Zambezia (1978), ¥1 (i)ESSAY REVIEWALTERNATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT IN POST-U.D.LRHODESIAFOUR RECENT WORKS1 are of considerable interest for two reasons. First,a vast amount of factual information, much of it quantitative, is conveyedto the reader who might not be an avid follower of the Monthly Digest ofStatistics and other official publications. In general the data refer mostlyto the 1965-75 period. This is a special interest because a broad collectionof post-U.D.I, information in an analytical context is, surprisingly, still some-thing of a rarity in academic literature, although more specialist studiesabound in economic journals. It is arguable, however, whether these recentpublications will do much to fill the gap. In particular the Mambo papersoffer a critical thematic approach whereas Leistner and Handford providewhat appear to be predominantly descriptive and uncritical accounts of'economic change' under conventional broad headings such as population,balance of payments, agriculture, manufacturing industry, transport andcommunication, and so on.This leads to the second point of main interest Š the different per-ceptions of 'economic change' in Rhodesia offered by most of Leistner'scontributors and by Handford compared with those by Clarke. On the onehand, there is the 'traditional view' of the former group that developmentis primarily an economic phenomenon and that it is achieved in the waythat the industrialized West did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries Ši.e. the 'stages of growth' hypothesis, which calls upon 'the rich countries tosupply the "missing components" to the developing countries and therebyto help them to break bottlenecks or remove obstacles. These "missing com-ponents" may be capital, foreign exchange, skills or mangement'.2According to this view, then, effective economic sanctions followingU.D.I, should have frustrated economic development in Rhodesia; but thestatistics suggest differently, at least for the period 1965-75, and a mostplausible explanation of this is that sanctions were not sufficiently effectiveto offset the domestic forces of energy, enterprise and resource creation. Itis this argument which is so strongly emphasized by Handford and morecautiously presented in Leistner. The economic links with South Africa,and Portugal, became much stronger and more vital with the result that» G. M. E. Leistner (ed.), Rhodesia : Economic Structure and Change (Pretoria,The African Institute, 1976), 239 pp., R8,50; J. Handford, A Portrait of an Economyunder Sanctions 1965-75 (Salisbury, Mercury Press, 1976), 203 pp., Rh$3,50; D. G.Clarke, The Distribution of Income and Wealth in Rhodesia (Gwelo, Mambo Press,Occasional Paper, Socio-Economic Series No. 7, 1977), 125pp., Rh$l,80; andUnemployment and Economic Structure in Rhodesia (Gwelo, Mambo Press, OccasionalPaper, Socio-Economic Series No. 9, 1977), 81 pp., Rh$l,35.z P.F. Streeten, 'Changing perceptions of development', Finance and Development(Sept. 1977), 14-16.8788ESSAY REVIEWsanctions were, to some degree, avoidable; also there existed a surplus ofphysical capital in 1965 together with reasonably sophisticated financialmarkets to channel savings into investment, and emergency powers weresought by Government to make more effective a controlled re-allocation ofresources. Real growth of G.N.P. exceeded six per cent per annum overthe period Š a favourable rate compared with previous years and also byInternational comparison. Since 1975 (not covered by the material reviewedhere) economic growth has been stagnant, partly because of the world de-pression and more significantly because of the war which has claimed anincreasing proportion of domestic resources as well as foreign exchange.The 'traditional view* thus favours a capitalistic development progressand rules out different styles of development, Even as late as !975 mostWhites in Rhodesia had envisaged the post-U.D.I. period as a temporarystate of affairs preparatory to a 'settlement' after which the status quo,socially and politically, would not be much changed. Of course, thij isnot surprising as most Whites are of the West, and some control, as Ckirkewould say, the means of production. The 'traditional view' recognises socialchange but not political change, as a necessary outcome of economic develop-ment. Socio-economic shifts are treated as secondary and evolving only gradu-ally over time.Yet there is an alternative perception of development, or rather ofunderdevelopment, which is that 'the rich undcrdevelop the poor*. Therich-poor relationship produces and maintains undcrdeveiopment. In itsinternational context this perception may be used to explain the ever-widening gap between the industrialized West and the non-oil strugp;l;np,emergent countries; or it can be used, as Clarke does, to propagate the viewthat it is European dominance which has brought about continued and deep-ening social and economic inequality and injustice for a substantial majorityof the Black population in Rhodesia. 'True* development and economicchange, it is held, can only be accomplished from within the system and netthrough external aid. Imports of capital goods and economic growth viaG.N.P. are secondary to social and political change. Given the Black-Whitedichotomies in Rhodesia the remedy is obvious.However, I find both these views less than convincing. What evidenceis there to suggest that the 'traditional' linear growth-path would survivesanctions let alone a war which, it appears, can only be solved by somekind of effective political change? And if one accepts the alternative view,the questions which need to be asked are how a socio-political change iseither a necessary or sufficient condition for future development, and whetherthe substitution of a Black for a White elite is necessarily a real socio-political change for the majority of the population?The two opposing views as presented have perhaps been much over-simplified in the attempt to contrast the different approaches by which aneconomy might achieve more equitable development which has some econo-mic underpinning. In a political sense, however, these views do tend to be-come polarized whereas a more promising development strategy requires, inmy opinion, some integration of these polar approaches.In the four volumes under review, however, there is little middle groundbetween these perceptions. Leistner's Foreword to seventeen essays Š all,presumably, written in 1975 Š emphasizes that the contents are 'confinedto economic aspects' but then, interestingly, directed to 'the problems associa-ted with the process of development and change'. His stated objective is'to provide an objective and authoritative review of the Rhodesian economyD. I. RAMSAY89since 1965 and its present structure*. Certainly we have bolh objective andauthoritative accounts of several areas of economic interest in post-U.D.I.Rhodesia Š not surprisingly, in view of the fact that the authors includeserving or retired civil servants and senior executives of Government agenciesand public bodies. There are no disclaimers that the views are merely per-sonal, and the readers, therefore, must be resigned in the main to officialauthoritative reviews rather than critically analytical approaches. Only fiveof the seventeen essays can lay any claim to critical analysis but the volumeas a whole will be a useful reference for economists and other interestedobservers of the Rhodesian Economy since U.D.I. In fact there is also muchhistorical material in each of the contributions carefully deployed io setthe scene at U.D.I.The sub-title of the volume 'Economic Structure and Change' leads oneto expect an analysis of a changing structure or, in the absence of change,then at least a prognosis from the existing structure recognizing the con-siderable forces impacting upon it. Disappointingly, there is very littleanalysis or even recognition of the 'problems' associated with the process of'development and change 'other than references to shortages of the traditional'missing components'. Structural changes as seen by Leistner's contributorsbecome evident only as shifts in emphasis which result from domesticadjustments required to preserve the social and political status quo follow-ing U.D.I, and economic sanctions. The traditional perception of develop-ment dominates and 'change* is identified through statistics rather than poli-cies and ideas.There are, however, two particular exceptions: E. L. Williams's chapter,'Perspectives on Rhodesia1, which is an exceptionally useful introduction,and A. M. Hawkins's 'The Economy: 1924-1974'. Williams's essay is morea travellogue through time but is invaluable as a beginner's potted historyleading up to 1975. The history is useful, especially on legislation to en-trench distinctions between Blacks and Whites. Williams appreciates change:in the City's night spots White Rhodesia still relaxes without anysuggestion or atmosphere of the approaching end of an era . . ,white governmental power resides in Rhodesia land] whateverfinally happens to Rhodesia's racial future, one thing is certain:there can be no effective return for any length of time to the posi-tion of yesterday. History is again on the march.Such a prognosis and its implications for the economy is almost com-pletely lacking in the following essays Š a remarkable situation in 1975-6!Hawkins, while strong on statistics, does show a welcome awareness of thetensions in the development process (as does G. Kay in his essay, 'Thepopulation') in an otherwise sterile volume. He questions the validity of theG.N.P. growth rate and there is a (regrettably) brief discussion of develop-ment criteria which shows concern for the significance of income and wealthdistributions: 'a problem that apparently will only be solved politicallyrather than by the adjustment of existing economic policies'. But the neces-sary conditions are not spelled out, and so it is not quite clear whether Haw-kins is seeking 'middle ground' and a reconciliation of alternative perspec-tives or a more radical solution; from his earlier sympathetic assessment ofthe dual nature of the economy one must assume that it is the 'middleground'.Clarke in his two Mambo Occasional Papers sets out from a positionof apparent frustration with the socio-economic implication of the present90ESSAY REVIEWeconomic structure. These volumes, each of about 25 000 tightly printedwords (with as many following pages devoted to 56 Tables of statistical in-formation in the first of the two) were both written over periods of twomonths early in 1976, In The Distribution of Income and Wealth in Rho-desia, which is somewhat unbalanced in presentation. Clarke draws out infine detail the self-evident conclusion of a 'high level of income inequalityin Rhodesian society'. Incomes are, however, painstakingly and usefully con-trasted in Chapter Two, which comprises 70 per cent of text, from personal,social and occupational data sources for Whites, Coloureds, Asians andBlacks taken as separate groups in so far as the published data will permit.This is justified as a socio-economic exercise to illustrate the heterogeneousnature of wage-labour in Rhodesia. Legislation and convention combinewithin the perpetuation of the existing economic structures to enforce awidening of the income gap between Europeans and Africans.The remainder of the book is rather weak in both content and analysis.The chapter, 'Distribution of Wealth and Assets', which runs to only eightpages, is concerned mostly with land ownership and is offered to supportthe analysis of inequality in the distribution of incomes. Not much analyticalweight is given to the relative shares of profits and wages in a trivial two-page chapter on the subject, and this is a disappointing feature of the book.This is also unfortunate because the lack of analysis leads Clarke to a ques-tionable conclusion (which is evident also in Unemployment and EconomicStructure in Rhodesia). Noting the decline in the share of wages, he writes:One remarkable change is recorded . . . profits gained at the ex-pense of wages, the share of the former rising particularly in thepost 1968 period ... in simple terms the rich and those withcapital have been relatively advantaged by structural trends. Anotherway of conceiving these trends is a weakening of the general in-fluence of labour . . . (p.48, my emphasis).Regarding the post-U.D.I. period as a secular trend is a somewhat naiveassumption. A more plausible interpretation would be to recognize the partialimpact of a cyclical movement about a trend and to give some weight topolitical and subsequent external economic constraints which might haveoperated to create a shift in the technical conditions of production. Theimpact of these economic conditions could most surely not have been ex-trapolated as a trend from the 1950s and early 1960s. The post-U.D.I. pro-duction processes more fully utilized relatively scarce capital and, further-more, might well have operated with a more labour-intensive technology Šconditions which, one fancies, Clarke would welcome, especially as thesefigure among his options 'for changing the economic structure in the direc-tion of expanding the volume of adequately remunerative and productiveemployment' set out in Unemployment and Economic Structure. The in-creased share of profits observed by Clarke is not a 'remarkable change' butthe predictable outcome when capital becomes relatively scarce and expensiveunder technical conditions where the elasticity of substitution between capi-tal and labour is less than unity which is the more likely value.3 One isinclined to suppose that Clarke thinks this is a White capitalist plot to3 S, W, Sinclair, Urbanisation and Labour Markets in(London, Groom Helm, 1978).(low. triesD. I. RAMSAY 91weaken the 'influence' of Black labour. 'Influence* and wage shares, how-ever, do not necessarily correspond.The controversy about technology among economists in Rhodesia stemsfrom Faber4 who suggested that the production progress was becoming in-creasingly capital intensive in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a result ofexcessive foreign capital investment during the period of Federation. Itseems, however, that Faber overlooked the distinction between the stockof capital and its utilization at a time when the economy was on a downswingin the business cycle. The effective capital Š labour ratio was overestimatedby Faber, but it appears that his analysis and predictions have since beenused, mistakenly, by some economists discussing the Rhodesian economy.Clarke belongs to this group and he thus fails to see post-U.D.I. profit andwage shares in their correct perspective. Hence we have some confusion.Clarke must implicitly assume, for his analysis to be correct, that the elasticityof substitution is in excess of unity as capital takes the place of labour ina growing economy. This is highly questionable in Rhodesia. Clarke pro-poses minimum wage legislation as an effective means to increase remunera-tion, but if his assumptions are correct then the demand for labour will falland this is not, surely, a desirable objective. If, however, my more plausibleinterpretation is accepted, then Clarke's 'general influence of labour' sinceU.D.I, might well have weakened in the sense that its share of income hasfallen; but this is but one interpretation of his phrase which is ambiguous.In areas where the demand for labour was rising, post-U.D.I. minimum wagelegislation might have been potentially more effective. It could well havebeen the highly elastic supply of relatively unskilled operatives, which wasthe proximate cause of the alleged lack of effectiveness of minimum wagelegislation rather than entrenched discrimination by Government or thepervasive influence of capitalism.The choice of appropriate technologies is at the root of the develop-ment problem for upon this is dependent both employment and income dis-tribution. A change in political system, if necessary, is most surely not suffi-cient for development and growth. This issue gets scant attention in Leistner,none in Handford (although it is claimed that 'the whole of this book isabout development'), and unfortunately rather less than adequate treatmentfrom Clarke, who does, however, emphasize that he is analysing present'structures' rather than proposing solutions. Solutions, nevertheless, are pro-posed for employment in Unemployment and Economic Structure which alsocontains a careful analysis of the problems. Wage-labour for Blacks is a criticalrequirement of Clarke's view of the Rhodesian economy because the peasants*ability to produce sufficient for subsistence is regarded as a 'myth' and wageemployment, therefore, is vital for survival. The degree of 'official* un-employment is shown to be a considerable underestimate and the rapid in-crease in post-U.D.I. African employment is said to be due not only to in-dustrial import-substitution policies (technical factors are not mentioned)but also to the 'displacement' effect of migrant labour leaving Rhodesia.Clarke estimates that 26,3 per cent of new jobs have been created between4 M. Faber, Economic Structuralism and Its Relevance to Southern Rhodesia'sFuture (Manchester, Manchester Univ. Press, 1965).92 ESSAY REVIEW1969 and 1975 by an active 'displacement policy' rather than real employ-ment growth. Official statistics support this proposition Š the ratio offoreign Black labour in the money economy, as high as 66 per cent in 1921,fell to 45 per cent in 1961, 34 per cent in 1969 and 25,2 per cent in 1974.Given these figures, however, it seems improbable that Clarke's analysis,which claims that 'subsistence' has been a myth, is historically correct, butit is increasingly a more valid proposition from the 1960s with higher ratesof population growth and consequently a higher dependence ratio.Clarke appears sympathetic to the more radical views of the under-development school, for which the crisis is one of political power and controlover the means of production. The real issue is taken to be the politicalsystem itself and employment 'does not matter' very much. Nonetheless, Clarkerejects the radical solution: 'awareness of "political crisis" is not an adequatesurrogate for broad economic strategy'. Are we then to see some reconcilia-tion of the alternative perceptions? It seems so because the solutions whichare later proposed ('balances* are suggested but not priorities) are not allradical and are quite compatible with a mixed capitalist economy. However,Clarke tends to be equivocal in his conclusion where the 'politico economiccontext* is the barrier.I find Clarke's contributions both stimulating and frustrating. Importantissues are raised but the analysis is lacking on some crucial points and hispositions become confused.Handford, without apology, takes a definite position. Rhodesia is 'acountry where most of the economic burden was carried by one twentiethof its population'; not concealing his irritation with 'academics', he writes(p.8):What is quite inexcusable is the failure to consider whether the in-equalities are not the fault of the Africans themselves Š whetherthe inequalities have been corrected significantly in African-run countries Š whether white Rhodesians are not making credit-able efforts towards altering the position and to some degree havebeen successful Š whether economic generosity has not invariablystopped short of handing over political power, in any country atany period.Handford uses his writing to convey his obvious enthusiasm for post-U.D.I.Rhodesia in a hostile world. It is very much a personal view, more a politi-cal polemic, built upon undeniable but selective facts of successful economicexperience in the period 1965-75. Certainly within the framework of 'tradi-tionalist' thinking the performance of the post-U.D.I. economy was remark-able. It becomes a very readable book, if not particularly well-written, withan amazing amount of information in addition to the selected statisticscontained within the 200 pages. Clearly much research, time and efforthas been given to this book; and in view of this, it seems a pity that thereare so few references and the bibliography is so short. This will detract fromits future value as a research source.It is, however, unlikely that this work will have any lasting value asit is, unfortunately, too overtly prejudiced as a balanced appraisal of economicperformance following U.D.I. The book abounds with unjustified assertionsand is virtually without criticism of official policies Š criticism is a favourreserved for enemies of State and academics who might not share his ownpersonal enthusiasms. That Handford asks us to read his book with an openmind is not really important but this does indicate that he has in mind aD. 1. RAMSAY93'popular' market. However, it is claimed that 'this book is a record of Rho-desia's defiance of sanctions'. It is; and it is also a record of facts and in-cidents which might be difficult to put together at a later date, althoughthose who look hopefully for some 'classified' material will be disappointed.The book would not have been written had Handford not held such strongviews and for this we can be cautiously grateful.The stark distinction between the 'alternative perceptions' of develop-ment reviewed here is that the traditional school emphasizes aggregate orper capita economic growth, whereas the radical school is concerned, prim-arily, with the distribution of the fruits of production. Neither school pro-vides a programme consistent with increased wealth and social justice. InRhodesia the economic distinction is first clouded by racial inequality andthen obscured by attitudes entrenched by one's view as to the partial successor failure of the system. As in much of the rest of the world since the SecondWorld War, Rhodesia has seen unparalleled increases in material prosperity,particularly in the U.D.I. period between 1966 and 1975, yet Blacks' aspira-tions were deliberately frustrated by a Government which had a pre-ordainedfaith in individual inequality. It should not be impossible either to provideobjective accounts of Rhodesia's economic history or to present a just andrealistic prescription for Zimbabwe. It is, however, quite apparent thatmany informed commentators find these tasks increasingly difficult and theliterature becomes more polarized.Those who see a middle way do not necessarily propose any particularideology or economic system. The problem is not seen as one in which judge-ments on success or failure, on right or wrong, need to be enforced uponthe existing economic structure but rather as a problem in which the posi-tive benefits of the existing structure might be integrated with policies toalleviate the suppressed political, social and economic aspirations of theBlacks. There are indications in 1978 of some movement in this direction;however, the passage of time and consequent polarization between strategistshave diminished the prospect of a stable, prosperous and more equitablegrowth path.The City of Birmingham PolytechnicD. I. RAMSAY