If this topic implies that Bitcoin has a very vital role to play in any country's economic well-being, then it is most likely wrong.
So these are actually huge conclusions:
First: Governments that have agreed to allow citizens to use Bitcoin:
...as they saw that Bitcoin may be a major economic supporter of their local currency by increasing the injection of strong foreign currencies such as the dollar, the euro and others...
Third: Governments that completely reject Bitcoin: ((which is the most important part))
...these governments see that the process of buying bitcoin will lead to the emptying of bank accounts in the country of the local currency...
I don't even think that Syria is indeed looking at Bitcoin as "a way to improve the local economy." And if they do, I guess there is no figure that would support any official finding that economic progress has been made after adopting such a view.
As for Zimbabwe, at least 70% of the population is poor. This fact alone is more than enough to argue that Bitcoin may not be for them yet.