Moving forward in Zimbabwe - Brooks World Poverty Institute - The ...
Moving forward in Zimbabwe - Brooks World Poverty Institute - The ...
Moving forward in Zimbabwe - Brooks World Poverty Institute - The ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Mov<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>forward</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Zimbabwe</strong><br />
Reduc<strong>in</strong>g poverty and promot<strong>in</strong>g growth<br />
Table 2.1: Average annual employment growth (percentage), 1997-2004.<br />
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004<br />
Overall employment growth 3.9 1.9 -2.4 -6 -4.3 -5.8 -9.1 -1.4<br />
Agriculture & Fish<strong>in</strong>g 2.3 -2.8 -2.1 -3.9 -10.8 -23.8 -28.5 -2.3<br />
M<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and Quarry<strong>in</strong>g -1.2 3.2 -2.5 -25 -4.3 0.2 -2.1 19<br />
Manufactur<strong>in</strong>g 7.8 5.0 -3.3 -9.6 -1.5 -4 -17.7 -3.5<br />
Construction 0.8 1.3 -12.5 -22.3 0 0 -37.6 -6.5<br />
Source: CSO Quarterly Digest of Statistics 2003; IMF country report 5/359 statistical appendix.<br />
concentrated. Construction sector employment was the worst<br />
hit by the crisis because of a shortage of build<strong>in</strong>g materials and<br />
mortgage f<strong>in</strong>ance, and because the government stopped f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g<br />
new construction projects. <strong>The</strong> decl<strong>in</strong>e of employment <strong>in</strong> low-skill<br />
sectors like agriculture and construction caused unemployment<br />
to rise among unskilled workers. To drive the po<strong>in</strong>ts raised here<br />
further, we exam<strong>in</strong>e the dynamics of employment structure over<br />
time.<br />
Structure of employment<br />
Changes <strong>in</strong> employment can be explored further by analys<strong>in</strong>g<br />
sectoral employment contributions as shown <strong>in</strong> Table 2.2. It<br />
shows that <strong>in</strong> 1980, agriculture was the biggest employer, followed<br />
by manufactur<strong>in</strong>g and private domestics. Dur<strong>in</strong>g that period, the<br />
private sector was quite competitive and had a significant presence<br />
on the export market. <strong>The</strong> composition of employment changed<br />
over time. <strong>The</strong> proportion of agricultural workers decl<strong>in</strong>ed to 24.3<br />
per cent <strong>in</strong> 1990. Long-term employment <strong>in</strong> the sector decl<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
between 1980 and 1990 as it was substituted with casual labour<br />
on large-scale commercial farms, particularly among women<br />
(Adams, 1991). <strong>The</strong> contribution of agricultural employment<br />
<strong>in</strong>creased to 26.9 per cent of total <strong>in</strong> 1995, an <strong>in</strong>dication of the<br />
positive employment response to structural adjustment. <strong>The</strong> sector<br />
had a competitive advantage <strong>in</strong> horticulture, tobacco and cotton<br />
production that saw the country achiev<strong>in</strong>g remarkable presence on<br />
the world market. Agriculture rema<strong>in</strong>ed the largest employer and<br />
earner of foreign currency until 2000. <strong>The</strong>reafter, its contribution<br />
to employment decl<strong>in</strong>ed persistently, reach<strong>in</strong>g almost half its 2000<br />
contribution <strong>in</strong> 2005. <strong>The</strong> decl<strong>in</strong>e is a clear manifestation of the<br />
adverse employment effects of farm <strong>in</strong>vasions and the government’s<br />
chaotic land redistribution.<br />
<strong>The</strong> proportion of manufactur<strong>in</strong>g employment changed<br />
marg<strong>in</strong>ally dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1980s and 1990s. <strong>The</strong>re was a slight decl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong> manufactur<strong>in</strong>g employment dur<strong>in</strong>g the structural adjustment<br />
period because of firm restructur<strong>in</strong>g and high competition on<br />
the domestic market which forced some firms to reduce capacity<br />
utilisation or to close down. Manufactur<strong>in</strong>g employment cont<strong>in</strong>ued<br />
to decl<strong>in</strong>e through to 2005 because of foreign currency shortages<br />
and government price controls. Overall, employment <strong>in</strong> the<br />
tradable sectors (agriculture, m<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and manufactur<strong>in</strong>g) decl<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
from 1995 onwards, while non-tradable sectors’ (all other sectors <strong>in</strong><br />
the table above) employment <strong>in</strong>creased, buoyed by education and<br />
distribution sectors. This was <strong>in</strong> part because of foreign currency<br />
shortages, high <strong>in</strong>flation, exchange rate over-valuation and reduced<br />
export competitiveness. As controls <strong>in</strong>creased from 2000 onwards<br />
there was also a massive outflow of foreign capital, thus reduc<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the level of <strong>in</strong>vestment <strong>in</strong> the economy. In addition, the level of<br />
gross national sav<strong>in</strong>gs persistently decl<strong>in</strong>ed over the crisis period.<br />
In the social sectors, health and education experienced growth<br />
<strong>in</strong> their contribution to total employment, with the most spectacular<br />
growth com<strong>in</strong>g from education. <strong>The</strong>re was massive expansion<br />
and enrolment <strong>in</strong> education <strong>in</strong> the first decade, and it rema<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
Table 2.2: Percentage sectoral formal employment, 1980-2005.<br />
Sector 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005<br />
Agriculture 32.4 26.3 24.3 26.9 26.3 19.8 15.6 15.5 14.2<br />
M<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and quarry<strong>in</strong>g 6.6 5.2 4.3 4.8 3.6 3.9 4.2 5.0 5.4<br />
Manufactur<strong>in</strong>g 15.8 16.1 16.5 15 14.7 15.4 13.9 13.6 12.5<br />
Electricity and water 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1<br />
Construction 4.2 4.3 6.4 5.8 4.4 3.8 2.6 2.5 2.3<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ance and <strong>in</strong>surance 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.8 2.5 3.8 3.8 3.8<br />
Distribution and restaurants 7 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.4 9.4 11.5 11.4 10.4<br />
Transport and communication 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.1 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.5<br />
Public Adm<strong>in</strong>istration 7 8.6 7.8 6.2 4.7 5.8 6.5 6.8 7.3<br />
Education 4.1 8.5 9.1 9.3 11.3 13.4 14.9 15.1 16.3<br />
Health 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.6<br />
Private domestics 10.7 9.4 8.6 8.2 8.3 9.2 10.1 10.2 10.2<br />
Other Services 4.3 5.5 6.2 6.9 8.6 9.4 9.4 8.8 8.9<br />
Source: Calculated From Quarterly Digest of Statistics and National Accounts, CSO, 2003; IMF Country Report No. 05/359<br />
23