Interim evaluation of the Zimbabwe manpower development project

Interim evaluation covers the period 1986-4/95. The project addresses a critical constraint to the development of Zimbabwe's changing economy, bringing resources to bear in an area in which the United States enjoys a comparative advantage. The relatively slow pace of II's expenditures during the project's initial 4 years stems from constraints imposed by U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe at that time, and the availability of funding from ZIMMAN I, which ran concurrently with ZIMMAN II during those years. With ZIMMAN II's shift in emphasis to the private sector in 1990, there was also a shift from high-cost U.S. training to low-cost in-country training, as well as continued delays in implementation due to changing USAID objectives, which reflected the new market orientation of Zimbabwe's economy. In order to realize sustainable results from the project's efforts in identifying target groups and meaningful training courses, the project should be extended 3 years to 9/98. The prime contractor has proven responsive to USAID/Zimbabwe's direction. However, the activities planned through FY 1995 are overly ambitious and will not allow the project to concentrate on the task of leaving a viable institutional training base. Talented individuals are available locally for conducting courses, and trainees have demonstrated they can put their training good use, if the economic environment and capital accessibility allow. Changes in the economy and in the roles of the public and private sectors make it possible and desirable to increase public sector involvement in and awareness of ZIMMAN II activities. Also, since the selection of training areas since 1990 largely precluded sectors in which women participate, a concerted effort to train women will have to be made. The average cost per participant in all (including U.S.) training activities ($2,300) only slightly exceeds that of a similar participant training project, HRDA ($1,900); however, the highly subsidized in-country training costs per participant ($1,114) average 3-4 times the cost of sending people to the best available programs in the country. Lessons learned are as follows. (1) The economic environment in Zimbabwe has undergone immense changes since ZIMMAN II was amended in 1990 to support the private sector; at that time the economy was still fairly closed; the issues facing small and medium enterprises (SMEs) now are no longer determined by a single economy, but by business and trade patterns within southern Africa and changes in GATT and Lome II. (2) Forces of nature are a major determinant of Zimbabwe's policies affecting SMEs. For example, the drought of 1992 kept large mills primarily occupied with movement of imported grain; now, however, large mills are again purchasing maize at the village level, causing a number of the smaller grain millers who had sprung up to revert from production to service milling only. (3) Few if any of the local training institutions involved with ZIMMAN II demonstrate a willingness or knack for marketing their competencies in Zimbabwe, much less in neighboring countries. Unless they are shown how and motivated to do so, South Africa could become the primary supplier of training in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in southern Africa. (4) The records maintained by most SMEs participating in ZIMMAN II training do not provide any basis for quantifiable evaluation of this training. (Author abstract, modified)