ABSTRACT
To be useful for producing lessons that can be generalised beyond specific cases, comparative studies should have a clear analytical basis for the inclusion of the countries. In the early years of structural adjustment in the Sub-Saharan region, participation in multilateral-funded programmes alone was frequently taken as sufficient for comparative analysis. By the end of the 1980s virtually every country in the region had formally taken such programmes, implying that further criteria were necessary to establish the relevance of comparisons. This study focuses upon Zambia and Zimbabwe.
