What is the fundamental reason for the recent collapse in Zimbabwe? It is not the loss of freedom of the press, or unsound monetary policy, or high military expenditure, or low health expenditure--although all these factors have a negative effect.

No, the real reason Zimbabwe has collapsed is that there is no protection of private property. The executive rides roughshod over the judiciary in all matters of property. The result is "dead capital", a term invented by Hernando de Soto, and economic annihilation. The economy is now worth barely more than 1% (in dollar terms) of its value in 2000, when the "land reform" programme really started.

Zimbabwe provides the reverse of the good news offered by De Soto. In The Mystery of Capital, De Soto demonstrated that where private property rights were delineated and enforced, economies grew rapidly. When someone can borrow against their one large asset they can establish businesses, buy supplies, establish marketing programmes, sell products, make a profit and thrive. For some countries the vast majority of capital is dead--one cannot prove one owns it outright, and hence no capital market will lend against it.

Zimbabwe had all the rights and rule of law one could have wanted. It had a decent titling system, a judiciary that upheld rights of landowners in the face of an executive branch that was largely Marxist in orientation. And this same judiciary continued to try to do this in the face of mass expropriation of land rights in 2000. Even as late as 2003, as the final major swathe of white farmers was thrown off their property and their land left idle, some judges tried to uphold the constitutional rights of these farmers.

But finally all the good judges were fired, resigned or escaped the country in peril for their lives. I met one such judge last year in Johannesburg. He stood up for individual rights in a case in mid-2003. First he was quietly told to drop the case by a junior minister, then the authorities attempted to bribe him with a farm of his own, then they threatened him with the sack, then publicly humiliated him with a smear campaign in the government-run Herald newspaper, claiming he took bribes, and finally he was told by a friend with police contacts that he was going to be arrested on bribery charges, so he fled the country. This former appeals court judge was gaunt and without visible means of financial support.

The thousands who have died and the millions who have fled Zimbabwe with even less than this judge are all victims of the destruction of rights in Zimbabwe, which led to the almost instantaneous collapse of the economy.

Craig Richardson, an economist at Salem College, North Carolina, claims that the land seizures broke a vital "trust" and everyone "wondered if their assets were safe". By way of hope, Richardson draws a parallel with Nicaragua.

Nicaragua also suffered economic collapse based on the destruction of property rights under the Sandinista government in the early 1980s. But in recent years, with a more capitalist-minded government, the economy has grown at more than 4% a year, with inflation below 10%, mainly due to protection of property rights and private sector development, Richardson says. He found that the other institutions of a free society mattered, but none so much as the right to the rewards of one's labour.

Zimbabwe needs reinstatement of land rights and compensation to those robbed. Turning dead capital into something with life will do more than anything else to reverse the disaster that is Zimbabwe. This cannot happen with the current government. While political reform is necessary for economic growth, it is not sufficient--only private property right enforcement adds sufficiency for growth.

Roger Bate is a resident fellow at AEI.