Third World Quarterly

The Politics of Structural Adjustment in Zambia

Author(s): Neo Simutanyi
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Third World Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4, The Developmental State?: Democracy, Reform
and Economic Prosperity in the Third World in the Nineties (1996), pp. 825-839
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993288 .
Accessed: 19/11/2012 06:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Third World Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Third World Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Third World Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 825-839, 1996

10
CARFAX

The
in

politics

of

structural

adjustment

Zambia

NEO SIMUTANYI

Since the advent of InternationalMonetaryFund (IMF) and World Bank-inspired

structuraladjustmentpolicies there has been a concern regardingsustainability
of economic policy reforms. As economic reform measures hurt some groups
and benefit others they produce winners and losers. The groups that were hurt
by the economic measures often resisted them, leading to their suspension and
cancellation. Thus the failure of economic reform measures has tended to be
blamed on those groups with vested interests in the status quo who maintained
subsidies, price controls and regulation of all things economic.
The recent experience in Zambia now clearly shows that opposition to
structuraladjustment is not sufficient to lead to their cancellation. Callaghy
suggests that the success of structuraladjustmentpolicies is predicatedon the
existence of state capacity to push throughreformmeasures and in particularto
insulate itself or its bureaucracyfrom the demandsof interestgroups.' It is more
a matter of political will and commitment by a government to implement a
structuraladjustmentpackage. In Zambia the previous governmentof Kenneth
Kaunda and the United National IndependenceParty (UNIP) showed a lack of
commitment in the implementationof stabilisation and structuraladjustment
policies between 1973 and 1991. On many occasions the governmentfailed to
fulfil the agreed targets and had the agreements suspended or cancelled.
However, as the economic situationworsened the governmentwas perceived as
having been responsiblefor the economic crisis. Thus the demandfor democracy
in many countries in Africa, including Zambia, was also an expression of
opposition to the effects of structuraladjustment.2
Since the re-democratisationprocess took place in Zambia, however, the
groups that had previously opposed structuraladjustmentpolicies have been
either demobilised or at the best ineffectual. Two reasons may explain this
apparentineffectiveness. First, the opposition to adjustmentin Zambia was also
part of the opposition to the authoritarianone-party state regime. Economic
grievances were used to justify the expression of political grievances. In the
absence of organisedopposition, those groups who had the autonomyto express
political grievances were viewed as 'unofficialopposition'. Second, the introduction of political and economic liberalisationsimultaneouslyacted against effective organisation.For example, organised labour has been demobilised through
a combinationof labour retrenchments,dismissals and wage freezes.
Neo Simutanyiis at the Institutefor African Studies, Universityof Zambia,PO Box 30900, Lusaka,ZA 1010],
Zambia.
0143-6597/96/040825-15 $6.00 ?C1996 Third World Quarterly

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

825

NEO SIMUTANYI

While the politics of adjustmentin the Second Republic (1973-1991) focused

on whether or not to implement structuraladjustment,this has changed in the
Third Republic (1991 to the present). Now there seems to be consensus among
the main groups on the necessity for structural adjustment. The pace and
sequencingof economic reformmeasuresseem to be the main issues dominating
the debate on structuraladjustmentin Zambia's Third Republic. In this paper I
examine the politics surroundingthe implementationof structuraladjustment
policies in Zambia during the period 1983-1996. The reasons for the policy
shifts and the politics surroundingthe abandonmentof reform policies will also
be explained. This task will be undertakenby looking at the influence of interest
groups in shaping policy decisions and the extent to which they pressured
government to alter, delay or abandonthe implementationof structuraladjustment policies. The article will be organised as follows: the first section will
provide a brief discussion of the evolution of economic reform policies
from 1983 to 1996. The second section will discuss the politics of structural
adjustmentin Zambia. In particularthe role played by two interest groupsbusiness, organised labour in supportingor opposing economic reforms will be
examined.
Evolution of structural adjustment policies in Zambia, 1983-1991
Zambia adopted a systematic structuraladjustmentprogrammein 1983. This
constituted a fundamental policy shift from previous attempts at economic
reform, and was adopted in part as a requirementto receive external finance
from internationalfinancialinstitutions,especially the IMF and the World Bank.
The 1983 agreement involved, among other things, the devaluation of currency, limiting wage increasesto 5%,3 decontrolof prices of essential commodities and the removal of subsidies on maize and fertilisers. The most
comprehensive economic adjustment policies were implemented in October
1985. The centrepiece of the 1985 programmewas the adoption of the foreign
exchange auction system. The foreign exchange system was aimed at streamlining the allocation of foreign exchange and in particulareliminating the import
licensing system. Other measures included liberalisationof agriculturalmarketing, public sector reformand a reductionin civil service employment.There was
also a continuationwith most of the measures adopted in 1983, including the
decontrol of prices of consumer goods, apart from maize.
The foreign exchange auction system had mixed effects on different social
groups. Foreign commercial firms welcomed it as they were able to bid for
foreign exchange and bring in importedconsumergoods. They were also able to
externalise their profits. However, the auction system had a negative impact on
manufacturingfirms both in the private and state sector. The problems they
experiencedwere of threekinds. First,productioncosts continuedto rise because
of fluctuationsin the value of foreign exchange. And given a controlled price
regime, these companies sold their finishedproductsat a loss. Second, there was
an inability to raise the local currency (kwacha) cover to bid for foreign
exchange, given foreign exchange fluctuationsand high bankinterestrates which
averaged 35% in 1985-86. Third, there was the problem of delays in paying
826

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN ZAMBIA

successful bids. This was partly because of donors' delays disbursing money
they had pledged to the centralbank.4It has even been suggested that the failure
of Zambia's auction system should be attributedmore to insufficient funds from
external sources than to lack of commitmentby the Zambian government.5
The overall effect of the auction system was a devaluation of the local
currencyand escalation of the cost of living of the urbanwage earners.It led to
the deteriorationin workers' living conditions. Prices of essential commodities
sky-rocketed and workers agitated for wage increases. When the government
removed the maize subsidy in December 1986 urbandwellers protested against
price rises through demonstrations and riots. In the confrontation between
security forces and protesters 15 people were killed. President Kaunda backpedalled and rescinded the decision to remove the price subsidy. I will discuss
this point below.
On 1 May 1987 PresidentKaundacancelled the IMF agreement.This followed
widespread discontent with the economic reform measures among various
groups, those most hurt by the measures. The protests against structuraladjustment took the form of a wave of strikes by a number of unions for wage
demands, complaints from manufacturersand hostile statements by UNIP party
leaders as a reaction to the effects of the auction system and to other aspects of
the economic reform package. The IMF programmewas replaced by the Interim
New Economic Recovery Programme (INERP) which re-introduced pre-1982
controls. The programmewas to be based on the use of local resources.6The
measures announced by President Kaunda included, among others, fixing the
exchange rate at K8 to US$1 (from the previous rate of K21 to one dollar),
re-imposing price controls, limiting debt service to 10% of foreign export
receipts and nationalisingthe private milling companies which the government
held responsible for the food riots. In describing the IMF programmePresident
Kaunda said that, 'it had brought pain, malnutritionand death to the people of
Zambia'.7

Though INERPrecorded an impressive 6.2% growth rate in real GDP in 1988,

it was not sustainable,as internationalfinancial institutionsand donor countries
denied the country financial resources.8The impressive GDP growth rate of that
year has been attributedto the bumper maize harvest-the result of good rains
and not of prudenteconomic management.9As the economic crisis worsened,
Zambiahad no option but to open fresh negotiationswith the IMF. In June 1989,
as a prerequisiteto qualify for the IMF loan, the country implementeda number
of economic policy measures which included the decontrol of all prices of
consumer goods, except maize. In early 1990 the government, with the assistance of the IMF, drew up a Policy FrameworkPaper (PFP) which spelt out the
economic policies to be pursuedby the governmentbetween 1990 and 1993.10
On the basis of the PFP the governmentwas to receive some funds from the IMF
and donor countriesfor balance of paymentssupport.During the implementation
of the INERP,the country was starved of external finance, as even Scandinavian
countries were obliged not to provide any loans to Zambia as long as it had no
formal relationshipwith the IMF. One of the policy measuresproposed in the PFP
was the phased reductionof maize subsidies and retrenchmentof the government
budget deficits, by reducing government social expenditure.
827

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEO SIMUTANYI

In June 1990 the governmentincreased the prices of high grade maize meal
by over 100%. The measure provoked widespread rioting in the capital Lusaka

and in major Copperbelttowns. In trying to control the rioting crowds security

forces shot dead 27 people, injured hundreds and arrested several hundred
others. Unlike the riots of 1986, Kaundadid not rescind the decision to increase
the price of maize meal as a way of reducing maize subsidies. However, the
demands for the re-introductionof a multiparty system in 1990, and the
agreementby the UNIP governmentto hold elections the following year, affected
the commitmentof the governmentto meeting the requirementsof the IMFloans.
In June 1991 the government requested the IMF to allow it to postpone a
scheduled round of reduction of maize meal subsidies for fear that it might
provoke rioting before the elections. The IMF refused and instead suspendedall
financial disbursementsto Zambia. Inflation soared as the government printed
money to meet the 100% increases in civil servants' salaries and to pay for the
election campaign. Annual inflation in that year reached 129%.
The MMD and structural adjustment, 1991-1996
Following the elections held in October 1991, in which UNIP was defeated, the
Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) government agreed to continue
with the implementationof the reform package agreed between UNIP and the
World Bank in 1990.11 This included:(a) price decontrolsof all products(except
maize) and inputs; (b) exchange rate adjustmentin real terms and eliminationof
exchange rate restrictions;(c) liberalisationof export and import trade, while
providing export incentives; (d) fiscal austeritymeasures to reduce the budget
deficit and control inflation;(e) monetarypolicy measuresto adjustinterestrates
and tighten monetarypolicy; (f) reform of the public investmentprogrammeto
focus on resource allocation to priority sectors and programmes;(g) reform of
the civil service and parastatalsto improve efficiency and performance;and (h)
the privatisationprogramme.12
The economic legacy from the previous government meant that the MMD
governmentfaced an unmanageabledebt servicing problem,a severe shortageof
foreign exchange, excessive budget deficits which averaged 10% of GDP,
inflationof over 100%,an eroded social and physical infrastructureand a decline
in formal sector employment.Per capita GDP decreasedby half from K387 in the
1970s to K190 in 1991.13 To turn this economic legacy round requiredpolitical
skill, luck and popular support.The new governmentwas able to count on its
popularmandateto implementharsheconomic measuresand to do so in a short
space of time so as not to give anti-reformgroups an opportunityto oppose
them.
The MMD coalition of social forces, which brought together various social
groups, was united in its demand for the restorationof a multipartysystem of
government.For a furtherdiscussion of the compositionof the MMDcoalition see
P Gibbon, 'StructuralAdjustment and Pressure toward Multipartismin SubSaharan Africa', P Gibbon et al (eds), Authoritarianism, Democracy and

Adjustment.Though there was consensus on the need to improve the country's

economic performance,there was no unanimity on the strategy to bring that
828

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN ZAMBIA

about. However, during the election campaignthe question of the economy was
not given serious attention.As the main opponentsof structuraladjustment-the
labourmovement, representedby FrederickChiluba-were partof the leadership
of the MMD, economic strategywas politicised. Erstwhileopponentsof structural
adjustment embraced it and offered it as a panacea for Zambia's economic
problems. In the euphoria which characterisedthe election campaign, ordinary
people showed open support for austerity. For example, at an MMD rally
addressedby Chiluba in Kabwe in August 1990, Chiluba asked his audience if
they would be prepared for sacrifices when the MMD came to power. They
chanted 'yes'. However, in early 1992, when the MMD government showed the
Kabwe meeting on national television, it provoked indignation and widespread
condemnationfrom a cross-section of society. Tradeunion leaders felt let down
by a government which they had helped come to power. The trade union
movement had played an importantrole in the organisation of the MMD and
mobilisation of citizens to support political change.14 Though not explicitly
stated in the formal agreement defining the relationship with the MMD, it was
expected that after the party won power the government would formulate
policies favourable to workers.
Using the honeymoonperiod the governmenttook bold measuresin December
1991 to remove subsidies on breakfastmeal, which saw the price of maize meal
double. The action did not provoke any organised protests. By the end of 1993
all subsidies on maize meal and fertiliser had been withdrawn,and the price of
maize meal had increased to K4000 from K250 in November 1991. Other
measurestaken included:the liberalisationof the foreign exchange marketby the
introductionof bureaux de change; liberalisationof interest rates; privatisation
and liquidation of state enterprises;liberalisationof agriculturalmarketingand
liberalisation of imports. A number of these measures had been implemented
intermittentlyby the previous government, with little success. But the MMD
government implemented them with more commitment and coherence. What
then accounts for the MMD'S success?
The politics of structural adjustment
The economic reform policies adopted between 1983 and 1991 were met with
a lot of opposition from different interest groups. The policies affected these
groups in different ways. First, they were generally unpopular.They alienated
segments of society which were potentially the most threateningto the government, namely the urban elites and unionised formal sector workers who had
benefited from the earlierpolicies of price and foreign exchange controls, rising
real wages and food subsidies.15
Second, the programme never enjoyed the full backing of the political
leadership,which was not willing to defend a programmeit did not believe in.
A strong anti-reformcoalition of political leaders lobbied against the implementation of the reforms since 1983. Van de Walle and Chiwele note that this
coalition was excluded from the policy-making inner circle.'6 It is importantto
note that decision making during the Second Republic was concentratedin the
president.He made almost all importantdecisions, including those to do with the
829

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOSIMUTANYI

adoption of IMF economic reform measures. Therefore,opposition to economic

reform measures tended also to reflect opposition to Kaundahimself.
The sustainability of economic policies depends to a large extent on the
balance of power between the groups supportingand those against adjustment.
This is because structuraladjustmentpolicies affect varying social groups in
differentways and thus invoke differentresponses.The policies producewinners
and losers, and as such the building of coalitions is dependenton the extent to
which the groups share in either the costs or benefits of reforms. According to
Bates, 'changes in economic policy generatewinners and losers, and...losers can
be expected to resist,'17 and thus disrupt the implementationof an economic
reform programme.
In Zambia,economic problemsand the natureof economic policies advocated
during the Second Republic generate attitudes of support or opposition to
economic restructuring.The reasons for doing so have differed and their relative
influence on policy makersdeterminedthe directionthe reformstook duringthe
1980s and early 1990s. Interestgroups sometimes agreed on the desirabilityof
certainpolicies. This explains the cooperationbetween organisedlabourand the
business class to remove UNIP from power in 1991. Both groups faced restrictions and hoped that an open democratic system would favour their respective
causes.
The business class

Baylies & Szeftel have noted that there was increased participationof people
with business interests in Zambianpolitical life during the 1970s and 1980s.18
This class rose to prominencefollowing the nationalisationmeasures (1968-70)
which were partly designed to create an indigenous business class. Others used
their positions in governmentand the parastatalsector to accumulatewealth.'9
By the beginning of the mid-1970s the business class had acquired a lot of
political influence as the majority of MPS were either drawn from this class or
were representingprivate business interests. This group was beginning to be
restive and saw their businesses suffer because of government policies that
favoured state enterprisesat the expense of the private sector. As the campaign
for the establishmentof private enterprisewas lost, this group attemptedother
means to influencethe orientationof economic policy in the country.It is widely
believed that the 1980 coup was mastermindedby members of the private
business sector. Liatto suggests that:
if the economic reforms had fostered the growth of an indigenous bourgeoisie and
the one-partystate consolidatedthe power of this class, by the 1980s this class was
strongenough to want to breakthe mould of statism,especially state capitalismand
establish free enterprise and a multiparty system of government.20

The policies pursuedby the UNIP governmentwere opposed to the development

of private enterprise.The ruling party imposed restrictionson political leaders
owning propertyor engaging in business. For example, following the establishment of a one-partystate, a LeadershipCode was promulgated.The Leadership
Code prohibitedpolitical leaders from owning property,apart from one house
830

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IN ZAMBIA
ADJUSTMENT
STRUCTURAL

and a small plot of land. A similar policy had been introducedin Tanzania in
1967 following the ArushaDeclaration.It was aimed at making political leaders
more responsive to the electorate and avoiding corruption.But, as in Tanzania,
the Leadership Code was flouted as political leaders obtained governmentguaranteedloans to purchasecompaniesand farms and set up in business. Where
they ran a risk of being dismissed from office for violating the provisions of the
LeadershipCode, they used their spouses or relations as fronts.
By the beginning of the 1980s, the policy of preventingpolitical leaders from
engaging in business was acknowledgedto have failed. This was in recognition
of the fact that official salaries were insufficient to pay for MP's consumption
thanks to escalating costs.21 Those who left government set themselves up in
business. But with the protectionenjoyed by state companies and the anti-private
enterprise policies of the government, private business suffered. This may
explain why the business community overwhelmingly supportedthe democratisation process and the MMD's rise to power. Throughbusiness associations such
as the Zambia Association of Chambersof Commerce and Industry(ZACCI), the
business class attackedUNIP's economic policies and demandedthe liberalisation
of the economy.
The implementationof a structuraladjustmentprogrammein early 1983 was
therefore supported by private business interests. The business groups that
supported structural adjustment policies included large-scale companies (especially multinationalfirms) in the manufacturing,commerce and agricultural
sectors. These powerful groups had long advocated the dismantling of price
controls, wage freezes, a reduction in subsidies on state enterprises and food,
dismantling of the parastatalsector, reform of the foreign exchange allocation
system, import liberalisationand a reductionin government spending on social
services, especially health and education,as a way of reducingthe budget deficit.
The business class saw in the structuraladjustmentpolicies a possibility of
increasing the economic performanceof their firms and increasing profitability.
However, the impact of the economic reformmeasureson the business class was
not uniform. While others benefited from the policies of import and price
liberalisation,those who had been dependenton state protectionwere adversely
affected as they were unable to compete.
It is importantto note that the business communitydid not always speak with
one voice. Some sections of the business community favoured certain reforms
and opposed others. On the whole there was general unanimity in the business
community on the need to reduce inflation, liberalise the exchange rate and
privatise state enterprises. On trade and import liberalisation, only the big
companies, especially foreign ones supportedthe measure.As the manufacturing
industryin Zambiais largely import-dependent,the introductionof liberalisation
measures seriously affected the operations of firms in that sector. Import
liberalisationled to the flooding of the marketwith even cheaperimportsmaking
locally manufacturedgoods uncompetitive. This seriously affected the textile
industry,which has almost collapsed. By December 1993, 8500 workershad lost
their jobs through closures or low capacity utilisation in the textile industry.
Forty-sevenclothing manufacturingfirms in Livingstone had closed down in the
face of stiff competitionfrom importedtextile productsand second-handclothes.
831

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEO SIMUTANYI

The remaining clothing companies were operating at 15% to 20% of their

installed capacity. Manufacturingcompanies called on the governmentto subsidise them if they were to survive. For example, in 1993 the Zambia ManufacturersAssociation (ZMA) expected 12 000 job losses to occur in the industryif
the governmentdid not come to their rescue. The chairmanof the organisation
said: 'we are not going to survive, no matter what policies are put in place
without government assistance'.22
The business class was active in demandingthe re-introductionof a multiparty
system of government and free-market economic policies during 1990-91.
Togetherwith tradeunions they helped form the MMD in July 1990 and ensured
that its manifesto contained a commitment to the promotion of a private
enterpriseeconomy and the reduction of the role of the state in the economy.
Though the MMD drew its organisationalstrengthfrom the labourmovement, its
campaignfunds were providedby the business class. As a result, Chiluba's first
cabinet was dominatedby individuals associated with the business community.
In order to ensure control over the direction of economic policy, key economic
ministrieswere given to individualswith business interests.Ministerswho came
from the private business sector included, among others, Bennie Mwila, Emmanuel Kasonde, Vernon Mwaanga, Dipak Patel, Dean Mung'omba, Baldwin
Nkumbula,Ronald Penza and ArthurWina.23
The MMD had committed itself to the promotionof private enterprisewhen it
came to power. It blamed the failure of UNIP's economic policies on a pervasive
state sector, which was described as inefficient, loss-making and supportedby
direct subsidies from the state.24Therefore,the appointmentof representativesof
the business class ensuredthat policies favourableto business would be pursued.
Van de Walle & Chiwele have recently noted that the business class has gained
in influence since the MMD came to power, while other groups such as organised
labourhave lost their influence.25This is surprisinggiven the pivotal role played
by trade unions in the pro-democracymovement, the formationof the MMD and
the election campaign. The ZCTU organisationaland mobilisational resources
were crucial to MMD electoral victory in November 1991.26 And yet, despite that,
the unions seem not to have had much say in the direction of economic policy.
The ambivalence in trade unions' positions on economic policy partly encouraged the business class to take the initiative on economic policy. Zambiantrade
unions neither advocated socialist nor capitalist solutions to the country's
economic problems. However, they supportedKaunda'swelfarist policies, such
as food subsidies and price controls. Given the poor state of the national
economy and the government'sinability to maintainthe same levels of subsidies
on food, union leaders preferredthe adoption of a private enterpriseeconomy.
It was anticipated,for example, that a privateenterpriseeconomy would not only
be efficient but would provide jobs and improve incomes.27That expectation
seems to have been misplaced as the liberalisedeconomy promotedby the MMD
governmentneither improved wages nor created new jobs.
Organised labour and structural adjustment

The role of labour in resisting economic policies has not been adequately
832

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN ZAMBIA

analysed. Strikes and food riots have at times been used as evidence of workers'
opposition to structuraladjustment.28But food riots can involve a number of
urban groups and the role of organised labour in them is usually difficult to
ascertain. In Zambia the 1986 and 1990 food riots did not have the overt
participationand supportof the trade unions. Most of those who were arrested
and charged for looting were unemployed or described themselves as such.29
Strikesby workerstend to be directedagainst employers and not the state. While
the unions opposed various economic measures they often did so by issuing
public statements and not through industrialaction.
The debate on the role of tradeunions in opposing structuraladjustmentseems
to be based on neoliberalnotions that organisedlabourmakes unnecessarilyhigh
wage demands, agitates for policies that increase employment and protect jobs
and demands that governments subsidise food and social services such as
transport.Thus trade unions are considered not only to be a strong lobby in
favour of statist policies, but also to pose a threat to the implementation of
structuraladjustmentas they are expected to oppose it. It has been suggested that
the opposition to adjustmentby organised labour leads to its abandonmentor
alteration.30

Trade unions opposed various structuraladjustmentmeasures which had a

direct impact on their members. These included wage freezes, removal of
subsidies, decontrol of prices and labour redundancies.In this paper I focus on
two of those measures-maize subsidies and labour redundancies.The question
of maize subsidies dominated the debate on economic reforms throughoutthe
1980s, as it was clear that the budgetaryweight of these subsidies constituteda
major constraint on the ability of the government to direct resources towards
more productive activities. As a result, their removal featured prominently in
donor conditionality and provoked political opposition from those groups that
benefited from them.
Since independence,maize meal consumptionhad been subsidised to benefit
urban constituencies, particularly the unionised workers in Lusaka and the
Copperbelt.Gulhati suggests that cheap food prices was an importantmechanism to contain wage demands, particularlyafter the government adopted the
wage restraintpolicy. As maize meal subsidies increased in proportionto the
governmentbudget, their contributionto the governmentdeficit increased. Their
removal therefore became a vital political issue. The ZCTU had pressured the
government to maintainthe subsidies as early as 1974.31
As part of the structuraladjustmentconditions the governmentwas compelled
to remove or reduce the subsidy on maize meal in 1986. The government
decided to do this in two phases. The first phase involved the removal of the
subsidy on the high grade maize meal (commonly known as breakfast meal),
while retainingthe subsidy on the cheapermaize brand(roller meal). The second
phase was to include the withdrawalof the subsidy on roller meal. The retention
of the subsidy was justified on the groundsthat it was the type of meal consumed
by the majority of the Zambian people.
It was estimated that 60% of Zambia's population consumed roller meal in
1986. Announcing the government decision to remove maize meal subsidy on
breakfastmeal, Finance Minister Basil Kabwe said:
833

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEO SIMUTANYI

[The]...Governmentposition on roller meal is that the people are not psychologically or economically prepared for the removal of subsidy on this essential
commodity at this stage.32

The government announcement to remove maize meal subsidies provoked

condemnationby tradeunions. The then chairman-generalof the ZCTU,Frederick
Chiluba,condemnedthe hardlending conditions of the IMFaid to Zambia,which
included the removal of maize subsidies, arguingthat it had set the 'government
on a collision course with the people'. In particular,Chiluba said:
We could supportthe auctioning system if the governmentmade sure not to allow
IMF to destroy our sovereignty by removing subsidies from production. This
government has always drawn its support from the general public or the masses
because it has fulfilled some promises on food, clothes and shelter.33

And the Civil Servants Union of Zambia (csuz) accused the government of
forsaking the people by its move to withdraw subsidies on maize meal. Its
chairmancalled on the governmentto reintroducethe maize meal subsidy and
insisted that they should find money for that purpose.34It is clear from these two
statements that national trade union leaders were opposed to the IMF policies.
They perceived the economic reform program as externally imposed and felt
that, in agreeing to conditions that were to the detriment of the workers the
governmentwere alienatingthemselves from the people. Because of a perception
that the economic reform policies were externally imposed, trade union leaders
felt that their appeals to the governmentwould receive sympathy.They did not
present the problem as a uniquely tradeunion one, but ratherused the argument
that the 'masses', that is the majorityof the people, were being affected by the
measures.
As already pointed out above the shortage of maize meal led to riots in the
Copperbeltin December 1986. Trade union leaders were quick to condemn the
riots as disruptive and the work of 'thugs who did not have the interest of the
nation at heart'.35 After three days of rioting and looting the government sent
troops to quell the disturbancesand restoredthe old prices. To the extent that the
government restored the old prices which had been demanded by the trade
unions, it would appearto have been a triumphfor the trade unions. This was
to lead to industrialunrestby various categoriesof workersbetween Januaryand
April 1987. For sure the strikes were a reaction to the deterioratingliving
conditions occasioned by high prices of goods and low purchasingpower of
wages.
While the protestsagainst subsidy removal in 1986 had led to the returnto the
status quo, this was not the case in June 1990. PresidentKaundaarguedthat he
would not reduce the maize prices as that was a requirementof the IMF and was
a necessary condition for Zambia's economic recovery.36Though trade unions
protested at the doubling of the price of maize meal because of the removal of
subsidies, theirprotestswere ignored.In otherwords, it was clear that opposition
to structuraladjustmentpolicies, including food riots, was not per se sufficient
to force a governmentto cancel an economic reformprogramme.This observation has been made by Walton with regardto the Latin American experience.37
834

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN ZAMBIA

Bienen & Gersovitz (1985) also conclude that food subsidy cuts and riots have
not always led to the abandonment of economic reform policies in many
developing countries.38Thus food riots do not give a sufficient explanation for
economic reform failure. Since the MMD government came to power in 1991,
opposition from the trade unions to the policy of subsidy removal, though
ineffectual, has continued.
There is an ambivalencein the tradeunion position over structuraladjustment
policies. One section of the labour movement holds the view that structural
adjustment,including measures to withdraw subsidies, is necessary in order to
restructurethe economy.39Another,held by ZCTUleader Fackson Shamenda,has
been highly critical of structuraladjustmentpolicies, especially of the pace at
which they are being implemented. Shamenda holds that, if the reforms are
implementedtoo fast, they will have a devastatingimpact on workers and may
provoke a violent backlash. He has thereforecalled for the reform measures to
be implementedgraduallyor in sequence and has argued that too many policies
were being implementedat the same time, thus making their implementationnot
only difficult but their impact very severe on the workers. More specifically,
trade unions have suggested that measures to do with removal of subsidies and
retrenchmentof public sector labour could be done gradually.This, they argue,
would be importantto allow workers to adjust to the new situation.40
Trade union leaders have gone furtherto demand the reversal of some of the
structuraladjustmentmeasures. For example, the restorationof maize subsidies
was proposed. In August 1993 the ZCTU president demanded that the MMD
governmentre-introducesubsidies on food and transportto alleviate the plight
of the 'starving workers'. He argued that:
People are dying because they have no food. Everyone is crying to the government
for sustenance and it is only proper that the government listen instead of taking
away even the little which citizens used to enjoy yesterday.41

But despite these demandsthe governmenthas not grantedthe unions their wish.
The threatenedviolent backlash from the workers has also not taken place. It is
clear that the militancy of the tradeunion movement has dissipated in the wake
of the introductionof multipartydemocracy.The role of political opposition has
now been taken up by political opposition parties, leaving the trade unions to
champion workers' rights in a hostile economic environment.
The other policy measure which the trade unions have consistently opposed
has been the policy of labour redundancies.While redundancieshave been a
common feature in private firms since the economic crisis began around 1975,
they are quite recent in the public sector. The majority of Zambia's unionised
labour force is in the public sector, so it is expected that any measure to reduce
employmentis likely to be opposed by tradeunions. Labourredundanciesin the
public enterprise sector were aimed at rationalisationof production, to ensure
efficiency, higher productivityand profitability.Between 1975 and 1980 a total
of 29 416 people lost their jobs through redundancies.42On average 6250
workersa year were declaredredundantbetween 1975 and 1985. The numberof
jobs decreased by an average of 2.2% per year, such that, while 26% of the
835

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEO SIMUTANYI

labour force was in wage employment in 1975, this had declined to 18.6% in
1983. And it furtherdeclined to 10% in 1991. Though the governmentbegan a
policy of labour retrenchmentin the civil service in 1985, it has not moved
fast enough.43Both the previous UNIP and the MMD governments have been
cautious in their implementationof retrenchmentin the civil service. Between
1991 and 1995 a total of 60000 workers had been removed from the civil
service.44

In the parastatalsector there has been a number of redundanciesduring the

1980s. The most significanthave been those in the mines. For example, within
the context of an investment and rehabilitationprogramme, the state-owned
Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines (zccM), took the lead and declared 3000
workers redundantin 1986. The trend continued until 1991, though the numbers involved remained low. Between 1987 and 1994 several mines were
closed and many workers laid off. Since the coming to power of the MMD
government, labour redundancieshave taken on a new impetus. In 1992 the
MMD announced its intentions to privatise most state enterprises.This included
the mines, telecommunications,electricity and railways. As the idea of privatisation of state enterprisesposed a threat to job security, trade unions voiced
their opposition to the policy. While supportive of the idea of privatisation,
trade union leaders requested the government not to privatise strategic industries, such as the mines. They warned the government that a decision to
privatise the mines would bring a lot of problems to their members.45
By 1995 trade unions, especially the major ones such as the Mineworkers
Union of Zambia (Muz) had acquiesced to the governmentdecision to privatise
the mines. For example, MUZ fully supportedthe closure of the Kabwe lead
and zinc mine and has recently endorsed the governmentdecision to privatise
the giant ZCCM. As before the union hopes that a privatisedZCCM will be more
efficient and will offer better conditions than is presently the case. In preparationfor the impendingprivatisationa retrenchmentprogrammehas been put
in place. Trade union leaders' concern is that their members receive a good
redundancypackage.
Trade unions have played a minimal role in halting labour redundancies.
Two reasons seem to explain trade union weakness. The first is that the
relationship between trade unions and the MMD was so intimate in the early
years that they felt a kind of ownership of the government.The ZCTU not only
helped in the organisationof the MMD but also provided it with leadership.This
has made it difficult for it effectively to oppose certain aspects of the structural
adjustmentprogramme.
Second, the nature of the decline in the economy has seriously affected the
ability of the unions to halt redundancies, let alone bargain for favourable
redundancypackages. The large lay-offs have affected its bargaining power.
Union membershipdropped by almost 40 000 between 1990 and 1994 thanks
to a combinationof redundancies,privatisationsand liquidationsin the last five
years. For example, total union membershipdeclined from 352 900 in 1990 to
312 697 in 1994.46 This figure is said to have dropped even further down to
295 747 in 1995.47
The logic of structuraladjustmenthas seriously constrained trade unions'
836

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STRUCTURAL
IN ZAMBIA
ADJUSTMENT

ability to protect jobs. The policy of privatisation and liquidations of state

enterpriseshas seen the loss of a lot of jobs. Between 1993 and 1995 several
loss-making state companies have been liquidated. These include Zambia Airways, United Bus Company of Zambia, National Hotels Development Corporation, Industrial Development Corporation, National Import and Export
Corporation (NIEC), Mansa Batteries, Livingstone Motor Assemblers, NIEC
Stores, Zambia Consumer Buying Corporation (ZCBC) Stores and Mwaiseni
Stores Zambia National Wholesale Corporation.A number of other state companies are in receivership. These include Lusaka Engineering Company
(LENCO) and Contract Haulage. Between 1992 and 1994 a total of 25 611
workers were declaredredundantfrom both the private and public sector.48The
majority of those declared redundant came from the parastatal and public
sector.
It can be arguedthat trade unions lack both the resources and the capacity to
challenge redundancies.In fact, unions have found themselves unable even to
protect workers from dismissal. The case of the mass dismissal of over 4000
miners by ZCCM in 1984 is instructive. Workers were sacked for protesting
against the conditions of the Mukuba pension scheme. Managementdismissed
them for going on an illegal strike, and causing damage to union property.In
August 1992, 500 bank employees were dismissed for going on an illegal
strike. Apart from a few who were pardoned,their union has been unsuccessful
in having the workers reinstated.

Conclusion
It has been argued above that a proper understandingof the politics surrounding the implementation of structuraladjustmentprogrammes has to consider
the demands of influential interest groups and assess the extent to which they
influenced government's economic policy. It has been shown that both the
business class and organised labour did not play a significant role in the failure
of economic reform. I suggest that, although structuraladjustmenthas benefited
the business community, other sections of this class have also been hurt by
reform measures. Manufacturing,especially textiles, declined in the face of
import liberalisation.
It was also demonstratedthat, although trade unions have opposed structural
adjustment, they have not been very successful in winning concessions for
their members. Organised labour has been unable to block the implementation
of subsidy cuts and protect jobs, both in the Second and Third Republic.
Labour redundancieshave been on an upward trend and trade unions have not
been able to block them effectively. This indicates the unions' organisational
weakness at obstructingeconomic reforms.
As structuraladjustmenthas acted to weaken the capacity of trade unions to
bargain for better wages and protect jobs, they have resorted to opposing the
pace and sequence of reforms and not the reforms themselves. This new
politics of reform accepts the view that there is no alternative to structural
adjustmentand that the best way would be to operate within its own logic. The
837

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOSIMUTANYI

labour movement is currentlydivided on this matter.It is this disagreementon

the way in which the governmentis handlingthe economy which is said to have
led to the split in the labourmovementin 1994, when the MUZpresidentand four
other affiliate unions announced their breakaway from the ZCTU accusing its
leadershipof having been sponsored by an opposition party.49

Notes
T M Callaghy, 'Lost between state and market:the politics of economic adjustmentin Ghana,Zambia and
Nigeria', in Joan M Nelson, ed, Economic Crisis and Policy Choice: The EconomicAdjustmentin the Third
World,Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.
2 B Beckman, 'Empowermentor repression?World Bank and the politics of African Adjustment'in Peter
Gibbon et al, eds, Authoritarianism,Democracy and Adjustment:Politics of Economic Reform in Africa,
Uppsala: ScandinaviaInstitutefor African Studies, 1992.
3This was later changed to 10% following trade union opposition.
4P D Ncube, M Sakala & M Ndulo, 'The InternationalMonetaryFund and the Zambianeconomy', in K J
Havnevik, ed, The IMF and the WorldBank in Africa, Uppsala:ScandinavianInstituteefor African Studies,
1989.
5R Gulhati, Impasse in Zambia: The Economics and Politics of Reform, EDI Development Policy Case
Series, No 2, Washington,DC: World Bank, 1989.
6 Institute for African Studies, 'Perspectives on The Zambian Economy: Analysis of The 1989 Budget of
Zambia', No 2, Lusaka: Institutefor African Studies, University of Zambia, 1989.
7President Kaunda's radio and television address, 1 May 1987.
8 Economist Intelligence Unit, Zambia: CountryReport, London: EIU, 1992.
9J Kydd, 'Coffee after copper? Structuraladjustmentliberalizationand agriculturein Zambia', Journialof
ModernAfrican Studies, Vol 26, No 2, 1989.
Republic of Zambia, 'Evaluationof the performanceof Zambia's maize sub-sector',draft,Lusaka:Planning
Division, Ministry of Agriculture, 1990.
World Bank, World DevelopmentReport 1992, Washington,DC, p 6.
12 N van de Walle & D Chiwele, 'Democratisationand economic reform in Zambia', discussion paper,
University of Michigan, 1994, p 30.
3 Ibid, p 14.
14 L Rakner,Trade Unions in the Processes of Democratisation:Studyof Party-LabourRelations in Zambia,
cMi Report No 6, Bergen: Chr Michelsen Institute, 1992.
1 Callaghy, 'Lost between state and market';and J J Hawkins, 'Understandingthe failure of IMF reform:the
Zambiancase', WorldDevelopment,Vol 19, No 7, July 1991.
16
Van de Walle & Chiwele, 'Democratisationand economic reform in Zambia'.
17
R Bates, 'The politics of economic policy reform:a review article', Journal of African Economies, Vol 2,
No 3, December 1993, p 49.
18 C Baylies and M Szeftel, 'The Zambianbusiness class', in C Gertzel, ed, The Dynamics of the One-Party
State in Zambia, Manchester:ManchesterUniversity Press, 1984.
19
B Turok, Mixed Economy in Focuis:Zambia, London: Instituteof Development Alternatives, 1989.
21) B Liatto, 'Organisedlabour and the state in Zambia', PhD thesis, University of Leeds, 1989, p 47.
21
Interview with former minister, Lusaka, 22 December 1993.
22 J
Post, 2 April 1993
Clarke & C Allison, Zambia:Debt & Poverty, Oxford:Oxfam, 1989; and The WeekQv
and 11 March 1994.
23 Kasonde, Mung'omba, Mwaanga, Nkumbula and Wina were later to leave the government. Kasonde,
Mung'omba and Wina were dismissed from their positions by PresidentChiluba. Mwaanga was forced to
resign his position as Foreign Affairs ministerbecause of donor pressurearising from a perceptionthat he
was associated with drug dealing. Nkumbula had resigned in early 1992 citing cases of corruptionand
drug-dealingin the MMD government.In 1993 the National Party was formed by those former members of
the Chilubagovernment.In 1995 Dean Mung'ombaand Derrick, also formerministers,formed the Zambia
Democratic Congress. Nkumbulaand Wina died in August and September 1995, respectively.
24 Interview, Lusaka, November 1993.
25
Van de Walle & Chiwele, 'Democratisationand economic reform in Zambia'.
26 Rakner, Trade Unions in the Processes of Democratisation.
27
Interviews, Lusaka, Kitwe and Ndola, October-November 1993.
8 Liatto, 'Organised labour and the state in Zambia'; and Rakner, Trade Unions in the Processes of
Democratisation.

838

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN ZAMBIA

29

Courtrecordsof the trial of persons arrestedfor rioting and looting in December 1986 and June 1990 reveal
that most of the accused were either unemployed or students. There were a numberof students accused of
being responsible for the rioting and looting after the 1990 riots.
30 J M Nelson, Organizedlabor, politics and labor market flexibility in developing countries, in S Horton, R
Kanburand D Mazumdar(eds), Labor Markets in an Era of Adjustment,Vol 1, Issue Papers, Washington
DC, World Bank, 1994.
31 C Gertzel, 'Dissent and authorityin the Zambianone-partystate 1973-80', in Gertzel, The Dynamics of the
One-Party state in Zambia.
32 Times of Zambia, 7 November 1986.
33 Ibid, 11 October 1986.
34 Ibid, 22 September 1986.
35 Interview with ZCTU President Fackson Shamenda,Ndola, February 1993.
36 President Kaunda's address to the nation on radio and television, 28 June 1990.
37 J Walton, 'Debt, protest and the state in Latin America', in Susan Eckstein, Power and Popular Protest,
Latin American Social Movements,Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989.
38 H S Bienen & M Gersovitz, 'Economic stabilization, conditionality and political stability', International
Organization,Vol 39, No 4, 1985.
39 Interview with Paul Kafumbe, MUZ General Secretary, Kitwe, February 1994.
40 Zambia Congress of Trade Unions, 'ZCTU position paper:partnersin economic recovery the way forward',
paperpresentedat the National Conferenceon Inflation:Can we Bite the Bullet? The Way Forward,Lusaka
11-13 January 1993.
4' Times of Zambia, 2 July 1993.
42
Liatto, 'Organisedlabourand the state in Zambia', p 49; and G S Maipose, 'Retrenchmentand redeployment
in the public sector: the Zambian case study', mimeo, 1991, p 53.
4 Interview, Lusaka, March 1994.
44 Central Statistical Office, QuarterlyDigest of Statistics, First Quarter,Lusaka:cso, 1996.
45 Interview with Paul Kafumbe, MUZ General Secretary,March 1994.
46 ZCTU, SecretaryGeneral's Report to the 8th QuadrennialConference, Kitwe, 1990 and SecretaryGeneral's
Report to the 9th QuadrennialConference, 1994.
47 Personal communication with Austin Liatto, Vice President of the zcTU, July 1996, see especially A C
Muneku and D Banda, The impact of structural adjustment programmes on the labour market and
unionization in Zambia, ZCTU/FES Research Project, Lusaka, 'FrederichEbert Stiftung, 1996, p. 17.
48 Central Statistical Office, QuarterlyDigest of Statistics, Fourth Quarter,Lusaka: cso 1994; and Economic
Report, National Commission for Development Planning, Lusaka, 1995.
49 The faction opposed to the manner the government was implementing structuraladjustmentwas led by
Fackson Shamenda, while the pro-governmentfaction was led by Francis Kunda, MUZ president. In the
elections for the ZCTU presidencyand secretary-general,the pro-MMDfaction was defeated. In retaliationand
to weaken the labour movement it decided to break away from the ZCTU and form a rival trade union
centre-the Federationof Free Trade Unions (FFru),which is still to be recognised by the government.
Apart from MUZ four other unions have since disaffiliatedfrom the ZCTU-ZambiaUnion of Financial and
Allied Workers,National Union of Commercialand IndustrialWorkers,ZambiaNational Union of Teachers
and the National Union of Building Engineering and General Workers. Interviews with Alfred Mudenda,
ZCTU Assistant Secretary General, and Austin Muneku, Kitwe, November 1993 and February 1996,
respectively.

839

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:43:53 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions