Institute for Money, Technology & Financial Inclusion

The adoption of the multi-currency system in the year 2009 following the budget announcement by the then Minister of Finance was defined as a watershed period in terms of monetary policies not only for the country but the whole of Southern Africa. Multicurrency was defined as an adoption of foreign currencies that included the United States dollar, British pound, South African rand and Botswana Pula as official currencies of Zimbabwe operating in the same economy. The Zimbabwean dollar was abolished through the adoption of this system. In this study, we asked the following questions: What were the new socio- economic dynamics that emerged in balancing and negotiating these currencies? What new configurations were created by people in order to make sense of the prevailing system money ecosystem? What new narratives were formed in the monetary interaction between rural and the urban population in Zimbabwe, and how do mobile money interface and influence traditional perceptions on money and the value it has? The study employed detailed comparative ethnographic engagements between Harare (Urban setting) and Chivi (Rural Setting). Data was collected using unstructured interviews complemented by participant observation. Interviews were done with mobile money clients, non-clients, mobile money agents and mobile operators. Findings showed that there is an accelerated appropriation of mobile money services by the unbanked poor in rural Chivi and Harare. It was observed that mobile money transactions especially in Chivi are driven by both local and diaspora remittances. It emerged in the study that currency conversion is a contested phenomenon epitomised by contestations, conflicts and negotiations between mobile money clients and agents as well as agents themselves. Social capital was also a critical resource in the transactions observed. The findings in Harare also showed the emergence of unique mobile money schemes such as Ponzi schemes. The issue of cash shortages also meant that mobile money agents were selling hard cash to their clients and this affected the cashing out for all mobile money transactions.