Zimbabwe - Overseas Development Institute

low f o r manufactured imports both because of the importance of
Commonwealth preferences and because of the s p e c i a l trade
agreement with South A f r i c a (see Jansen (1983) and Cole (1968)).
Customs duties f o r most raw material inputs range from zero to
only 5% of the c i f value; at Independence i n 1980 Jansen
estimated that weighted average customs duties and taxes on
imports were l e s s than 5%. With the i n c l u s i o n of the 20% import
surtax, the 1986 Commission of Inquiry i n t o Taxation c a l c u l a t e d
that the average t o t a l t a r i f f f o r a l l imported goods averaged
only 21.1%, i n c l u d i n g an e f f e c t i v e t a r i f f rate of over 60% f o r
f u e l , i t s e l f responsible f o r over 60% of t o t a l import d u t i e s ;
the average rate for machinery was 9.2% and of other i n t e r ­
mediates 10.5%, again i n c l u d i n g the 20% surtax charge. (See
C h e l l i a h 1986: 96-98.)
Estimates of the sources of growth f o r 1982 and 1983 were
made with and without the i n c l u s i o n of t a r i f f s . As the o v e r a l l
r e s u l t i n g data d i d not vary by more than 1% from the data
c a l c u l a t e d without the i n c l u s i o n of t a r i f f s to imports (and
because the exercise of estimating c i f imports i n c l u s i v e of
t a r i f f s would have taken many weeks to complete) the current
c a l c u l a t i o n s do not incorporate the increases i n imports due to
t a r i f f s . Hence, the o v e r a l l data therefore would tend (marginally)
to under-estimate the importance of import s u b s t i t u t i o n i n
decomposing the d i f f e r e n t elements of growth.
19. The f i g u r e s contained i n t h i s paper and those f o r 1965 to
1979 i n the World Bank's 1987 I n d u s t r i a l Sector study of Zimbabwe
(p. 12) d i f f e r quite markedly, except f o r C l o t h i n g and Footwear
and Paper and Paper Products. As the World Bank provides no
d e t a i l s of how i t s f i g u r e s were derived i t i s not possible to
compare the methodologies used.
20. As can be seen from the graph, p o s i t i v e export growth and
domestic demand growth i n excess of 100% i s achieved because of
the negative e f f e c t of import s u b s t i t u t i o n change.
21. Supported, i f only marginally, i n the contrast between the
Federal and UDI periods when, r e s p e c t i v e l y , the change i n
domestic demand rose from 36% to 60% of the t o t a l and the change
i n export growth f e l l from 10% to 9%.
22. I am g r a t e f u l to Rob Davies for b r i n g i n g t h i s point to my
a t t e n t i o n . Davies i l l u s t r a t e s h i s point by taking the hypothetic
a l example of Zimbabwe e s t a b l i s h i n g a t r a c t o r f a c t o r y which
leads to a h a l v i n g cif the number of t r a c t o r s imported. Using the
Chenery methodology t h i s would show up as import s u b s t i t u t i o n
only i n year one but surely, he argues, we should count the
t r a c t o r s produced i n year two also as import s u b s t i t u t i o n . In
other words to give a more accurate p i c t u r e , the import s u b s t i t u ­
t i o n e f f e c t s should be cumulatively assessed, although there
would be problems and a greater component of value judgment i n
the attempt to address adequately t h i s anomaly.