Liberation movements in power have been faced by the challenge of seeking to ‘transform’ the economies over which they preside, that is, to render them more productive, to ‘deracialize’ them, and to make them more equal in terms of distribution of ownership, employment, opportunity, and reward. Sadly, there is wide agreement that these goals have not been met. Even aside from the economic disaster that has overtaken Zimbabwe, there are major concerns about limited rates of growth in South Africa and Namibia, alongside the persistence of horrifyingly high levels of unemployment, poverty, and inequality. Nonetheless, while it is vital to stress the limits to economic liberation, it is equally important to ask why South Africa and Namibia have fared so considerably better than Zimbabwe. In this regard, this chapter will focus upon how the NLMs have tackled three defining themes: (i) business-state relations; (ii) black economic empowerment; and (iii) land reform and how their policies have impacted on the potential for ‘transformation’.

Business-state relations under liberation movement governments

Business-state relations (BSRs) are critical to development prospects in an interconnected, global, capitalist economy. With states competing against each other for wealth, they seek to parlay their resources and labour for the capital, technology, expertise, and access to global markets that are available from transnational companies. Productive BSRs therefore require negotiations, with key issues being how firms perceive states, how states perceive firms, what is bargained for and the relative strength of either party.