How Poverty in Zimbabwe Has Changed over Time? Essay

Poverty can be understood as the inability to meet a variety of basic needs and entitlements, through a lack of income, access to resources or empowerment. Poverty at a national scale is complex and is caused by an array of factors including many generated within the country but also others that are caused by external factors (figure 1). I will examine the internal and external causes of poverty in the landlocked Southern Africa state of Zimbabwe (figure 3). In the last century Zimbabwe has experienced massive economic and social change. Once Africa’s 2nd biggest economy, it is now ranked 15th(figure 3). Overall Zimbabwe ranks 173rd in the world in terms of HDI (Human Development Index), 153rd in the world for GDP and ranked 5th in the world for the lowest life expectancy[1], indicating significant poverty especially when compared to the relative developmental success of other southern Africa states (figure 5). When considering levels of development, countries can be placed on Rostow Stages of Economic Development[2], the majority of countries move up the stages from experiencing economic growth. However Zimbabwe has slipped back down the Stages of Development; early 1970 it was experiencing ‘take off’ & ‘acceleration’ however in recent years it is now at ‘pre-development’ (see figure 4), a ‘step back’ in economic growth development. An external cause of poverty in Zimbabwe is the geographic position. They are a landlocked country; they have no access to the seas for trading, limited border crossings and they are dependent on other countries for trade (figure 6). This leads to huge transport costs and inadequate infrastructure, on average a country which is landlocked experiences 60% less volume of trade plus it limits their economic growth and this external factor is a major cause of poverty[4]. Also, Zimbabwe has experienced severe drought in the past few years, it only has 8.32%[5] arable land and climate change is threatening to lessen their available land further. Arguably, these effects are already being observed in regions of Zimbabwe as the physical climate of the country has changed largely over the last three decades with the worst drought being experienced in 1991. However in recent years failure of the 2004-2008 rains reduced crop production by an estimated 95%, this has impacted heavily on Zimbabwe’s productivity, reducing both commercial trade to earn income and subsistence poverty. In years of severe drought the GDP growth was negative indicating a shrinking economy (figure 8), such unreliability of production limits their growth (figure 5). The unreliability of their economy stems from the external factors which also lead to national scale poverty through a lack of income, and an inability to meet basic food security needs which Maslow includes at the very base of his Hierarchy Of Needs (appendix 2), therefore pushing huge sections of society into poverty. Despite this geographical and climate disadvantage, I feel that poverty in Zimbabwe was serverly exacerbated as a result of political policy, this internal factor has had greater effect on the extent and depth of poverty experienced. In 2000 Robert Mugabe seized thousands of white-owned farms in an ongoing and violent campaign to reclaim what they say was stolen by settlers[6]. The land reform had a massive impact on Zimbabwe’s food production; in 2005 they were ranked 177th out of 182 compared to South Africa (Zimbabwe neighbouring country) who are 82nd (figure 3). This portrays a massive problem as South Africa share the same climate and land features but are completely in the opposite spectrum in terms of food production. The land reform in 2000 led to the breaking up of farms, two thirds of the farms were given to ordinary people on low-incomes. The remaining one-third included civil servants (16.5%), former workers on white-owned farms (6.7%), business people (4.8%) and members of the security services (3.7%)[7] (figure 6). Arguably, these effects have been caused due to the loss of the commercial white farmers, they knew how to produce high yields along with the high quality and most importantly they knew how to add value to their goods. I believe the impact of the land reforms is evident in the food crisis 2007-08 due to the land seizures, in some areas crop production reduced by 95%. Not only did Zimbabwe lose a large section of its agriculture sector, it diminished its community cohesion and provision of services throughout communities across the country (appendix 1). It lost its community support network and witnessed a mass exodus of its economically active society, causing intellectuals to le ave the country causing brain a drain and further undermining income earning potential. The land reform campaign in 2000 was also thought to have contributed to the AIDS epidemic; over 33% of the population are HIV positive (3rd largest in the world). As farming communities were disrupted, the economy deteriorated and many doctors left the country causing reduced access to healthcare. Many farmers were forced to move to different areas and in some cases families were separated, this resulted in sexual networks developing and an increase in the risk of HIV transmission. In 2009 the HIV prevalence in adults aged 15-49 was 14.3% causing the most economically active age group to have limited income earning opportunity as illness made work more difficult to continue causing income poverty (appendix 1).This is compared to South Africa where 15-49 prevalence was only 7% in 2009. Foreign companies are also reticent to invest in a country with such an unreliable workforce, again causing GDP limitations and national level poverty. But internally controlled land reforms would never have been needed but for the external factor of the apartheid regime established by Ian Smith who was president of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) from 1964. Britain who had colonised parts of central Africa, wanted to keep hold of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) because it was known as the bread basket of Africa, they believed it had great potential[8]. However Ian Smith declared independence under white minority rule, sparking international outrage and economic sanctions. Additionally he completely radicalised the farming community when he introduced apartheid. He evicted the numerous black farmers and put the fewer white famers in control of the huge hectares of land because they were commercial farmers and knew how to produce high quality and high yields[9]. This led to a division between poor blacks and wealthy white people causing inequality and an increase in relative poverty. This eventually led to civil war and resulting in Ian Smith being over thrown by the British Government in 1979; Robert Mugabe was elected as the new prime minster in 1980. His chaotic attempt to eradicate the apartheid regime ultimately ended up in a land redistribution campaign, which began in 2000 and caused an exodus of white farmers, crippled the economy, and ushered in widespread shortages of basic commodities. The economy of the Zimbabwe shrunk by 154.4 (figure 8). Although it could be argued that this is an internal factor as governance is part of the domestic jurisdiction of the country meaning that changes and alterations to policy and leadership should be internally controlled, in the case of Zimbabwe, these factors cannot be separated. Governance in Zimbabwe was controlled externally via colonial rule, and even after the decline of colonialism, for a significant period, the leader of Zimbabwe was externally decided and was the case of the appointment of Mugabe. It is undeniable that the internal governance of the country under Mugabe has been of paramount importance with regard to affecting poverty in Zimbabwe on a national scale such as failure to act despite everything going wrong, for denial of HIV, and ignoring of land reforms impacts on productivity, lack of free speech so intellectuals leave causing brain drain. His reign can be summarised as; life expectancy in fell from 62 years in 1990 to 36 in 2006[10]. He has been accused of policy myopia many times. From all the information and statistics described in this report it can be concluded that internal factors have had the most devastating effect on Zimbabwe as a whole, such as the land reforms which led to a spiral of decline for the country, especially as it could have been avoided. The devastation of the land reforms is still being felt in certain parts of Zimbabwe today; the loss of intellectual people will be the hardest to recover from for Zimbabwe. They are the group of people what will promote economic growth and re-stabilise the economy. They attract investment from Trans National Companies for their knowledge and their enterprise; they act as a multiplier effect for an economy. However this will take generations to re build. External factors of poverty such as their geographic location and climate have had impacts such as restricting them in trade and production. But comparison with neighbouring countries such as South Africa indicates they significantly outperform Zimbabwe. This leads us to believe internal factors have had a great impact on causing poverty in Zimbabwe (figure 4). However, as has been shown it is impossible to separate internal and external factors completely as they feed into one another. A challenging collection of external factors such as climate, location and in particular colonial legacy under Ian Smith, created a situation where poverty was a real danger. However post-colonial, strong and positive governance could have reduced poverty. Unfortunately in Zimbabwe, Mugabe’s regime exacerbated the poverty situation. Once in poverty, you’re in a vicious cycle of decline (poverty trap[11]). The poverty you’re in prevents you from getting out, it counteracts you from taking positive actions[12]. As a result of high unemployment figures and a spiral of decline for the economy, those who had been educated left the country in hope for a prosperous future. This can be referred to as the ‘brain drain’[13]. ———————– [1] Zimbabwe facts https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html [2] http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0097893.html [3] http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_NAM.html [4] http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ces/journal/v45/n4/full/8100031a.html [5] http://www.wordtravels.com/Travelguide/Countries/Zimbabwe/Climate [6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14113618 [7] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11764004 [8] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14113618 [9] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15919538 [10] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23iht-edmugabe.1.19632133.html [11] http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/poverty/measuring_poverty.htm [12] http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/BPEAEndingAfricasPovertyTrapFINAL.pdf [13] http://www.globalissues.org/article/599/brain-drain-of-workers-from-poor-to-rich-countries