions -salaries, wages, plant and machinery and their maintenance -far exceed investment in them. They end up being operated on Government subvention, and instead of generating income, they rather become a liability. Further, bureaucratic controls create additional problems. They do not make for efficiency. Managers have little or no leeway for innovation and experimentation. Collectivization or communalism, it would seem, deadens initiative.

Government efforts to produce food should be seen as supplementary to efforts by the individual small-scale farmer rather than as superseding them (Krishna 1977). The need to make food available and at reasonable prices entails some exercise in price control. This is viewed by a certain segment of the farming community as resulting in stagnation of agricultural output.

The introduction of mechanized farming and the resultant use of tractors necessitated a reappraisal of farmer education techniques. Since most farmers were illiterate, it was imperative to give them such additional education as would make them appreciate the benefits science has brought to mankind. They need at least elementary or basic education for them to appreciate these. The question of forecasting yield or determining soil fertility, for example, cannot be left wholly to illiterate farmers. They need to be assisted by experts.

Initially, the University of Zambia produced graduates in agricultural science. But there are not enough of these graduates at any given time for Zambia's vast agricultural needs. Then there were certain agricultural jobs for which they were overqualified. Thus, the need to train mid-level agricultural officers became apparent and provision was made for their training at a number of institutions. Some marketing boards also help in the training of agricultural officers who specialize in handling particular crops. The work of this array of agricultural institutions is backed by the Research Unit of the Government's Ministry of Agriculture, whose area of interest is mainly applied research. The setting up of this myriad of State institutions also implied the movement of professional personnel from one to another and corresponding competition among these organizations for qualified persons. Given the scarcity of personnel which the exodus of expatriates created soon after independence, the enormity of the personnel problem cannot be overemphasized. Competition has exacerbated Zambia's manpower requirement problems. Such competition is not the answer to any problem of scarcity. The answer must lie in complementary efforts to increase supply or in some form of rational sharing.

The impact of the setting up of all these State institutions on agriculture remains to be seen. Arriving at a solution to Zambia's food problems remains far off. The State has launched the "Operation Food Production" programme, symbolized by lima (to plow or cultivate). It is not enough, however, to cajole people to get back to the land. If the programme is to be successful, it must be given a legal framework. Be that as it may, one not altogether obvious effort of the coming into existence of the State institutions is the growth of a new category of farmer halfway between the small-scale farmer and the large-scale commercial farmer. He has been labelled the ''emergent" or "medium-scale" farmer (Lombard and Tweedie 1972), literate and fairly wealthy. He has come to appreciate the dignity and worth of labour. He employs all the techniques of the white commercial farmer. His greatest limitation lies in the fact that, as a new arrival on the modern agricultural scene, he has a great deal to learn and must therefore proceed cautiously. He thus cultivates an acreage not as vast as that of his counterpart, the white commercial farmer, but much larger than that of his compatriot, the illiterate farmer. The future of agriculture in Zambia depends, perhaps, on his ingenuity and tenacity of purpose.

Government Support of Particular Agricultural Activities

We have noted the limited purview of Government effort in the field of agriculture in the past. However, the Government of independent Zambia, in a move designed to encourage agricultural output, singled out certain agricultural activities and passed laws specifically to regulate them: for instance, dairy produce, cattle, pigs, grains, and vegetables. The list indicates areas of agriculture in which the State is particularly interested. The legislations governing them could serve as an inducement or incentive to farmers to take up more seriously the production of the items such legislation affects. Farmers are assured a ready market for these. They are also assured of Government assistance in their production.

It must be noted, however, that this approach to augmenting agricultural production could be counterproductive because, first, the limited purview of the legislation sometimes creates the impression that the Government is not concerned about other areas of agriculture if they are not vital to the sustenance of the national economy. This tends to stultify initiative in the development of other equally viable or alternative agricultural pursuits. Second, some of the legislation tends to be more export-oriented than aimed at the promotion of national selfsufficiency. While it is true that foreign exchange is necessary for the procurement of other equally important national needs, it would seem that national self-sufficiency -at least in the area of food production- should not be sacrificed for foreign exchange earnings, or be relegated to an inferior rung on the ladder of national priorities.


We have seen that problems of agricultural production in Zambia arise from the land tenure system, organization of institutions, lack of personnel, and inadequacies in related facilities that should be available to the farmer. These are common problems for developing independent African states. They should be overcome by accepting and learning from mistakes made in the past. A deliberate and sustained effort within the present financial constraints should be made to remedy the situation.


Banda, C.T.A. 1986. "Institutional, Administrative, and Management Aspects of Land Tenure in Zambia." Part 2, chapter 5, this volume.

Dumont, R. 1967. "The Principal Problems of Agricultural Development in Independent Zambia." Government of Zambia, Lusaka.

Krishna. 1977. "Smallholder Agriculture in Africa." 432 Annals, 1 2.

Lombard, C.S., and A.M.C. Tweedie. 1972. Agriculture in Zambia Since Independence. NECZAM, Lusaka.

Mifsud. 1967. "Customary Law in Africa." FAO Legislative Series 7.

Mvunga, M.P. 1978. "Land Law and Policy in Zambia." Ph. D. thesis, University of London, London.

Pozen. 1976. Legal Choices for State Enterprises in the Third World. New York University Press, New York.

Quick, S.A. 1978. "Humanism or Technocracy: Zambia's Farming Cooperatives 1965- 1972. " Zambia Papers, 12.

Rogers, M. 1973. "The Kenya Land Law Reform Programme- A Model for Modern Africa?" Verfassung und Recht in Ubersee, 1(1): 49-63.

Contents - Previous - Next