By Dr Tafataona Mahoso

THE first duty of any holder of a PhD degree is to remember vigilantly, all the time, that there is no specialised discipline anywhere in the world which defines, occupies and explains a stand-alone reality or universe.
Being a doctor of philosophy means recognising that we occupy separate sectors that share one world, one universe, one economy, one Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean reader’s and listener’s daily exposure to announcements and explanations of our economic situation by the financial elites over the last seven years seems to show that this breed of ‘experts’ regards the area of fiscal and monetary policies as a separate (dangling) universe which has nothing to do with the real daily challenges of production, commerce and consumption faced by real Zimbabweans in Chiredzi, Mwenezi, Dotito, Binga or Honde Valley.
Editors therefore need to ask themselves whether an economist is one who holds an advanced qualification in a tertiary discipline called economics or he/she is a person who studies, understands and explains the economy as experienced by the overwhelming majority of the people.
This question has a direct bearing on journalism training.
This includes learning to ask the specialists and the policy makers really hard questions on behalf of the average reader and the ordinary player in the economy.
Two recent examples
It is important to give some examples.
These are not the worst examples; but they are illustrative of the challenges to which I am referring.
On June 2 2016 The Herald Business published ‘Cost benefit analysis of dollarisation’ by Dr Gift Mugano, a Zimbabwean who is now an economic advisor and expert in trade and competitiveness as well as a research associate at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
The article ran for two pages.
The first half was on the theoretical advantages of so-called dollarisation which were and are not tested for the real situation in Zimbabwe.
Most of them were irrelevant.
Take the following paragraph, for instance:
A number of studies have found evidence that Canadian provinces tend to be more integrated in trade volume and price-level differences among themselves than with US states that are closer geographically, trading in the order of twenty times more among themselves than with nearby US states.”
This paragraph was meant to draw a parallel between Zimbabwe and South Africa, more closely the southern parts of Zimbabwe and the northern provinces of South Africa.
But the first problem is both Canada and the US have their own currencies and neither is about to give up its currency regardless of what the exchange rates might do.
The second problem is the difference in politics.
South Africa hosts and harbours many former Rhodesian and opposition elements from Zimbabwe who play a significant role in the South African economy and in politics to the extent that South Africa has historically taken advantage of Zimbabwe, using US and EU sanctions against Zimbabwe; whereas in the US-Canada relationship the US would fight on the side of Canada against any extra-hemispheric power seeking to interfere in the Canadian economy or politics.
Moreover, Mugano’s use of Argentina, Ecuador and Panama as good examples of states that dollarised is not assuring or convincing, not only because their situations were different from that of Zimbabwe, but also because they are not examples of political and economic success as a result of dollarisation.
The second half of the article, though more applicable to the situation of Zimbabwe, was equally disappointing in two ways: All the drawbacks of dollarisation Dr Mugano pointed out were foreseeable in 2009 and were in fact pointed out at the on-set of the policy.
Worse still, Mugano’s recommendations for ways out of the crisis were limited to the very same routine ones which have already been tried since 2009 without success.
These included more external borrowing, for which there is very little room left for Zimbabwe; more desperate efforts to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), which is not only a double-edged sword but also problematic because every country is doing the same and FDI flows out as quickly as it comes in.
South Africa, which Mugano cites as part of our way out, has lost more than 75 percent of its FDI in the last year alone.
The third suggestion is also not new: Joining the Rand Union.
This may be feasible but it does not depend on Zimbabwe’s initiative alone and it does not resolve the political risks that are inherent and evident in our reliance on the US dollar.
We merely transfer the power from the US and its allies to the South Africans. South Africa has separate economic and trade agreements with the EU and US which by-pass SADC and the AU.
The point is that the writer did not make any effort to foreground the real economy of Zimbabwe.
As a result, all his recommendations leave out what Zimbabwe can do for itself as a sovereign state with 14 million people who can be mobilised productively. This was done in order to avoid discussing the national currency question.
The editor also did not challenge the writer.
For instance, why have the finance elites pursued policies to shrink the national economy at a time of worst unemployment as well as a global economic slump?
The second recent example was Sanderson Abe l’s ‘Pros and cons of using plastic money’ in The Herald Business, June 15 2016.
This article in the context of the whole Zimbabwean economy was grossly inadequate and insulting.
Take the following paragraph, for example:
“Anytime and everywhere access using cards you have the unique advantage and convenience of using it anywhere in the country or even abroad. In case of credit cards you have the option of buying on credit or paying later.”
This is theory based on very limited middle-class experiences in the suburban and CDB areas of Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru and Mutare.
The theory is also not synchronised with the usual political song we hear also about millions of small scale enterprises all over the country who are supposed to dominate our economy now.
So even in high density areas of our cities the theory does not work, for the following reasons:
l First, expanding plastic money because one has run out of cash actually undermines confidence in the plastic because it raises suspicion about motives for expanding plastic.
l Second, the usual song about a basket of currencies is not synchronized with the plastic money theory. A card cannot be a basket and cannot carry a basket. So, it is necessary to solve the currency challenges in order to make the expansion of plastic money feasible. Are we supposed to have one card each for Yuan, Rupee, Pound Sterling, Rand, US Dollar and Euro? What logistical challenges would that present?
l Third, most small operators cannot afford the internet charges and the accessories required to process plastic money.
l Fourth, internet penetration does not correspond with the potential spread of productive economic activity among the 14 million Zimbabweans.
The editor should have forced Sanderson Abel to imagine how markets for cattle, goats, sheep, tomatoes, grain, beans and groundnuts all over the country can use plastic money in the absence of a national currency, universal Internet service and universal electricity supply.
In conclusion, the writers and their editors needed to think about the economy for which these articles and their theories apply as well as the audiences to whom they were expected to make sense.
The CBD is not the Zimbabwe economy.