By Dr Fred van der Kraaij
Ferguson’s conclusion is shared by Lee and Schultz who illustrate its validity with the example of Cameroon, one of the few African countries including regions that were colonized by separate powers, France and the UK, before being united after independence.
The second article focuses on Africa, notably the former British and French colonies. The general conclusion is that former French-speaking countries in Africa are, in recent years, lagging behind English-speaking countries. Among the explanations given are notably the lack of infrastructure, a poor governance culture and bad governance.
Jean-Marino Severino, manager at Investisseur et Partenaire pour le Developpement (I&P), particularly mentions the lack of infrastructure in French-speaking countries and also points to the fact that the common currency among French-speaking countries in both West and Central Africa, the CFA franc, may have been more of a burden than a blessing. Thierry Tanoh, vice president of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), revisits the infrastructure issue as well as the size of the market, which he considers the two major weaknesses of the CFA bloc.
Bouthelier Anthony, deputy chairman of the French Council of Investors in Africa (CIAN) argues that ‘regionalisation of the market works better in (anglophone) East Africa than in (francophone) West Africa’. Serge Michailof, professor at the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris thinks along the same lines and emphasizes the importance of the training of administrative elites, especially by the UK, and the resulting ‘mind set’: private business is essential for the development process.
The Chief Economist of the World Bank, Shanta Devarajan, takes a more nuanced stance. He suggests that the gap between the two language blocs is ‘not as strong as we think’ and that English-speaking countries have also gone through some tough times. He blames the system of funding by the states and the corruption of civil servants and politicians who do not seem to be concerned about the proper use of public funds.
Devarajan also points out that there are more landlocked French-speaking countries in Africa than English-speaking, and that the high costs of infrastructural inadequacies negatively affect these countries’ international competitive position.
All remarks have their merits though a number of observations seems to be warranted. Following the focus of the articles on former British and ex-French colonies and assuming that for this reason a distinction between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa is not justified, and considering that it is more useful to have a glance at post-independence achievements rather than at those of recent years, I like to comment along the following lines.
However, first, let me put the record straight.
(1) ‘Africa’ consists of 54 independent countries and there were as many colonies though there is not a one-to-one relationship . The UK had 20 colonies including trusteeships, France too.
(2) Roughly speaking, Africa’s aggregate Gross National Product – i.e. the combined total of all 54 countries – equals that of the Netherlands. The five largest economies are, in order of importance: the Republic of South Africa (RSA), Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. In Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) the two dominating economic powers, RSA and Nigeria, account for more than half of SSA’s total GNP leaving 47 countries share the remaining half!
(3) Also Africa’s population is very unevenly distributed. The total population of the continent, including the island states, is approximately 1 billion people. Nearly half lives in only five countries: Nigeria (155 mln), Egypte (90 mln), Ethiopia (88 mln), DRC (70 mln) and RSA (50 mln) .
Let me now turn to the two articles’ main thrust: ‘Are francophone countries in Africa lagging behind their Anglophone neighbours?’
As said, interpreting this question as ‘colonized by the French’ and ‘colonized by the British’, and making no distinction between official colonies, mandate territories and trusteeships, the question thus concerns 40 African countries with an aggregate population of about 800 million people.
First, neither the English-speaking nor the French-speaking countries form a homogeneous group. There exists an enormous variety as to size of the population, land area, endowement with natural resources, geographical location, and post-independence political stability to mention only these characteristics.
The anglophone group includes small countries such as The Gambia, two landlocked counties in Southern Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, and the island states of Mauritius and the Sechelles. However, the group also includes big countries such as Egypt, Nigeria, the RSA, Tanzania and – until recently, Sudan.
Also the francophone group is very diverse: five countries are larger than one milion sq kilometres: Algeria (over 2 million sq kilometres!), Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger though important parts of these countries form the Sahara desert - whereas Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, and the island state of the Comores rank among the smallest countries of the continent.
With respect to the countries’ natural resource endowements the ‘rich’ ones in the anglophone group are Botswana (diamonds), Ghana (gold), Nigeria (oil), Republic of South Africa (gold, diamonds, and many more), Sierra Leone (diamonds) and Zambia (copper). In the francophone group: Algeria (oil), Central African Republic, (diamonds), Chad (oil), Gabon (oil), Guinea-Conakry (bauxite), Niger (uranium) and Togo (phosphate). In general, the anglophone countries in Southern Africa are richer in natural resources than the former French colonies in West and Central Africa.
Secondly, in the group of English-speaking countries five countries went through a period of civil war or extremely political turmoil after independence: Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone in West Africa, and Sudan and Uganda in East Africa. Of these five countries nowadays three are doing well: Ghana and Uganda, after introducing macroeconomic reforms and with important help of the international community, and Nigeria because of the oil boom and its huge population.
French-speaking Benin, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, Comores, Congo-Brazzaville, Mauritania and Niger experienced political instability triggered by various military coups d’état, Algeria was in the 1990s on the brink of a civil war whereas Ivory Coast just recently saw its civil war ended. In general, politically instable countries are doing badly though the adverse effects may be tempered by the export of stragically important commodities. Nigeria is a good example in the anglophone group, Algeria in the French-speaking group.
Thirdly, the reliability of economic and other data varies but is low in general. In many countries the so-called informal, i.e. unregistered, sector is very important, sometimes as big or even more important than the official economy. World Bank and other international organizations estimate the size of the informal sector but also here the resulting figures are good guesstimates.
The same applies for immigrant workers’remittances to their families at home. Population data are notorious for their unreliability, notably in the absence of a recent population census. Other causes for unreliable demographic statistics are famines and wars resulting in refugees to neighboring countries, internally displaced persons (IPDs), and unknown numbers of casualties.
Fourth, it is interesting to group the former British and french colonies in the following three categories: (i) island states, (ii) landlocked countries, and (iii) seaside or coastal countries. Several commentators have emphasized the disadvantage of landlocked countries and the importance of infrastructure.
Island states
Four former colonies turned into island states: Mauritius and the Seychelles (UK) and the Comores and Madagascar (France).
Undisputably, Mauritius – with a population of around 2 million though hardly possessing any raw materials – is doing economically well. However, the huge island state of Madagascar – almost 600,000 sq km and a population of some 20 million - has not realized its economic potential, notably in the agricultural sector. Neither the Seychelles nor the Comores can boast of major achievements though the Seychelles is politically more stable and doing economically slightly better. Both countries are sparsely populated (less than 1 million).
Landlocked countries
Landlocked countries usually face high transportation costs, both for imports and exports, and have less benefitted from colonial financed infrastructure than coastal countries.
Surprisingly, the former British colonies being landlocked countries outnumber the former French colonies: 8 resp 5 . The 13 countries greatly differ. A number of them is sparsely populated, some are well endowed with natural resources, a few are vast, most of them politically unstable.
Four of het former British colonies are well endowed with natural resources: Botswana (diamonds), South Sudan (oil), Zambia (copper) and Zimbabwe (agriculture). Of these four countries, only Botswana is doing well, economically, and politically stable. Life expectancy, however, is falling due to the aids pandemic. South Sudan only became independent in July 2011, economic data are therefore lacking, and the country has yet to prove its political stability.
The Zambian economy benefited from the high copper prices in the period following independence but has since seriously declined as a result of wrong economic policies. Also here, life expectancy is decreasing because of the aids epidemic. The Zimbabwean economy is in ruins after 30 years of independence. Though politically more or less stable the economy is seriously mismanaged.
The other four former British colonies – Lesotho, Malawi, Uganda and Swaziland – though nowadays politically more or less stable, are no economic success stories, with the exception of Uganda. After much politial turmoil in the 1970s the country has experienced political stability since 1986 and benefited from important donor attention and funds.
Summarizing: Two out of eight countries are doing well: Mauritius (2 million pop.) on its own forces, Uganda (over 30 mln pop.) under strong leadership and after economic reforms supported by the international community.
The French colonial empire included vast areas of apparent useless land, notably in West Africa (Sahara desert). All five countries dramatically experienced political instability. Three of the five former colonies each cover more than 1 million sq km and are sparsely populated. Communications and infrastructure are major problems. Only two of them possess important reserves of natural resources: Chad (oil) and Niger (uranium).
To a lesser extent are diamonds important for the Central African Republic (CAR), and – rather recently – gold in Mali. Burkina Faso is probably the poorest country with the least potential, yet in recent years it is doing not badly, given its limited potential. Mali represents a success story in the field of agriculture: whereas it was a food importing country in the 1970s and 1980s it is now self sufficient in food and even a food exporting country.
Summarizing: None of the five countries is doing extremely well despite the natural resources in two of them (Chad and Niger).
Coastal countries
Over half of the 40 countries – former British and French colonies - are coastal countries. They are:
Former British colonies (9) : Egypt, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, North Sudan, Tanzania, Republic of South Africa (RSA).
Former French colonies (13): Algeria, Benin, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea-Conakry, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Togo, Tunisia.
The following English-speaking countries are doing economically well : Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, RSA and Uganda whereas RSA, Nigeria and Egypt belong to the group of ‘top’ African economies - all-in relative terms of course (see my previous remark on the comparison with the Dutch economy). In the group of French-speaking countries Algeria, Gabon (more or less), Morocco and Tunisia are doing well.
Overall conclusion:
Eight English-speaking African countries are doing well respectively above average whereas ‘only’ three or four French-speaking countries merit the same qualification. Therefore I tend to agree with World Bank Chief Economist Shanta Devarajan. The gap between the two language blocs is not as strong as some people suggest.
What explains now the success or failure of African economies? Hundreds of books and articles have already been written on this question and I will not pretend to be able to summarize in a few lines the answer. Besides, I have amply demonstrated above how diverse the picture is.
I even dare to say No one country resembles another. However, I am not convinced by the arguments of those who claim that the culture or language of the colonizing power forms an acceptable explanation for the differences in achievements that can be noted across the African congtinent.
I will end here with drawing attention to a number of important characteristics that countries that are doing well share though it is in line with my previous statements that there are always exceptions.
Countries that are doing well are:
• Coastal countries
• Well endowed with natural resources
• With a relatively big population
• Politically stable and with no violent conflict (civil war)
• Sound macroeconomic policies
• Investing in agriculture & infrastructure
No comments:
Post a Comment