Zimbabwe’s 2023 Economic Census counted 204,798 operational establishments, with 76.1 percent classified as informal under ZIMSTAT’s registration-based definition. The number is striking, but it does not mean 76.1 percent of Zimbabwe’s GDP is informal, nor does it measure the share of workers in informal employment. It is a count of establishments sorted by formality status.
Interest in Zimbabwe’s first economic census makes sense because the exercise put a national count on businesses that often sit outside administrative registers. ZIMSTAT treated an establishment as an enterprise, or part of one, carrying out mainly one kind of economic activity from a location where useful business data can be compiled. A company with several branches can therefore contribute several establishments to the count.
This distinction sounds technical until you try to use the 76.1 percent figure in an argument about the economy. Establishment counts tell you how common a type of business unit is, not how much money those units produce, how many people they employ, or how much value they add. A tiny informal stall and a much larger formal operation each count as one establishment in the headline total.
GDP works differently because national accounts care about value added, not the number of places doing business. Ten very small traders can outnumber one factory while producing far less value in total, so the establishment ratio cannot simply be copied across to GDP. The same warning applies to claims about employment because a business count says nothing by itself about how many workers sit inside each unit.
Research using small-area enterprise census methods shows why place-based enumeration is useful for finding informal activity that ordinary business registers can miss. Its strength is visibility at the enterprise level. Measuring national output still requires separate accounting work using turnover, costs, value added, surveys and other statistical inputs.
The unit of inquiry matters just as much. ZIMSTAT described it as an establishment, or the owner or proprietor of a business unit located at a fixed area. A nationwide establishment census can catch shops, workshops, offices, market units, and many other operations that may never appear in a company register, but the published unit is not the same thing as a headcount of every person earning informal income.
Location adds another wrinkle. About 86.7 percent of the establishments counted were urban, and 13.3 percent were rural, which reflects where qualifying business establishments were found rather than the complete geography of household livelihoods. Anyone using the census to describe rural informality needs to keep the excluded agricultural activities firmly in view.
Size data underline the point. ZIMSTAT classified 87.9 percent of all establishments as micro, yet formality changed sharply as establishment size increased. Only 18.9 percent of micro establishments were formal, compared with 54.7 percent of small establishments, 89.5 percent of medium establishments, and every large establishment counted.
Industry mix also helps explain why a simple national percentage can mislead. Wholesale and retail trade accounted for 73.13 percent of establishments, while manufacturing represented 8.24 percent, so the headline is heavily shaped by the large number of trading units in the count. It should not be read as proof that three-quarters of every industry operates the same way.
Even the word “businesses” can muddy the picture because ZIMSTAT reported establishments rather than a clean count of unique enterprises. One enterprise may contain multiple establishments, while a single-location enterprise may also be one establishment. Treating 76.1 percent as a precise share of Zimbabwean companies, workers, GDP, or taxable income answers questions the census headline was never designed to answer.
Interest in Zimbabwe’s first economic census makes sense because the exercise put a national count on businesses that often sit outside administrative registers. ZIMSTAT treated an establishment as an enterprise, or part of one, carrying out mainly one kind of economic activity from a location where useful business data can be compiled. A company with several branches can therefore contribute several establishments to the count.
This distinction sounds technical until you try to use the 76.1 percent figure in an argument about the economy. Establishment counts tell you how common a type of business unit is, not how much money those units produce, how many people they employ, or how much value they add. A tiny informal stall and a much larger formal operation each count as one establishment in the headline total.
The 76.1% figure counts establishments, not GDP
ZIMSTAT’s preliminary results split 204,798 operational establishments into 76.1 percent informal and 23.9 percent formal. The classification rests on registration with bodies such as the Registrar of Companies, Registrar of Cooperatives, ZIMRA and NSSA, alongside record-keeping conditions in the census definition. It is therefore an administrative classification of business units, not a direct measurement of output.GDP works differently because national accounts care about value added, not the number of places doing business. Ten very small traders can outnumber one factory while producing far less value in total, so the establishment ratio cannot simply be copied across to GDP. The same warning applies to claims about employment because a business count says nothing by itself about how many workers sit inside each unit.
Research using small-area enterprise census methods shows why place-based enumeration is useful for finding informal activity that ordinary business registers can miss. Its strength is visibility at the enterprise level. Measuring national output still requires separate accounting work using turnover, costs, value added, surveys and other statistical inputs.
The census deliberately leaves some activity outside
The denominator also has boundaries. ZIMSTAT excluded agriculture, forestry and fishing, public administration and defense, compulsory social security, household activities for own use, and extraterritorial organizations and bodies from the economic census. Reading 76.1 percent as a percentage of every economic activity in Zimbabwe therefore stretches the statistic beyond its published coverage.The unit of inquiry matters just as much. ZIMSTAT described it as an establishment, or the owner or proprietor of a business unit located at a fixed area. A nationwide establishment census can catch shops, workshops, offices, market units, and many other operations that may never appear in a company register, but the published unit is not the same thing as a headcount of every person earning informal income.
Location adds another wrinkle. About 86.7 percent of the establishments counted were urban, and 13.3 percent were rural, which reflects where qualifying business establishments were found rather than the complete geography of household livelihoods. Anyone using the census to describe rural informality needs to keep the excluded agricultural activities firmly in view.
Registration status says less than the headline suggests
Informal status in this census does not automatically mean illegal, invisible, tiny or economically unimportant. It means the establishment failed the census definition of formality, which is tied to specified registrations and records. Different questions about tax compliance, licensing, company ownership, social security registration, and bookkeeping can overlap without being identical.Size data underline the point. ZIMSTAT classified 87.9 percent of all establishments as micro, yet formality changed sharply as establishment size increased. Only 18.9 percent of micro establishments were formal, compared with 54.7 percent of small establishments, 89.5 percent of medium establishments, and every large establishment counted.
Industry mix also helps explain why a simple national percentage can mislead. Wholesale and retail trade accounted for 73.13 percent of establishments, while manufacturing represented 8.24 percent, so the headline is heavily shaped by the large number of trading units in the count. It should not be read as proof that three-quarters of every industry operates the same way.
Even the word “businesses” can muddy the picture because ZIMSTAT reported establishments rather than a clean count of unique enterprises. One enterprise may contain multiple establishments, while a single-location enterprise may also be one establishment. Treating 76.1 percent as a precise share of Zimbabwean companies, workers, GDP, or taxable income answers questions the census headline was never designed to answer.
