Based upon the research, Zimabwe's government relies more on interventionist policies than free-market based policies. The government's control and view of trade is one that is very interventionist, refusing to truly recognize the benefits of trade, with policies \that make imports expensive or difficult to purchase. Zimbabwe has made some progress at reducing interventionism with trade, with their programs ESAP and ZEMPREST, but although these do focus upon trade liberalization, they only suggest general improvements to accomplish this, and still view the impacts of trade through a narrow window.
Zimbabwe's attempts to fight the hyperinflation during the economic crisis were mostly strongly interventionist policies, such as maintaining a large amount of control over prices, forcing businesses to reduce prices in attempts to combat the hyperinflation.
As Zimbabwe is still recovering from a huge economic recession, government control of markets has become more stringent, in attempts to recover from the crisis. In the 2000s, it commenced one of its most controversial policies of land reform, taking land from commercial farmers, and redistributing it to black, landless citizens. This redistribution was mostly to people who were inexperienced or uninterested in farming, and they couldn't maintain the high level of care and oversight needed to produce as much agriculturally as the farmers before them. This type of governmental control is indicative of the interventionist leaning policies the government favors.
The government also maintains a lot of regulations over businesses, making it expensive and complicated to start a business. In 2010 the government passed a controversial indigenisation law as part of its policy to force foreign firms to cede economic control to black Zimbabweans. (BBC News)
While interventionist policies are not always a terrible thing, Zimbabwe's interventionist policies mostly focus upon controlling businesses and trade, and lot of these restrictions stem from racial tensions, not only negatively effecting the economy, but also the inter-relationships in the country. The tight control over businesses and trade are really only only constricting the economic freedom of the people in the country, and making it difficult for businesses to grow or even be started. If Zimbabwe were to slowly shift to a more market based policy,and reduce restrictions on trade, businesses would be able to expand more easily, and foreign companies would be able to invest more easily in companies in Zimbabwe, or even move their companies there. The indigenisation law is strongly discouraging FDI, as MNC's are wary of setting up business in Zimbabwe or investing in businesses there. One of the most important things the government in Zimbabwe does, and should funnel more of their funds into, is improving infrastructure in Zimbabwe. Although there is a lot of foreign aid targeted at improving infrastructure and living standards, they will not really show solid improvement until the government also strongly invests in improving infrastructure. This kind of interventionist policy is beneficial to Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe's attempts to fight the hyperinflation during the economic crisis were mostly strongly interventionist policies, such as maintaining a large amount of control over prices, forcing businesses to reduce prices in attempts to combat the hyperinflation.
As Zimbabwe is still recovering from a huge economic recession, government control of markets has become more stringent, in attempts to recover from the crisis. In the 2000s, it commenced one of its most controversial policies of land reform, taking land from commercial farmers, and redistributing it to black, landless citizens. This redistribution was mostly to people who were inexperienced or uninterested in farming, and they couldn't maintain the high level of care and oversight needed to produce as much agriculturally as the farmers before them. This type of governmental control is indicative of the interventionist leaning policies the government favors.
The government also maintains a lot of regulations over businesses, making it expensive and complicated to start a business. In 2010 the government passed a controversial indigenisation law as part of its policy to force foreign firms to cede economic control to black Zimbabweans. (BBC News)
While interventionist policies are not always a terrible thing, Zimbabwe's interventionist policies mostly focus upon controlling businesses and trade, and lot of these restrictions stem from racial tensions, not only negatively effecting the economy, but also the inter-relationships in the country. The tight control over businesses and trade are really only only constricting the economic freedom of the people in the country, and making it difficult for businesses to grow or even be started. If Zimbabwe were to slowly shift to a more market based policy,and reduce restrictions on trade, businesses would be able to expand more easily, and foreign companies would be able to invest more easily in companies in Zimbabwe, or even move their companies there. The indigenisation law is strongly discouraging FDI, as MNC's are wary of setting up business in Zimbabwe or investing in businesses there. One of the most important things the government in Zimbabwe does, and should funnel more of their funds into, is improving infrastructure in Zimbabwe. Although there is a lot of foreign aid targeted at improving infrastructure and living standards, they will not really show solid improvement until the government also strongly invests in improving infrastructure. This kind of interventionist policy is beneficial to Zimbabwe.