TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » The Principle of the Thing

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 19-07-11, 05:25 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default Free trade is not what Africa needs, Mr Cameron

Free trade is not what Africa needs, Mr Cameron

African prosperity relies on a wholesale rejection of the western free trade model, which is unlikely to be the view of David Cameron or the delegates he's travelling with in Africa



On his trip to South Africa yesterday, David Cameron talked of the need to go beyond debt cancellation and aid "to make African free trade the common purpose of the continent". He lamented there has never once been "a march or a concert to call for … an African free trade area". He pointed to the need for more inter-African trade to facilitate the growth that would mean "businesses growing, new jobs on offer, families on the up, living standards transformed".

Cameron's vision is far from "fresh", and is certainly not a radical extension of the anti-poverty agenda that led to a movement of millions of people calling for debt justice and the meeting of long overdue aid commitments. He repeats an orthodoxy that says the interests of the corporate delegates accompanying Cameron are the same as the interests of ordinary people across the African continent. Nearly three years into a global crisis caused by unbridled financial freedom, this orthodoxy should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

In 2003, Cameron would have been one of the MPs lobbied by 10,000 trade justice campaigners, while in 2005 he can hardly fail to remember the 250,000 people gathered in Edinburgh making the same demand. The debt and trade justice movements have never been simply arguments for more aid, but for a radical restructuring of the global economy and financial sector. They are all about enabling Africa to use its own resources for its own benefit – to genuinely enable countries to outgrow aid dependence.

The problem is that this agenda doesn't fit with Cameron's "free trade" ideology, or the interests of his delegation, which includes companies such as Barclays, G4S, Vodafone, Diageo and PricewaterhouseCoopers. So the premise of Cameron's article is to make it appear that there is only one possible way forward – free trade – and all right-thinking people who care about poverty and inequality must support this agenda.

But trade on the wrong terms has been of no benefit to Africa – rather it has ripped open markets, destroyed infant industries, undermined control of food production, and exploited resources. It is the opposite of what Africa needs.

Multinational companies operating in Africa are nothing new. According to Global Financial Integrity, between 1970 and 2008, Africa lost $850bn to $1.8tn in "illicit financial outflows", most importantly forgone tax paid by corporations. Such a loss of capital led to the need for countries to borrow, in turn leading to a debt crisis during which capital poured out of the continent and into the coffers of rich countries.

Today, the debt of sub-Saharan Africa still stands at nearly $200bn. Aid now accounts for $47bn, though debt repayments still cost $18bn every year, while much of the aid itself comes in the form of new loans or is simply handed to western corporations working in the country concerned.

Cameron says economic growth "will lift tens of millions out of poverty in the long run" but, again, it depends what sort of growth. Growth in recent years, in an environment where corporations are increasingly free to go where they like when they like, has become ever less effective at fighting poverty, and has made the world much less equal. The New Economics Foundation has shown that in the 1990s, for every $100 worth of growth in the world's income per person, just $0.60 contributed to reducing poverty for those living on less than a dollar a day.

Cameron is right that the idea of more inter-African trade is vitally important. But for years, inter-African trade has been discouraged by rich countries and a global trading system that uses Africa as a source of primary commodities for growth elsewhere. For example, European Union attempts to foist Economic Partnership Agreements on African countries give preferential access to European companies, thereby thwarting African attempts at integration. There are clear reasons why "for much of the continent it is easier to trade with Europe or America than it is to trade with a neighbour", and it has little to do with "red tape".

Africa has much to learn from South Korea, the model Cameron rather surprisingly raises. South Korea used a range of government interventions that are heretical in the free trade religion.

African prosperity relies on a wholesale rejection of the western "free trade" model. It means protecting industries, developing alternative and complementary means of trading, control of food production and banking, progressive tax structures, controlled use of savings, and strong regulation to ensure trade and investment really benefits people. This is unlikely to be the view of most of Cameron's corporate partners – if it was we would never have needed to march for justice in the first place.

Free trade is not what Africa needs, MrCameron | Nick Dearden | Global development | guardian.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 19-07-11, 05:38 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

I am quite partial to the "protect infant industries" logic that says that, early in their development, countries need to protect their markets.

But I think 'free trade' could also work. IF it was truly free. When the EU closes its markets to African agricultural exports and, on top, requires unfettered access to their markets, this is NOT free trade - it's free trade when it suits us...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 19-07-11, 05:47 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
Africa has much to learn from South Korea, the model Cameron rather surprisingly raises. South Korea used a range of government interventions that are heretical in the free trade religion.
But various African countries already tried South Korean style development - it didn't work. Just protecting some random industry won't turn it into Samsung by magic. The products need to have something going for them to begin with, or you're just pouring money into a big, gaping hole of uselessness. South Korea already had a bunch of people with hi-tech skills when it started on the policy; protectionism just gave the companies a little space to grow. Africa hasn't got that.

Quote:
For example, European Union attempts to foist Economic Partnership Agreements on African countries give preferential access to European companies, thereby thwarting African attempts at integration. There are clear reasons why "for much of the continent it is easier to trade with Europe or America than it is to trade with a neighbour", and it has little to do with "red tape".
Well I hate the concept of foreign aid as much as the next guy, but that's not the only thing, is it? It's impossible to fucking transport anything in Africa. So Western countries only invest in big infrastructure projects because it's their own companies who benefit, but it's better than nothing.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 19-07-11, 06:04 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
But various African countries already tried South Korean style development - it didn't work.
Which ones? By far the largest influence has been IMF-imposed "deregulation", which prevented precisely that sort of thing, plus miscellaneous looting and misery.

Quote:
Just protecting some random industry won't turn it into Samsung by magic. The products need to have something going for them to begin with, or you're just pouring money into a big, gaping hole of uselessness. South Korea already had a bunch of people with hi-tech skills when it started on the policy; protectionism just gave the companies a little space to grow. Africa hasn't got that.
Sure. But, for example, leaving local companies open to takeover by foreign firms only serves to ship wealth out of the country. Given the relatively low level of infrastructure in Africa, most of the businesses that would flourish are relatively low level stuff. This wasn't necessarily an argument for creating or protecting firms which will produce exports from Africa as such, or compete in the larger international marketplace. A company which produces tractors, or mortorcycles or something, not as consumer commodities but as working machines, would be far more appropriate.

Quote:
Well I hate the concept of foreign aid as much as the next guy, but that's not the only thing, is it? It's impossible to fucking transport anything in Africa. So Western countries only invest in big infrastructure projects because it's their own companies who benefit, but it's better than nothing.
Sure, but when those deals come with riders like a century of exclusive mineral rights, and a bung to the appropriate minister for saying yes, the deal isn't necessarily a good one.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 19-07-11, 06:07 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
But I think 'free trade' could also work. IF it was truly free. When the EU closes its markets to African agricultural exports and, on top, requires unfettered access to their markets, this is NOT free trade - it's free trade when it suits us...
Thing is though, even if it was totally, perfectly free, its fairly improbable (with a few exceptions) that an indigenous african company could compete with with the international giants. So in order to get any kind of domestic industry rolling, so the argument goes, some form of protection will be needed. It would be reasonable to leave them in a sheltered state until such time as they have developed into something more robust.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 12:37 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

As I said - I am well inclined towards time-limited protectionism. And indeed, barriers to entry in established segments do make a strong case for early protectionism/infant industries concept.

The thing is, though, you got to acknowledge that you're hurting your local customers "for the greater good" and also you got to make it crystal clear that these protections are temporary (even if they last a decade) - because, otherwise, all kind of bad behaviours happen when companies are protected from competitive forces...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 12:52 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
Which ones? By far the largest influence has been IMF-imposed "deregulation", which prevented precisely that sort of thing, plus miscellaneous looting and misery.
Can't remember exact examples. (Algeria, maybe?). If they come back I'll tell you.

Quote:
Sure. But, for example, leaving local companies open to takeover by foreign firms only serves to ship wealth out of the country. Given the relatively low level of infrastructure in Africa, most of the businesses that would flourish are relatively low level stuff. This wasn't necessarily an argument for creating or protecting firms which will produce exports from Africa as such, or compete in the larger international marketplace. A company which produces tractors, or mortorcycles or something, not as consumer commodities but as working machines, would be far more appropriate.
Unless they can make them better than the competition, it's still not going to work. You just end up forcing locals to buy crappy products at high prices, without creating a viable industry.

Quote:
Sure, but when those deals come with riders like a century of exclusive mineral rights, and a bung to the appropriate minister for saying yes, the deal isn't necessarily a good one.
Well every system has its flaws. our officials accept pay-offs too, and sell public property at ridiculously low prices (Qinetic, anyone?).
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 02:41 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
The thing is, though, you got to acknowledge that you're hurting your local customers "for the greater good" and also you got to make it crystal clear that these protections are temporary (even if they last a decade) - because, otherwise, all kind of bad behaviours happen when companies are protected from competitive forces...
Except of course that those customers you are "hurting" are also being helped by having local jobs. And there is a big difference between protecting a country from external competetion and doing something like guarnteeing a company's survival. There will still be competition locally, so that concern does not apply.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 02:46 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Can't remember exact examples. (Algeria, maybe?). If they come back I'll tell you.
Well OK, but Algeria is't really what is usually referred to as "Africa". The north African states are, relatively speaking, quite well developed. I'm mainly interested in sub-suharan Africa.

Quote:
Unless they can make them better than the competition, it's still not going to work. You just end up forcing locals to buy crappy products at high prices, without creating a viable industry.
But as above, you also give them jobs. It will be no good to anyone if, say, a local canning factory goes out of business to be replaced by cheaper imports if you don't have a job which allows to buy you those imports. And that is precisely the effect that IMF-imposed "reforms" have repeatedly had.

Quote:
Well every system has its flaws. our officials accept pay-offs too, and sell public property at ridiculously low prices (Qinetic, anyone?).
Yes. Why would we want to export those flaws to Africa?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 20-07-11, 02:50 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
But as above, you also give them jobs. It will be no good to anyone if, say, a local canning factory goes out of business to be replaced by cheaper imports if you don't have a job which allows to buy you those imports. And that is precisely the effect that IMF-imposed "reforms" have repeatedly had.
Which they use to buy Korean stuff because it's still better than what they're producing themselves. Continue until Korea has all your money.

Quote:
Yes. Why would we want to export those flaws to Africa?
I think the Africans are doing it pretty well for themselves.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 4
contracycle, Gilles de Rais, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0