New Zimbabwe (London)

Zimbabwe: Economy - Radical Options for Growth (part 2)

column

"War - the trade of barbarians, and the art of bringing the greatest physical force to bear on a single point." Napoleon. THIS is Part II of my article (you can read Part 1 here) which focuses on the radical change required to grow the Zimbabwean economy. Whilst we've managed to stabilise the economy, to turn it around completely and allow it grow is going to be arduous, slow and painful, yet not all together impossible.

We should look at the Zimbabwean economy as a bare piece of fertile land. We should ask ourselves which economical seeds should we plant and nurture; which will reap the most rewards? Which economical seeds will germinate in the shortest possible time, with as little capital input as possible and weather the harsh economic conditions we find ourselves in? I have identified a few which will grow deep roots, branch out and diversify our economy and provide the basis for further growth to other sectors. Zimbabwe needs to engineer its economy if it truly expects it to recover and grow.

Zimbabwe should not just focus on agriculture and mining but should look to copy other economic success stories or miracles for its own blue print; the one that has drawn my attention is that of Japan which has a loose binary economic policy. Japan did not become economically prosperous by adopting the Western version of capitalism. Yes, I was also shocked to hear that Japan in essence is not a capitalist economy. Japan became prosperous by making a deliberate investment in heavy industrialisation. They did not rely on the so-called market forces in their investment judgements; they simply made the products and the markets created themselves.

The Japanese realised that the secret of success in any human endeavour lies in "the art of bringing the greatest physical force to bear on a single point", or more correctly, on the strategically most important single point. As capital is the strategically "greatest physical force", they brought this down to bear by investing in heavy industry, mass production, and human capital. They restructured their education system to have more engineers and technically inclined human capital that would be able to deliver higher labour productivity on their capital investment in heavy industries and mass production. It was an efficient and effective allocation of resources to maximise labour productivity per person that led to Japan's success.

Japanese option

To clarify this, take the example of farm workers on a farm and a factory worker in some heavy machinery plant. The amount of hours and labour that a farm worker will put in to produce some type of crop and the subsequent profit from the sale of this particular crop, pales in comparison to the amount of hours and labour that a factory worker will put in and the subsequent profit earned from the sale of this heavy machinery. As a point of reference, below is a table taken from Japan in 1965 showing labour productivity:

Although the table above is from 1965, it generally holds true today. What is interesting is that the most profitable industries in order of most profitable (i.e. which return the most cents for every dollar invested) are namely Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology, Banking, Diversified Financial Services, Software and Services, Telecomms, Food and Beverage, Oil and Gas, and lastly all other industries. It is clear that agriculture should not be the backbone of our economy, unless value addition in food processing, marketing, distribution and other activities are also carried out by the farmers themselves. Agriculture alone has a very low productivity. Does the economic blue print ZimAsset take labour productivity into consideration?

If the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology sectors are supposed to be one of the most profitable industries why are CAPS Private Limited, Datlabs, Plus Five Pharmaceuticals and Varichem Pharmaceuticals underperforming; why are they not driving the economy? The following link provides the details of the problems and possible solutions http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s18701en/s18701en.pdf. Whilst a lack of capital may be largely to blame, there has also been lack of Government support. It is unfortunate that the government seems to be oblivious to the fact that the correct policies and financial support of this sector will provide more profitable returns than even the mining sector. The individual companies also need to do their part as they are currently not on the cutting edge of research and are not developing their own drugs or patents. The underdevelopment of the Pharmaceuticals sector is definitely not from a lack of skilled labour or human capital. If Telecomms can be turned into big business in Zimbabwe and Africa, the same should apply to Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology.

The Japanese have shown the world that the secret of success in industrial and commercial development is not natural resources but the development of brain and brawn towards its perfect form - that is, development of high-level skills, craftsmanship and capabilities to harness available world science and technology, combined with a sustained quest for deepest knowledge through research and development. This development of manpower resources is prioritised and targeted towards industrial sectors with the highest labour productivity at any point in time as these are the industries that contribute more to maximisation of income per capita and consumption. This is one of the capital applications and manpower development philosophy that guides the capitalism of the masses or binary economics. There are times in economics when abstract logic must give way to cold economic reality.

Please note that Binary Economics does not seek to redistribute wealth by taking the property of others, it is a strategy to economically empower everyone by democratising the right to capital for everyone. Binary economics is not the current "capitalism of the few", nor is it the retrogressive and detrimental Socialism/Communism which is in fact "povertisation" of the many. Although we should all be treated equally as human beings, we are not equal in our abilities; some people work harder than others and should be rewarded likewise. Binary economics will allow wealth distribution to follow the "Bell" curve instead of the current capitalism of the few where the wealth distribution curve is heinously skewed.

I'm still trying to develop a macroeconomic theory/hypothesis which provides a relationship between GDP output and wealth distribution. I am attempting to base my hypothesis on a possible link between the Probability Distribution Function (which generates the "Bell curve") and Fibonnaci's numbers. The bell curve and Fibonnaci's numbers/series are both naturally occurring mathematical theorems, and I can only assume that what has worked for Mother Nature should work in an economy for sustainable growth. My main objective is to figure out a way to put a fair % on intellectual capital from this theory, where individuals should be fairly rewarded for their intellectual capital/know how/expertise or entrepreneurship without disproportionately exploiting the labour and resources of others. The current set up of "capitalism of the few" has 1% of the global population with 99% of the wealth, and the rest with nothing, this goes against the very laws of nature and is not sustainable.

Binary economics is already at work in the world in the form of Mohammed Yunus's micro-crediting for which he won the Nobel Prize. The difference between Mohammed Yunus and his predecessors, who came up with the idea (Kelso), is that Mohammed Yunus put the theory of binary economics into practice and showed its true benefits and practicality. It must be said that micro-financing has its critics and has not been the panacea to alleviate poverty as was expected. The other example of binary economics in today's modern world can be found in the USA, the hub of modern "capitalism of the few". ESOPs (Employee stock ownership plans), are binary economics in practice. In the US alone there are now 11,500 ESOPs covering 11 million employees, almost the population of Zimbabwe. Here the employees buy stock/shares of the company they work for. The US government provides tax incentives for companies adopting ESOPS.

Indeginisation

My humble suggestion to the government is instead of having companies ceding 51% to a few capitalist "indigenous"/"ingenuous" Zimbabweans (i.e. only a few well connected individuals with the necessary capital), they should legislate ESOPs (Employee stock ownership plans) for ALL companies, foreign or indigenous. This will take away the obvious racial connotations yet achieve the end results by different and more just means. Where will the employees get the cash from to buy shares? The government could use tax-cuts as capital to help the employees to buy their shares in ESOPS. For example if a company is worth $500,000, and generates say $100,000 in gross profit per year, instead of taxing it 25%, the government could provide an incentive tax-cut of say 10%. This tax-cut of 10% would then be lent to the employees to buy shares. After only five years, the employees would own a sizeable share of the company. For cash-strapped companies, they could also offer their employees shares in lieu of wage increases. There are many more inventive solutions of providing capital to employees to start their own investments which I will leave to the more able.

For those companies that are still able to operate in Zimbabwe, a recent survey suggested that the salary disparities in Zimbabwe continue to grow. It gave the example of bank executives earning between US$7,000 to US$8,000 while managers in parastatals, medical or insurance companies as well as those in hospitals earned as much as US$6,000 and US$7,000 per month. Executives in the manufacturing and mining sectors pocketed between US$4,000 and US$5,000 respectively. If most of these companies are supposedly in survival mode, how can they afford to pay such salaries to upper management? The basic financial model of all of these companies is skewed and not sustainable.

The employees on the lower end in each of these sectors earn as little as US$100 per month, yet these are the same companies claiming a lack of capital to sustain their operations; really? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that picture? Applying binary economics would do away with these ridiculous salary disparities and, since each worker would own shares within their company, they would earn a decent wage, be paid dividends, and most importantly even the lowest paid employee would be able to create wealth, save and invest. Whilst the government talks up indigenisation as the solution to all our problems, it does nothing to correct these glaring disparities in salaries and income. Still, binary economics is just an idea, whether the government decides to take it up and implement it is up to them.

Most of the sectors in the Zimbabwean economy are, to a large extent, already indigenised anyway; the main problem is what I have stressed earlier, that this indigenisation is not broad-based but limited to only a few individuals with capital. In brief, the sector by sector analysis shows the following:

The Agricultural sector - whilst the farming part of the sector is generally indigenised, the agro-based industries need to have more indigenous representation.

The Manufacturing sector is largely foreign-owned with white Zimbabweans owning the larger part of the manufacturing sector in terms of number of companies, turnover and fixed assets.

The Mining sector is also largely foreign owned (75%); a look at the dominance over our platinum by Implats/Zimplats which is a South African subsidiary should be a cause of great concern. They have been the biggest investor in Zimbabwe so far, but then again they have been the biggest beneficiary in terms of return on investment. Our platinum has benefitted the South African economy more than the Zimbabwean economy and this has to be addressed urgently as the indigenisation deal signed did not change the status quo.

The Financial sector is largely indigenised (75%), but again it is not a broad-based indigenisation. Is it better to have one banking mogul or would it not be fairer for the bank employees to own shares in the bank and also generate income from their investments and accumulate capital?

In the Health Sector the Government owns 70% of the health sector facilities.

The Telecommunications sector is largely indigenised with government controlling a large share of this sector. Again the majority of the wealth is in the hands of a few.

The Construction sector has been assisted through a deliberate policy by Government to promote indigenous players. The awarding of contracts to indigenous companies has greatly helped the sector. About 60% of registered indigenous building contractors are in the low capacity categories and cannot bid for projects exceeding $33 million. In terms of numbers, indigenous companies make up about 88% of the companies in this sector. They are dominated by non-indigenous players both in terms of value and market share. Through the Government's affirmative action programme issued in 1993, Contracts in the B to G category are awarded to indigenous firms and there is a 10% preferential treatment weight in favour of indigenous firms in respect of huge contracts in the A category.

In the Tourism sector non-indigenous investors currently dominate the tourism sector while indigenous players constitute a small group of investors. Indigenous investors account for 35% of the sector's contribution to GDP. To date a sizeable number of indigenous operators have entered into sub-sectors such as tour operators, safari operators, lodges and guesthouses. As part of efforts to support indigenisation, the majority of hunting concessions in the National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority areas have been awarded to indigenous people. The Authority is also involved in the training of hunters and guides. Game Safaris, under the Forestry Commission has adopted similar strategies to those of the National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority in empowering indigenous people.

In the Transport sector indigenous transport operators dominate the rural conventional omnibus and metered taxis but only control 25% of freight hauling. The railway sub-sector is 100% state owned through the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ). Indigenous aircraft operators own about 5% of the aircraft fleet while non-indigenous operators own about 83% of the fleet. The balance of 12% is owned by the state.

The Energy sector is dominated by state owned agencies such as Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) Holdings for electricity, National Oil Company of Zimbabwe (NOCZIM) for petroleum fuel and Hwange Colliery Company for coal.

The Services sector is largely indigenised, indigenous businesses in this sector include Chartered Accounting firms, Architects, Associations of Zimbabwe Consultants, Law Society of Zimbabwe and Small Scale Service providers affiliated to Zimbabwe National Chamber of Commerce (ZNCC). Indigenous women dominate the small and informal sector businesses. The funeral sub-sector has also seen more indigenous participation due to the increasing mortality rate.

It is clear from the above that the most labour productive sectors of the economy have not been indigenised i.e. Manufacturing and Mining Sector and the government needs to concentrate on these sectors as a starting point for the legislation of ESOPS. The Community Share Ownership Trusts being set up need to be more transparent and genuinely benefit the communities. Power to ALL the people, not just a few!

Chinese power plant

One of the main objectives of indigenisation is to supposedly stop capital flight i.e. it's supposed to prevent capital which is being earned by foreign companies (or individuals) operating in Zimbabwe from being deposited (and used) inside Zimbabwe to the detriment of our own economy; and subsequently causing a liquidity crisis. A good example of this is China Africa Sunlight Energy (CASE) Limited which plans to invest $2.1 billion in coal mining, building a 2,100MW power plant fuelled by gas (and possibly coal) in Lupane, Zimbabwe. They intend to start off by building a 300MW power plant by mid-2015, which sounds good on paper, but this example shows how "capitalism of the few" works. Here is my problem with this set up; CASE Ltd claim to have already invested US$20 million in exploration alone which quite frankly is rubbish, or has been misinterpreted by the press since to prove out the gas reserves required to fuel a 300MW power plant only requires a geophysical sounding survey followed by exploration drilling which costs less than US$200,000.

You only need to drill about 10 core sample wells which will indicate how much probable Coal Bed Methane (CBM) gas reserves in place. The test results on these samples can be used to obtain a third party bankable certificate, meaning you can approach financial institutions and use this bankable certificate to secure finance to build a power plant. The bankable certificate can be used as collateral and tells you how much gas you have in place, and more importantly what it's worth. Now, due to the way our Mines and Minerals Act is set up, the Chinese company will only need to invest approximately US$15 million to drill a further 400 production wells to extract enough Coal Bed Methane (CBM) gas to fuel their 300MW power plant. I'm guessing that they will probably be able to sell the electricity generated to ZESA/ZPC at about US6c per kWh. A 300MW power plant will normally operate at full load capacity, so the power plant will generate 300MW x 24hours a day x 365 days each year = 2,628 GWh per year, and at US6c per kWh this translates to US$158 million in electricity sales.

Not bad! But how much does it cost to build a 300MW power plant you might ask? Well if you take the standard approach and refer to available text books and literature out there in the public domain, they will give you an estimate cost of US$300 million for a 300MW gas power plant, or US$1,000 per kWh as a thumb rule for your average combined cycle gas turbine power plant. Now, if you work in this engineering sector, and happen to know the REAL costs (as I do), you will know that it actually costs a maximum of US$175 million to build a well-designed 300MW combined cycle gas turbine power plant, using the latest emission reducing technology and procuring the critical items (i.e. tubes for the Heat Recovery Steam Generator HRSG, gas turbines and steam turbines) from Europe, USA or Japan. If you are a small start-up company like myself with the required expertise for such a project you will do the logical thing and do the main engineering yourself (Front-End Engineering Design - FEED and Basic Engineering Design Package for the HRSG), and thus reduce the actual cost for fabrication and construction even further to US$150 million.

Now, please remember that this is a Chinese company who will definitely not be procuring these critical items from Europe, USA or Japan. They will procure these items at a much lower cost from China, which of course benefits the Chinese companies, so I can safely assume that the real cost will be around US$100 million to build the 300 MW gas power plant. Operational costs for a power plant are extremely low; the only other substantial cost would be fuel costs in the form of the CBM gas extracted from Lupane. The cost of natural gas is measured in US$ per MMBTU, whereby MMBTU are the units used to measure the amount of heat given out by the gas. The average cost of the CBM gas, compared to Mozambique for example, should be between US$2 to $4 per MMBTU. For a 300MW power plant you need an estimate of 17.7 million MMBTU of CBM gas per year as fuel, so fuel costs would normally be between US$35.4 million to US$70.8 million per year.

I hope you are still with me on this one. As I said before, the big problem here is that our Mines and Minerals Act allows any miner to extract, exploit, own and sell minerals, including coal and gas for nothing more than the initial investment. What I'm trying to say is they do not pay for the minerals per say, they just pay to extract them. So in this case the fuel costs for the proposed 300MW power plant should be at least US$35.4 million per year, but will actually be $0 (ZERO) when this plant is fully operational and generating electricity sales revenue. So just to recap, the complete project costs for a 300MW plant will not come to more than US$15 million for gas drilling + US$100 million for the power plant construction, or US$115 million in total for the complete project. After this initial investment, the 300MW plant will generate US$158 million a year in electricity sales and CASE Ltd will pay less than US$2 million in operational costs per year. They will also pay a small 2% levy for the land and 15% corporate tax. One can assume that he who dares wins, but at whose expense does he benefit is the question we should ask?

It's self-evident and obvious for all to see that the initial investment will be recovered in the first year of operation. Normally a power plant is designed for a 20 year life cycle; however most can operate for 30 to 40 years if designed, constructed and maintained well. CASE Ltd knows that they will recover their investment after the first year of operation; the rest is pure unadulterated profit, which they will then reinvest in expanding their power plant as they have stated to 600MW. The profits that can be generated far outweigh the perceived risk which is why they are investing in the energy sector. They're obviously using smoke and mirrors here in claiming that they will invest US$1 billion, when in fact they will actually only invest a tenth of this US$1 billion, i.e. US$100 million, and with the profits earned from their 300MW power plant using our gas, go on to reinvest the revenue of US$158 million per year in the expansion of their operations to 600MW. An identical plant can be fabricated and erected in 12 months if it simply a copy and paste of the previous 300MW plant.

To put this in perspective, they will have enough to build a parallel 300MW power plant with revenue generated after two years operations, thereby increasing their revenues even further to about US$316 million per year, so the possibility of investing US$1 billion is very possible after about only 5 years of operation. The problem with this "capitalism of the few" is that for as little as US$100 million, they will have earned revenues of over US$1 billion after only 5 years of operation. But most of this money should be ours if we truly believe in indigenisation, as without the gas there would be no electricity to generate such revenues. It is our gas (or coal) which is being converted to electricity and sold back to us. They will only invest about US$100 million, recover their money after the first year of operation and earn ludicrous profits thereafter because of their supposed "expertise". Hence the tragedy continues and we unknowingly perpetuate "capitalism of the few" and the so-called indigenisation is just a mirage. "Capitalism of the few" also applies to countries in this case, where the capital investment comes from China who profit from our gas, and we buy back our own gas in the form of electricity and are actually grateful for their investment in providing us with a power plant and electricity.

On the face of it government appears to be trying to address the energy crisis, which should be commended, however they should also open their eyes and have the foresight of putting aside as little as US$5 million for the energy sector by providing small loans to indigenous people like myself to complete their exploration activities for coal and gas to allow us to secure finance for building power plants. This is empowerment; provide capital and affirmative action to those indigenous Zimbabweans with the know-how and expertise to compete with the Chinese, but who do not have the start-up capital to do so. They should also ensure they have a Build Operate and Transfer Agreement in place in which they allow CASE Ltd to operate for a maximum of 7 years on a 50-50 basis with the government prior to handing over the power station to the government. This would be a fair deal.

Bureaucracy and inefficiencies

There is also too much bureaucracy and inefficiencies in the interface between the potential indigenous entrepreneur and government institutions. I'll give you an example. If I want to start up a small engineering company to design, construct and operate power plants as an Independent Power Provider (IPP) the first thing I have do is to register my company. Ok, not a problem. Then I have to get an electricity generation licence from ZERA/ZPC/ZESA. Now here comes the fun part; to get the license I need a water permit from ZINWA. To get the water permit from ZINWA I need an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) accredited by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA). I have no objections to any of these requirements, however the EMA will not carry out the EIA itself, instead it has a list of accredited companies to do this work and guess what?! You have to pay US$42 to obtain this list of accredited companies. Once you do find an accredited company to carry out the EIA, via a Google search instead of paying for the list, you will be surprised to hear of the exorbitant fees they are charging. One way to get around this is by carrying out the draft of the EIA yourself and then getting them to do the quality control for this EIA.

Now once you have all the paperwork done you have to go back to ZERA/ZPC/ZESA for the electricity generation licence, and to your surprise they will remind you of the essential condition to show proof of the investment prior to granting you an electricity generation licence. Now, any reputable investor with the required capital for a power project will ask the following basic questions BEFORE committing to an investment. Question 1:- "Do you have an electricity generating licence?", Answer - Ehh ... No. Question 2:- "Do you have a long-term sales contract with ZERA/ZPC/ZESA for electricity sales and at what rate?", Answer - Ehh ... No, not yet because I need an electricity generating license before I can engage in any long term sales contract with them. Question 3:- "Is there the possibility of selling your electricity directly to customers?" Answer - Ehh ... No, the only authority to do that is ZESA/ZPC/ZERA and any sales have to be done through them using their grid. Question 4:- "What is the state of ZESA/ZPC/ZERA in terms of liquidity and their ability to pay for electricity?". Answer - Well not very good as they are in debt by about US$400 million, recently wrote off customers' debt and are struggling to keep afloat. Question 5:- "If ZESA/ZPC/ZERA are not able to make payments for the electricity sold, is there any recourse or a way of obtaining this money from government". Answer - Ehh.., honestly speaking it's highly unlikely. Question 6:- "What restrictions are there are on investors and their guarantee on security of their investments?" Answer - Well there are no restrictions on investors, you just have to register the investment with the RBZ, which will take a few months to process whilst they just do a background check to make sure you're not a spy and that's about it. Then the Investor says: - "Sounds good, so where do we sign for the investment!"

My apologies for the sarcasm, but I was trying to get a point across. Whilst ZESA/ZPC/ZERA are asking a small company like mine to provide proof of investment, they themselves have done absolutely nothing in assisting me by providing conditions in which I can obtain investments. It's a catch-22 situation, yet any power project would be beneficial to both parties. So you see again only those who already have capital can invest in the power sector in Zimbabwe, further perpetuating "capitalism of the few". And the end result is that the indigenous Zimbabwean with the expertise and know-how to build a power plant is marginalised and not even assisted in any way by his government in obtaining an electricity generation licence, and electricity supply contract with ZESA which are the basic prerequisites in securing investment.

Indigenisation should focus on all aspects of the economic sphere and not simply the end result. It should do away with all bottlenecks in the system. The bureaucracy as highlighted above is one of the main reasons why we are at the foot of the table in terms of "Ease of doing business", it generally applies to all sectors across our economy, yet surprisingly enough we expect local, regional and other investors to come in their thousands. What ever happened to the "one-stop-shop for investments"? Wouldn't it be great if there was a single link on the ZESA/ZPC/ZERA website where I could simply download, complete and submit all the forms required? Wouldn't it be great if indigenous companies in the energy and mining sector were assisted with free EIA's by the EMA, or at least had a largely discounted fee for carrying these out compared to foreign companies. It would also be great if government ministries and parastatals could reply to e-mails and pick up their phones once in a while. Any serious organisation does these basic things. These are things the government can change by policy review and implementation.

Democratising capital

Again I reiterate that the problem here is not that we have foreigners who own the majority of businesses, the problem is that ordinary Zimbabweans do not have access to capital to start up their own business and there is no system in place which gives us a competitive advantage over the foreigners. Indigenisation is attempting to redistribute wealth (or capital), but this wealth is only being redistributed to those indigenous few with access to capital, and is not creating any new wealth. A binary system democratizes access to credit as an indispensable social means to enable everyone to acquire this private capital. Everyone becomes a capitalist in the sense that they would have access to credit to invest and generate earnings, not only from their labour but also from their capital investment.

We need to have a clear understanding of how the global economic system is set up, and fundamentally why we have the developed countries (the haves) and the developing countries (the have-nots). Why has the skewed wealth distribution brought about by slavery and colonialism not rectified itself after 50 years of so-called independence amongst most African countries in particular? We have the countries supposedly endowed with natural resources, yet who suffer the so-called "resource curse" and are supposedly rich in natural resources, yet suffer from poor governance. This so-called "resource curse" does not exist and is simply a not-so-clever way of trying to draw attention away from the real problem. Has anyone ever asked themselves, why is it easy to secure investments for mining diamonds, yet almost impossible to find investment for a diamond polishing centre? Why is it easy to get investment in platinum mining, yet impossible to get investment in a platinum refinery and industrial hub to manufacture platinum derived products? Why is it easy to get investment in coltan mining, yet impossible to get investments for plants which manufacture digital components made from tantalum?

The answer is quite simple. If investments were made in the value addition sectors this would mean industrialisation of the developing countries using their own natural resources which would give them an unfair competitive advantage. Oh yes I forgot, it's because there's a skills shortage and technology gap in developing countries which does not allow them to add value to these products. That's rubbish, only a small number of so-called experts are required for any manufacturing plant, the majority of the shop-floor workers are generally semi-skilled and can easily be trained on the job. There is nothing genuinely stopping those with capital from setting up manufacturing and value addition plants in the country of origin of the natural resources. What they don't want is for their own population to lose jobs in the process, and they do not want their own manufacturing companies to lose the disproportionate capital revenues generated by value addition. They are benefiting from our cheap natural resources, whose prices are controlled by them, and whose cost of value addition is controlled by them as well.

With regards to poor governance, is Saudi Arabia not one of the worst governed countries with no human rights of note, yes women still aren't allowed to drive, and yet due to their economic clout via oil production, the capitalists are more than happy to look the other way? With regards to corruption, Nigeria is the most corrupt country on the African continent yet is now the strongest economy on the continent after adjusting the way they calculate their GDP. It's now part of the MINT countries, i.e Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey which are supposed to be emerging after the BRICS countries. If you take these simple examples given above you will see that the so-called resource curse does not exist. What does exist is the "capitalism of the few".

Please read Part 3 which is the concluding part of my article which focuses on ways of raising capital in Zimbabwe to grow our economy.

Written by Clive Samvura who can be contacted on cliveks1@yahoo.co.uk

Ads by Google

Copyright © 2014 New Zimbabwe. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.

AllAfrica publishes around 2,000 reports a day from more than 130 news organizations and over 200 other institutions and individuals, representing a diversity of positions on every topic. We publish news and views ranging from vigorous opponents of governments to government publications and spokespersons. Publishers named above each report are responsible for their own content, which AllAfrica does not have the legal right to edit or correct.

Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica. To address comments or complaints, please Contact us.