We are at a time when many people in the Third World and outside are raising fundamental questions about the pattern of development, which has taken place in the last three decades. In this pattern of growth, usually on the basis of capitalism or state capitalise, is it sustainable in the future? And even if it is sustainable, will it necessarily continue a pattern of development in which the urban areas grow at the expense of rural incomes, with ever more school-leavers unemployed, and ever larger groups in town and country left outside the ‘modern sector’?
How much has this pattern of growth been ‘dependent’ on the international economy or the multi-national corporations – and is this pattern consistent with true Independence?
Put another way, can the expansion of total production be maintained, especially of foodstuff and other basic goods and services, without running into foreign exchange or other bottlenecks? If so, will this pattern primarily be to the benefit of a small minority within the country (and within the world economy) – or can it be broadened to include the mass of the population, including those at present in severe poverty? Will this be possible within capitalist or state capitalist production, and what alternatives are practicable given the economic, social and political realities inside the country and outside?
These are the essential questions which are big, and a risk of slipping into easy generalisations and ideological simplifications is also large. But, the issues cannot sensibly be ignored if one wishes to discuss issues of unemployment and employment at a national level. For all the concern with the “employment problem” in so many countries, it is important to emphasise that there is not one employment problem that’s easy.
Moreover, the importance of the various employment problems vary considerably between and within countries. In Kenya, for example, nine-tenths of the population still live in rural areas and for the majority, the crucial determinant of employment and income is access to land.
In Zambia, by contrast, nearly two-fifths of the population have wage earning employment. Here, the crucial issue is not access to land, but access to income originating in the copper mines, directly through wage earning employment, or indirectly through a multitude of activities financed from government expenditure.
At present, Namibia’s urban population is estimated at 52%. Namibian’s urban population is growing because people leave rural areas in search of employment. In rural areas, the communal sector covers 41% of the total land area, and rural areas contribute to the development of the country.
Despite this, there are still development disparities that exist in rural areas e.g. limited livelihoods, etc. Between these extremes lie many variations. And in spite of the contrasts, there are also common features, for instance, that a high proportion of the rural labour force works very long hours but still receives very low incomes.
Common to the employment and unemployment difficulties in most countries, one can identify three main problems, which have aroused widespread concern. These three problems are:
Intense frustration among many job-seekers, (especially but not only among the young and educated) unable to find work of the type and for the remuneration which they want or which they feel they can expect.
Low income in money or kind from work, which are inadequate in terms of the basic needs of individuals or their households.
Under-utilised labour resources in the sense of people involuntarily producing less than they are capable of with the resources at hand.
These three problems are conceptually distinct, though frequently confused in analysis and policy-making. The impact of policy needs to be especially evaluated in terms of each of these problems taken separately. Yet, this is still too rarely recognised. It is the third of these approaches which has been the main preoccupation of economic literature on unemployment and under-employment in developing countries.
It seems that among policymakers, it is usually the frustration among job-seekers, particularly among school-leavers, which accounts for much of the real worry behind the public concern with unemployment. The 2018 Labour Force Survey put the unemployment rate at 33.4%. The youth unemployment rate was 46.1%. This is what alarms the politicians and the civil servants, anxious to avoid major upheavals, and which angers and discourages many of the young persons and their relatives.
But, increasingly, to many observers and analysts and in the public statements of many public leaders – it is the problem of inadequate income and of mass poverty, which is dominant. The World Bank earlier this year reported that more than 200 000 Namibians were pushed into poverty due to Covid- 19. It also found that more than 1.6 million Namibians are living in poverty (The Namibian, 23 August 2022 p.2). At least as the central aim of policy, the provision of better income for those whom we should call the working poor, both urban and rural, is the general problem. Moreover, an improvement in income is not merely the primary aim of policy. It is a basic means towards the solution of the first problem, and to deal with the under-utilisation of labour as the third problem is a key starting point. The three problems and their solutions are thus closely linked.
It should already be clear why we feel there is not one cause of these employment problems, but many. The set of causes can, however, be conveniently divided into two – those concerned with the overall and imbalance between the total number of persons wanting work, and the total number of work opportunities (measured, for example, in numbers of man-years of labour required) – and those concerned with structural imbalances between skills, education, experience and aspirations possessed by the labour force, and the occupational and other characteristics needed for manning the economy.
The two types of imbalances are not, of course, mutually exclusive. Both the overall imbalance and the structural balance are linked to the pattern of economic production, growth and income distribution. It is for this reason that the employment problem is symptomatic of basic weaknesses in the whole process of development.
With respect to policy, the crucial point is that there is no automatic measure of adjustment which operates with respect to either the overall or the structural imbalance. This imbalance may persist and may indeed worsen without calling into play any off-setting mechanisms. Measures towards balance must, therefore, be made an essential element of policy.
In summation, what is to be done? as the Russian revolutionary and socialist, Vladimir Lenin, would ask. I would argue, in our context, that the crucial step towards a comprehensive strategy is the commitment to bring into line all sectoral programmes to ensure that they contribute positively to the improvement of the living standards for the poorest. This means major changes within rural and agricultural policy, with an effective programme of land reform and distribution as an inescapable component. But there will always be a need for basic changes in the pattern of marketing, pricing, extension services, and in terms and conditions for supplying key inputs such as fertilisers and credit. Parallel changes focused on the needs of the poorest of the population are also required in industry and services, in the whole range of education and health facilities, and in the system of government planning and administration which so largely determines which groups benefit and which do not. This is a formidable agenda for change – but the enormity of the problem demands nothing more.