Posted August 2000

This study has had three specific objectives, namely, to find out whether people save, how they save and why they save. In attempting to answer these related questions, the study made use of Mazoredze village, in Chivi District of Zimbabwe, as a case study. The village is characterized by poverty and migration that makes it suitable to study saving in its broad form.

The study was conducted over a period of 4 months, of which half the time was spent in the field. The time was certainly inadequate, not the least because saving is a complex phenomenon, which expresses itself in a variety of subtle ways and forms. These forms may only be discerned after a prolonged study. However, the time was short because the researcher needed some time to understand as well as gain people's confidence in the area of savings. I am confident about my results but certainly not as much as I would be had the fieldwork been extended.

A mixture of sociological and anthropological methods was used in the study. Where possible the researcher joined the village in some of the activities where savings issues were clearly at play. I also ran a small questionnaire just to find out the socio economic base of the community that I studied. Finally, the study made use of published reports to determine the kinds of financial and non-financial services that are open to the people. While these were not the best of methods, at least for some contexts, they had to be used because of the period as well as the limited budget. Nevertheless, what, then, are the findings of this exploratory study?

The first major finding of this work is that rural people save and have a culture of saving. They have local concepts which describe saving. In the village, people talked of kuchengeta, kuviga or kuyamura, concepts, which have to do with setting aside some resources for future, use. They save to death, meaning they save and save a lot more than people generally think.

But if rural dwellers save, what exactly is it that they save? The most obvious point is that they save cash, whether coins or notes. But the study is also clear that people also save goods, which include livestock. The saving is not only confined to concrete variables, such as cash and cattle, although these certainly are dominant forms of saving. Sometimes people provide labor service and goods to each other with the hope of receiving similar support when the need for this arises. This is the second major finding - that people save different items.

The third major finding relates to why villagers save these goods and services. My finding is that reasons for saving are multiple, but I shall limit myself to five related ones. Firstly, rural people save because there is no acceptable form of support or assistance, either from the state or from non-governmental organizations. The credit from government is not good for a variety of reasons. To begin with, such credit is inappropriate. In the case study, we saw how farmers were provided seed packs that were not suited to the area. But credit may also be expensive. Again, we saw in the case study how people struggled to pay back the loans 10 years after they received the credit. In addition, credit or loans from government may expose beneficiaries to food insecurity. We saw the evidence of this in the village where some farmers end up growing commercial crops in order to raise the money to repay the credit advanced them. Clearly, it is the absence of desired and appropriate financial support from donors and governments that lead people to save.

Secondly, rural people save in order to build a resource base upon which to draw in times of crisis and want. This applies to every resource saved. Elders in Mazoredze saved cattle in order to use them for draught power and as a source of meat and milk. Most importantly, villagers in Mazoredze saved cattle in order to use these in acquiring wives for themselves and their children. These wives provided cheap labor to the marrying household. Moving away from the issue of cattle, we note how people offered their labor and cash in order to guarantee themselves similar support when in need. Clearly, people save in order to build resources on which to fall back on.

Thirdly, rural people save in order to have resources with which to extend their influence. We saw how in Mazoredze fathers eagerly paid lobola (bridewealth) for their sons in order to maintain control on them. These parents continued to demand obedience from sons for their assistance in helping them to acquire wives.

Fourthly, rural people save in order to improve their life chances. In the village, we saw how some people saved cash in order to be able to send their children to school. These parents regarded education as a mechanism by which their children could be equipped to take advantage of the industrial economy so that they could be employed as clerks, administrators and other valued professions.

Fifthly, rural people save in order to build regenerative resources after an unexpected calamity or crisis. In the case study, we saw people setting aside cash to assist them in recovery after an expected calamity. We also saw how people set aside cattle for use in restocking. The possession of regenerative stocks makes possible the continued reproduction of the household. Households in Mazoredze which did not have sufficient stock to help them recover, became poor and dependent on those that had.

But how are these resources saved? How do people save cash, cattle or food? The answer to this question forms my next finding. My research suggests that rural farmers adopt multiple strategies to conserve their resources. In the case of money, some is deposited at the banks which are thought of as having the effect of hiding it from kinsmen who might want to enjoy the wealthy of a lineage member. But banks also effectively remove the wealth from the eyes and hands of the owner himself who might want to squander it to satisfy a passing desire.

It is important to point out, however, that not all keep their money in the bank. The majority of rural people choose to hide this money in secret places, which include bushes, pillows, creeks and roofs. It is not by accident that people hide their money in such queer places. Three reasons can be cited. First people have lost faith and trust in formal financial institutions and banks. Secondly, the elaborate procedures that are required for one to deposit or access one's savings put people off. Thirdly, they fear being swindled and defrauded of their money. Thus hiding money in secret places reflects a high degree of stewardship rather than backwardness on the part of the rural people.

But not all cash is hidden in secret places. Some of it is given to trusted relatives for safe storage. Women for instance often put their money in the custody of friends. Others entrust the money to relatives. Those adopting this strategy say they do it in order to hide the money from those people with an equal claim to it and those it is difficult to deny. In the village, we saw how women hid their money with friends in order to hide it from their husbands whom they said needed it for pleasure, especially for beer and tobacco. But others do it in order to hide the money from their own eyes and hands.

The final saving strategy adopted by peasants, especially women, is to unilaterally disperse and diffuse the cash as zvikwereti (loans) as to different people who may or may not have need for cash. That these unsolicited loans should be scattered among different people is deliberate. The first point, to which we shall return shortly, is to build a considerable clientele that one may fall back on in the future when the need arises. The second reason is to minimize the risks associated with non-payment. Whatever the reason, it is clear that dispersing unsolicited loans is a strategy one adopts to make secure one's savings.

Concerning saving cattle, there are two distinct strategies which owners adopt. The first is to take personal control of the cattle. This way, the cattle owner is able to monitor the health of his cattle and to intervene when there is there need to do so. Rightly or wrongly, such people believe that nobody else other than them can look after cattle.

Sometimes, however, cattle are put under the custody of a distant relative where pastures are available. This arrangement allows the cattle owner to hide his wealth from relatives, especially members of his lineage. Where the cattle are loaned, the owner arranges for the lease to enjoy some limited benefits. These benefits include draught power, milk and manure and exclude meat. At the end of the contract, the distant relative may be awarded a beast or two. These benefits are calculated not just to strengthen the relationship that exists between the two. These benefits are meant to motivate the recipient of cattle to look after them well. Again we come back to the point we made earlier, namely rural people do not just save items, they take measures to ensure that their savings are secure.

Whether the cattle are in the custody of a relative or simply looked after by the owner, there is concerted effort to provide them with appropriate grazing. The search for grazing land may take the owner to remote places. I have shown in previous chapters how people traveled long distances in search of grazing land. Alternatively, the search might force cattle keepers to seek support from the state. In the text, I have shown how cattle owners petitioned government to provide them with a farm that they could lease.

If the resource being saved is food, it is often stored in secure places where friends, foe and creatures can not access. In the study, I showed how people stored their food in dura, which were solid structures that were difficult to access, even to the owner. These duras were strictly controlled and monitored so that no food was wasted. Clearly people save and they do this effectively.

The findings of this study have an implication for policy. Policy makers often look at rural peasants as people who both lack savings and a culture of saving. Having assumed that the people lack these and considering it their responsibility to change rural livelihoods, policymakers initiate strategies aimed at supplying rural people with financial support. This research shows that rural people save and have a rich culture of saving and this is a point which policy makers need know. Once they accept this point, their role will be that of identifying together with rural people themselves, the local saving strategies and select the most pronounced for support. The process is difficult because it involves breaking away from traditional views of saving and may require unconventional modes of support such as giving people cattle and grain rather than the usual cash.

Saving to death: Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Bibliography