Limited Delegation and Firm Control: A Principal-Agent Account of Southern African Development Community (SADC) Decision-Making on Zimbabwe’s Land Issue
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/jis2021.17.7Keywords:
Principal-agent, delegation, decision-making, Southern African Development Community (SADC), ZimbabweAbstract
This paper accounts for Southern African Development Community (SADC) decision-making on Zimbabwe’s land issue from the year 2000 onwards. Guided by the principal-agent model, this paper argues that the delegation and control dynamics emerging from SADC’s principal-agent institutional structure and relationships shaped the regional organisation’s (RO’s) decisions on Zimbabwe’s land issue. This study adopted a qualitative methodology to explore this proposition utilising both primary and secondary sources of data. Primary data were collected through semi-structured key informant interviews and official documents such as SADC communiqués, while secondary data were gathered from published books, journal articles, newspaper articles and other related materials. Thematic analysis was the method used to analyse the data. The findings revealed that the member states (principal) limited the delegation of decision-making uthority to the SADC (agent) and the principal’s firm control of the agent were key factors shaping SADC outcomes on Zimbabwe’s land issue. These principal-agent dynamics enabled member states to control SADC’s decisions on Zimbabwe’s land issue. Conversely, there was also opportunistic agent behaviour that resulted in decisions
that injured the principal’s interests. Such decisions included the Tribunal’s fateful ruling on Zimbabwe’s land reform programme. Overall, this paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge by re-contextualising the principal-agent model in a new setting, which is SADC decision-making on Zimbabwe’s land issue.
References
Alter, K. J. (2006). Delegation to international courts and the limits of re-contracting political power. In D. G. Hawkins, D. A. Lake, D. L. Nielson, & M. J. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 312–338). Cambridge University Press.
Asmelash, H. B. (2017). Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal. MPILux Working Paper 10. http://www.mpi. lu/fileadmin/mpi/medien/research/MPEiPro/WPS10_2017_ Asmelash_Southern_African_Development_Community__ SADC__Tribunal.pdf
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952796
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57(3), 632–642. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952568
Brandsma, G. J., & Adriaensen, J. (2017). The principal–agent model, accountability and democratic legitimacy. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal agent model and the European Union (pp. 35–54). Palgrave Macmillan [Adobe Digital Editions version]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55137-1
Cawthra, G. (2010). The role of SADC in managing political crisis and conflict: The cases of Madagascar and Zimbabwe. FES Peace and Security Series. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ bueros/mosambik/07874.pdf
Chigara, B. A. (2017). Incommensurabilities of the SADC land issue and Nozick’s entitlement theory. African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 25(3), 295–325. doi: 10.3366/ajicl.2017.0197
Deleglise, D. (2021). Trends in SADC mediation and long-term conflict transformation. In T. McNamee & M. Muyangwa (Eds.), The state of peacebuilding in Africa: Lessons learned from policymakers and practioners (pp. 215–233). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46636-7
Delreux, T., & Adriaensen, J. (2017). Introduction: Use and limitations of the principal–agent model in studying the European Union. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal agent model and the European Union (pp. 1–34). Palgrave Macmillan [Adobe Digital Editions version]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55137-1
Dzimiri, P. (2013). Exploring the Nexus between geopolitics and intervention for human protection purposes: Lessons from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) responses to the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Sciences, 36(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2 013.11893194
Dzimiri, P. (2017). African multilateral responses to the crisis in Zimbabwe: A responsibility to protect perspective. Strategic Review for Southern Africa, 39(2), 50. https://upjournals.up.ac. za/index.php/strategic_review/article/view/283
Gastinger, M. (2017). Effects of contestation within a collective agent in EU trade policy-making. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal agent model and the European Union (pp. 181–202). Palgrave Macmillan [Adobe Digital Editions version]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55137-1
Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2006). Delegation under anarchy: States, international organizations, and principal-agent theory. In D.G. Hawkins, D.A. Lake, D.L. Nielson, & M.J. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 1–38). Cambridge University Press.
Kroll, D. A. (2017). Manifest and latent control on the council by the European council. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal agent model and the European Union (pp. 157–180). Palgrave Macmillan [Adobe Digital Editions version]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55137-1
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Lyne, M. M., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2006). Who delegates? Alternative models of principals in development aid. In D.G. Hawkins, D.A. Lake, D.L. Nielson, & M.J. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 41–76). Cambridge University Press.
Masunungure, E. V., & Badza, S. (2010). The internationalization of the Zimbabwe crisis: Multiple actors, competing interests. Journal of Developing Societies, 26(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.117 7%2F0169796X1002600203
Matyszak, D. (2011). The dissolution of the SADC tribunal. research and advocacy unit. http://archive.kubatana.net/docs/demgg/ rau_dissolution_sadc_tribunal_110905.pdf
Mlambo, A. S. (2006). The Zimbabwean crisis and international response. Journal for Contemporary History, 31(2), 54–77. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC28392
Mohamed Pero, S., & Ahmad Apandi, L. (2018). Malaysia’s leadership role in Asean: An assessment. Journal of International Studies, 14, 65–79. doi:10.32890/jis2018.14.5
Moyo, S. (2011). Three decades of agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(3), 493–531. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2011.583642
Muzvidziwa, J. (2019). Mixed responses from the international community to Zimbabwe’s post 2000 fast track land reform: Why? Journal of Governance and Development, 15(1), 19-35. http://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jgd/article/view/13297
Nagar, D., & Malebang, G. (2016). Region-building and peace-building in Southern Africa. Policy Advisory Group Seminar Report. https://www.africaportal.org/publications/regionbuilding- and-peace-building-southern-africa-seminar-report/
Nathan, L. (2010). The peacemaking effectiveness of regional organisations. Crisis States Research Centre. https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/media/57a08b2a40f0b649740009ec/WP81.2.pdf
Nathan, L. (2011). Solidarity triumphs over democracy-The dissolution of the SADC tribunal. https://repository.up.ac.za/ handle/2263/19451
Nathan, L. (2012). Community of insecurity: SADC’s struggle for peace and security in southern Africa. Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Nathan, L. (2013) The disbanding of the SADC Tribunal: A cautionary tale. Human Rights Quarterly, 35(4), 870-892. https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/42461/Nathan_ Disbanding_2013.pdf?sequence=1
Pollack, M. A. (2017). Foreword. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal agent model and the European Union (pp. v–x). Palgrave Macmillan [Adobe Digital Editions version]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55137-1
Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation (2001), SADC. SADC Heads of State and Government Summit Communiques (2000–2015). SADC Secretariat Library, Gaborone, Botswana.
Scoones, I., Marongwe, N., Mavedzenge, B., Murimbarimba, F., Mahenehene, J., & Sukume, C. (2011). Zimbabwe’s land reform: Challenging the myths. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(5), 967–993. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.622042
Sule, B., Mikail, I. K., & Yahaya, M. A. (2020). An overview of the genesis, sources, manifestations and impact of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in Northern Nigeria. Journal of International Studies, 16, 195–218. doi:10.32890/jis2020.16.12
The Consolidated Treaty (2014). Gaborone: SADC Secretariat.
Thomas, N. H. (2003). Land reform in Zimbabwe. Third World Quarterly, 24(4), 691–712. doi: 10.1080/0143659032000105821
Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Amendment Act of 2018, US Congress.
