Zim economy is stable and growing
"We say you can't quarrel with success. The president has delivered economic success, and it speaks for itself. That's a middle-class economy that we are creating,"
"It is why our economy is pumping, that is why there is political stability, because when you create a middle-class economy, you have also created stability in the economy," Mutsvangwa explained.
But former Finance Minister Tendai Biti says corruption has led to the total collapse of the country's economy.
"I reckon that we are losing as much as US$5 billion a year through smuggling. So whilst the economy is overheating and it's producing a lot of extractive commodities, there are not benefiting any individual, they are not benefiting the country, and they are not transforming lives. So when Zanu PF claims that this economy is growing, it's meaningless growth because it can't be seen and experienced by any Zimbabweans," argued Biti.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Sudan's war is an economic disaster: here's how bad it could get
The Conversation | Published 2 days ago Khalid Siddig Since April 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a devastating war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. What began as a struggle for power has turned into a national catastrophe. More than 14 million people have been displaced. Health and education systems have collapsed and food insecurity threatens over half the population of about 50 million. The war has disrupted key sectors, triggering severe economic contractions, and worsening poverty and unemployment levels. Sudan's finance minister reported in November 2023 that the war had resulted in economic losses exceeding US$26 billion – or more than half the value of the country's economy a year earlier. The industrial sector, which includes manufacturing and oil refining, has lost over 50% of its value. Employment has fallen by 4.6 million jobs over the period of the conflict. More than 7 million more people have been pushed into poverty. The agrifood system alone has shrunk by 33.6%. These estimates exclude informal economy losses. My research applies economy-wide models to understand how conflict affects national development. In a recent study, my colleagues and I used this approach to answer the question: what will happen to Sudan's economy and poverty levels if the war continues through 2025? To assess the economic impact of the conflict, we used a Social Accounting Matrix multiplier model. This is a tool that captures how shocks affect different sectors and other agents of the economy, such as firms, government and households. Based on our modelling, the answer is devastating: the conflict could shrink the size of Sudan's economy by over 40% from 2022 levels, plunging millions more into poverty. We modelled two scenarios to capture the potential trajectories of Sudan's economy. The extreme scenario assumes a sharp initial collapse, with a 29.5% contraction in the size of the economy in 2023 and 12.2% in 2024, followed by a 7% decline in 2025, reflecting some stabilisation over time. The moderate scenario, based on World Bank projections, applies a 20.1% contraction in 2023 and a 15.1% drop in 2024, also followed by a 7% reduction in 2025, indicating a slower but more prolonged deterioration. We estimated the annual figures and report only the aggregate impacts through 2025 for clarity. We found that if the conflict endures, the value of Sudan's economy will contract by up to 42% from US$56.3 billion in 2022 (pre-conflict) to US$32.4 billion by the end of 2025. The backbone of livelihoods – agriculture – will be crippled. And the social fabric of the country will continue to fray. Our Social Accounting Matrix multiplier model used data from various national and international sources to show the impact of conflict on the value of the economy, its sectors and household welfare. We connected this to government and World Bank data to reflect Sudan's current conditions. This allowed us to simulate how conflict-driven disruptions affect the value of the economy, its sectors and household welfare. Under the extreme scenario, we found: Gross domestic product collapse : Gross domestic product (GDP) measures the total value of all goods and services produced in a country within a year. It's a key indicator of economic health. We found that the value of Sudan's economy could contract by up to 42%. This means the country would be producing less than 60% of what it did before the conflict. This would affect incomes, jobs, government revenues and public services. The industrial sector – heavily concentrated in Khartoum – would be hardest hit, with output shrinking by over 50%. The value of services like education, health, transport and trade would fall by 40%, and agriculture by more than 35%. Job losses : nearly 4.6 million jobs – about half of all employment – could disappear. Urban areas and non-farm sectors would be worst affected, with over 700,000 farming jobs at risk. Incomes plummet : household incomes would decline across all groups – rich and poor, rural and urban – by up to 42%. Rural and less-educated households suffer the most. Poverty spikes : up to 7.5 million more people could fall into poverty, adding to the 61.1% poverty level in 2022. In rural areas, the poverty rate could jump by 32.5 percentage points from the already high rural poverty rate pre-conflict (67.6% of the rural population). Women, especially in rural communities, are hit particularly hard. Urban poverty, which was at 48.8% pre-conflict, increases by 11.6 percentage points. The agrifood system – which includes farming, food processing, trade and food services – would lose a third of its value under the extreme scenario. Sudan was already in a fragile state before the war. It was reeling from decades of underinvestment, international sanctions and institutional breakdown. The war has reversed hard-won gains in poverty reduction. It is also dismantling key productive sectors – from agriculture to manufacturing – which will be essential for recovery once the conflict ends. Every month of continued fighting adds to the damage and raises the cost of rebuilding. Our projections already show major economic collapse, yet they don't include the full extent of the damage. This includes losses in the informal economy or the strain on household coping strategies. The real situation could be even worse than what the data suggests. First and foremost, peace is essential. Without an end to the fighting, recovery will be impossible. Second, even as conflict continues, urgent action is needed to stabilise livelihoods. This means: supporting agriculture in areas that remain relatively safe. Food production must be sustained to prevent famine. restoring critical services where possible – particularly transport, trade and retail – to keep local economies functioning protecting the most vulnerable, such as women in rural areas and the elderly, through expanded social protection and targeted cash assistance. Third, prepare for recovery. The international community – donors, development banks and NGOs – must begin laying the groundwork for post-conflict reconstruction now. This includes investment in public infrastructure, rebuilding institutions and re-integrating displaced populations. Sudan's war is more than a political crisis. It is an economic catastrophe unfolding in real time. One that is deepening poverty, destroying livelihoods and erasing years of progress. Our research provides hard numbers to describe what Sudanese families are already experiencing every day. The country's economy is bleeding. Without a shift in the trajectory of the conflict, recovery could take decades – if it happens at all. | The Conversation Khalid Siddig is Senior Research Fellow and Program Leader for the Sudan Strategy Support Program, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
From prisoner to pawn: The US continues to undermine our democratic sovereignty
The window exploded before I saw the gun. Just a loud crack — then shards in my face, then a fist yanking the door open. Five of them. Muddy Converse. Beanies pulled low. One barely out of school. They dragged me out of my Mercedes and threw me under a bush like a bag of rubbish. I tasted blood before I knew where it came from. 'Please, take the car,' I said. 'Take everything. Just leave my bag.' It had my laptop. My notes. My life in zipped compartments. 'Fokof,' one spat. 'You think we're your BEE brothers?' Then came the boots. The insults. The gun. The shot. It was supposed to be a hijacking — but it felt like punishment. Not for resisting, but for representing something. For speaking calmly instead of cowering. For not bowing low enough. That moment — blurry, bloodied, and bewildering — is exactly where South Africa stands today. The sanctions are coming On 22 July 2025, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee advanced the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act in a 34-16 vote. Introduced in April by Congressman Ronny Jackson, the bill is cloaked in diplomatic language, claiming to 'strengthen US-South African ties'. But beneath the façade, it reads like a warning shot. If passed, it would empower the US government to sanction South African officials under the Global Magnitsky Act — a law designed to target the world's worst human rights offenders and kleptocrats. Let's not pretend this is about corruption. South Africa has its own demons, from State Capture to service delivery failures. We've earned the anger of our own people, and rightly so. But if corruption were truly the standard, many of America's allies — some with far worse records — would be on the same list. This isn't a principled stand. It's a geopolitical lever. Nor is non-alignment an endorsement. Russia may have stood with us during the Struggle against apartheid, but that doesn't mean we baptise its every action today. We can remember who showed up without romanticising who they are now. To engage China or speak with Iran is not to sanctify them. To criticise Israel is not to erase Hamas' crimes. But in Washington's current mood, anything short of full compliance is labelled complicity. This isn't about justice — it's about obedience. Obedience to Washington's worldview. Obedience to its alliances. Obedience to its preferred version of moral clarity — one that always seems to exempt its closest partners. When democracy was dangerous History remembers differently than the West pretends. During apartheid, the US didn't stand with the oppressed — it stood with the regime. Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist — and he remained on the US terrorist watchlist until 2008, 15 years after becoming South Africa's first democratic president. The ANC was labelled a communist threat. President Ronald Reagan vetoed sanctions. Then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher called them 'immoral'. Western capital backed white supremacy under the banner of anti-communism. When Mandela defended ties to Cuba and Palestine by saying, 'your enemy is not our enemy', it was not defiance — it was sovereignty. It was the dignity of a people refusing to outsource their conscience. Today, once again, South Africa is being punished. Not for violence. Not for lawlessness. But for choosing a path of principle that diverges from Washington's. A loaded act The US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act does not centre human rights. Instead, it grants the US president sweeping authority to determine whether South Africa has 'undermined US national security or foreign policy interests'. That's it. No requirement of genocide. No proof of corruption. No actual misconduct. Just the crime of non-compliance. If enacted, it could trigger visa bans, banking restrictions, asset freezes and diplomatic disengagement. While targeted in language, sanctions rarely remain confined. We've seen the fallout before — from Zimbabwe to Venezuela — where sanctions chilled investment, collapsed currencies and deepened social crises. What's the real trigger? South Africa's vocal stance on Israel and Gaza. Its willingness to invoke international law at The Hague. Its refusal to toe the line in the emerging global Cold War. That — not misgovernance — is the perceived offence. Follow the money The bill's lead sponsor, Congressman Ronny Jackson, is a recipient of significant campaign funding from Aipac — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. That's not conspiracy — that's public record. It's no coincidence his outrage peaks when South Africa critiques Israel's actions in Gaza — even when those critiques come through respected international legal mechanisms. Let me be clear: I do not uncritically endorse every aspect of South Africa's foreign policy. The Arab world is not beyond reproach. And the apartheid analogy — though emotionally potent — can sometimes oversimplify a complex conflict. But we will not be bullied into silence — not by donors, nor diplomats, nor those who confuse disagreement with disloyalty. This is not about governance — it's about punishment. Punishment for choosing diplomacy over deference. Punishment for saying we will not pick a side in your game. Yes, other nations — Brazil, Spain, Turkey, Colombia — have joined our legal case at the International Court of Justice. But only we are being threatened with sanctions. Why? Because we are easier to isolate. Because we have dared to speak truths the powerful do not wish to hear. The bullet and the bag That night in Johannesburg, I crawled back to my car, bleeding. I had offered everything — wallet, keys, car. But when I said, 'just leave my bag', they pulled the trigger. What they wanted was not my possessions — it was my silence. They could not stomach the audacity of someone like me asking for more than mere survival. And that is exactly where South Africa finds itself now. We've said: Take your trade deals — we'll still talk peace. We've said: We'll engage with China — but we'll also remain open to the West. We've said: We are non-aligned — not hostile. But when we asked for our bag — our voice, our dignity, our seat at the table of global justice — they reached for sanctions. And now the gun is cocked. This is the real danger The true threat is not sanctions — it's amnesia. Forgetting that our democracy was not a donation from the West, but the fruit of blood, prayer, protest and sacrifice. The danger is mistaking pressure for partnership. It's believing our legitimacy is measured by how well we echo Washington's voice. Let the record show: when we were fighting apartheid, they said, 'Not yet.' When we fight for Palestinian lives, they say: 'Not you.' We will not die quietly That night, I should have died. But I didn't. And neither will this democracy. So let the gun be cocked. Let the threats fly. We will not trade dignity for convenience. We will not barter sovereignty for appeasement. We will not be pawns in someone else's game. And we will not die quietly — not in the street.
eNCA
12 hours ago
- eNCA
China summons chip giant Nvidia over alleged security risks
Chinese authorities summoned Nvidia representatives on Thursday to discuss "serious security issues" over some of its artificial intelligence chips, as the US tech giant finds itself entangled in trade tensions between Beijing and Washington. Nvidia is a world-leading producer of AI semiconductors, but the United States effectively restricts which chips it can export to China on national security grounds. A key issue has been Chinese access to the "H20", a less powerful version of Nvidia's AI processing units that the company developed specifically for export to China. The California-based firm said this month it would resume H20 sales to China after Washington pledged to remove licensing curbs that had halted exports. But the firm still faces obstacles -- US lawmakers have proposed plans to require Nvidia and other manufacturers of advanced AI chips to include built-in location tracking capabilities. And Beijing's top internet regulator said Thursday it had summoned Nvidia representatives to discuss recently discovered "serious security issues" involving the H20. The Cyberspace Administration of China said it had asked Nvidia to "explain the security risks of vulnerabilities and backdoors in its H20 chips sold to China and submit relevant supporting materials". The statement posted on social media noted that, according to US experts, location tracking and remote shutdown technologies for Nvidia chips "are already matured". The announcement marked the latest complication for Nvidia in selling its advanced products in the key Chinese market, where it is in increasingly fierce competition with homegrown technology firms. - Nvidia committed - CEO Jensen Huang said during a closely watched visit to Beijing this month that his firm remained committed to serving local customers. Huang said he had been assured during talks with top Chinese officials during the trip that the country was "open and stable". "They want to know that Nvidia continues to invest here, that we are still doing our best to serve the market here," he said. Nvidia this month became the first company to hit $4 trillion in market value -- a new milestone in Wall Street's bet that AI will transform the global economy. Jost Wubbeke of the Sinolytics consultancy told AFP the move by China to summon Nvidia was "not surprising in the sense that targeting individual US companies has become a common tool in the context of US-China tensions". "What is surprising, however, is the timing," he noted, after the two countries agreed to further talks to extend their trade truce. "China's action may signal a shift toward a more assertive stance," Wubbeke said. Beijing is also aiming to reduce reliance on foreign tech by promoting Huawei's domestically developed 910C chip as an alternative to the H20, he added. "From that perspective, the US decision to allow renewed exports of the H20 to China could be seen as counterproductive, as it might tempt Chinese hyperscalers to revert to the H20, potentially undermining momentum behind the 910C and other domestic alternatives." New hurdles to Nvidia's operation in China come as the country's economy wavers, beset by a years-long property sector crisis and heightened trade headwinds under US President Donald Trump. Chinese President Xi Jinping has called for the country to enhance self-reliance in certain areas deemed vital for national security -- including AI and semiconductors -- as tensions with Washington mount. The country's firms have made great strides in recent years, with Huang praising their "super-fast" innovation during his visit to Beijing this month. By Peter Catterall
