eBusiness Weekly
Without tangible economic activity, data on labour is merely theory
Chris Chenga
The Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund (ZIMDEF) has featured quite frequently in the media over the last two years.
Regrettably most of the stories of the institution have been of a political nature and less about the queries of actual man power development.
Hopefully over the next few months greater light can be shed on the manpower tangibles that relate to the three pillars of manpower in an economy; labour force competitiveness, real wages, and employment capacity.
There is a vacuum of credibility in these three manpower pillars, and much of the perspectives in Zimbabwe seem more theoretical than empirically accurate.
For instance, it would be helpful if ZIMDEF ventured to compile comparative metrics on Zimbabwe’s labour force competitiveness in a global context, offer benchmarks on real wages per occupation in various economic activity, as well as offer empirically credible data on employment capacity encompassing all standardized manpower willing to work in the economy.
Only these three pillars, particularly when they are empirically factual and credible can Zimbabwe carry out debates on our labour force and jobs!
Indeed, fault is not to be apportioned to ZIMDEF for the shallow engagement on labour force and jobs. A lagging economy, anywhere in the world, makes it difficult to reveal the growing disparities in labour competitiveness, real wages and employment capacity between vibrant economies and one such as ours.
More simply, Zimbabwe is practically and objectively prejudiced from manpower debates because there really hasn’t been enough economic activity to make any pragmatic analysis.
Over time, the topic of manpower relevance and jobs in Zimbabwe has become much more theoretical than practical. Consider the generic narratives that Zimbabwe has a diligent labour force and that we are supposedly the most literate on the continent.
There is little empirical evidence to these notions, and that adopted from foreign data actually suggests otherwise. This is why whilst there is plenty of political rhetoric in regards to job creation, there is really no certainty of the structural outlook for job creation in Zimbabwe.
To improve this unfortunate circumstance, the economy must garner real economic activity of note, and as this activity assimilates various labour demographics, only then can precise analysis on labour force competitiveness, real wages and employment capacity be done on the Zimbabwean economy.
For instance, there are various economic activities that our economy is unfamiliar with. In the construction or manufacturing industry, Zimbabwe trails in best practices. This means that when assessing labour force relevance to these occupations, we have little economic activity that can be benchmarked to the metrics of best practices and efficiency that develops competitive labour forces.
In Brazil, construction and manufacturing have been vibrant sectors. As the country has constructed stadiums, highways, and bridges, construction labour force in that market can more precisely be benchmarked to the economic activities carried out in this sector.
Engineers, surveyors, architects, and other manpower of such activity can be benchmarked to best practices in efficiency, skills compatibility and productivity as per demanded output on these jobs. This applies too in manufacturing as the country has vibrant factories that operate at global benchmarks.
Thus, manpower in this sector can empirically be matched to the pillars of manpower relevance.
In Zimbabwe, construction and manufacturing are merely theoretical. As per suggested by President Mnangagwa, our industrial outlook is structurally and technically decades behind the world’s competitive benchmarks.
This translates that even the manpower active in Zimbabwe cannot claim parity to competitive benchmarks in their respective economic activities. We cannot accurately trace labour productivity in manufacturing, when the manufacturing sector itself is decades behind global benchmarks.
We cannot accurately assess the manpower in construction when as a country little stadium, skyscrapers and bridges have been constructed across the nation annually over the last two decades.
The argument advanced here is that manpower development cannot be theoretical, even in its assessment.
Only through actual economic activity can labour force competitiveness, real wages, and employment capacity become empirically credible. A few years ago, there were discussions on whether or not the Zimbabwean labour force is overpaid compared to regional peers.
From a financial business perspective that is concerned with the bottom line of profits, arguments could be made. However, from a macro-economic perspective such a discussion is less simple than what the bottom line tells.
It is illiterate to justify labour force compensation without encompassing output productivity and its impact on real wages.
Very few, if any regional peers have comparative labour force productivity data, let alone benchmarked real wages. Such is the data plight of Africa as a whole. That is because we have a low base of economic activity, let alone to be benchmarked with global standards.
Concededly, that does not make the resolution to improved data any more clear.
But it goes to show that ZIMDEF, just like its continental peers is challenged for data on labour force competitiveness, real wages, and employment capacity.
Consider that there is the modern myth of Africa potentially becoming a manufacturing hub, supposedly due to a readily available labour force, low wages and structural capacity. Yet, this myth has been empirically debunked by large multinationals, the very ones we expect to bring in these jobs.
Ethiopia, for instance, is a market familiarised to such manufacturing employment parity. But empirical data used by global multinationals shows that not to be the case, with labour costs in Ethiopia not only being higher than South East Asia, but as that labour force becomes informed on higher living and working standards, it will not take on the low wages associated with manufacturing at mass scale.
Labour force discussions in Africa, and Zimbabwe remain theoretical. And in many cases when that theory is tested it is proven to be false.
If we are serious about being competitive, raising real wages, and enhancing our employment capacity, resolutions on labour force relevance to economic activity must be found.
Otherwise, we are breeding a generation of impractical expectations and harsh disappointment. A tweet by former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Kaushik Basu, earlier this week explained the global phenomenon of labour force disappointment: “One reason the world is turmoil is the rules of the game of life are rapidly evolving. What was rewarded earlier is no longer valued. Imagine doing body building all your life to be told the prize is not for weightlifting but for solving crosswords. You will want to lash out.”
This describes well the phenomenon of the world today having more graduates than ever before, but the highest unemployment rates than ever before.
