The Sunday Mail
Howdy folks! The powers that be are always faced with subtle economic dilemmas in their quest to balance economic growth and sustainability.
The ideal scenario is to come up with pragmatic plans that foster a responsible and beneficial balance in the employment of existing resources.
But the challenge that is evident in our context is failure to see where we should draw the line. Admittedly, it is not easy a task.
It is not safe to be done by one calibre of people. Leave it to the private sector, driven by self(ish) interest, and they will abuse it to unprecedented levels.
Leave it solely in the hands of politicians and they may convert it into a currency that buys expensive stuff like votes, souls and the remaining stuff on the catalogue.
It sure can only be safe when diluted to be in the hands of “we the people”.
It cannot be denied that attaining higher levels of economic growth is one of the fundamental macro-economic goals of every nation.
In our case, we are targeting an average growth rate of 7,1 percent per annum, albeit a far cry from what we have been realising over the past two years.
The economy is also projected to grow by a paltry 1,5 percent this year.
In light of the above, the country needs to put more effort to employ more factors of production in order to competitively create goods and services that will grow our economy.
What should, however, be noted is that these factors are like ingredients in a kitchen — much or less of one of them in proportion to the other might not make the best soup.
It is for this reason that Zimbabwe should always come up with the right mix so that we can achieve our macro-economic goals.
The interesting thing about macro-economic goals themselves, as most of us economists are in consensus, is that they may not all be attained at the same time.
For instance, it is widely believed that both low employment and low inflation cannot be simultaneously attained, just as it is also believed so for financial market stability and economic growth.
Interestingly, the same pattern is consistent with our economy’s status quo.
This shows just how difficult it is to run an economy.
In attempting to solve one problem, you may end up creating another.
But coming up with the right mix is not insurmountable.
Zim-Asset has done well in defining our goals and the path we ought to take to get there.
We now need to just get in the kitchen and start measuring the right amounts of ingredients.
For instance, we cannot expect to sustain a US$20 billion investment in the value addition cluster, without balancing that with investment into infrastructure.
There will be no adequate power to run those value addition projects, which also means that we simply cannot overlook the issue of power.
And roads, too!
Will they be adequate to transport the value added products to the market?
Will the Harare-Masvingo-Beitbridge Road, for instance, in its current state, be able to handle the movement of products if we are to have the above amount of money in value addition today?
Do we have enough water, too?
You see, we have to have a holistic approach towards investment if we are to attain sustainable outcomes.
Otherwise, if we don’t plan with that mindset, we may find ourselves stuck with lots of one resource and incurring diminishing returns.
Then we have this competitiveness frenzy that we are seemingly taking into overdrive.
Every firm that seeks to become competitive is apparently getting the same prescription from the doctor – fire every employee and get sophisticated machinery.
As simplistic as that.
This explains why most employers rushed to offload as much employees as they could, immediately after that landmark Supreme Court ruling. When foreigners visiting Zimbabwe look at us, their mutual deduction often times is that the biggest resource that will turn around the fortunes of this economy is its people, as they are educated and skilled.
And how will that happen if every employer wants to be capital intensive?
And how will Government create 2, 265 million additional jobs with this underlying “carnage” of labour?
What many employers miss is that the very employees are the consumers of their products and if they are to lose their jobs, the demand for their products will fall, resulting in diminished production for them — which triggers competitiveness challenges, as things like dis-economies of scale start to creep in.
Employees also contribute to pension schemes like the National Social Security Authority, which are the ones that are also providing concessionary funding to productive sectors.
Fire the employee and there will be no more funding for you on a rainy day.
In light of the above, we should, therefore, always clearly see where we should draw the line when it comes to capital-labour employment.
Again, given the high poverty and inequality levels obtaining in our country, we need to frame our economy in such a way that ensures every growth that is realised directly transmits into prosperity of the general people, with their standard of living being seen to improve.
Zimstat’s Poverty and Poverty Datum Line Analysis in Zimbabwe, released in 2013, observed that 63 percent of Zimbabwean households are deemed poor.
It also established that the country’s Gini coefficient (the World Bank measure of wealth equality and inequality), at 0,423, was “within the range of countries considered to be highly unequal”. Equality is one of the fundamental virtues that the men and women who died fighting to free this country hoped to achieve.
The only way to honour them is upholding equality as a fundamental principle.
And ending vices such as corruption, economic sabotage, nepotism, you name it, will be steps in the right direction towards achieving that noble cause.
Going forward, we should also strive by all means to ensure that the harnessing of our natural resources brings the highest possible return to our own economy.
This business of exporting virtually all of our resources as raw materials is not in the best interest of economic sustainability, and is tantamount to stealing from the future generation.
As I always say, we cannot act as if we are the last generation that will live on this part of the earth.
The rate at which we are cutting down trees, for instance, is it matched by the rate at which we are planting new ones?
One wise man is on record saying that: “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children” (Proverbs 13:22). Otherwise, our grandchildren will one day urinate and spit on our graves, in condemnation, if we leave them with debts and a desert country, albeit reading in libraries that our country was the richest in the whole world, in terms of resources per capita. So, let us leave more than enough for them.
This philosophy should, therefore, inspire our economic growth and development agenda, and we should draw a bold line in that respect.
Yes, we want to enhance our industrialisation base in order to avoid more wastage of our natural resources in growing the economy. But we should also be prepared to come up with the best environmental protection policies as well. From pollution of all forms and environmental degradation!
Folks, like I said already, some private sector businesspeople are driven only by self-interest and don’t give much regard to upholding pollution-managing strategies.
We need not to compromise on jealously fostering environmental protection as this has socio-economic consequences.
Imagine how just about any sort of chemical is being dumped as waste by some manufacturers into Mukuvisi.
And that water feeds into Lake Chivero, our source of drinking water. If those who are responsible for our drinking water manage to clean this water perfectly, then they will do so at a very high expense, given how dirty and intoxicated the water will be — thereby requiring more chemicals.
Haven’t we the people spoken in Section 73(1)(bi) of the Constitution about the need to “prevent pollution and ecological degradation”?
We need a robust economic growth framework that is not blind to the above issues. It must draw a bold line for all to see. Later folks!
