Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, was a British colony for around ninety years. It became independent in 1980. The prime mi
nister of newly formed Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, implemented a forced land redistribution policy, where commercial farms were confiscated from white farmers. Mugabe also proceeded to confiscate shares in companies owned by whites. In the following years, agricultural production in the country fell sharply. Zimbabwe, the country that used to be called the breadbasket of Africa, is now seeing food shortages in certain parts of the country. Would Zimbabwe be considered to have extractive or inclusive institutions? Explain your answer.
The definition and as per the query is defined in the following part of the clarification.
Explanation:
As when the government doesn't quite care for all parts of the population, the nation of Zimbabwe can be seen as a resource extraction organization. Protecting vulnerable people and having progressive policies is nice, but it doesn't grant the right to seize one property forcefully and to some other person, provided that.
There needs to be an effective policy formulation on economic reforms, as occurred since independence throughout countries such as India. Yet, the nation never knew, and farcical strategies went in.
In comparison, the administration's inability to preserve private property interests also renders it the domain of extractive organizations. As either outcome, the country couldn't ever fully step on the road of success and advancement.
