Zambezia (1978), VI (i)ESSAY REVIEWALTERNATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF AGRICULTURALEMPLOYMENT IN RHODESIAIN OPINIONS VOICED of this work under review,* the kindest adjectives heardwere 'impressionistic' and f slip-shod'; phrases used by most local readersfrequently contain the word 'scurrilous'. It all depends on who reads it.The farmer and the agriculturist who live with the subject treated by DrClarke resort to the latter reaction. The dilettante socialist may appreciatethe book.The Justice and Peace Commission of the Rhodesia Catholic Bishops*Conference who commissioned and financed this 'report' rather expectedthe nastier kind of local reaction, as the present Organizing Secretary of thatCommission indeed promised in the foreword. The purpose of the workwas to expose what the Commission had decided in advance was 'an area ofinjustice'. Clarke therefore produces what amounts to an argument for theprosecution.Considered within the confines of its subject, this 'report* is not of aca-demic worthŠnot because of the publisher's excessively poor presentationbut because it so obviously relies on uncritical acceptance of its line of argu-ment. Clarke is playing to the gallery.It is possibly this feature which, in future years, will be of academicinterest to the student of propagandism in Southern Africa. Clarke's methodsare neither novel nor do they obscure his aims sufficiently well to delude thereader into accepting the book in its entirety as a factual report.An element of truth is there and the scene is set with sufficient localcolour to make it appear convincing. In order to promote the impression ofveracity an endless sequence of tabulated information is flashed before theviewer. Some of the tabulations are irrelevant or superfluous to the text but,no matter, they do impress. So do the sources of Ms information, both in theTables and the Notes. Clarke's references cover a wide range, both in breadthand in time-span. This indication of the amount of available literature con-cerned with agricultural and plantation employment conflicts somewhat withthe statement in the Preface that 'there still exists an analytical and empiri-cal vacuum on the farm employment question*.True, an analysis of sorts is made, but on the basis of such informationwhich may serve, or that which the author canŠrather clumsilyŠmanipulate,to 'extend it in certain directions', as the author himself puts it (p.10). At onepoint (p. 128) such distortion appears undisguisedly when a negative is deletedfrom a published opinion expressed in 1973 by the then Secretary of theAssociation of Rural Councils. Clarke gets a little mileage out of that, and a* D. G. Clarke, Agricnltural and Plantation workers In Rhodesia (Gwelo, MamboPress, Occasional Paper, Socio-Economic Series No. 6, 1977), 298 pp.,7576ESSAY REVIEWlittle more on page 30 where he confuses (?) the identity of 'agricultural ser-vice workers' to make invidious comparisons of wage 'stratification' on thefarm. He also makes a tendentious point (pp. 182-4), with only the slightestqualification, of the relatively high taxable incomes of (White) farmers. Thisis an essential point to Clarke's argument, there being 'a basic issue thatwages should be judged in relation to enterprise "ability to pay" * (p.248).He fails to show that only 56 per cent of all (White) agricultural pro-ducers made enough money in the fiscal year which he selects (1975), toyield a taxable income at all, and that that year was one of the best-payingfarming seasons for Rhodesia in more than a decade.And so Clarke stretches a little truth to extend the distance of his argu-ment in his 'certain directions'. A reader who takes the trouble to check afew references (which would be difficult if not impossible to find in foreignlibraries) would feel like the man who naturally threw away a whole atlaswhen he found his town misplaced on one map.Since Clarke also attempts to block every possible counter-arguinent.Ms presentation is confused and overburdened with detail. Pointless stress-ing of apparently random words and phrases in the text also adds to thereader's confusion. It is only by marking and isolating those themes whichare most repeated that the bearings of his main 'directions' are defined.Poverty. That Black agricultural and plantation workers in Rhodesia are pooris a fact. The measure of poverty is, in Clarke's analysis, essentially that ofincome level. That the agricultural employer in the commercial fanning sec-tor (White-owned farms) is rich, and has become so by economic oppressionof his labour force, as Clarke suggests, is false.His data mainly derive from statistical evidence for the years pest-Li.D.I. (1965-73), which were trying years for the farming industry, to say theleast (see Figure 1).Indeed, the evidence as presented appears shocking. Labour earningsdropped in real values as well as in current values. Current values of averageannual individual employee's earnings varied from Rh$123,50 (£95,00 aipresent exchange rates) in 1965 to Rhf 142,00 (£109,00) in 1973, with a lowpoint of about Rh$ 122,00 (£94,00) in 1967/8. Though expressed in cashterms, 'earnings* are the aggregate of cash wages and wages 'in kind' (food,housing, fuel, i.e. basic subsistence resources). The negotiable cash resourcesderived from earnings were about two-thirds of the gross. That situationaffords considerable fuel for argument in the hands of Dr Clarke, whosesense of the situation is totally lacking. He takes no regard of the prevailingrural circumstance in which a tribesman is only just attempting the westernlifestyle. The commercial farm is a money-making business, albeit an outpostoi the cash economy. It is the convenient starting point for the tribesmanon his self-chosen journey to the bright though expensive lights of town.I le is not yet totally committed to that journey, however, since he tries tomaintain his connections with the tribal home.All he can sell is his muscle to pay his way in the world. Thar docs notget him very far, but it does at least give his children that advantage oi a stepnearer the town. So he demands education for them and, as Clarke admits,gets it. But, by traditional habit, his reproduction rate is high. Because ofavailable and enlightened medical care, which Clarke also admits to exka,the conventionally high birthrate yields a high survival rate of children,which Clarke does not admit. (The national population growth rate forRhodesian Blacks is estimated to be about 4 per cent per annum Š re-portedly the highest in the world).F. P. DU TOIT 77In result, the existing rural services and amenities are never adequate;more youngsters get less education; more unqualified people are availablefor menial farm jobs. Meanwhile the tribal home is also being overpopulatedand under-developed. Whenever the tribal life suffers a set-back these peoplecome to farms looking for jobs.So the calibre of available farm-labour does not rise, and the farmerpays for what he gets (hands) out of what he can earn Š which is not verymuch. Clarke does not say that at all, but quite the opposite.The fact is, as mentioned, that by a combination of poor seasons andserious effects of international trade sanctions the agricultural industry hadsuch a thin time after U.D.I. that the commercial farming sector did notbecome solvent until 1973/4. True, input costs were kept lower than grossoutput levels Š barely so in 1968 and in 1970 Š and of that resultant'margin' a significant proportion was derived from State subsidies. But inputcosts', as statistically reported, do not include necessary capital formationin plant and equipment; nor interest paid on borrowings; nor the farmers'living expenses; nor the cost of farm purchases (mortgage repayments). Also,the war situation has cost the farmer a great deal since 1972, and still does.Grants-in-aid have admittedly been allowed by Government for specifiedprotective measures against terrorist attacks on his home and on his labourvillage, but numerous other unaccountable wartime expenses devolve uponthe farmer. Such are caused by farmers' time spent away on military duties;following UP cattle rustlings; and most significantly, in the rehousing andcare of his labourers and their dependents when these are left destitute byterrorist ravages.Clarke makes only passing mention of trade sanctions imposed on Rho-desia and of the war. Nowhere do these inescapable factors enter into hisreckoning. If further proof of the political bias of his argument is neededthese omissions clearly establish Ms own position.Had he not laboured under that prejudice he might have token thetrouble to investigate 'wage levels in relation to agricultural productivity'in other countries. Clarke only presents the local statistics (Table 16, p.42).But the easily available I.L.O. labour statistics indicate that a farm employeein the United States earned almost precisely the same in relation to his com-puted share in the gross agricultural produce as did the Black Rhodesianfarmworker.Taking agricultural wages as a percentage of the value of agriculturalproductivity (both divided by numbers of employees) for the years 1967-74,the Rhodesian ratios move from 40 per cent to 29 per cent; the UnitedStates* from 40 per cent to 28 per cent; and the British from 58 per cent to54 per cent (for males; for British female farm-workers it remained fairlyconsistent, starting and ending at 37 per cent). The actual values of earningsand productivity are obviously far higher in the U.S.A. (productivity about24 times) and Britain (productivity about 5 times) than in Rhodesia in con-sequence of the greater desree of agricultural mechanization there. Rhodesiahad only 5,5 tractors per 100 farm-workers employed in 1968, falling to 5,1in 1974. The U.S.A. had almost twenty-five times as many tractors andBritain more than ten times as many.Clearly, as mechanization takes the place of manual effort individualwages rise in an apparently predictable trend, once a base ratio has beenestablished for the particular country. That Britain chose a higher base ratio(paying more wages for less productivity) than the U.S.A. is not the Rho-desian farmer's fault, and could well underlie some of the chronic economic78ESSAY REVIEWproblems of the U.K.Therefore, had the Rhodesian farmer mechanized his enterprise onthe North American pattern, fewer farm-workers could well have earnedmore. Two inhibitions are obvious: international trade sanctions and thespectre of mass unemployment. After all. who will employ unskilled, un-sophisticated tribesmen if the farming industry does not absorb them?Indeed, technological advances have been rapidly adopted in Rhodesianfarming; or, rather, have been forced on the farmer by rising market stand-ards. Rhodesia's landlocked situation, distant from large foreign markets(more so after the Mocambique border closure), predisposes its industrialeffort to high quality production in order to gain export opportunities. Parti-cularly so in farming, and keeping up with the world's tastes costs money. AsClarke concedes, the required technological innovations consume an ever-larger slice of input costs. The diminishing remainder is then spread oxerwap.es. maintenance costs and the farmer's own living expenses. Practicaleconomics of this kind escape Clarke, as does the fact that commercial farm-ing is a capitalist business which is expected to yield a profit out of grossreturns. As 1 have indicated, that profit was not consistently forthcoming.Nevcri!ieic:;s. she farm-worker was cushioned against the calamities whichbefell farming in the late 1960s. Rising market standards, too, were satisfiedand as soon as it became possible (in 1973/4) wages did rise.Trade Unions. At this point Clarke goes off in another direction to find faultwith the ri\<c ci wage increase. He finds it tardy; and ascribes it to a lackof 'collective bargaining power' for farm-workers.It is true? that no Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Trade Unionenjoys official recognition in Rhodesia. It is not true that farm-workersiiui'fer I Hereby to the extent of being isolated from other industrial wagetrend:, {ice '-ifnure 2).During (he years 1971-6 the earnings (cash and remuneration 'in kind'combined} of farm-workers rose by 53 per cent. Comparative earnings ofBlack workers in all other industries, combined, rose by 60 per cent. Trendswhich. :houk! have been significant to Clarke are those in industries whichare reprc;-en!ed on Industrial Councils (i.e. workers represented by tradeunions). Of these, the mining industry showed a wage increase of 64 per centand the 'transport and communications" sector only 46 per cent. It shouldalso be noted that two rapid jumps in the 'earnings of 'mine-workers' in theyears 1'073-4 were occasioned by a considerable broadening of job oppor-tunities in that industry, as a result of apprenticeship schemes. Even thoughthe ;'ar:i:-v. o; \cr generally remains a labourer, his 'cash and kind' earningsh.-i\e been \\vil within the mainstream of wage trends. However, his 'cashonly' earnings had shot up by 88 per cent, and if that rise is plotted againstthe rise in gross output of agriculture for those years (1971-6) there is nosignificant trend difference,Clarke relies on columns of tabulated figures in which he neitherattempts such comparisons nor affords opportunity for the reader to do so,even though his sources contain all the necessary information.Social Security. Another direction of Clarke's 'report' is in the purportedlack of social security suffered by the farm-worker. This again is, or wasuntil lately, a valid argument on the specific ground which he chooses Šthe lack of purely economic security.Ever since the establishment of White commercial farming (as distinctfrom 'subsistence farming') the Black farm-worker enjoyed a far greaterF. P. DU TO1T 79measure of territorial security than did his ancestors when at the mercyof tribal conflict and factional disputes. Until only a decade ago his 'place*on the farm was unchallenged, provided he maintained allegiance to hisemployer. This may seem feudalistic, but we are talking about Africa, notEurope. Indeed, a life-long 'family' allegiance apparently also persists inemployer-employee relationships in certain Japanese industries.By this relationship the Black employee achieved 'retainer status', asClarke puts it. It was a well understood relationship, tacit as it may havebeen, and could well also have been a counterpart to the tribal allegianceto a chiefdom or headman. When a farm-worker became infirm or too oldto take his place in the 'gang' he could be shifted to a less arduous job onthe farm, or he could opt to return to his tribal home, usually with a cashgratuity. There he would pass the time scratch-gardening, watching cattleand in conversation while his sons provided for his modest cash needs. Hewould also derive capital gains from the bride-price of his daughters. Hencethe traditional urge to beget numerous children from as many wives as hecould afford to buy during his working life on the farm.Times have changed. On the one hand, children are not what they usedto be. Modern influences have disrupted family loyalties. On the other hand,farming has become an intensively conducted business. Human pressure onall land is noticeable, most obviously in some tribal lands and less obvi-ously on commercial farms where positive measures of environmental con-servation have long been practised.While the retainer tradition is still upheld, it cannot survive for muchlonger as rural populations steadily enlarge and farming lands requiretighter and more profitable control. Clarke puts it all in much harsher terms,with no opportunity lost for ascribing grasping and selfserving motives tothe farmer and the State.The civilized alternative to 'retainer status' was therefore devised andpresented by the Rhodesia National Farmers' Union in 1974, in the formof an agricultural workers' pension scheme. As could be expected, the schemehad a mixed reception. While it appealed to reason it did not appeal to senti-ment. Neither farmer nor worker would lose anything by it except traditionwhich was being lost anyway, but country folk tend to be conservative.Clarke, however, makes the scheme appear as if it were a 'cosmetic*measure. Here is an act of faith by which Rhodesia becomes the first countryin Africa to provide social security for farm-workers by the introduction ofa pension scheme. That it was introduced during a period of political un-certainty and of extraordinary limitations to farm profitability due to sanc-tions illustrates the responsible and enlightened attitude which employers offarm-labour hold in regard to the well-being of their employees Š peoplewho, in general, are unenlightened regarding the management of their ownaffairs in a modernizing environment.True, the scheme was a compulsory one at first (it is now voluntary),since a fragmented scheme serving low-income workers cannot be viable.The consolidated scheme was necessary, at least at the start. However, duringa fifteen-month period the fund paid out some Rh$15Q000 in death claims(death by any cause, including war casualty). So it is operating and it ishonouring its promises.Clarke's main complaints are that the pension benefits are likely to below, being relative to the earned income of the worker, and that continuinginflation will deflate the real value of those relatively small benefits. Given80ESSAY REVIEWthe type of employment Š the least skilled and the lowest paid of all in-dustries (in Rhodesia) Š his point is self-evident and indeed inherent in anypension scheme. The inflation problem is a complex one. Clarke evidentlydid not absorb the simple fact that both pay-scales and interest rates risewith time. Both increments contribute to value-maintenance of pensions. (In-terestingly enough, British state pensions have only just, in 1978, been ad-justed to relate to earnings at the time of retirement.)Also inherent in all pension schemes are calculated life expectancies.Clarke delves into these and, disregarding the fact that African life expect-ancy data are notorious for an intrinsic degree of guesswork, he makes outthat only a tiny fraction of farm-workers will live beyond a retirement ageof between 55 and 60 to enjoy the benefits of a pension.Were that so, it would mean that the majority of farm labourers wouldin any event enjoy 'retainer status*, during their latter years before retire-ment, as and when their labour capacity declines. Were a labourer to diebefore retirement, then the pension would revert to relatives, thereby ful-filling at least some function of social security.However, none of the advantages of this pension scheme appeal toClarke. Indeed, he obviously had no intention of giving any credit for anyaspect of whatever social security the agricultural worker enjoys, be it ofthe 'paternalistic' tradition in farmer-employee relationships or of the modernimpersonal provisions of the pension fund new being introduced.Quality of Life. 'Quality is what you say when you cannot state exactly whatyou mean.' This quotation does not altogether fit Clarke's dissertation on'quality of life', since he knew precisely what he meant to say but could notsubstantiate his viewpoint. So he resorts to this woolly slogan. Indeed 'Q.O.L.is a concept badly in need of a theory' (Human, 1978), and never more sothan in cross-cultural assessments, since 'equality is in the eye of the be-holder'. However, in the social scientist's attempt at rationalizing the measureof 'equality' in universal terms, the suggestion is made that it refers to thedegree to which 'wants' are satisfied. Or, in the negative interpretation, that'quality' is low when the individual is most frustrated in attaining satisfac-faction of his 'wants'.This is still not a clear enough guide to 'quality'. 'Needs', 'wants' and'wishes' are still treated as equal contenders foi satisfaction Š all threebeing ranked as 'felt needs'. And, since 'Q.O.L.' accepts the fact of 'plural-ism' (e.g. differing value-scales of 'quality' as may occur in different cultures),the relative importance of certain 'needs', 'wants and 'wishes' may vary. Also,the satisfactions of life, by 'Q.O.L.' measure, may be expected in a greateror lesser time-span. It is indeed probable that the elements in Maslow's'hierarchy of needs' do not occur simultaneously in the order given at allperiods of people's life-span in all cultures. It may be argued that the adventof ultimate 'self-actualization' in a certain cultural framework is not expectedby the individual during his lifetime at all, but in a later 'spirit-world'. Con-versely, the archetypal Western man is commonly idealized as a 'go-getter*who wants everything in the least time, regardless Š certainly before retiringage.The attainment of any 'quality of life' has, in fact, to do with the in-dividual's awareness of possibilities and potential in his particular ambienceand how keen his ambitions are in practical modes of self-satisfaction (i.e.his 'need to achieve' in the destinies which his culture proclaims).By confusing one ambience with another any commentator can makeF. P. DU TOIT81what he likes of this already nebulous 'Q.O.L.'. Clarke does so by misinter-preting the Black farm-worker's potentials for development in a modernizingdirection, and the contemporary phase of whatever change in life-style heis experiencing.He is where and what he is largely because he either does not wish tomake the effort to change, or because he has, even if momentarily, found asignificant measure of satisfaction in his situation,Clarke's micro-study of the labour histories of 13 farm-workers(Appendix C) shows that more than half their aggregate working lifewas spent as farm-workers; 10 are over forty years of age; 8 are illiter-ate; 9 are earning the highest cash wage of their lives. Although such mini-scule evidence serves no statistical purposes, one wonders why these parti-cular men have stuck the job for so long if the Q.O.L. that they experienceis as unsatisfactory as Clarke would have us believe. Indeed, in considera-tion of their complaints, which Clarke provides, one finds the standard'overworked-and-underpaid' plea most often. One person earning Rh$70a month, with one child in his care (his wife being in a T.T.L, with fiveothers), having a savings account of $400 and-owning a car, complains ofa monthly expenditure of Rh$4 on food (over and above his free-rationissue). Others complain of the high prices in the store Š who doesn't?From this and other evidence proffered by Clarke the reader is leftwith the impression only of a convenient slogan Š 'Q.O.L.' Š devoid ofsubstantial argument.If 'quality of life' could be assessed by the individual's sense of 'feelingat home' in his situation Š a rather different standard of judgement fromthe one related to his attainment of personal goals Š a clear argument forlife on the farm would emerge. Once again the author avoids this line ofthinking since it would no doubt deviate from his chosen direction.It is a fact that country life has been disrupted by population increase,and ŁŠ violently so Š by the present war. However, of all the rural regionsso affected the (White) commercial farming areas have been least upset.Population increases could have been accommodated in an enlargedagricultural industry. In Table 43 (p. 157) labour shortages on farms arequoted for the years 1972-4, and average about 22 500. That number con-stituted about 6 per cent of the total average labour force in farm employ-ment over that period.During the same period, the war escalated. The brunt of the terroristonslaught was taken on farms and in tribal lands. Defensive measures aimedat improved protection of the rural Black population in threatened areas in-cluded protected villages in the T.T.L.s and consolidated compounds onfarms.Whereas such measures wrought dramatic changes in the tribal way oflife, it hardly affected farm-worker communities and could only have im-proved their 'quality of life', certainly in regard to environmental health andsocial amenities. Indeed, the planning involved in this project gave specialattention to the least possible disruption of living habits and the greatestpossible improvement of the environment. Clarke, who could conceivablyhave been unaware of the full import of this project (although he could havefound out), misconstrues its aims by ascribing 'a strong tendency for em-ployers to go in for minimalist solutions and to under-invest in compoundfacilities' (127). To someone who was involved in both the planning andexecution of this vast undertaking (concerning about 2 000 farm villages ac-commodating about a half-million people) his attitude is crassly ignorant.82ESSAY REVIEWFigure 1ACCUMULATED PRODUCTION COSTS. ALLOWANCES AND GROSSAGRICULTURAL OUTPUT FOR RHODESIAN COMMERCIALFARMING (EUROPEAN SECTOR), 1965-76MarginTotal ofProduction CostsAfrican labourwages 'Europeanemployees' wagesMaintenance ŠŠ' 'interest on ^-ŠŠŁ"*"borrowings .Capital formation'MaterialsFuel & transport-insurance, waterelectricity, .servicesGross output from agricultural production50F. P. DU Tonr83SOURCES:Agricultural Finance Corporation of Rhodesia, Annual Report [title varies: foryears 1970-1976/7] (Salisbury, Government Printer; The Corporation).Central Statistical Office, Reply to personal enquiry concerning 'numbers of em-ployers of agricultural labour', June 1978.Rhodesia, National Accounts and Balance of Payments of Rhodesia: 1973 (Salis-bury, Central Statistical Office), Table 13; National Accounts of Rhodesia 1976 (Salis-bury, Central Statistical Office), Table 15.Rhodesia, Supplement to the Monthly Digest of Statistics, January: 1978; (Salis-bury. Central Statistical Office), Tables 6, 20, 40; and Digest of Statistics March:1978 (Salisbury, Central Statistical Office), Table 4.A somewhat unconventional summation of 'input costs' is made in order toreflect the 'production costs' of farming. An obvious departure from standardexpressions concerns 'capital formation', which is commonly included in'output*. However, it is argued that 'capital formation* absorbs finance fromthe farmer's earnings while he remains in business, hence it reduces his"margin' of profits. Equally, 'interest on borrowings' is undoubtedly a dis-bursement which, unless honoured, could put the farmer out of business aswell as any of the other conventional 'input costs',A much disputed factor in farming costs is the farmer's own 'Jiving ex-penses'. Here again, unless the grocery, clothing, dental or educational bills,inter alia, are paid, the individual's enterprise is financially embarrassed.The question of actual value of that allowance is a vexed one and for pur-poses of illustration of a figure of Rh£7 000 per annum, per farming em-ployer, has been considered. That figure refers to the year 1976 and hasbeen devalued (by Consumer Price Indices) regressively to 1965 (Rh£4 532)to arrive at 'current values'. Such an allowance has been one of the yard-sticks by which the Ministry of Agriculture would view the relative viabilityof a farm. Obviously, unless a 'farming unit' can afford a farmer a reason-able living it is not viable as such.The shaded portions indicate the 'area of discretion' within which afarmer is able to allocate funds to the directions included. He may main-tain his buildings and equipment to varying standards, or pay his Europeanand African employees more or less, and so enlarge or reduce his 'margin*(the darker shaded area). However, the size of his enterprise predetermineshis outgoings in all the directions in the unshaded areas, within narrow limits.From this kind of practical view of a farmer's fortunes his profitabilityand credit-worthiness is assessed (as is reportedly done by credit sources).Taking 1965 (the year of U.D.I.) as a starting point, it therefore appears thatthe farmer had very little, if any, room for manoeuvreability in the 'area ofdiscretion' until 1974, when he came into the black. Having done so, hewas then in a position to enlarge disbursements in the lightly shaded area(which he evidently did) and/or salt away his profits. Since farming for-tunes are by no means stable, the latter recourse appears to be a sensible one.84 ESSAY REVIEWFigure 2COMPARISONS AMONG MOVEMENTS OF EARNINGS BY AFRICANEMPLOYEES IN THE AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER INDUSTRIES,AND WITH VALUES OF OUTPUT IN THE EUROPEANAGRICULTURAL SECTOR. IN THE YEARS 1971-63. Cash earnings of permanently employedagricultural workers in the Europeanagricultural sectorA. Value of gross output in the Europeanagricultural sector at current prices, /expressed by indeces v ^. E. Earnings in mining and quarrying/ \industriesngs in all industries, otheragriculturengs in cash and kind fromnent and temporary employ-in agricultureF. Earnings in transportand communicationsindustriesSOURCES:Central Statistical Office, Reply to persona! enquiry, June 1978.Rhodesia. National Accounts and Balance of Payments of Rhodesia: 1973 (Salis-bury, Central Statistical Office), Table 13; National Accounts of Rhodesia 1976 (Salis-bury, Central Statistical Office), Table 15.Rhodesia, Supplement to the .Monthly Digest of Statistics, January: 1978 (Salis-bury, Central Statistical. Office), Tables 6, 7 and 17.F, P. DU TOIT85While It Is obvious that a diagram of this type will influence a degree ofparallelism in the trends, as displayed, deviations from a common trendwill nevertheless be noticeable. One such is in trend E, being steeper thanD, C and F since 1973 and was caused by a distinct broadening of Africanjob opportunities in that sector. The inferior values reflected in trend Fmay disguise the fact that average incomes in that sector are far and awaythe highest, for a relatively small number of Africans in employment (averag-ing about 3 per cent of all Africans in employment). Conversely, trend Cconcerns 39 per cent (average during the years quoted) of all Africans inemployment, being the largest labour-consuming sector, and has the lowestindividual income.Trend B shows a marked steepening since 1974, to approximate trendA since 1973. However, since wage increments are characteristically main-tained, trend B moves to the left of trend A since 1975 when the rise ofagricultural output value declined. This bodes ill for the volume of futureemployment opportunities in that sector. However, for the period coveredby the display, the trend of the farm-worker's cash income and that of grossagricultural output are not significantly disparate.Trend A, is concerned with farmers' earnings, not including 'owncapital formation', and therefore reflects the cash resources from which allinput costs', including wages, are met.Trend C includes both permanent and temporary employees' earnings.It Is therefore possible that the trend is less steep than it may have beenif only permanent employees' earnings were reflected, since temporaryworkers are only employed seasonally and not throughout the year.Trend B is therefore consistently steeper than trend C, since it con-cerns only permanent employees (reflecting a full year's income) and sincewage increments are more commonly devoted, to the 'cash* portion thereofthan the 'in-kind' portion. Also, the rations component of the fin-kind' portionwas increasingly paid In cash, thereby enlarging the cash portion over theyears. The worth of the remaining 'in-kind' portion (for housing, water, fuel,etc.), being farm-found resources, are not sensitively reactive to inflationarystimuli and therefore its value remained fairly constant, which would tendto depress the rise of trend C.It is that attitude which denies Clarke the opportunity of seeing thefarm-worker in his real situation. Or Is It? The ulterior motive in this 'report*appears to be so obvious that it cannot escape consideration. His treatmentof the subject is clearly neither comprehensive nor objective. Too much isleft out and what is put in is perversely extended to cover up the lack.It is hoped that Figures 1 and 2 will put the whole position in betterperspective.Ministry of Agriculture, SalisburyF. P. DU TOIT86ESSAY REVIEWReferencesAGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF RHODESIA 1972-8 [for theyears 1970-1976/7; title varies] (Salisbury, Government Printer; The. Corporation).DU TO IT, F. P. 1977 The Accommodation of Permanent Farm Labourers (Salisbury,Rhodesia Agricultural Journal Technical Bulletin No. 17).HUMAN, P. 1978 'The Perception of Quality of Life and Social Change' (Salisbury,Univ. of Rhodesia, Ninth Congress of Social Sciences in Southern Africa, paperpresented).INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE 1976 Yearbook of Labour Statistics (Geneva,I.L.O., Issue No. 36).RHODESIA 1973 National Accounts and Balance of Payments of Rhodesia (Salisbury,Centra! Statistica.l Office).1976 National Accounts of Rhodesia (Salisbury, Central StatisticalOffice.1978 Supplement to the Monthly Digest of Statistics: January (SalisburyCentral Statistical Office).1978 Monthly Digest of Statistics: March (Salisbury, Central StatisticalOffice).