ZIMBABWE’S latest push to formalise the informal economy arrives at a moment when the country can no longer afford policy slogans that sound progressive but fail the test of lived reality.
For many Zimbabweans, especially young graduates, informal work is not a choice born of preference but a survival strategy born of economic failure.
In a country where formal employment has shrunk dramatically, where salaries have been eroded by inflation and currency instability, and where even well-educated citizens have had to turn to vending, cross-border trading, tuckshops and small service businesses to survive, any serious policy on formalisation must begin with one truth: the informal economy is not a nuisance to be eliminated, but the real operating system of the Zimbabwean economy.
A policy that ignores that reality risks repeating one of Zimbabwe’s oldest mistakes, which is to regulate from above without first understanding how people actually live, earn and trade.
That is why the new formalisation agenda should be judged not by its political language, but by its practical consequences.
On paper, the idea of bringing informal businesses into a more secure, regulated and productive framework sounds sensible.
Keep Reading
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
A stronger tax base, better consumer protection, improved access to credit and wider social protection are all desirable goals. No serious person can oppose order, legality or efficiency.
But the central question is not whether formalisation is good in theory.
The question is whether Zimbabwe has designed a path that is realistic, fair, inclusive and capable of building confidence among the people it seeks to reform.
That is where the challenge lies. If formalisation is treated as a coercive campaign that punishes survival entrepreneurship instead of supporting it, then it will merely push people deeper into informality, create resentment and entrench the same mistrust between the State and citizens that has undermined so many past reforms.
Zimbabwe’s informal sector exists because the formal sector has failed to absorb labour at scale for years.
That failure is not accidental. It is the result of repeated macroeconomic instability, policy inconsistency, deindustrialisation, limited investment, low confidence in the local currency and a business environment that has often been hostile to small enterprise.
Over the years, the economy has been battered by policy reversals, exchange rate distortions, high compliance costs, regulatory uncertainty and a tendency to confuse control with development.
Industry has struggled, shops have closed, manufacturing has weakened and public institutions have too often responded with enforcement before support.
In such an environment, the informal sector became the shock absorber of the economy.
It absorbed the unemployed, fed families, kept goods circulating and allowed millions of citizens to earn something when nothing else was available.
Any policy that seeks to transform that sector must first respect the role it has played in preventing deeper social collapse.
This is why some of the strongest criticism of the current formalisation debate is not ideological, but structural.
If the State says it wants to formalise informal business, then it must ask whether the cost of entry into formality is affordable for the average trader, vendor, artisan or micro-retailer.
If a policy requires expensive licences, high compliance fees, complex registration procedures, mandatory technologies or rigid sourcing rules, then it will not formalise the poor; it will exclude them.
It will reward those already positioned to comply, while punishing those with the least capital.
That turns formalisation into a gatekeeping exercise rather than an empowerment tool.
A good policy does not begin by asking what can be collected from struggling citizens.
It begins by asking what conditions need to be created so that these citizens can grow, comply, and thrive.
The danger here is especially serious because Zimbabwe’s unemployment crisis is not a marginal issue.
It is central to national life. Many graduates are underemployed or unemployed, with some now operating in informal trade, digital hustles, small-scale services, cross-border commerce and self-created micro-enterprises.
This is not a sign of laziness or failure of ambition. It is a rational response to an economy that has not generated enough decent jobs. A serious employment policy must, therefore, expand opportunity rather than merely police existing survival mechanisms.
If a young university graduate is vending phones, selling clothes, offering tutoring, repairing electronics or running a small food business, the policy question should not be how to chase them from the street.
The question should be how to help them grow from survivalist activity to a productive, bankable, tax-contributing enterprise.
A genuinely transformative formalisation strategy, therefore, needs to be gradual, incentive-based and differentiated. Not every informal business is the same.
A market vendor, a kombi operator, a small tuckshop owner, a cross-border trader, a hairdresser, a home-based manufacturer and a start-up tech freelancer cannot all be treated as though they occupy the same economic category.
One of the greatest weaknesses in policy design across many African economies, including Zimbabwe, is the tendency to assume that regulation must be uniform to be effective.
In reality, the more diverse the informal economy, the more differentiated the policy response must be. A one-size-fits-all compliance model will fail, because it will either overregulate the smallest operators or under-support those with growth potential.
Formalisation should, therefore, be tiered, with simple entry-level registration for micro-enterprises, easier tax transitions and progressive obligations that rise as businesses grow.
The State also needs to be honest about trust. For years, many informal traders have seen regulation as a prelude to harassment, confiscation, arbitrary fines and selective enforcement.
If government officials arrive with raids, threats and punitive licensing campaigns, then the informal sector will not see formalisation as an opportunity. It will see it as danger. Trust is not built through speeches. It is built through consistent behaviour.
Traders need to know that registration will not become a mechanism for extortion, that compliance will not expose them to endless bureaucratic abuse and that policy will be enforced fairly, not selectively. Without trust, the State may win compliance on paper while losing legitimacy on the ground.
There is also the deeper issue of what Zimbabwe has historically done wrong in its economic governance.
Too often, policy has targeted symptoms rather than causes. When prices rise, the instinct has been to blame traders rather than inflation. When goods become scarce, the instinct has been to blame hoarding rather than currency instability and supply failure.
When informality expands, the instinct has been to criminalise it rather than ask why the formal economy is not creating enough jobs. This approach has produced repeated cycles of intervention without transformation.
It is not enough to regulate retail if the broader economy remains unstable. It is not enough to formalise vendors if monetary conditions remain unpredictable.
It is not enough to lecture young people about entrepreneurship if access to finance remains limited, interest rates remain punishing, and collateral requirements remain impossible. Formalisation must sit inside a larger economic reconstruction agenda.
That larger agenda should begin with monetary credibility. No informal business can be expected to plan, save, price or grow in a chaotic monetary environment.
If businesses cannot trust the value of money tomorrow, they cannot confidently invest today. Stability in currency, payments and pricing is essential.
Fiscal discipline must accompany this, because public excess eventually becomes private pain through inflation, shortages and uncertainty. But monetary reform alone will not be enough. The regulatory system itself must be simplified.
Zimbabwe has too many overlapping requirements, too much bureaucracy and too much discretion in the hands of officials. Small enterprises do not need a maze of approvals; they need a clear, cheap, transparent pathway to legality.
When regulation is too complicated, only the well-connected comply, while the poor remain outside the system. That is not formalisation; it is economic apartheid by procedure.
Another critical gap is access to finance. If the informal sector is to be transformed to a productive engine, it must be linked to affordable capital.
Most informal entrepreneurs do not fail because they lack ideas. They fail because they lack working capital, stock finance, equipment, premises and the ability to absorb shocks.
Formalisation should, therefore, be tied to microfinance, revolving funds, credit guarantees, digital payment access, saving schemes and financial literacy.
But these must be designed carefully, because finance without infrastructure can also become debt without development. The point is not simply to lend money; it is to create viable business ecosystems. A vendor who is formalised but cannot access stock, storage, sanitation, power or a safe trading space has not really been empowered. They have simply been documented.
This is where local government, urban planning and infrastructure become central. Formalisation cannot succeed if markets are congested, vending sites are unsafe, toilets are absent, water is unreliable and trading spaces are allocated through patronage rather than transparent criteria.
A decent informal economy needs decent physical conditions. The State should not merely relocate people; it should create functioning trading ecosystems.
That means properly designed market spaces, reasonable rental structures, storage facilities, security, waste management, and digital connectivity.
It also means recognising that many informal businesses operate from homes, garages, roadside stalls and mobile platforms. Policy must adapt to modern economic geography rather than trying to force all commerce into outdated colonial-style retail boxes.
If this policy is to be made genuinely inclusive, it must place youth at the centre, not at the margins.
Young people are the most economically restless and the most exposed to unemployment. They are also the group most likely to innovate if given the right conditions.
Formalisation should, therefore, connect young entrepreneurs to incubation hubs, business mentorship, digitised licensing, start-up grants and market linkages.
It should also recognise the growing importance of digital trade, online services, content creation, mobile payments and platform-based business.
The future of work is not only in shops and stalls. Zimbabwe should not design a policy for yesterday’s economy while its youth are trying to survive in tomorrow’s labour market.
Equally important is the issue of social protection. Formalisation should not be reduced to taxation.
If people are expected to register, comply and pay contributions, they must receive tangible benefits in return. These should include access to healthcare schemes, pension pathways, accident insurance, maternity support and unemployment buffers where possible. The State must make formality attractive, not merely compulsory. People comply more readily when they see value.
When formalisation offers protection, dignity, and mobility, it becomes a pathway upwards. When it offers only cost, surveillance and punishment, it becomes something to avoid.
Looking beyond 2030 is especially important because real structural change does not happen within one policy cycle.
Zimbabwe needs a long-term economic covenant, not a short-term administrative campaign. The question is not only how to register the informal sector by 2030.
The deeper question is how to build an economy that, by 2035 and beyond, no longer forces the majority into precarious survivalism. That means industrial revival, agricultural value addition, export expansion, skills development, energy reliability, infrastructure renewal and a stable investment climate.
Formalisation should be one part of that broader reconstruction, not a substitute for it. If the economy does not produce decent formal jobs, the informal sector will remain the dominant employer no matter how many policies are announced.
So the policy should be reconsidered in a few essential ways. It must be less punitive and more enabling.
It must lower entry costs, simplify registration, and create clear tiers of compliance.
It must protect micro-enterprises from being crushed by fees and rigid sourcing rules. It must incorporate youth, women, persons with disabilities and returning migrants in a practical way, not just as a symbolic list.
It must link formalisation to finance, infrastructure and market access. It must enforce rules fairly and transparently. And above all, it must be designed with the people who live in the informal economy, not merely for them.
A policy made without the participation of traders, vendors, SMEs, labour groups, youth representatives and local authorities will always be incomplete.
Zimbabwe does not need a war on tuckshops, vendors or informal traders.
It needs a strategy that turns necessity into opportunity. The goal should not be to punish the millions who have kept the economy alive in the absence of formal jobs.
The goal should be to move them from fragility to growth, from survival to sustainability, and from exclusion to participation. That is what meaningful formalisation looks like. Anything less would simply be another chapter in the long history of policies that speak the language of reform while leaving the majority behind.