re: South Africa spin off thread: the legacy of Rhodesia.

quote:

---

One wonders what rhodesia would like today if Ian Smith’s descendants and his (racist) party still held power.

---

Well the boom in the Rhodesian economy was mitigated by economic sanctions, and GDP growth effectively flatlined after the 1975 sanctions were put in place. Zambia, which was once Northern Rhodesia, had similar GDP numbers until the price of its chief export, copper, declined in the 1970's, and government borrowing increased. After the new government was installed in Zimbabwe, the GDP increased from 5.1 billion to 8.5 billion in 1982, and saw growth of 11 percent through the 80's, especially after 1985.

Zambia, under a one party state from 1972 to 1991, struggled with high foreign debt, an inability to export copper, and struggling state industries until 2000, when Frederick Chiluba introduced market reforms, which increased the GDP from 4 billion in 2000 to 20 billion now. Zambia also did not have the advantages that Rhodesia did in terms of its manufacturing sector, which had more development from the colonial era. Zambia received much more investment in mining during the colonial era, and had little in the way of any other industries.

The similar population demographics between Zambia and Zimbabwe make for an interesting comparison. Since reforms made in the Zambian economy, and the sale of key nationalized assets, the Zambia economy has grown while the Zimbabwean economy has contracted, and Zambia has been relatively peaceful since its founding. I think that Zimbabwe would look similar to Zambia now if the Rhodesian front had remained in power, absent of sanctions. The political turmoil of post-2000 Zimbabwe is a major cause of their issues, and the relative peacefulness of Zambia in relation gives a good guide to how a country with similar history and demographics would be now.