Criticisms of the Commission break down into two categories, which can be oversimplified as: suggestions that the Commission is too generous to Africa, and suggestions that it is not generous enough. You could call one set of criticisms essentially “left-wing” and one “right-wing,” but that would be more of an oversimplification still. What would be fairer is to say that one set of criticisms come primarily from more radical campaign groups, particularly smaller grassroots groups; and the other comes primarily from mainstream and conservative economists.

The nub of the first viewpoint is that the Commission is not radical enough in its goals or its proposals. Specifically, there’s a widespread complaint that the Commission should have spoken out more against the free-market policies that African governments have adopted in the last twenty years, largely at the behest of Western donors and the IMF and World Bank. This article by a Ghanaian journalist is a fine example, as is this article by Britain’s George Monbiot. Here’s the Ghanaian, Yao Graham:

True, some of the commission’s proposals are welcome: an extra $25bn year into the continent by 2010 (and a further $25bn by 2015); full debt cancellation for the poorest countries; and the end of rich country export subsidies in cotton, sugar and agriculture. But predictably, there’s a rather large catch. To qualify, Africa is asked to embrace what is called ‘good governance’, an innocent-sounding term hiding a free market agenda that puts the freedom of firms before the strengthening of citizenship and the rights of people.

As examples of the Commission’s “free market agenda”, Graham points out the lack of complaint in the report about environmental devastation and human rights abuses in the Niger Delta, or the privatisation of vital services like water. Both of these are examples of actions taken by private companies, often with the support of aid donor governments, which many African and foreign NGOs are opposed to. Monbiot develops the theme, though he’s not just talking about the Commission specifically.

I think Graham’s statement that the “good governance” talked about in the Commission’s report is primarily about free market access is simply inaccurate. The focus of the report’s discussions of governance is on corruption. But the wider comment, that the Report offers no serious restriction on the role of foreign private companies in Africa, is accurate. And it’s certainly true that both the Commission and the general tone of the mainstream debate about Africa tends to assume that, as Monbiot puts it, “Multinational corporations… are not the cause of Africa’s problems, but the solution”. But it’s not fair to suggest the Africa Commission is actively pushing free markets on African leaders. In fact, it specifically speaks out against policy conditions on aid and loans, the main way in which free-market policies have been pushed on African countries in the past.

A wider question that this opens up, though, is whether all this free marketing is actually a bad idea, as Graham and Monbiot state it is. It’s not something I want to get into now, but we’ll look at it more in future. There are certainly some horrible things in the recent history of Africa attributable to multinational companies, and some happening now. But it’s also hard to see a development path for Africa that doesn’t involve foreign investment.

If you want to think about it some more right now, this report includes several examples of this school of criticism.

Interstingly, this viewpoint tends to extend into criticism of the Commissioners themselves.It’s said that the Commission’s selection has a political bias, consisting mostly of those with an established commitment to free-market solutions to Africa’s problems: that, as this article puts it, they were “selected according to their ‘modernising’ credentials rather than their expertise.” This article introduces the Commissioners, calling them “A web of bankers, industrialists and political leaders with connections to the IMF and the World Bank, all committed to spreading the gospel of free market capitalism.”

It is, of course, unlikely that Blair would ever have put anyone on the Commission (and he did select it himself, or at least, his office did) who was going to severely criticise policies that the UK has been committed to for years. But to criticise the Commissioners for “links to the World Bank” seems a bit rich, given that it is, for all the criticisms of it, the world’s leading development institution. And to criticise Benjamin Mkapa, and Meles Zenawi, the leaders of Tanzania and Ethiopia, for steering their countries “directly into the arms of the IMF and World Bank” also seems slightly unreasonable: there is hardly any real aternative for a country dependent on aid and loans from those institutions for survival. My favourite is the criticism of activist Anna Tibaijuka, who “combines an active role in Tanzanian civil society forums with directorships in private companies dedicated to encouraging entrepreneurship and efficiency in the marketing of agricultural commodities.” Entrepeneurship and efficiency! Are they really saying these are the enemy?

I suppose what I’m saying is that the nine Africans on the Commission seem, to me, to be reasonably representative of mainstream educated African thought. The views the critics would have liked to see represented are perfectly valid, but they are quite radical, and, I think, rare amongst elected African leaders right now. But I don’t know this for certain.

That is a brief summary of the, for want of a better term, “left-wing” criticisms of the Africa Commission. I hope I haven’t been too biased in my description. The core issue - the place of free trade in Africa’s future - is something I’ll look at properly soon. Next, we’ll look at the other side of the coin - the “right-wing” critique.

UPDATE 05/06/07: Another left-wing critique.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other posts filed under: The Main Proposals, criticisms
]]> http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2007/05/07/criticisms-of-the-commission-for-africa/feed/ http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2006/12/07/because-trade-legislation-sunshine-clauses-can-be-exciting/ http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2006/12/07/because-trade-legislation-sunshine-clauses-can-be-exciting/#comments Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:39:07 +0000 Rav Casley Gera http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2006/12/07/because-trade-legislation-sunshine-clauses-can-be-exciting/ In my last post, I talked about the Africa Commission’s proposals for preference agreements, that give selected developing countries access to selected rich-world markets on a country-by-country basis. The Commission praises the US for loosening its agriculture preferences so that poor countries can export clothing they’ve manufactured to the US without punitive tarrifs - even if the original cloth was sourced from elsewhere. It turns out that far from being extended to the rest of the G8, these provisions are under threat of expiring in the US. I recieved the email below from the One campaign, the US version of Make Poverty History. Now, I haven’t looked into this in detail, but these preferences certainly seem like a good idea. Either way, if you want to see them renewed, the email below suggests things you can do - especially if you’re in the US.

Dear ONE Member,

Unless we take action now, up to 150,000 Africans, mostly women, could lose their jobs.

The “third-country fabric” provision of African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) must be renewed before the end of the year. This provision helps African businesses create jobs by allowing them to import fabric that they can then make into clothes to sell in the United States.

In September, ONE Members sent over 160,000 letters to members of Congress. We took out a full page ad in Roll Call, a daily newspaper read by members of Congress, with the names of ONE members who supported renewal of this important provision. We can now build on that momentum by reminding our representatives about this pressing issue today.

Please take a moment to write your representatives

AGOA passed in 2000 and increased trade opportunities in Africa giving some of the world’s poorest people new opportunities to earn a steady income, send their children to school, and build a hopeful future. But the crucial “third-country fabric” provision is set to expire next year.

Our action showed Congress that we support renewing this provision that’s helping Africans continue to work their way out of poverty. Our efforts helped put this on the negotiating table, and now we have one last chance to ensure that it’s passed before this Congress adjourns.

Please take a moment to write your representatives

Without it, hope for many who have benefited from AGOA will fade and tens of thousands could lose their opportunity to work their way out of poverty.

Thank you for your voice,

Josh Peck, ONE.org

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other posts filed under: Researcher's Log
]]> http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2006/12/07/because-trade-legislation-sunshine-clauses-can-be-exciting/feed/ http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2006/12/07/trade-rich-countries-responsibilities/ http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2006/12/07/trade-rich-countries-responsibilities/#comments Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:38:10 +0000 Rav Casley Gera http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2006/12/07/trade-rich-countries-responsibilities/ The discussion of how economic growth can help Africans out of poverty has often become a row between those who focus on the steps Africans and their governments can take to improve growth rates, and those who focus on the steps rich countries must take. As we saw last time, the Report of the Commission for Africa has much to say about the steps African countries can take to improve their economic performance. However, it has plenty to say about what rich countries must do too.

Drop agricultural subsidies.

Western agricultural subsidies are the whipping boy of the Africa debate - it’s hard to find anyone, from the left, right or middle of the political spectrum, who will really stick up for them.¹ So it’s not a massive shock to see the Report join the chorus, calling rich countries’ trade barriers (including subsidies) “politically antiquated, economically illiterate, environmentally destructive, and ethically indefensible” (p89). Rich countries spend 16 times as much on subsidising their farmers as on aid to Africa. Such subsidies artificially lower prices, pushing poor-country producers out of business. For example, US cotton farmers are paid twice the world price for cotton, and the resulting overproduction drives the price down, threatening the livelihoods of farmers in West Africa. The Commission calls for a commitment to ending all export subsidies and trade-distorting support - that excludes things like research funding - by 2010, with cotton and sugar subsidies immediately scrapped.²

Drop other barriers

Subsidies lower the prices African farmers can obtain for their exports; import tariffs (taxes) slash the potential benefits of exports even more by hitting African imports when they come into rich countries. Just as rich countries subsidise agriculture more than industry, they protect agriculture more with tariffs as well, with agricultural tariffs three to four times higher than manufacturing ones, punishing Africa in the sector which over 80% of its farmers rely on for their livelihoods. “It is essential,” the Commission notes, “that rich countries stop discriminating against the few goods in which Africa has a comparative advantage” (p95). It calls for a reduction of all tariffs (not just agriculture) to zero by 2015. They also call for more care to be paid to development issues when considering things like health and safety standards: for example, the EU’s standards on banana pesticides are stricter than international standards, blocking $410 million of African banana exports.³

The Commission notes that Africa’s share of world trade has actually dropped in recent decades, from around six per cent in 1980 to two per cent in 2002.

Extend and improve preference schemes

For all the barriers placed between African exports and Western markets, there are some cracks in the edifice, in the form of “preferences” - direct country-to-country agreements to improve access in particular goods. Prior to the wave of multilateral trade talks that began in the 1980’s, these agreements were the main way in which tariffs were reduced. The preferences that exist give African countries important market access in key areas, but they need to be extended to poor African states currently excluded, like Ghana and Kenya. Moreover, they need to be simplified - current regimes are overcomplicated and overstrict, the Commission claims. For example, rules that specify a product has to be made in the country exporting it, have in some cases been extended to rule out, for example, fish caught by a boat from one country if the boat’s captain is from another country. The US is actually ahead of this, requiring on agricultural arrangements only that the country in question manufacture the goods, not worrying about the source of the fabrics. The Commission calls for this pattern to be adopted by other rich countries, and extended to other manufacturing. Such changes could ultimately increase African growth by 1%.

One-way concessions in trade talks

Ultimately though, the Commission recognises that multilateral agreements, not preference schemes, are the long-term solution to Africa’s trade problems. The report calls for a strong deal in the Doha round of World Trade Organisation negotiations by the end of 2006. What’s more, it asks that the steps outlined above be taken by rich countries without reciprocal concessions by poor countries. As the Commission notes, “this is not a level playing field,” and Africa needs to be allowed to lower its trade barriers at a slower pace.

This ultimately became a huge sticking point at the WTO negotiations, in Hong Kong in December 2005 and in Geneva in July 2006. While there was widespread agreement that rich countries should cut their tariffs and subsidies, particularly on agriculture, there were strong demands from rich countries that it make reciprocal concessions. Ultimately, this derailed the talks completely, and the Doha round is now widely considered over. It’s been said that the US was to blame, but the US denies being inflexible.

I’ll go into detail about the trade issue later on. It’s probably the most complex and bitter, with aid agencies disagreeing even about the importance of the Doha round’s collapse, some calling it “a disaster” and some “the best outcome for the world’s poor.” The Commission’s demand for African countries to be required to make no immediate concessions is comparatively strident, though, putting it in dispute with both the EU and US’ official positions.

Overall, the Commission’s proposals for ensuring growth are broad and quite comprehensive. But a central criticism of recent development thinking is that, while it’s adept at promoting growth, it forgets about making sure growth benefits the poor. So the Commission also devotes considerable time discussing how to spread the benefits of growth to those traditionally excluded from them - how, in their words, to “leave no-one out.”

1. OK, not everyone. And those who do agree they’re part of the problem are dragging their heels on scrapping them; this was one of the key disagreements behind the collapse of the Doha round of trade negotiations. More on that later. Nevertheless, cutting subsidies has the crucial advantage of appealing to both sides of politics: left-wingers like it because they think it will benefit poor countries, and right-wingers like it because they see subsidies as wasteful and distorting of free markets.
2. The Commission called for these moves to be made at the December 2005 meeting of the WTO in Hong Kong. Nothing of the sort happened, and the Doha round of WTO negotiations all but collapsed in Geneva in July 2006. But major reductions in subsidies remain a goal of the negotiations, should they ever be completed.
3. Seriously, how do they measure these things?

*No puns till I get some donations. I warned you!

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other posts filed under: The Main Proposals
]]> http://brasstacks.org.uk/africa/blog/2006/12/07/trade-rich-countries-responsibilities/feed/