Emigration in Zimbabwe: Losing the People War

The rate of Zimbabwe’s brain drain has reached such alarming levels that it is no longer a ludicrous claim to say most Zimbabweans have a relative on the greener side. As an example, Matebeleland South recorded 33% of households having experienced a loss of members due to emigration [1]. Quite often these assumed connections to the outside world are used as bragging points afterall they do provide a level of insulation to the next phase of Samora or Mukwati induced economic instability.

While the chat is often about how leaving Zimbabwe or South Africa. as of late, is a win situation with little in ways of costs in the form of social isolation and crazy workloads, I want to change the direction of our monocles for a short time. I am not saying forsake your principles of actualisation but simply suggesting that there are macro-level costs and thus there should be a better way of doing this. I have taken the liberty to assume you know what emigration is and the general push factors in this topic including the lack of trust in the government. Let’s talk about the time bomb that is hyper-emigration in Zimbabwe.

Some metaphorical analysis

Let’s have some imagery. Imagine you own a cattle ranch, with say 12 calves. We will simplify the process here. To raise these 12 calves, you take the ranch’s earnings from working the older beasts and refocus them on items such as vaccination and the general wellbeing of the calves. The calves are a general cost until they mature, however you keep up with this because you know they will pay back in folds either through sales, work or breeding. They’re an investment. We will call this maturation period Phase 1.

Once they mature, they assume their fair market value and all bets are off. The model generates profit, hinged on the assumption that you won’t let them age. For the sake of this model, we will assume you let time be god, there’s no strategic slaughtering at your ranch, and we don’t do that here (wink wink). The problem with aging is that economic output generally wanes with time until the aggregate is that your cattle are now a cost again. They again need more medication, monitoring, and separation at times also, remember they have a mouth and belly, they eat resources. We will call the period in which their mature phase 2 and the old age period phase 3.

Your ranch thus has 3 phases that have implications. You have two phases, 1 and 3, that have been an aggregate cost to your ranch and one phase, phase 2, that generates aggregate profit. Phase 2 either breaks-even or has a positive turnover otherwise the model breaks. This is your ranch and you’re happy. So long as this balance is maintained your ranch grows. What we did not account for however are nice farms.

Assuming that your cattle have the liberty and range, Target and some of her besties in phase 2 decide Oxford ranch has better conditions and leave. What you have remaining is a potential hole in your wallet. Phases 1 and 3 are costs.

This is what, in general, is happening in Zimbabwe. The young chaps in phase 1 are schooled, fed and nursed at the cost of the system. Once they assume enough knowledge to be productive members of society, you’ll find their hopes and dreams on the next flight. Sure, enough we can expect some remittance to be earned but two facts remain. The first is that they will spend the majority of their earnings where they are situated. Secondly, remittances tend to fall due to factors such as time loosening home connections among other reasons. We can see this playing out in Bangladesh which had 1’135’873 citizens find work abroad yet still year-on-year remittances fell by 1.5% [2] against a forecasted growth of 35%.

Phase 2 fails to live up to the billing. While some of the now working adults will invest back home it usually is from the objective of making a retirement net, not necessarily to self-actualise which often is the birth mother of succesful economies. In worst-case scenarios, some will come back home with nothing but stories of how they knocked on number 10 Downing Street. Still, those who do manage to cement their names in foreign lands are better adversaries. The adopting country only has phase 3 to deal with. If phase 2 often produces enough return to shadow phases 1 and 3, imagine what dealing with only phase 3 must be like. Bliss.

Not all emigrants are the same

I understand the numbers are more complex but when you have an ever-increasing young population, the cost of raising that population is going to keep rising. More than just cash, we’re talking about opportunity cost rearing its head in the form of innovative talent, break-through minds, governance heads, intelligence and to put it bluntly the ability to work.

Phase 2 gives more than it earns, that is why they are precious and are marketed to by other nations. Also crucially is guaranteeing their productive capacity, making sure one is educated is one such enabling filter.

Another filter is not taking war and humanitarian refugees from developing nations, that population is often a phase 1 element and their ability to produce positive output is not guaranteed. This is partly why “late stage developed nations” implement educated-immigrant favouring policies then at the same time exaggerate the cost of refugees on their economies. Economic profit is the goal, I digress.

Opportunity and neglected Humanitarian Duty

On the flip side, let’s consider the refugees from war-torn and developing nations. Their ability to contribute is frequently underestimated. Yet, this is not entirely fair. Remember, these are individuals fleeing desperate circumstances, their potential stifled by conflict and deprivation but the necessary motivation for economic contribution is there. The developed world often exaggerates the burden of accepting refugees, conveniently forgetting the potential for growth and contribution these individuals bring in the process. 

Instead of outright rejecting refugees either through policy or public sentiment, why not train the same refugees to service those sectors in the economy that are in dire need of human resources? Surely this is a healthier way of dealing with a labour shortage instead of preying on developing nations that need the numbers.

In summary of this thought process, we’re losing the people war at a time when our system is immensely fragile. End of day, the system back home losses existing and potential tax base, further fails to protect living standards thus incentivising the young to dream of the Hague. Do you see the cycle?

So what then?

I’d quite like to see developed nations come up with strategies to re-capture the value lost through emigration. It might look like a foreign tax system (many holes in this idea right now), an inter-governmental rebate (give back) system or something else.

Reclaiming Value from Emigration: A Conceptual Proposition

An ideal world would be one where nations collectively banded and contrived strategies to recoup value lost through excessive emigration. Perhaps it could look like a foreign tax system designed for this express purpose. Yeah, I know the idea is riddled with plot holes but do bear with me

The Inter-Governmental Rebate System: A Novel Approach

How about a inter-governmental rebate system, much similar to a give-back scheme? A system where the host country remits a part of the emigrant’s contribution back to the sending country. Perhaps into a sovereign wealth fund whose expenditure is directly diaspora directly controlled. A state mandated investment vehicle if you may. The idea again is raw but that’s why we are here right? Simple exploration.

The Economic Goal: People or Profit

Again, with the EU struggling to get a handle on their aging populations, it wouldn’t be much of a surprise to find new policy giving temporary citizenship or simply extended benefit visas to emigrants. All with the goal of returning those that are aging. It could be a brutal way of ensuring the working population trims down rapidly towards retirement age. Sovereignty afterall can be claimed in the process of justifying pulling the rug out under those that have worked to see a brighter day.

Economic profit is the endgame for many states, developed or not. That’s a hard pill to swallow. In being virtuous however, should it be our only goal? In our rush to stabilise our economies, are we neglecting our duty our people, both domestic and abroad? We need to address these questions as a collective. I feel a bit naïve typing that last bit out. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.

Focus on the actual matter

People at the end of the day generally prefer home and familiarity. The main head of the problem then is the quality of our governance, that is where the fungi is. Improving that is no minuscule feat which will take time. We need positive change in the halls of governmental power and at the grassroots level. I understand and concede to this. Otherwise in the meantime retirement age increases and harsher taxes and longer working hours may just become the norm if emigration continues to be a cancerous growth.

References