AN EVALUATION OF ZIMBABWE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY: IS ZIMBABWE ON COURSE TO ATTAIN UPPER MIDDLE INCOME ECONOMY BY 2030?

: Zimbabwe was the most industrialized country in sub-Saharan Africa with the exception of South Africa and was a major exporter of manufactured products to its neighbours. Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries (CZI) (2015) observed that by 2015, however, the country’s industrial sector had all but collaps ed following years of economic problems that resulted in serious deindustrialization as factories closed and relocated to neighbouring countries and thousands of workers were thrown out of employment. In view of this calamity, the Government of Zimbabwe reviewed its industrial development policy 2012-2016 and launched 2019-2023 policy. The purpose of the evaluation was therefore to identify implementation gaps and inform future policy reviews, bearing in mind that the policy under review promised to propel Zimbabwe out of mess and grow the economy to a developmental state by 2030. The overall objective of this evaluation is to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, administrative ease, equity, responsiveness and politically acceptability of the Industrial development policy. The evaluation utilised the qualitative approach because it is context-specific and provides flexibility and gives the evaluator the ability to conduct an in-depth evaluation on selected participants. The Delphi technique was used in this study. The Delphi technique is a group process used to survey and collect the opinions of experts on a particular subject. It is a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals to deal with a complex problem. The overall findings from the expert drawn from the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF) was that the policy objectives were noble but it faced serious implementation constraints due to country engaging freely with that country and social /cultural risk e.g. crime and moral decadence.


Introduction
At independence in 1980, the incoming ZANU PF. government led by the then President Robert Gabriel Mugabe inherited a very thriving and diversified economy underpinned by three key economic pillars, namely, agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. CZI (2015) asserts that Zimbabwe was the most industrialized country in sub-Saharan Africa with the exception of South Africa and was a major exporter of manufactured products to its neighbours. Mlambo, (2017) observed that by 2015, however, the country's industrial sector had all but collapsed following years of economic problems that resulted in serious deindustrialization as factories closed and relocated to neighbouring countries and thousands of workers were thrown out of employment. According to Mlambo (2017), by the middle of 2015, Zimbabwe had become a nation of vendors, with an estimated 90 percent of its population unemployed and struggling to eke out a living in the mushrooming informal economy.
In 2019, the Government of Zimbabwe, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, revised the Industrial Development Policy 2012-2016 ensuring a comprehensive framework to change the industrialisation landscape against the declining economy that has historically been anchored on four pillars, namely, agriculture, mining, manufacturing and tourism. The industrial pillar not only adds value to products from the agricultural and mining sectors but, more importantly, contributes to the reduction of poverty since industrialisation is a critical driver of economic growth and development (ZIMSTAT, 2020).
As defined by UNDP (2009), industrialisation is the essence of development as industrial production creates job opportunities at higher skill levels and facilitates more useful links across the agricultural, mining and service sectors, between rural and urban economies, and across consumer, intermediate and capital goods industries.

The policy objectives
The overall objective of the policy is to restore the manufacturing sector's contribution to GDP of Zimbabwe and its contribution to exports among other imperatives (GoZ, 2019). The Policy seeks the establishment of appropriate industry-related institutional and regulatory frameworks at the national level to support the financial mobilisation of resources as a key element of Zimbabwe's Industrial Development Policy Implementation Matrix. Fessehaie and Rustomjee (2018) gave credence to such a policy framework as part of the conducive environment for domestic and foreign private sectors to play their part in the process of industrialisation.
The Government launched this Industrial Development Policy 2019-2023 to address the challenges which weigh down the industrial sector in order to enhance its performance and give it the competitive edge it needs in the challenging global environment. Investment, innovation, export-led industrialisation and value-addition or beneficiation are some of the cornerstones of this policy (GoZ, 2019). Zimbabwe is abundantly endowed with natural resources, which include many industrial minerals and agricultural resources. However, the resources remain dormant if they are not fully exploited. The challenge facing the country is to transform the economy from being raw resource-dependent to one that enjoys beneficiated products being knowledge-driven, dynamic and diversified.
In an effort to effectively address the economic growth challenges facing the country, the Government of Zimbabwe launched the Zimbabwe National Industrial Development Policy which is aligned to the Transitional Stabilisation Programme 2018-2020, and it prioritizes the stimulation of economic growth and creation of employment. Pursuance to the regional and continental integration agendas, the policy is also aligned with the SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap 2015-2063 and the African Union's Agenda 2063. Accordingly, these agendas call for countries to pursue industrialization strategies substantially from factor driven to investment-driven, then to efficiency-driven and ultimately to high growth trajectory driven by knowledge, innovation and business sophistication.

Envisaged benefits of industrial development policy
The policy is premised upon the deliberate decision taken by the Government to open the country for business, modernise, industrialize and promote investment, with the ultimate goal of attaining broad based economic empowerment, inclusive economic growth and employment creation.
The Zimbabwe Industrial Policy sought to maximise revenue deliverables from the exploitation of natural resources through the enhancement of investment in the sector. This will lead to increased capacity utilisation in local processing and valueaddition, thus enabling greater integration of the country's enterprises into the relevant global value chains.
It is envisaged that Zimbabwe's industrial development will also benefit from human capacity building, investment in health, education and training (UNDP, 2009). In today's knowledge-based global economy, industrialisation is increasingly being driven by scientific research, technology and innovation. The ability to develop, acquire, upgrade and adapt technologies is a key element for competing effectively in the global market. Thus, there must be continuous flows of scientific discoveries, and the development and adaptation of technologies to ensure improvement in the competitive production of Zimbabwe's industrial goods in the regional and international markets.

Envisaged transformation
The Industrial Development Policy itself envisages transforming Zimbabwe from a producer of primary goods into a producer of processed value-added goods for both the domestic and export market through the promotion of viable industrial and commercial sectors.
Critical to the attainment of the transformation is the anchoring of fundamental principles in the policy of issues related to enhanced value addition, access to affordable development finance, technology transfer and research and development among others, on prioritized sector basis under a cluster approach.

Policy implementation strategy
In view of the aforementioned objectives mentioned above, the strategies to be pursued in fulfilment of these objectives are ,among others, as follows: • Industrial Financing. Government will establish a dedicated financial mechanism through the re-modelling or restructuring of existing institutions primarily dedicated to financing medium and long term recapitalization of industry. • Lines of Credit. Government will identify additional lines of credit of a medium to long term nature and make them available to industry on priority basis. The target is to finance the procurement of raw materials, packaging materials, production consumables, laboratory chemicals, spare parts, repairs and maintenance of plant and equipment and other working capital costs. • Distressed Strategic Companies. As a short-term measure, the Government will initiate revival packages for distressed companies with a clear-cut exit policy on the basis of a revolving fund. • Review of Import Tariffs. The Government will review the import tariffs structure on the customs duty and VAT on industrial raw materials and packaging to level the playing field for locally produced goods. • Strengthening of existing institutions. Institutions such as SIRDC to coordinate the crucial role of modernizing industry's plant and equipment and to improve on its systems and quality of products in line with international best practice. • Trade Policy. A key strategic component of the industrial development policy is the trade policy which will be advanced by a separate policy document to support the trading environment to maximize attractiveness of Zimbabwean products in the region and globally. The Trade Policy will nurture private sector competitiveness and support the productive sectors of the economy to create wealth, employment and enhancing social welfare. • Spatial Development Initiatives. Government will put in place a short-term investment strategy to unlock latent economic potential in a specific geographical area. The programme is in line with the SADC Members States' economic vision which aims at transforming the respective members states' economics from operating as individual, fragmented markets into single, integrated, vibrant and globally competitive market, characterized by free movement of goods, services, capital as well as labour. The Government will encourage the setting up of Partnerships' and financing options for the development of infrastructure and liaise closely with Apex organizations/Chambers of Commerce and Industry/ Trade Bodies in order to set up and sustain a Market Intelligence network which will provide a continuous feedback on the status of the industry and proposals on the types and levels of interventions required.
The Government undertake to improve the investment climate and the business environment through various intervention measures that will include a well-coordinated brand management of the Government, the State and the Country. The Government will promote/help/facilitate specialized skill development institutions at strategic locations for the manufacturing industry and services sector through public-private partnerships. These initiatives will be further strengthened by collaboration of existing institutions.

Underlying policy assumptions
Key to the successful implementation of these strategies is the fulfilment of underlying assumptions which are covered under the implementation matrix as follows: Continued commitment to a stable and supportive political and macroeconomic environment, Creating capacity for financing industrial sector transformation, Development and upgrading of key supportive infrastructure, Strengthening the institutional framework for the implementation of the Industrial Policy, Promotion and institutionalization of a public-private partnership approach, Deepening and widening of industrial base, Creating and strengthening national capacity for innovation, and effective application of science and technology in industry among other strategies.

Rationale for evaluation
The rationale for undertaking this policy evaluation was as follows: The question to be addressed by this evaluation was how did Zimbabwe move from being a country of considerable promise to being a "low income country under stress" (Zimbabwe Institute, 2007) How did a country which was regarded as an industrial hub with the second highest level of industrialization in sub-Saharan Africa end up being dependent on the informal economy and presiding over a rapidly dying formal economy?
The situation in Zimbabwe has changed significantly since the policy review, which demands new ways of supporting vulnerable populations to get employed and manage the country's future. The results of this evaluation will be instrumental in advising policy makers in developing alternative policy options to strengthen targeting and delivery mechanisms of the industrialisation. Since this policy was revised in 2019, there was no other review done to date despite continuous closure of companies and high dependents on imports against capital and cash constrains.

Purpose evaluation
The purpose of the evaluation was therefore to identify implementation gaps and inform future policy reviews, bearing in mind that the policy under review promised to propel Zimbabwe out of mess and grow the economy to a developmental state by 2030. The current mantra that Zimbabwe is open for business needs to be checked and identify whether key economic growth fundamentals, thus strong correlation between Government, Labour and Business, are being considered in the country's quest for economic growth against inherent country risk factors.

Objectives of the evaluation
The overall objective of this evaluation was to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, administrative ease, equity, responsiveness and politically acceptability of the industrial development policy.
Specifically, the evaluation sought to: 1) Review the underlying policy assumptions associated with industrialisation to determine whether they are still relevant and identify any emerging issues after two and half years of implementation. 2) Review the relationship of key stakeholders in industrialisation, thus Labour, Business and Government to determine their influence and perceptions to the achievement of the policy objectives. 3) Review the country risk factors and their impact on policy effectiveness. 4) Determine the effectiveness of tripartite arrangements and the roles and efficacy of various stakeholders at all levels GoZ, Labour and Business in moving the industrialisation thrust forward. 5) Determine the responsiveness of the Industrial Development policy to the needs of the country development agenda.

Scope of the evaluation
The Industrial Development Policy is a public policy designed to address a national problem of declining economic performance. Since it is a public policy, the evaluation was based on a nationally representative sample that covers all characteristics of key players, Government, Labour and Business thus reflects experiences across the country.
The representative sample has ensured that the evaluation findings are based on statistically significant data from three key economic players.

Policy evaluation criteria
This evaluation applied the standard evaluation criteria of adequacy, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, responsiveness, appropriateness and administrative ease, drawing on evidence from a valid sample of industrial key players. Patton and Sawicki (1986) argue that in order to compare and measure the performance or effectiveness of a policy, relevant evaluation criteria must be established. Dunn (2012), who supports this view, argues that in producing information about policy performance or effectiveness, analysts use different types of criteria to evaluate policy outcomes. Criteria for evaluation are applied retrospectively (ex-post). Accordingly, Scot and Garrison (2010) and Dunn (2012) argue that policy performance may be viewed in terms of meeting the following criteria which this study employed: • Effectiveness: It refers to whether a given alternative results in the achievement or realization of valued outcome of action. Effectiveness, which is synonymous with technical rationality, is often measured in terms of units or products or services or their monetary value for example, an effective health policy is one that provides more quality health care to more people.  (2012), which is synonymous with economic rationality, is the relationship between effectiveness and effort with the later often measured in terms of monetary benefits at a given level of costs. Efficiency may be determined by calculating the costs per unit of product or service. Policies that achieve the larger net benefits per unit cost are said to be efficient. One way to determine efficiency is to compare the opportunity costs of an alternative against its rival. The question is: How efficient was the coordination at tripartite level? Did the use of national systems contribute to or hinder the achievement of the objectives and results? To what extent was programme management (human and financial resources, supplies, et cetera) and delivery cost-effective? Did it lead to the best results at the cheapest cost? • Adequacy: It refers to the degree to which any level of effectiveness satisfies a particular standard, the needs, values or opportunity that started off the problem in the first place. For example, it questions to what extent is the problem solved?
The criterion of adequacy specifies expectations about the strength of a relationship between policy alternatives and a fixed or variable value of a desired outcome. The question is: To what extent was the industrial development policy viewed as necessary and important by the communities at large including funders? What is the impact of country risk on the economy ? What is the impact of country risk on society at large? • Equity: The criterion of equity is closely related to legal and social rationality and refers to the distribution of effects and effort among different groups in society. An equitable policy is one for which (e.g., units in service or monetary benefits) or efforts (e.g., monetary costs) are fairly or justly distributed. Policies designed to redistribute income, educational opportunity, or public services are sometimes prescribed on the basis of the criterion of equity. A given program might be effective, efficient, and adequate-for example, the benefit-cost ratio and net benefit may be superior to those of all other programs-yet it might still be rejected on the grounds that it will produce an inequitable distribution of costs and benefits. The criterion of equity is closely related to competing conceptions of justice or fairness and to ethical conflicts surrounding the appropriate basis for distributing resources in society. In this respect the question is how fair was the distribution of responsibilities, policy resources and benefits? • Responsiveness: It refers to the extent that a policy satisfies the needs, preferences, or values of particular groups. The criterion of responsiveness is important because an analyst can satisfy all other criteria, thus, effectiveness, efficiency ,adequacy, equity-yet still fail to respond to the stated needs of a group that is supposed to benefit from a policy. The responsiveness criterion asks a practical question: Do criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, adequacy, and equity actually reflect the needs, preferences, and values of particular groups? • Appropriateness: The criterion of appropriateness is closely related to substantive rationality, because questions about the appropriateness of a policy are not concerned with individual criteria but with two or more criteria taken together. Appropriateness refers to the value or worth of a program's objectives and the tenability of assumptions underlying these objectives. The foregoing criteria provide attributes the evaluator used to measure the effectiveness of Industrial development public policy in Zimbabwe. These evaluation criteria are the central nugget of this evaluation's objectives and evaluation questions derived from the evaluation criteria.

Operationalization of evaluation criteria
Methods for evaluating observed policy outcomes yield policy-relevant information about discrepancies between expected and actual policy performance, thus assisting in the policy assessment, policy adoption, policy succession, and policy termination phase (Dunn, 2012). Policy evaluation not only results in conclusions about the extent to which problems have been alleviated, but it also may contribute to the clarification and critique of values driving a policy, aid in the adjustment or reformulation of policies, and establish a basis for restructuring problems. Public programs should be equitable as well as efficient Source: Dunn (2012).

Methodology
The evaluation utilised the qualitative approach because it is context-specific and provides flexibility and gives the evaluator the ability to conduct an in-depth evaluation on selected participants. This is particularly important on a subject like public policy, which requires in-depth understanding. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhil (2012) observe that qualitative research also helps the researcher to generate an account that will present a lively picture of the research participants' reality. They further point out that in this type of evaluation research; the researcher is also required to be a good listener and to be non-judgmental, friendly, honest and flexible. This evaluation research sought to exploit these virtues of qualitative research to obtain rich and detailed data on the effectiveness of the Industrial Development Policy in Zimbabwe.

Study population
The study population consists of purposively selected two participants from each Institution namely Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Union, Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions, Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries and the Department of Monitoring and Evaluation in the Office of President and Cabinet. These participants were purposively selected for their wide experience in industrialisation, business and labour dynamics.

Sample size
The sample size was 8 participants drawn from the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF) members namely Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions. (Representing labour), Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries and Department of Monitoring and Evaluation in Office of the President and Cabinet.

Data collection process 3.3.1 The Delphi technique
The Delphi technique was used in this study. The Delphi technique is a group process used to survey and collect the opinions of experts on a particular subject. It is a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals to deal with a complex problem. It has application whenever policies have to be based on informed judgment (Johnson et al, 2007). This technique is also useful where the opinions and judgments of experts and practitioners are needed but time, distance, and other factors make it unlikely or impossible for the panel to work together in the same physical location. Key components of the Delphi technique include the communication process, a group of experts, and essential feedback. The Delphi technique is well suited as a means of consensus-building by using a series of questionnaires to collect data from a panel of selected respondents on a given subject (Hsu and Sandford, 2008).
The Delphi technique was considered appropriate in this study, which deals with the complex phenomenon of public policy. It is envisaged to facilitate the interaction of various experts on Industrial Development policy thereby enabling the generation of ideas and views which are expected to give valuable insight into the effectiveness of the policy.
Using the Delphi Technique, the following steps were followed in the collection of data.
1) Identifying the panel of experts.
2) Determining the willingness of individuals to serve on the panel.
3) Gathering individual input on the specific issue and then compiling it into basic statements. 4) Analyzing data from the panel. 5) Compiling information on a new questionnaire and sending to each panel member for review. 6) Analyzing the new input and returning to the panel members the distribution of the responses. 7) Asking each panel member to study the data and evaluate their own position based on the responses from the group. When individual responses vary significantly from that of the group norm, the individual is asked to provide a rationale for their differing viewpoint. 8) Analyzing the input and sharing the minority supporting statements with the panel. Panel members are again asked to review their position and if not within a specified range, to justify the position with a brief statement.

The process of data collection
Round 1: In the first round, in-depth interviews were held with experts on Industry development public policy in Zimbabwe to get a broad range of ideas on the subject which was used to develop an initial open-ended questionnaire. The open-ended questionnaire served as the cornerstone of soliciting specific information about a content area from the Delphi respondents. After receiving responses, the collected information was converted into a well-structured questionnaire. This questionnaire was used as the survey instrument for the second round of data collection. Round 2: In the second round, each Delphi participant received a second questionnaire and was asked to review the items summarized by the researcher based on the information provided in the first round. As a result of round two, areas of disagreement and agreement were identified. In this round, consensus began forming and the actual outcomes were presented among the participants' responses. Round 3: In the third round, each Delphi panellist received a questionnaire that included the items and ratings summarized by the evaluator in the previous round and asked to revise his/her judgments or to specify the reasons for remaining outside the consensus. This round gave Delphi panellists an opportunity to make further clarifications of both the information and their judgments of the relative importance of the items. Round 4: In the fourth and final round, the list of remaining items, their ratings, minority opinions, and items achieving consensus were distributed to the panellists. This round provided a final opportunity for participants to revise their judgments.

Overview
Data for Delphi Round 1 was collected by means of a questionnaire consisting of openended questions from purposively selected experts using non-random means. This was in line with Warner's (2014) view that since the Delphi technique relies on engaging people who are knowledgeable about a specific topic, purposive sampling is used. As Warner contends, purposive sampling identifies the group members from whom the researcher can learn the most. Likewise, Hansson, Keeny and Mckeana (2000) posit that the selection of the sample of 'experts' involves nonprobability sampling techniques, either purposive or criterion sampling. This sampling method does not assure representativeness of the sample because representativeness is not an issue in this type of evaluation. Rather, what is important is to gather data from knowledgeable people on the subject and to get to a semblance of consensus among the participants. The questions were designed to elicit broad views on the Industrial Development public policy in Zimbabwe.

Selection of participants
The Delphi Technique requires that experts with relevant knowledge and experience be selected to take part in the research at the data collection stage. As Skulmoski, Hartman and Krahn (2007) note, selection of research participants is a critical component of Delphi research, since its output is based on their expert opinions. Warner (2014) observes that when using the Delphi Technique usually the researcher defines the qualifications of an expert in terms of the topic at hand and seeks out individuals who meet the qualifications.
In this study the experts where deemed to be people involved in or familiar with various industries in Zimbabwe as well as those familiar with the Industrial Development policy framework. The experts were identified as shown in Table 4.1. The panel selection was in tandem with Warner's (2014) suggestion that the panel of experts can be composed of any combination of stakeholders, subject experts and facilitators. Eight experts were selected in line with Lazar and Lazar's (2008) recommendation that the number of experts must not be too small to make the assessment too narrowly based, nor too large to be difficult to coordinate. Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries were considered experts because in the majority of cases are involved in the running and representation of industries. As such they were deemed to be conversant with the industry policy or with the challenges facing industries.

Officials from the Government Ministry Responsible for Industries
Officials from the government ministry responsible for Industries and M &E were taken as experts because they contributed to the formulation of the Industrial Development Policy and are involved in its implementation by way of providing oversight on the operation of industries. Their perspective on the effectiveness of the policy or lack thereof was therefore critical.

Labour unions
These are experts in Industrial Relations and providers of labour advocacy.

Findings
The findings of this section are based on responses from the Delphi participants.

Policy effectiveness
The overall view of the experts drawn from the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF) was that the policy objectives were noble but it faced serious implementation constraints due to country risk factors such as; Economic risk/unsustainable macro-economic variables, Commercial risk; (for example trading partners lacking confidence), Political risk, thus the real or perceived mistrust and tolerance in expressing political views within a country that may give rise to political instability or apprehension by foreign governments in engaging freely with that country and social /cultural risk e.g. crime and moral decadence. The following were alluded as some of the causes of the risk factors that have affected the effectiveness of the policy: • Failure by some of the institutions of governance to function effectively, • Mismatch between policy and action, • Delay in policy implementation, • Lack of meaningful response to positive Government, Labour and Business policy initiatives, • Lack of political tolerance, • Corruption, • Contradictory statements by and among social partners, • Lack of respect for human rights, • Irresponsible utterances by any leader, • The overall spread of wealth in the country and continued racial imbalance in the ownership of the means of production, and external interference in the country affairs.

Policy responsiveness, efficiency and adequacy
The experts expressed consensus in the policy responsiveness, efficiency and adequacy to the needs of industry, but highlighted that the negative impact of country risk has outpaced the policy objectives in many ways that include the following: • A state of prolonged economic depression, • Skewed macro-economic fundamentals and a state of hyperinflation, • Low savings and domestic investments, • Premiums on doing business with the outside world, • Capital flight, reduction in foreign Direct Investment and donor support, • Drying up of lines of credit, • De-industrialisation, • Reduction in capacity utilisation, high unemployment, underemployment and pervasive poverty, • Brain drain, and • Depreciation of human resource base.

Policy equity and administrative feasibility
The spirit of the policy on equity was well received by the respondents. However, they pointed out that as a result of a poorly performing economy, according to the Poverty Assessment Study Survey (PASS) of 2020 the proportion of people below the total consumption line is 72%. Poverty in turn has resulted in an increase in socio-economic crimes. The gap between the rich and the poor has continued to rise, making it easier for the poor to be corruptible and the rich to be more corruptive. Given the equity challenges, the policy needs extra effort and resources to administer.

Conclusion and lesson learnt 4.4.1 Conclusion
All concepts of the evaluation criteria used were addressed sufficiently and the overall conclusion is that the policy is ineffective and leadership needs to urgently address the country risks identified by the experts in order to take Zimbabwe forward and make the policy implementation attainable.

Lesson learnt
Lesson learnt from the evaluation is that many countries in the world perceive Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans in very poor light. Zimbabweans are ill-treated and abused at various immigration points in some countries and Zimbabweans are discriminated against when trying to make commercial transactions abroad. Therefore, reviving our economy is paramount.

Recommendations
Having identified and examined the country risk, social partners should resolve to take and implement measures to mitigate them for industrial growth, through the following action as shown in Table 4.2.