Foreign capital and the reconstruction of Zimbabwe
The study picks out the dominant characteristics of the development of Rhodesia as a peripheral economy by foreign capital over the last eighty years. The significance of settler capital and the impact of UDI are assessed. The conclusions explain the importance attached by international capitalists to achieving a settlement in Rhodesia, in order to stabilise the whole region and to secure control of its valuable resources. The discussion also poses some of the options for the Zimbabwean struggle in terms of achieving genuine liberation.
Foreign capital and the prospects for Zimbabwe
Abstract Very little is known about the development or the structure of foreign ownership of the Rhodesian economy, because of the general inadequacy of statistics resulting from participation in federation in the 1950s and UDI. This paper is an attempt to put the story together, by a series of estimates, a rather heavy reliance on statistics published in 1964/1965, and an assessment of scattered information appearing more recently. It is concluded that although Rhodesian private capital is relatively much weaker than its South African equivalent, it is dominant in some important sectors. Some possible consequences of this for Zimbabwean prospects are considered.
Urban Identities and Catastrophe: Izmir and Salonica at the End of the Ottoman Empire*
Two huge fires dramatically influenced the urban development of Salonica and Izmir, in 1917 and in 1922, respectively. These catastrophes occurred after the Ottoman Empire fell, and Salonica and Izmir had shifted into new national contexts. The fires mainly destroyed the districts that were transformed during the late‐Ottoman period. These districts became the cosmopolitan façades of modern Izmir and Salonica. The post‐fires' tabula rasa provided an opportunity for Greek and Turkish politicians and European planners to change the urban identity of both cities. Moreover, the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 transformed their multicultural societies also. Reconstruction plans had been thought to de‐Ottomanize and remove the previous idea of the towns and their multiplicity, interpreting new cultural and nationalist feeling. Here, I emphasize how modernity was interpreted before and after the fires, and point out contradictions between ideological aspects of planning and how the first urban districts were built during the 1920s.