Ferraris for all

Yesterday I went to the launch of the International Growth Centre at the London School of Economics (LSE). The international network of scholars is a joint venture between LSE and Oxford University with funding of £42m from Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID).

Superficially the tone was incredibly pro-growth. This was reflected in a DFID booklet (PDF) handed out at the event called Growth: Building Jobs and Prosperity in Developing Countries. It opens with the sentence: “Economic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life in developing countries”. Much of the rest of the text is in a similar vein.

However, numerous caveats to the initially upbeat assessment of growth are subtly introduced including:

* An emphasis on “poverty reduction” rather than all-rounded development.

* An emphasis on the importance of climate change.

* References to “environmental sustainability” and “low carbon” growth.

The whole approach is also technocratic. It emphasises “growth diagnostics” - experts identifying the barriers to growth - rather than mass participation in development. Although it discusses “ownership” of projects by third world nations this conception only seems to take in a narrow elite of government officials, business leaders and non-governmental organisations (“civil society”).

I also notice that Paul Collier, one of the directors of the centre and a speaker at yesterday’s event, has a forthcoming book, Wars, Guns and Votes (Bodley Head), out on development. It evidently extends his call for United Nations intervention in troubled areas (see 14 May 2007 post) - an initiative that can only make matters worse for the world’s poorest countries.

Labels: Africa, book, climate, development, economics, environment, growth

Jeffrey Sachs writes in an article for Project Syndicate on the spread of mobile phones in the world’s poorer countries:

“market penetration in poor countries is rising sharply. India has around 300 million subscribers, with subscriptions rising by a stunning eight million or more per month. Brazil now has more than 130 million subscribers, and Indonesia has roughly 120 million. In Africa, which contains the world’s poorest countries, the market is soaring, with more than 280 million subscribers.

“Mobile phones are now ubiquitous in villages as well as cities. If an individual does not have a cell phone, they almost surely know someone who does. Probably a significant majority of Africans have at least emergency access to a cell phone, either their own, a neighbor’s, or one at a commercial kiosk.

“Even more remarkable is the continuing “convergence” of digital information: wireless systems increasingly link mobile phones with the Internet, personal computers, and information services of all kinds. The array of benefits is stunning. The rural poor in more and more of the world now have access to wireless banking and payments systems, such as Kenya’s famous M-PESA system, which allows money transfers through the phone. The information carried on the new networks spans public health, medical care, education, banking, commerce, and entertainment, in addition to communications among family and friends.”

Labels: Africa, development, india, Latin America, progress, technology

For time reasons I have so far avoided commenting on Prince Charles’s silly intervention in the debate on genetically modified (GM) foods. But the Comment Is Free article by Paul Collier, the director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University, on the damaging effect of opposition to GM makes many useful points. I have disagreed with Collier on some key issues in the past including his implicit support for empire and his relatively narrow vision (see posts of 14 May 2007, 6 June 2007, 1 July 2007, 20 July 2007 and 15 October 2007). But his support for GM and large scale farming is welcome (also see post of 15 April 2008).

Labels: Africa, environment, food, science, technology

A roundtable of Nobel laureates hosted by Michael Milken (a financier, philanthropist and man who has served time in jail for securities violations) unwittingly gave an insight into the current food crisis. It seems that even Nobel prize-winners do not think it is possible to transform agriculture in the third world as it would lead to mass unemployment among former peasants. In other words leading economists do not see extensive generalised development as even possible:

“[Michael] Spence [2001 laureate]: The poorest spend 60 percent of their income on food. For now, we need a rapid response to malnutrition whatever the long-term solutions. Over time, productivity can increase, as was the case with the Green Revolution. Yet, 50 percent of Chinese still work in rural agriculture and 70 percent of Indians. Capital-intensive agriculture and higher productivity would displace them from their living. It’s a double-edged sword.

“[Myron] Scholes [1997 laureate]: If you move too fast to improve productivity in food, you create a surplus population that is forced to move to the already over-urbanized cities. That is a huge cost. There are 1.25 billion people in agriculture in India and China. Where will they go?”

Nor are such views restricted to these two eminent economists. A recent article in the Financial Times (Alan Beattie “Seeds of change”, 3 June) quoted a British academic who opposed the introduction of modern agricultural technology because it might replace hand weeding in Africa:

“Andrew Dorward, an academic at London's School of Oriental and African Studies, says that adoption of GM crops resistant to herbicide would, for example, be disastrous for many poor households: the crops would allow the replacement of hand-weeding, which is a big source of income for many.”

Others call for the adoption of “appropriate” – that is primitive – technology:
“Leftwing critics of the idea of a green revolution do not doubt that Africa can increase productivity with new seeds and inputs, but say the benefits will go to large corporations and rich farmers. Raj Patel, a fellow at the left-leaning Institute for Food and Development Policy in the US, recently told a congressional committee that projects such as Agra, "while perhaps well intentioned, are models of unaccountable and unsustainable technological investment". He called instead for "programmes that further the adoption and research into locally appropriate and democratically controlled agro-ecological methods".”

I suggest such “leftwing critics” spend a few months in the baking sun doing some hand weeding themselves. Perhaps they might then change their minds.

Labels: Africa, economics, food

I disagree with Paul Collier, author of The Bottom Billion, on many things. Readers may remember that I debated him at the Battle of Ideas 2007. But he makes some astute points on the current food crisis in an article in today’s Times (London):

“The remedy to high food prices is to increase supply. The most realistic way is to replicate the Brazilian model of large, technologically sophisticated agro-companies that supply the world market. There are still many areas of the world - including large swaths of Africa - that have good land that could be used far more productively if it were properly managed by large companies. To contain the rise in food prices we need more, globalisation not less.”

He goes on:

“In Africa … the World Bank and the Department for International Development have orientated their entire efforts on agricultural development to peasant-style production. Africa has less large-scale commercial agriculture than it had 60 years ago. Unfortunately, peasant farming is not well suited to innovation and investment. The result has been that African agriculture has fallen farther and farther behind.”

Labels: Africa, development, economics, food

William Easterly, doyen of free market development economists, had a polemic against Bill Gates’ “creative capitalism” schemes to help the poor in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. Easterly rightly attacks the limitiations of schemes such as the partnership to give African farmers access to the premium coffee market. “This is fine as a modest endeavor to help a few Rwandan and Kenyan coffee farmers, but it's hardly going to remake capitalism.”

Easterly is also right that economic development is preferable to such limited schemes. “The number of poor people who can't afford food for their children is a lot smaller than it used to be - thanks to capitalism. Capitalism didn't create malnutrition, it reduced it. The globalization of capitalism from 1950 to the present has increased annual average income in the world to $7,000 from $2,000. Contrary to popular legend, poor countries grew at about the same rate as the rich ones. This growth gave us the greatest mass exit from poverty in world history.”

However, Easterly’s avid support for capitalism grates at times. It is true that the market system has provided significant growth - and to that extent it should be welcomed - but growth remains too limited and uneven. The demand should be for more rather than less.

Labels: Africa, development, trade

William Easterly, perhaps the world’s best-known conservative development economist, has written a critique of the millennium development goals (MDGs) as they apply to Africa. In his view the goals are constructed in an arbitrary way which leads to an underestimation of Africa’s development progress. For example, the 1990s was a bad decade for Africa yet, although the MDGs were officially declared in 2000, the targets are backdated to 1990. Therefore Africa starts at a disadvantage as a result of an arbitrary statistical decision.

Easterly makes some useful points but it is a pity that most criticisms of the MDGs come from the right. The idea that the goals embody and reinforce a climate of low expectations in relation to development is rarely made outside of spiked or Worldwrite.

Labels: Africa, development, spiked, Worldwrite

The World Bank has produced a useful website which pulls together numerous statistics on African development.

Labels: Africa, development, economics

A new documentary from Worldwrite, an education charity, examines the question of corruption from an African perspective. In Corruptababble two young South Africans, Brendon and Yolanda, travel around London and Edinburgh to gauge perceptions of corruption. Virtually everyone they speak to sees corruption as a big problem in Africa but few come even close to being able to back up their arguments. Most simply assert that corruption must be largely to blame for Africa’s difficulties while many others argue it is a more extreme form of corruption in the West.

The people shown to have the most coherent explanation for corruption are free marketers speaking at a conference on development. They argue in detail that Africa is poor because predatory African elites have siphoned off money for their own benefit. But such arguments have a strongly apologetic character. Blaming Africans for the continent’s lack of development is a way of diverting responsibility from the West or the weaknesses of the market system.

Corruptababble is a step towards challenging one of the most enduring myths about Africa. Anyone who supports African development needs to be able to challenge the unhealthy obsession with corruption.

Labels: Africa, corruption, film, Worldwrite

Spiked has run my review of Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms in its monthly review of books.

Labels: Africa, book, Malthus, progress, review, spiked

Fund Strategy has published a cover story by me on investment (primarily by funds) in Africa. It is written for a financial readership but includes points that could be of more general interest.

Labels: Africa, development, Fund Strategy

I will be speaking at a session on economic development at the Battle for Africa strand at the Battle of Ideas festival in London. My session will include Professor Paul Collier, Giles Bolton and Firoze Manji. Other sessions in the strand are on saving Africa and on the continent’s growing ties with China. The Battle of Ideas is on the weekend of 27-28 October.

Labels: Africa, china, development, speeches

BBC online has published a useful article which gives some insights into the contemporary debate on African development. After discussing how Africa is unlikely to met the Millennium Development Goals it quotes Simon Maxwell, the director of the Overseas Development Institute, saying that they “were always meant to be more of a tool of political mobilisation than an exact guide to aid strategy.” I take this to mean they were primarily for propaganda purposes in the West than promoting African development.

The article then goes on to discuss the latest report on economic development in Africa from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad). The report calls on African countries to follow the least of East Asia and encourage “developmental states” to help them develop. This view is supported by the likes of Matthew Lockwood (see post of 6 April 2007) and non-governmental organisations.

It is often said that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) promotes an opposing free market view to that of Unctad. But a speech to an Oxfam event this week by John Lipsky, the IMF’s first deputy managing director, envisioned an extensive role for the state in his conclusion:

“The public sector also helps to create the possibility of faster growth by providing a stable and predictable macroeconomic environment; by reducing the cost of doing business; by infrastructure investments; by providing health and education services; and by other sectoral reforms, including through improving financial and other regulations. And, of course, by working to reduce barriers to increased trade.”

Labels: Africa, development, economics

There follows a news analysis by me for Fund Strategy on investment in Africa. Parts of it are technical but it is mostly accessible to general readers. There was also a related comment piece.

Fund groups seem to be taking Africa seriously at last. New Star recently let it be known that it is seeking regulatory approval for a Heart of Africa fund, which will be available to retail investors. A few days later Stanlib, the asset management subsidiary of South Africa's Standard Bank, launched two Africa Ucits III funds: one investing in South Africa and one in the rest of Africa.

Other fund groups are also responding. Fidelity has announced that South Africa will be a key holding in its new Emerging Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) fund. And Investec, a South African-owned firm, is busy promoting its Africa funds.

To anyone with only a cursory knowledge of Africa this sudden interest probably appears odd. The mainstream media discussion of Africa tends to focus on such disasters as Zimbabwe's chaos or the Darfur crisis. Then there is the annual Red Nose Day, which portrays Africans as perpetual victims in need of Western charity. It hardly seems an attractive place to invest.

But there is a strong case for investment in Africa. Politically it has become more stable and investor-friendly than at any time in the post-colonial period. Economically the continent is booming. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast of GDP growth of 6.2% for Africa this year compares with 4.9% global growth and 2.5% for the advanced economies.

John Mackie, the head of African funds at Stanlib Asset Management in Johannesburg, says: "There is a very strong underlying growth story, a lot of positive political developments and a lot of positive regulatory changes".

On the political front, African countries have moved away from the nationalist economic policy of the 1960s and 1970s. Today they are generally keen to encourage foreign investment as a way of promoting development. And they have mostly escaped from the economic stagnation that devastated Africa for much of the 1980s and 1990s.

On the economic front the continent is benefiting from the rapid growth of the world economy, and particularly China. The rapid rise of China as an industrial power has pushed up raw material prices, which in turn has boosted African producers. China is also investing in African infrastructure in return for access to raw materials such as copper, diamonds, oil and platinum.

But African development has not been restricted to raw materials and infrastructure. The rapid penetration of mobile phone technology is having a significant impact on the continent. Africa is also benefiting from increased tourism.

David Christie, the head of distribution for Ashburton in sub-Saharan Africa, is positive on what he calls a "cascade effect" as growth in one sector leads to broader development. "The emerging black [African] market has really taken to consumerism," he says.
The case for African investment is based mainly on these broader developments. But it also benefits from a low correlation with Western markets. Most African equity markets and currencies do not move in line with those of the developed world.
Of course investment in Africa also involves potential problems. Even the most ardent of advocates of Africa funds generally concede there are significant risks.

On the economic front the biggest risk is that the boom subsides or even goes into reverse. Africa has had growth spurts before but they have often proved unsustainable. If the world economy slows, and China's appetite for raw material subsides, the basis for Africa's recent growth would be threatened. Although Africa may be diversifying economically, it remains heavily dependent on natural resources.

Fears of such a reversal are at the forefront of the concerns of such organisations as the IMF and the United Nations' Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). To quote the ECA's "Economic Report on Africa 2007": "The current growth momentum ... rests on a very fragile foundation. The continent continues to rely on primary commodities whose prices have been major sources of trade shocks."

In relation to politics, the main concerns are exemplified by Zimbabwe, with its hyperinflation and stagnant economy. Investors fear that the rest of Africa could revert to such conditions but it is important to recognise that the country is at present an exception. "Zimbabwe is a basket case at the moment," says Stanlib's Mackie. "But it is only one of 50 countries in Africa."

There are also ways round some threats within African countries. One is to invest in companies, either African or with strong African interests, that are listed in places such as America, Australia, Canada or Britain. It is also possible to invest in South African companies as the country's market is relatively developed and many of its firms invest widely in the continent.

Perhaps the biggest immediate risk is liquidity. Buying and selling African stocks can be a cumbersome process. But diversification in stocks in different countries and sectors can help mitigate this problem.

Whatever decisions investors make, it is important to put Africa in its proper context. Its 920m people make up about 14% of the world's population, but in economic terms it accounts for only 3.4% of global output. Its stockmarkets are so small that MSCI only has indices for Egypt, Morocco and South Africa.

If investors decide to invest in Africa, it is not likely to make up more than a small proportion of their portfolio. But if Africa manages to sustain the growth rate it has achieved in recent years, that could change.

Labels: Africa, finance, Fund Strategy

Gregory Clark, the author of A Farewell to Alms (see 7 August and 10 August posts), has written an article in the New York Sun on Africa. He argues the continent is caught in a “Malthusian trap” in which rising living standards lead to population growth which in turn puts pressure on fixed resources and then depresses living standards. The problem with this perspective is that it naturalises underdevelopment: in other words it misses the broader economic and social barriers to development.

However, Clark does call for industrialisation as a way of breaking out of the Malthusian trap and promoting development. In this he is way ahead of most other development thinkers nowadays.

Labels: Africa, book, development, economics, Malthus

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has published a special report on inequality in Asia. It argues that general trend has been for inequality to widen but overall living standards have improved too.:

“The overall pattern that therefore emerges is one where a majority of developing Asian countries have seen increases in inequality .... By and large, however, increases in inequality are not a story of the 'rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer'. Rather it is the rich getting richer faster than the poor.”

Overall inequality levels remain lower than Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.

Material from the report is available on the ADB site.

Labels: Africa, Asia, inequality, Latin America

The Economist challenges the common distinction between the diseases of the rich and the diseases of the poor in its current issue (9 August). Poor countries are increasingly suffering as a result of chronic diseases while infectious ones become relatively less important. The main reason for this shift seems to be rising life expectancy in the poorer countries – so in many ways the shift can be seen as a sign of success. But people in the poor countries tend to get chronic diseases earlier than in the rich ones and they have a more deadly effect.

“Heart disease—supposedly an illness of affluence—is by far and away the biggest cause of global mortality. It was responsible for 17.5m deaths worldwide in 2005. Next comes cancer, another non-infectious sickness, which caused more deaths than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria put together (see chart 1). Chronic conditions such as heart disease took the lives of 35m people in 2005, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO)—twice as many as all infectious diseases.”

“If you look at lower-middle income countries, such as China, or upper-middle income ones, like Argentina, you find that what kills people there is the same as in the West (see chart 2). Four-fifths of all deaths in China are from chronic sicknesses. That is also true of countries as varied as Egypt, Jamaica and Sri Lanka.

"The main difference between these countries and rich ones is that chronic illnesses are more deadly there. Five times as many people die of heart disease in Brazil as in Britain, though Brazil is not five times as populous. Rich countries have become better at dealing with chronic conditions: death rates from heart disease among men over 30 have fallen by more than half in the past generation, from 600-800 per 100,000 in 1970 to 200-300 per 100,000 now.

"This has not happened in middle-income countries. In 1980 the death rate for Brazilian men was below the rich-country average (300 compared with 500-600). Its death rate has not changed—and is now higher than all but a few rich countries. Russia is worse off. In 1980 its death rate was 750 per 100,000. Now it is 900, about four times as high as most rich countries."

Only in Africa are infectious diseases killing more people than chronic conditions. But even among low income countries the balance is likely to shift over the next few years.

Labels: Africa, development, health

Spiked has published my review of The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier. For earlier discussions of this book see posts of 14 May, 6 June and 1 July.

Labels: Africa, aid, book, development, review, spiked

The Economist has some peculiar but useful coverage of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in this week’s issue (7 July).

Its comment on global poverty seems unclear about whether to welcome or oppose them. It says” “the MDGs can justifly claim to generate a bit of buzz about duties a government might neglect.” But it goes on to argue that: “they cannot do what they purport to do, which is to provide credible benchmarks against which governnments can be judged.”

The conclusion sums up the confusion:

“The millennium bash [in 2000] secured global agreement on what matters. That is not nothing. But impoverished countries have to start where they are, not where summiteers might wish them to be. Aid money cannot bridge that gap, and the custodians of the MDGs should not pretend otherwise. But nor should a lack of foreign cash stop countries inching their way out of poverty by their own efforts—which is the only way any nation has ever done it. To make poverty history, you have to understand how history is made.”

What this misses is that the MDGs institutionalise a climate of low expectations in relation to devlopment. Rather than seeing development as a process of transformation, from a poor society to a rich one, they reinforce the idea that alleviating the worst aspects of poverty should be the key goal.

Meanwhile, the Economist’s briefing on the MDGs is more useful. Among other things it shows the long history of United Nations promises on development and the relative success of the world in reducing extreme poverty.

The article also includes a passage on Africa which provides a partial rejoinder to the situation is getting worse (see 4 July post). Overall the situation seems to be improving although progress is painfully slow:

“The extreme-poverty rate in Africa has fallen from an estimated 46% in 1999 to 41% in 2004, but that is still way off the 2015 target of 22%. Hunger and malnutrition still gnaw at the region: the proportion of under-fives who are underweight has declined only marginally, from 33% in 1990 to 29% in 2005.”

Labels: Africa, development

An article published today on the Guardian’s comment is free site shows how apparently radical views on inequality and corruption can lead to conservative conclusions. Salim Lone, a columnist for Kenya’s Daily Nation and former spokesman for the UN mission in Iraq, starts by bemoaning Africa’s poor record on development. He goes on to argue that:

“In truth there was never any real prospect that western governments, which have gleefully presided over the creation of new classes of the super-super-rich, would use their considerable influence to push African leaders to pursue policies which would shift resources away from the rapacious national elites towards the poor.

“Nor was it likely the west would permit Africa to stray from the neoliberal orthodoxies prescribed for the continent by the World Bank and the IMF. These policies have generated wealth for elites and created economic growth in a few countries, but have proved over two decades singularly unable to reduce the human misery afflicting hundreds of millions.”

While Western intervention is certainly open to criticism it would be easy to draw the conclusion from Lone’s argument that real development is not welcome. From his perspective any economic growth could simply benefit the rich and encourage corruption. His view is also compatible with the current emphasis on alleviating the worst excesses of poverty rather than transforming poor economies into wealthy ones. And given his former job at the UN he clearly has no principled objection to Western intervention in he developing world.

Labels: Africa, corruption, development, inequality

Niall Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard, had a review of Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion in today’s New York Times (also see posts of 14 May and 6 June). Ferguson argues that the most high profile recent debate on Africa has been between Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University and William Easterly of New York University – both white men based in New York. Sachs argues for government intervention to help solve the problem whereas Easterly is sceptical about the benefits of aid.

Ferguson goes on: “Now comes another white man, ready to shoulder the burden of saving Africa: Paul Collier, the director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University. A former World Bank economist like Easterly, Collier shares his onetime colleague’s aversion to what he calls the “headless heart” syndrome — meaning the tendency of people in rich countries to approach Africa’s problems with more emotion than empirical evidence. It was Collier who pointed out that nearly two-fifths of Africa’s private wealth is held abroad, much of it in Swiss bank accounts. It was he who exposed the British charity Christian Aid for commissioning dubious Marxist research on free trade. And it was he who pioneered a new and unsentimental approach to the study of civil wars, demonstrating that most rebels in sub-Saharan Africa are not heroic freedom fighters but self-interested brigands.”

Collier argues there are four traps into which the poorest countries tend to fall:

* Civil war.
* The resource curse.
* Being landlocked.
* Bad governance.

His preferred solution, which Ferguson supports, is more Western intervention. This can take the form of the growth of international law and military intervention where necessary.

David Chandler, professor of international relations at the University of Westminster, also refers to Paul Collier, although in passing, in a review article on liberal interventionism in spiked this week. Chandler points out that Collier was the head of a World Bank team on conflict studies which influenced, among others, Paddy Ashdown. Chandler also cites a 2000 book by Collier and a World Bank paper (PDF) he co-authored in 2001.

Meanwhile, William Easterly has an article in the latest issue of Foreign Policy (July / August) attacking “the ideology of development”. His argument is straightforward: “like Communism, Fascism, and the others before it, Developmentalism is a dangerous and deadly failure.” His target is not increasing prosperity as such but the idea it can be promoted by the authorities from above. He names Jeffrey Sachs and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times as key proponents of the developmentalist approach.

Labels: Africa, book, development, review, spiked

London’s Tate Modern gallery has a fascinating exhibition on 10 of the world leading global mega-cities: Cairo, Istanbul, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Mumbai, Sao Paulo and Tokyo. It looks at the cities from five perspectives: size, speed, form, density and diversity.

Even the basic statistics on cities are worth knowing. For example, in 1900 only 10% of the world’s population lived in cities, now it is 50% and by 2050 it is expected to be 75%. Also 95% of urban growth in future is expected to be in Africa and Asia.

An earlier version of the exhibition was shown at the 10th International Architecture Exhibition at the 2006 Venice Biennale. Some of the additional exhibits deal with predictably dull topics such as the environment and sustainability. But the bulk of the exhibition gives some insight into a key characteristic of the contemporary world. There are also further resources on the accompanying web pages on the exhibition.

Global Cities is free and runs till 27 August.

Labels: Africa, Asia, cities

Worldwrite, an education charity which produces films promoting third world development, has produced its first newsreel. The film is based on a critical discussion of the recent G8 summit of world leaders. I was on the panel along with Philip Cunliffe and Stuart Simpson (see 29 May post). It can currently be viewed from the Worldwrite homepage here.

Labels: Africa, development, film, media appearances, Worldwrite

This month’s Prospect magazine includes an essay by Paul Collier, director of Centre for the Study of African economies at Oxford university, on why African countries are poor (the first paragraph of the article is available here). He examines several competing explanations including the naturalistic (it’s the environment or geography) and the moralistic (it’s corruption or institutions).

Collier puts the blame on crooked and misguided opponents of reform within African governments. His preferred solution is a return to empire (see 14 May 2007 post).

Many of Collier’s recent papers can be downloaded from his university homepage. His book, The Bottom Billion (Oxford University Press), is endorsed by the likes of George Soros, Sir Nicholas Stern and Larry Summers.

Labels: Africa, corruption, development, environment

I do not share the pro-intervention stance held by Alan Beattie, the world trade editor of the Financial Times, on Africa. However, his deliciously acid remarks in today’s paper are astute:

“Africa needs more than to be 'put on the agenda'. It has been on dozens of agendas down the decades. Nor does it need to be 'put on the map'. For the confused, it's the big wedge-shaped continent south of Europe.”

Labels: Africa, trade

I will be speaking on a panel on Western interference in Africa at the Worldwrite centre at 7.30pm on 7 June. It is timed to coincide with the G8 summit of the world’s most powerful leaders in Germany.

Labels: Africa, speeches, Worldwrite

Spiked has published an article by me on the campaign to oust Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank. It argues that it is the poorest people of the world who suffer most as a result of the campaign against corruption.

Labels: Africa, America, corruption, spiked

There is some speculation that Tony Blair, Britain’s outgoing prime minister, could take over from the ousted Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank. Although this would go against the tradition that the World Bank is headed by an American in many ways Blair would be the perfect choice. Who better than the smiley autocrat to run such an interfering and undemocratic institution? The British prime minister has a long track record of making pious remarks about “healing” Africa. The problem is who will save Africa from Blair?

Labels: Africa, corruption, development

Spiked has published a review by me of a book on Africa in its new monthly review of books. I argue that Giles Bolton’s Poor Story embodies what has become a typical combination of grandiose pronouncements and low horizons

Labels: Africa, book, review, spiked

Martin Wolf has reviewed an important book in today’s Financial Times. The Bottom Billion (Oxford University Press) argues in effect that a return to empire is needed to solve the problem of African poverty. Given that the author is Paul Collier, the director of the Study of African Economies at Oxford university, it should be taken seriously. Wolf also describes it as “splendid”. Although such arguments are fundamentally wrong they need to be challenged rather than sneered at.

Labels: Africa, book, development, inequality

Spiked has published my review of the first of this year’s BBC Reith lectures by Jeffrey Sachs.

Labels: Africa, development, economics, environment, spiked

Recent news on developments related to Africa.

* Economic growth. Africa grew by 5.7% in 2006 after a 5.3% increase in 2005, according to the United Nations’ Economic Report on Africa 2007. Although this growth is relatively strong it should be noted that African economies are starting from an exceedingly low base. The report also makes the point that Africa still depends heavily on the export of primary commodities such as crude oil, metals and minerals.

* Aid. Aid to Africa was static last year and overall aid spending fell according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is despite the fanfare around the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005 when Tony Blair, the British prime minister, extracted pledges from governments to boost aid spending. Although the European Union, including Britain, increased spending both America and Japan spent much less.

It would be naïve to rely on Western governments to promote African government. However, these figures do show the hollowness of their promises on aid.

* Book. On Wednesday evening attended a University of Westminster seminar on The State They’re In given by Matthew Lockwood. The book is ostensibly an attack on the prevailing consensus on African development held by the likes of the British government and aid agencies. It argues that it is in the interests of the West to promote African developmental states, following the East Asian model, to help develop Africa.

Although the book is presented as a critique its conclusions are remarkably similar to the mainstream view. Lockwood sees African corruption as a big problem while ignoring the low horizons embodied in notions such as sustainable development. His book is also endorsed by the likes of Bob Geldof, Duncan Green (the head of research at Oxfam) and Shriti Vadera (an adviser to the British Chancellor).

Labels: Africa, aid, book, development, economics

Yesterday I spoke at the worldwide premiere of Think Big, a new documentary by Worldwrite, at an event organised by the Great Debate in Newcastle (see 4 January post). The film shows how Ghanaians have the same ambitions and needs as Westerners. Like those in the developed world they want comfortable homes, access to modern technology and fulfilling worse. Only in a relatively poor country like Ghana it is harder to achieve such goals.

Like most Western audiences those in Newcastle said they were all in favour of development. Yet, also in a typical way, they then raised concerns about corruption, the environment, inequality and indigenous culture. I countered by arguing that the debate about development nowadays does not typically take the form of a clash between those who are in favour and those who are consciously against. Instead the mainstream view redefines development in a narrower way in response to the kinds of concerns outlined above. So what today passes for “development” is in fact hostile to the genuine modernisation, urbanisation and industrialisation of poorer societies.

Labels: Africa, development, film, speeches, Worldwrite

The Christian Science Monitor provides a typical example of how an increasing number of problems are being viewed through the prism of climate change. An article on Uganda looks at recent conflicts between the semi-nomadic Karimojong and the Ugandan army. It goes on to quote an environmentalist activist as if she was a neutral expert:

“With more people forced to share fewer resources, experts warn that conflict will increase. ‘Climate change will hit pastoral communities very hard,’ says Grace Akumu, executive director of environmental pressure group Climate Network Africa. ‘The conflict is already getting out of hand and we are going to see an increase in this insecurity.’ “

She goes on to argue that it is the West, and particularly America, that is to blame. If only they had signed global protocols to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Her argument is based on several dubious assumptions:

* By far the biggest error is that holding that without global warming there would be no conflict. But the problem of scarce resources, particularly in a poverty-stricken country like Uganda, would exist in any case. What the country desperately needs is economic development to enrich its people and make it less prone to environmental problems.

* It assumes that global warming has already had a substantial impact on Uganda. This needs to be proved rather than assumed.

* It is taken as given that the Kyoto protocol, if successfully implemented, would make a significant difference to the warming trend. There are good reasons to question this argument too.

Labels: Africa, America, climate, environment

If there is any doubt that Bono is an establishment figure – and there really should not be – then his honorary knighthood should erase it. Tony Blair’s open letter to the U2 lead singer, on the official Number 10 website, is particularly telling. It confirms the key role Bono played in selling the official “make poverty history” agenda to the public:

“I want personally to thank you for the invaluable role you played in the run up to the Gleneagles G8 Summit. Without your personal contribution, we could not have achieved the results we did. So thank you and I look forward to continuing to work together to maintain momentum on Africa, and ensure leaders around the world meet the promises they have made.”

Bono was awarded a Legion D'Honneur from the French government in 2003 while Bob Geldof, his follow Irish musician and anti-poverty campaigner, received an honorary knighthood in 1986 for his work with Live Aid.

Labels: Africa, development

A despicable attack on China for providing cheap loans to Africa in today’s Financial Times (and I suspect elsewhere too). The FT article is based on comments by Philippe Maystadt, the president of the European Investment Bank (EIB):

“Philippe Maystadt, the EIB's president, said banks like his were operating in competition with Chinese lenders anxious to extend Beijing's influence across the world.

“ ‘The competition of the Chinese banks is clear,’ said Mr Maystadt, whose European Union-backed bank is the world's biggest multilateral lender. ‘They don't bother about social or human rights conditions.’ “

So not only is China providing cheap capital to Africa but it is not trying to impose its views on African governments. Sounds like China is providing a better deal to Africa all round. The last thing China needs is expensive Western capital with numerous strings attached.

Labels: Africa, china, Europe

Spiked has published my article on the British government’s Stern Review on the economics of climate change. My piece can be viewed here.

Labels: Africa, climate, economics, energy, environment, spiked

Madonna has found a new way of expressing herself: she is adopting a little black baby from an orphanage in Malawi. Whereas ordinary people sometimes wear white wristbands or flash American Express RED cards to express their piety the mistress of makeovers evidently needed something more. She chose a baby from the children in the orphanage in a similar way to a shopper choosing a pair of shoes.

The symbolism of Madonna’s adoption of baby Davie was clear to an unnamed source at the orphanage quoted in today’s Sun: “She … carried him on her back, which was very symbolic as that is the way Malawian mothers carry their children.” Presumably this blatant display demonstrates what a worthy person she is. Madonna follows Angelina Jolie, actress and UN Goodwill Ambassador, who has adopted an Ethiopian and a Cambodian baby.

Such expressions of celebrity colonialism do no good for the third world but no doubt they help celebrities feel they are somehow spiritually pure.

Labels: Africa, development, ethics

Today spiked published my article on the American Express RED card (see the link on the left). Under the initiative – one of Bono’s – at least 1% of the user’s spending goes to fighting AIDS in Africa. I argue that the appeal of the card is based on middle class conceit and the projects it supports do not represent the best way to fight the scourge of AIDS.

There is also an interesting article by Austin Williams arguing that carbon offsets stifle economic development. He will be speaking at the Battle over Nature strand at the Battle of Ideas 2006.

Labels: Africa, development, spiked

President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa provides an eloquent example of growth scepticism in the Nelson Mandela Memorial Lecture (PDF) at Johannesburg’s University of Witwatersrand on July 29. Mbeki’s argument is involved but essentially it is an attack on the emphasis on economic development in the 1994 Reconstruction and Development Programme of the African National Congress. He even goes so far as to identify the acquisition of material wealth as a value embodied in white minority rule under apartheid. Instead he argues today’s South Africans should recognise the value of the biblical injunction that “man cannot live by bread alone”. In a country where massive social inequality is still evident such talk is presumably designed to lower the expectations of the impoverished majority.

Labels: Africa, development, growth, inequality

Three short versions of Worldwrite documentaries, putting the case for real development from different angles, are now available on the internet. Bisease story – A letter to Geldof looks at Bob Geldof’s broken promises to a Ghanaian village. Damned by Debt Relief examines the grim reality of the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative on debt relief. Carry on up the NGO shows that non-governmental organisations do not cater for the real needs of people in the third world. The films can be viewed for free at documentary-film.net although registration is required.

Labels: Africa, development, film, Worldwrite