Online Reporter
Tichaona Zindoga
WHAT do Zimbabwe, China and the United States share amid today’s volatile global economic landscape?
In recent weeks, debates in all three countries have centred on the economy, particularly related to the structural issues that have a bearing on long-term economic performance.
In Zimbabwe, as the country approaches the end of the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS1) for the period (2021-2025) there have been discussions about the successor policy framework, the NDS2, which will cover the period 2026-2030.
NDS1 has been hailed as a success and anchor towards the fulfillment of Vision 2030 — the goal to achieve an upper and prosperous middle-income status — and some of its key achievements include the successes in infrastructure development, attaining food security, attainment of relative economic stability, implementation of devolution, engagement and re-engagement; as well as environmental protection, climate resilience and natural resource management, human capital development and innovation, among others.
The NDS2 is set to build on these gains and, “will play a crucial role in steering Zimbabwe towards long-term, sustainable economic growth,” as a senior Government official put it.
Similarly — and coincidentally — in China, preparations are underway for formulating the 15th Five Year Plan (2026-2030), whose key outlines were endorsed at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in October.
In recent days, the “Recommendations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China for Formulating the 15th Five Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development” — a comprehensive document that sets out the period’s core pillars, priorities and guiding philosophy — has been published.
This effectively sets the tone for the release of the final plan next year.
China’s Five-Year Plan (FYP) system traces its roots to the early years of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 1953, the CPC launched the First FYP — shaped in part by Soviet models driven primarily by the urgent need to rebuild an impoverished, war-torn agrarian economy.
The CPC sought a structured mechanism to guide national development, mobilise resources, and co-ordinate industrialisation in a largely agrarian country.
Over the decades, the FYPs evolved dramatically from production-target documents into broader strategic frameworks.
From the late 1970s, when the Reform and Opening-up era began, FYPs increasingly incorporated market principles, signalling key policy directions rather than micromanaging every aspect of the economy.
Today, they function as China’s highest-level economic and social development blueprint, setting priorities for innovation, industrial upgrading, environmental governance, social welfare and long-term national goals.
What makes the system enduring? It provides strategic continuity and policy coherence across Government levels, enabling China to pursue co-ordinated, long-range development in a predictable planning cycle.
A discussion on the significance of the concept of Five Year Plans merits a full discussion on its own, but that is a subject for another day.
Even so, these quinquennial blueprints from China have reshaped the global economic landscape over the past 50 years and emerged as influential models for economic policy-making worldwide.
Repercussions for the world
One Neil Thomas, a fellow in Chinese politics at the Asia Society Policy Institute, is quoted in an article on the BBC website explaining their significance.
“Western policy works on election cycles,” says Thomas, “but Chinese policy making operates on planning cycles.”
He explains: “Five Year Plans spell out what China wants to achieve, signal the direction the leadership wants to go and move the resources of the State towards these predefined conclusions.”
Critically, the article goes on to note how China’s “hundreds of suited bureaucrats” shake hands and draw plans and “…history tells us that what they decide often has huge repercussions for the world”.
That is evident in China’s 1981 blueprint, which anchored the “reform and opening up” drive, leading to huge foreign investment and transformation of the lives of Chinese people.
In the 2011-2015 period, China pioneered the concept of the “strategic emerging industries”, a move that catapulted China to global leadership in renewable energy and electric vehicles, along with unrivalled dominance in rare earth supply chains, which are critical to chip-making, Artificial Intelligence, and defence industries.
From 2021-2025, China pursued “high quality development”, which put a foothold on challenging American dominance in technology. Some of the standout successes include the emergence of tech companies like Huawei, TikTok, and DeepSeek.
The new FYP from 2026-2030, among other things, is expected to wean China from relying on America for its innovation, thereby increasing China’s self-sufficiency.
Already, this has captured the imagination of the world, with media and pundits gushing over China’s new frontier.
As Zimbabwe continues its quest for an effective planned economy, China offers invaluable lessons not just in craft competence of its economic planners and Government, but also in setting the global agenda through thought leadership, correctly diagnosing and dissecting problems and challenges, as well as delivering era-defining solutions. US’ paralysis vs China’s pragmatism
While these positive developments unfolded across spheres, from Harare to Beijing, a starkly different scenario played out in the United States.
In the past two months, the US has experienced one of its longest Government “shutdowns” in history, which is basically a paralysis of Government operations because there is no money to be spent, because the major parties, President Trump’s Republicans and the opposition party, the Democrats, cannot agree on the next fiscal spending cycle.
This is a recurring ritual that plays out nearly every year: as the Congress fails to pass appropriations bills, federal agencies scale back or halt operations, federal workers are furloughed and economic activity stalls.
According to experts, the underlying cause of this paralysis is political fragmentation built into America’s budget process, comprising short fiscal windows, stopgap measures and partisan brinkmanship —which we saw in full glare recently as both Republicans and Democrats held out their seemingly intractable positions, until, somewhat, the latter capitulated.
Trump was apparently prepared to go to any length, even to the extent of harming vulnerable members of society who rely on Government grants and payouts, simply because he is fighting the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, a health insurance policy named after former President Barack Obama.
The result was economic chaos, with businesses delaying hiring, consumers cutting back on spending amid fears of lost paychecks, and investments in infrastructure, research, or defence procurement were disrupted. Even air traffic was at risk, as Government workers went unpaid. The shutdown had negative impacts globally because of its disruption.
Even in Zimbabwe, the impact was felt: the US embassy in Harare scalled back on its operations, including immigration services, and could not even update its social media accounts because the money to pay the workers wasn’t there!
Thus, for the world, the choice between models could not be clearer: America’s partisan paralysis or China’s results-driven pragmatism. The US system is fundamentally flawed, dysfunctional, and symptomatic of a deeper malaise, which is a fundamental failure in American economic governance and long-term strategic planning.
When contrasted with the strategic, stable, and results-oriented system of China, particularly its implementation of Five-Year Plans under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the divergence in logic, pragmatism and economic outcomes becomes starkly apparent. China has also demonstrated seamless transition from crafting blueprints to executing them — implementing plans with precision and delivering tangible, fruitful results.
What can Zimbabwe learn from this episode?
For Zimbabwe, which has long looked to China for practical, proven examples, the Asian giant’s experience offers an actionable blueprint for systemic reform. This blueprint should be reinforced by critical pillars like political stability, disciplined leadership and unwavering continuity of vision.
l Tichaona Zindoga is a journalist and expert on Zimbabwe-China issues. He is also the director of Ruzivo Media and Resource Centre, a local think tank that discusses global and local issues.
