While time doesn't very much allow for blogging these days (only four more months until the PhD is submitted...!), I've recently discovered the ease of tweeting. Follow me on http://twitter.com/#!/awgadzala for updates on China, Africa, emerging markets, global financial regulation and all things related.....
Dear Readers,
Owing to countless other commitments I have ceased blogging for the time being (no doubt noticeably so). All posts have been archived and I will leave the blog up for the time being. Hopefully when I again find my footing I will turn this into something bigger. For the time being, thank you ever so kindly for your readership.
With warmest wishes, A.
With the year drawing to a close, it's often customary for individuals, organizations, bloggers, etc. to compile lists -- lists which, in their view, somehow encapsulate the passing year. Admittedly I have no such list to offer, though would like to draw your attention to a few rather worthwhile compilations. While not quite of the 'year in review' variety, I believe they actually say more than any such list would.
The IMF has recently released it Regional Economic Outlook (2010-2011) for Sub-Saharan Africa, the link to which may be found here (pdf file). What I find especially curious is the report's suggestion that Africa's national elections have little to no bearing on economic activity in the states in which they transpire. A rather erroneous wedge between politics and economics, I would be inclined to argue.
If one does follow the IMF's claim to its logical conclusion, however, the good news is that the 17 elections* scheduled to take place across the continent over the course of the coming year will have absolutely no impact on neither growth nor general investment prospects in any of these states.
What do we think?
* Countries where major elections in 2011 are planned or have been mooted include Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, The Gambia, Liberia, Madagascar, Niger, Nigeria, São Tomé & Príncipe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
For the past few months I have been toying with the idea of returning to blogging, having (rather reluctantly) given up the enterprise some time ago. The thing with bloggers these day, I find, is that they do it constantly or not at all: it's either job-like or it's not. Falling the category of 'almost-but-not-quite-willing-to-dedicate-my-life-to-blogging' of bloggers, I relinquished the task, only to be confronted by an old Oxford tutor of mine the other day, who immediately prompted to enquire about my absence from the blog-o-sphere. Perhaps his words were merely intended as polite chit-chat, or perhaps he was indeed genuine in his desire to see my thoughts plastered all over the internet -- either way, here I am back; inspired and ready and willing to reengage in discussion with those of you out there.
My time away has been quite curious, divided as it was between fieldwork in Addis Ababa, holidays on the American east coast, and -- of course -- Oxford. My research has shifted slightly, away from the more economical and towards the more political. My time in the field has led me to the (perhaps anticlimactic) conclusion that China's economic competition in Africa can largely be understood in simple market economic terms (i.e. competition), and save for curious loopholes and investment advantages enjoyed by Chinese firms, the story more or less stops there. Where it begins is with the political and cultural/societal implications of China's engagement with Africa: not only for the African countries themselves, but for the region and international community more generally.
The NYTime's David Sanger had a perhaps slightly obvious though nevertheless worthwhile piece on "the three faces of China" which very much speaks to this issue. Sanger argues:
In one sense, there’s nothing surprising about a rising power finding subtle ways to handle complex problems. But before China’s breakout from poverty to arguably the world’s No. 2 economy, its default position on foreign policy was to restate the principle of non-interference in other nations’ affairs and focus largely on its neighborhood.
That was before it had the military resources and the incentive to start thinking of how to secure and defend interests around the globe. Today, its interests include access to oil in places like Sudan and Iran, safe shipping around the Horn of Africa, the ability to manipulate its currency for its own gain.
And for the first time, the world is seeing a distinct range of behaviors, from aggressive to passive-aggressive to diplomatic, in places that 20 years ago China’s leaders rarely thought about.
What American diplomats and analysts now have to figure out is what drives China’s actions and responses, how to try to shape them and, some would argue, what limits to try to set
Not only American diplomats, but indeed international leaders generally. Though the 'China threat' theory was perhaps a bit too overplayed, China's global political rise remains largely underplayed, presented as an event that may or may not occur at some point in the distant future. A balance must be found, preferably sooner rather than later.
I've recently been working on a chapter which is to be included in a great forthcoming book edited by Emma Mawdsley and Gerard McCann on contemporary Indian-African relations. The chapter examines in a comparative perspective Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs in the East African economies, ultimately arguing that the competitive advantages enjoyed by the Chinese enable them to out-compete their Indian-origin and African counterparts.
In conducting research for the piece, I stumbled across a fascinating source on Sino-African relations which - finally and thankfully - puts a lid on any claims of novelty surrounding present bilateral relations, tracing interactions between Chinese and African merchants back in time across the centuries. The source is the Yu-yang-tsa-tu written by Tuan Ch'eng-shih during the T'ang Dynasty (618-907 A.D). The Yu-yang-tsa-tu is a compendium of general knowledge written about the land of 'Po-pa-li,' i.e. present day Somalia, and it describes from a Chinese perspective daily life in Po-pa-li and, perhaps most curiously, the blood oaths taken between Chinese and Somali traders prior to engaging in the barter of goods. Those were the days.
Excerpts from the book may be found in Robert Collin's East African History v. 2 (African History in Documents), snippets of which are available through Google books. The work is, above all else, a fascinating insight into not only (very) early-day Somalia, but also early Chinese perceptions of Africa - some of which remain unaltered today.
As an avid reader of the New York Review of Books and, equally, having a distinct interest in African politics, I was quite thrilled to read Helen Epstein's piece in the NYRB, "Cruel Ethiopia." In the piece, Epstein addresses the pitfalls of foreign aid as they are manifest in Ethiopia in particular and - I would argue - in Africa, generally:
The Western Renaissance helped to democratize “the word” so that all of us could speak of our own individual struggles, and this added new meaning and urgency to the alleviation of the suffering of others. The problem with foreign aid in Ethiopia is that both the Ethiopian government and its donors see the people of this country not as individuals with distinct needs, talents, and rights but as an undifferentiated mass, to be mobilized, decentralized, vaccinated, given primary education and pit latrines, and freed from the legacy of feudalism, imperialism, and backwardness. It is this rigid focus on the “backward masses,” rather than the unique human person, that typically justifies appalling cruelty in the name of social progress.
Epstien's piece does an apt job highlighting not only the herd mentality which continues to typify foreign assistance strategies, but further emphasizes a point which many fail to, or are otherwise unwilling to, appreciate: more often than not, the domestic policies maintained by the governments of recipient states are the culprits of poverty and oppression, and stand to be exacerbated by inflows of aid money. Ethiopia is, for instance, rapidly becoming among the most repressive and dictatorial countries on the continent, and yet simultaneously remains the subject of an informal experiment to discover whether the "big push" approach to African development will (finally) succeed.
The trouble with aid is precisely this "big push" approach. Programs must become increasingly tailored to the particular contexts for which they are intended, and targeted to achieve very specific aims. The Gates Foundation is seemingly growing cognizant of this fact as it is revamping its 'war on polio' campaign, moving away from its hitherto pursued strategy of vertical health programs towards investments in health systems. For any foreign assistance strategy to fulfill its intended function, an enabling framework must indeed be in place, be it a viable health system or a healthy government. Of course this is a tired argument, having been repeated ad nauseam within the development literature. Nevertheless, Epstein's piece does a wonderful job of highlighting this reality in the context of a country often left out of the development discourse.
I have in recent days been preparing myself for the St. Andrew's Economic Forum, which is to take place this weekend - volcanic ash cloud permitting. I've been invited to moderate an exceptional panel on China-Africa relations, which will explore the developmental potential China brings to the continent, as well as other key issues pertaining to environmental sustainability, human rights, trends in Chinese investment and so forth.
In the course of my preparations, I happened to stumble upon a great piece by Richard Dowden - Director of the Royal African Society and one of the panelists - regarding the discovery this past March that millions of dollars in Western aid money which were sent to Ethiopia to aid victims of the 1984-5 famine were used not for purposes of food supplies, but rather to purchase weapons. This news of course set off bells and whistles among the donor community and do-gooder, pseudo-intellectual, save-the-planet types like Bono and - most prominently - 80s rock star Bob Geldof, whose 1985 Live Aid concert was used to fundraise for the cause. Geldof went on something of a rampage against the BBC - who first revealed the news - stating (shouting, in fact!): "Produce me one shred of evidence and I promise you I will professionally investigate it, I will professionally report it, and if there is any money missing I will sue the Ethiopian government for that money back and I will spend it on aid." Yes, good. Good luck with that.
Whilst Geldof's anger may be understandable, it altogether demonstrates a fantastic ignorance of Africa: its issues, needs and complexities. An ignorance which, unfortunately, persists today among celebrities and aid agencies who have placed themselves on a do-or-die mission to "save Africa." With respect to the Ethiopian case, Dowden hits the nail on the head:
The impression was made that nature had caused the great hunger, a terrible Biblical plague, an act of God. All the poor Ethiopians needed was food.
They did need food but they also needed peace. Rebel movements were driving the government and its army out of two mountainous region, Tigray and Eritrea. The government, headed by the military dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, was backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba and had the biggest army in Africa.
Mengistu ruled with brutal Soviet-style policies of forced migration and starvation. Traditional trade routes and the movement of much-needed food was impossible. The well-organised rebels received almost no help from anyone. They lived off the land, captured weapons from their enemy and taxed the people to buy more guns and ammunition.
Ethiopia's famine, Dowden goes on to aptly note, was ultimately caused not by a localised drought, but by a dictatorship that led to war. War disrupted trade, prevented food being moved in and caused famine. The aid community at the time failed to realize this - or perhaps chose not to. Raising funds for weaponry to support a rebel movement is arguably more difficult and less glamorous than fundraising to feed starving African children, whose pictures flash across TV screens and appear in glossy magazines. Yet the reality of aid politics in Africa is complex, messy and - often - unpleasant. The aid community must finally and fully come around to this realization and, moreover, must cease treating the continent as a helpless child in need of rescue. As the Ethiopian case makes plainly evident, Ethiopia in the 1980s understood what it needed - weapons. Africa today likewise understands what it needs - trade, aid, investment; the rise of a middle class and an educated, skilled population.
It's time to change the nature of the questions we've been posing regarding African development, and get real. And Bob, stop your shouting.
Conflict leads to state-building? The curious case of Kenya
Much of the over-hyped China rhetoric emanating from Washington is disregarding a crucial element of the story: China's strong import levels
Chinese and Indian defense planning, compared
Zambian views on Chinese firms from Zambian Trade Minister, Felix Mutati
A recent paper of mine, "From formal- to informal-sector employment: examining the Chinese presence in Zambia," has been published in the Review of African Political Economy. The paper in full can be found here (PDF; subscription may be required), and the abstract noted here below:
Keywords: Chinese entrepreneurs; labour relations; Zambia; mining; informal economy; economic development
The much anticipated announcement of Google's plans for its Chinese market has finally come down the pipeline. The company has pulled out of the Chinese market, with Mainland customers being redirected to Google.hk.com - Google's Hong Kong server - as of early this morning. From Google's official corporate blog:
Users visiting Google.cn are now being redirected to Google.com.hk, where we are offering uncensored search in simplified Chinese, specifically designed for users in mainland China and delivered via our servers in Hong Kong. Users in Hong Kong will continue to receive their existing uncensored, traditional Chinese service, also from Google.com.hk. Due to the increased load on our Hong Kong servers and the complicated nature of these changes, users may see some slowdown in service or find some products temporarily inaccessible as we switch everything over.
Chinese officials have issued angry remarks over the decision (the full text of which may be found here), accusing Google of violating corporate promises made when the company initially entered the Chinese market.
What Google's move actually means for the Chinese government, citizen access to information and foreign firms with operations in the country, however, stands to be determined. A few immediate scenarios come to mind. With respect to the former two matters, China could block the Hong Kong site altogether or indeed on a case-by-case basis, perhaps further using the incident to regulate Hong Kong's freedoms - a dangerous path upon which to embark, to be sure. If pursued, such a move could potentially result in an increasing percentage of China's citizenry learning how to use circumvention techniques to get around such censorship - or, perhaps, not. It is, as Rebecca MacKinnon observes, a question of how aware the Chinese are of their government-imposed and managed tunnel vision, and how determined they are to shake themselves from its shackles.
Beyond this, it wouldn't be surprising to find the government imposing increasingly stringent regulations on foreign companies breaking into the market in the future. Again, however, such an approach could potentially hamper FDI inflows into the country if orchestrated on a large enough scale, subsequently obstructing the CCP's objectives of increased investment and growth. Equally, then, growing in realization of the unaccommodating nature of its policies on FDI inflows into the country, we might observe a gradual liberalizing of CCP policies. 'Might' being the operative word in this context.
Indeed, Google's move this morning has seemingly opened a Pandora's box of question and possible policy options. It will be most interesting to track this story as it unfolds. It is most interesting, too, to a observe a corporation affecting a country's domestic - and potentially international - politics in such a profound way. For a great collection of papers on corporations and global governance, do please take a look at the St. Antony's International Review April 2009 issue, which focuses precisely on this very issue.
Posts
All Comments
