Structural Adjustment in Zambia and Zimbabwe Reconstructive or Destructive?
By Austin M. Chakaodza
Published by Third World Publishing House (1993)
ISBN 0-9516354-1-7

THE book under review this week is Austin Chakaodza’s Structural Adjustment in Zambia and Zimbabwe Reconstructive or Destructive?
With its major focus on the case studies in Zambia and Zimbabwe, the book reveals the input of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) in crippling the two countries’ economies.
The cases of Zambia and Zimbabwe show that World Bank and IMF programmes continue to benefit the rich, multi-lateral corporations, industrialists and the ruling elite among others.
In Africa, those who suffer the most are the poor who comprise students, women, children and peasants.
The Bretton Woods institutions are cited as the Western-controlled institutions formed to exploit Africans.
In his argument, the writer brings to the fore that such institutions do not consider the human factor.
Through Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), such Western-controlled institutions are more concerned with the economic factor rather than the social impact.
When the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) was introduced in Zimbabwe in 1990, it was clearly an IMF and World Bank-sponsored programme and instead of boosting the country’s economy, it led to social differentiation between traders, industrialists, private entrepreneurs and the ruling elite while the poor suffered .
ESAP aimed to open up the economy and to reduce Government expenditure, but consumers could not afford the high prices of basic commodities.
Zimbabwe’s external debt soared, so did unemployment.
Chakaodza’s argument is more pertinent today than ever before.
Africa remains poor despite having resources that the West does not have.
“It is a paradox that the so-called underdeveloped countries are the ones with the greatest wealth of natural resources and yet the poorest in terms of the consumer goods and services presently provided by and for their citizens,” says Collin Duncan Chirumbwa as quoted by Chakaodza
This supports the classical realist perspective that points out that in the international arena, ‘the weak will suffer what they must’.
Chakaodza’s book also analyses reasons for Africa remaining under the yoke of debt from the Bretton Woods institutions.
Reasons given are a set of conditionalities the Bretton Woods institutions expect Africans to meet. Some of the conditionalities include decontrolling of prices, devaluation of currencies, removal of subsidies and reduction in public expenditure, privatisation, good governance, wage restrains and the issue of human rights.
“Africa’s underdevelopment is also caused by the restrictions placed upon the continent’s capacity to make the maximum use of its economic potential, which is what development is all about,” says Chakaodza.
The conditionalities reflect the hypocrisy of the IMF and World Bank and superpower rivalry in their bid to control Africa.
“In the case of South Africa, civil liberties have been under siege in that country since time immemorial. Yet , Western countries who are now championing the cause of human rights and ‘good governance’ chose to remain silent about these subjects,” Chakaodza writes.
Published two decades ago, the book’s contents are still applicable to the current situation of African states.
It explains very well how the economy of both Zambia and Zimbabwe suffered under the guidance of the IMF and World Bank.
In the book, Chakaodza bluntly talks about how developed countries continue to milk developing countries that are mostly found in Africa.
He says Bretton Woods institutions are an obstacle to Africa’s economic development.
It is against this background that Chakaodza cements his argument with theories of dependency and world systems.
Africa remains at the periphery, while its resources are used to develop Western countries.
Chakaodza’s book reflects the unfairness of North-to-South co-operation in economic relations.
“It is arguable as to whether the IMF is committed to a self- sustained growth and prosperity in developing countries as some policies do not serve to endear themselves to the masses of Third World people who see their living standards deteriorate,” writes Chakaodza.
Economic development challenges continue to hinder Africa from becoming one of the most developed continents.
As a result, conditions imposed by the IMF and WB on loans force poor countries into unplanned trade liberalisations with limited considerations on poor people.
“The social and economic impact of IMF and World Bank policies and programmes on different social groups in Zambia were adversely felt by women, children, peasants and the working class in general,” says Chakaodza.
It must be noted that one of the reasons financial aid is given to African countries is not for economic considerations but to ensure new markets are opened for the donors’ goods and services, to create new opportunities for investment and to regain old markets.
The painful truth is African economies are integrated into the very structure of developed economies, which ensures that Africa is dependent on international capital.