ZIMBABWE’S overall ranking on the macroeconomic environment slipped 17 places to 104 in the 2015/2016 period due to low national savings, which cannot support investment, a new report has shown.
Source: Zim slips 17 places on competitiveness ranking – NewsDay Zimbabwe October 14, 2016
BY TATIRA ZWINOIRA
According to the Zimbabwe National Competiveness Report 2016 released at the National Economic Consultative Forum that ended yesterday in Harare, national savings could not support investment activity as it was in a precarious state.
“The poor credit ranking is mainly a result of accumulation of international payments arrears by government. The current re-engagement with International financial institutions is expected to improve the country’s ranking on government debt,” the report said.
The report comes as Zimbabwe’s overall ranking on the Global Competiveness Index (GCI) dropped by one place to 126 for the 2016/2017.
Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa said government sought to make sure the country was competitive, thereby, improving on the ease of doing business.
“It is only through dialogue that we will be able to deliver. There is need for dialogue between the private and public sectors,” he said.
Zimbabwe registered a notable improvement of seven ranks in the overall GCI ranking between 2013 to 2015, from 131 in 2013/2014 to 124 in 2014/2015.
However, in the 2015/2016 index, the country slipped by one rank to 125, with the recently released GCI showing the current position of 126 for the 2016/17.
Reasons for the decline were largely attributed to political instability, policy inconsistency and perceived risk as the main reasons.
“As long as we are uncompetitive, we will not succeed in getting our companies to produce. I want to ensure that this government has the commitment to work with the private sector and are waiting for to say let us work together,” Mines minister Walter Chidakwa said.
The report found that Zimbabwe was lagging behind other countries in all the GCI pillars.
Zimbabwe, especially, ranked poorly in terms of good market efficiency, labour market efficiency, infrastructure, business sophistication and innovation.
COMMENTS