Connect with us

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

How does the BRICS Currency Transform the World Economy?

Published

on

Spread the love

By  Yaroslav Lissovolik

The creation of a BRICS currency has become throughout the past year one of the headline themes related not only to BRICS, but also the global financial markets. Along with the skepticism coming from most of the pundits from the developed world there is also an enormous number of misconceptions and unsubstantiated claims of the speedy “demise of the dollar” and the crumbling of the global financial system due to the creation of a common BRICS currency. In reality the actual scenario and the modalities of the introduction of such a currency are yet to be determined and it could well be that in the first stages of the launching of the BRICS currency it could take the form of an accounting unit rather than a full-fledged international transactions currency. But even in the guise of a unit of account for the economies of the Global South the R5 (taking its name from the first letters of BRICS respective currencies) could have a significant effect on the international financial system and deliver important benefits to the economies of the developing world.

The first forays into the R5 common currency project and the use of BRICS as a platform for de-dollarization, were undertaken by Y. Lissovolik back in 2017-2018 in a series of publications for the Valdai club1 as well as the South African Joburg Post and “The Thinker”2. The subsequent discussions around R5 while mostly revolving around the creation of a full-fledged euro-like currency for international transactions also featured such alternative paths as a reserve currency, or an accounting unit. The latter would in fact be the easiest and perhaps the most realistic scenario for the first stages of the R5 project. According to the leading experts in the field, the creation of an accounting unit for BRICS could be realistically undertaken with minimal resources and could be implemented in a relatively short period of time3.

Rather than rushing to create a physical unit to service international transactions, a staged approach that involves the creation of an accounting unit allows for tracking the volatility and stabilizing expectations around the operation of the future BRICS currency. The launching of the new BRICS currency in the form of a physical medium of exchange may well be greeted with speculative attacks and attempts to test the resilience of the new currency to the full force of global capital markets. Accordingly, in terms of the sequencing of the BRICS currency it may make sense to prioritize the creation of an accounting unit first and to accompany this effort with the development of market infrastructure in the main financial centers of the Global South that can support this project.

Apart from the simplicity of its introduction this mode of R5 is also in line with international best practice – in particular with such instruments as the Euro and the SDR. Furthermore, the “accounting unit” route has the advantage of being flexible, with one or several BRICS countries having the capability to launch such a currency format on their own, without the need for participation from all BRICS members. The resulting balance of pros and cons suggests that the creation of R5 as an accounting unit would minimize the risks, while retaining a lot of the benefits associated with a common currency, i.e. the easiest way to create the BRICS global currency – via the introduction of an accounting unit – is also the most optimal in the near term.

As for the R5 impact, perhaps the most important aspect in which the BRICS currency changes the world economy is the change in the mindset and the mentality of economic agents and businesses that is currently centered very much on the greenback. This “mental dependency” on the dollar arises from the fact that it is central in pricing, accounting and statistics across the globe – whether in advanced or the developing economies. The introduction of a BRICS accounting unit that replaces the dollar in the major economies of the developing world would provide a different reference point for emerging markets and a different lens through which businesses track the BRICS+ economies. Expectations of economic agents would be increasingly geared towards the new BRICS currency with greater attention accorded by global markets to the monetary policy decisions in BRICS countries rather than being overly fixated on the minutest of signals from the Fed.

Another reason why the issue of a BRICS currency is seen as being so critical is the credibility and stature that it delivers to BRICS as a block with a global reach. Thus far, the main achievements of BRICS have largely been associated with the creation of the New Development Bank – something that falls short of sizeable transformation in global governance or the international financial system. It is the creation of a new global currency by the BRICS bloc that would represent a veritable innovation and a transformation of the global economy with a qualitatively different stature attained by the grouping on the international arena.

In qualitative terms the introduction of a BRICS currency could impact the direction and the quality of macroeconomic policy pursued by BRICS members. My sense is that the emergence of R5 would somewhat reduce the tolerance of BRICS monetary authorities to sizeable swings in the exchange rate of their respective national currencies. There may also be greater coordination of macroeconomic policies of BRICS and BRICS+ economies to ensure a smoother trajectory towards implementing the subsequent stages of the introduction of R5. The overall quality of macroeconomic policies is also likely to improve to ensure a secure macroeconomic foundation for the operation of the future common currency. In fact, recent developments may be suggestive of such trends in the monetary policy sphere as some of the emerging markets acted earlier and more decisively in warding off inflationary pressures compared to the Fed and other Central Banks from developed economies.

And then there is of course the reaction from global financial markets to the introduction of the BRICS currency. The very introduction of R5 as an accounting unit could feed expectations of greater future demand for BRICS currencies as the R5 project advances to the stage of reserve currency and/or physical unit of exchange. The creation of R5 could also fuel the use of national currencies (including those of BRICS) in international trade. At the same time, the dollar may start to lose ground due to expectations of lower shares in global FX and commodity trade transactions. Accordingly, on balance the emergence of R5 would likely favor EM currencies, most notably the yuan, with some negative effect for the US dollar – the scale of these effects will depend on the exact modalities of the BRICS currency. The impact on the greenback is unlikely to be sizeable in the short-term as uncertainty concerning the future of the BRICS currency will remain significant. The effect on the yuan will be relatively more pronounced compared to other EM currencies due to the higher weight that the Chinese currency may have in the R5 basket and the relative importance for China of the resulting change in the geo-economics of the global financial system.

There could also be risks associated with the introduction of a common BRICS currency such as the scenario of the excessive zeal in introducing “advanced modifications” of the R5 in the form of a physical unit of exchange. There is a somewhat disconcerting predilection on the part of many market participants to advocate the creation of such a BRICS currency in digital form with lots of supplements such as oil or gold to be used to back this currency. This may be due in part to the abundance of speculative appetites around the creation of the new currency that favor a price boost to bitcoin, gold or other dollar competitors. But the end purpose of the BRICS common currency is greater wealth creation for the households and businesses of the Global South rather than servicing the interests of market speculators. In this regard, it may be preferable to make things transparent and simple during the early stages of the R5 project for the sake of its credibility. Another risk is the volatility issue of the R5 basket and its underlying national currencies – this calls for preparatory work to be done with respect to the depth and quality of supporting market infrastructure.

Overall, there may be important dividends for BRICS even with a minimalist approach of opting at first for the path of an accounting unit for R5. The impact of the creation of such a currency for the global economy, business operations and the international economic policy debate could also be significant in the near term. Going forward, it is crucial that the creation of the new BRICS currency is not centered solely on the creation of an alternative to the dollar – rather at an early stage the key priorities of the R5 project need to be focused on building greater trust in the financial systems and currency instruments in the Global South, to facilitating greater South-South trade and investment as well as the development of deeper capital markets. The BRICS currency will also need to serve as a credible anchor for those developing economies that will be increasingly re-orienting their trade and investment flows to the Global South. In the longer term as it advances to the stage of a reserve currency the R5 will contribute to a more balanced global monetary system and will compete for greater prominence alongside the US dollar and other leading reserve currencies. After all, as Western economic thought has it (compliments of Vilfredo Pareto), fair competition is one of the cornerstones of efficient and wealth-enhancing markets.

Author’s note: first published in BRICS+ Analytics

1 Y. Lissovolik. Monetizing BRICS+: introducing the R5 initiative. Valdai club. August 30, 2017. https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/monetizing-brics-r5/

2 https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/boosting-the-use-of-national-currencies-among-brics/

3 https://tass.ru/interviews/17281219

Courtesy: Modern Diplomacy


Spread the love
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Lifting the Bottom Billion: Will It Work This Time?

Published

on

By

Spread the love

Imagine being part of a billion people stuck in a cycle of extreme poverty—unable to break free due to war, corruption, lack of education, and isolation from global markets. These individuals make up what economist Paul Collier famously termed the “Bottom Billion.” Despite countless international efforts to address their struggles, many remain trapped in some of the most challenging conditions on earth, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. With new strategies and technologies emerging, the big question is: Will it work this time? In this article, we’ll dive into the latest global initiatives and the hurdles still standing in the way of lifting the Bottom Billion out of poverty once and for all.

Understanding the Bottom Billion Crisis

For decades, poverty reduction efforts have centered on providing aid, improving infrastructure, and addressing public health issues. However, the situation for the Bottom Billion is complex and often resistant to traditional development strategies. According to Collier, these individuals are caught in one or more of four traps: conflict, natural resource dependence, landlocked countries with bad neighbors, and poor governance. These traps create cyclical poverty that is difficult to escape.

Recent data shows that while global poverty rates have decreased—thanks to economic growth in places like China and India—the situation for the Bottom Billion remains unchanged in many regions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, continues to struggle with high poverty rates, despite decades of international aid. The challenge is not just about money; it’s about addressing the root causes that keep these populations poor.

Current Global Efforts: What’s Being Done?

Several initiatives have been put in place to address the unique challenges faced by the Bottom Billion. These include:

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to end poverty in all its forms by 2030. Goal 1 specifically targets the eradication of extreme poverty, focusing on providing social safety nets, access to basic services, and job creation. While the SDGs offer a comprehensive approach, progress has been uneven, particularly in conflict-affected regions where governance and infrastructure are weak.

2. International Aid and Debt Relief

Foreign aid and debt relief programs have been crucial in offering immediate assistance to impoverished nations. In 2020, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank launched initiatives to alleviate debt for the world’s poorest countries, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The IMF’s Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) has temporarily freed up resources that these countries can use for critical healthcare and social services. But critics argue that aid, while necessary, often doesn’t address the systemic issues—like governance and corruption—that perpetuate poverty.

3. Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship

Microfinance has been a popular tool for lifting people out of poverty. By providing small loans to individuals, particularly women, microfinance initiatives aim to stimulate local businesses and empower communities. Organizations like Grameen Bank and Kiva have made significant strides, but scaling these efforts to reach the Bottom Billion remains a challenge. Social entrepreneurship—businesses that focus on generating social impact rather than profit—has also emerged as a promising solution, but its effectiveness is still debated.

The Role of Technology in Poverty Alleviation

One of the most promising developments in the fight against poverty is the role of technology. In recent years, digital tools have shown the potential to bridge gaps in education, healthcare, and financial services.

1. Mobile Banking and Digital Inclusion

Mobile banking, particularly in countries like Kenya with platforms like M-Pesa, has revolutionized financial access for the poor. These platforms allow users to transfer money, save, and even access loans without needing a traditional bank account. For the Bottom Billion, many of whom live in rural or underserved areas, mobile banking provides a lifeline for economic participation. However, challenges around digital literacy and infrastructure still need to be addressed.

2. Online Education and E-Learning Platforms

Education is another area where technology can make a transformative impact. The rise of e-learning platforms offers the opportunity to bring quality education to even the most remote regions. Projects like Khan Academy and Coursera have made strides in offering free educational content to people worldwide, but scaling this in regions where internet access is scarce or expensive remains a hurdle.

3. Telemedicine and Healthcare Access

Telemedicine has the potential to bridge gaps in healthcare, particularly in areas where access to hospitals or doctors is limited. With the help of mobile technology, remote consultations and diagnostics are becoming more common in developing countries. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has become a critical tool, allowing healthcare workers to reach vulnerable populations. However, expanding this service to the Bottom Billion will require investment in both digital infrastructure and healthcare systems.

One of the biggest barriers to lifting the Bottom Billion out of poverty is poor governance. Corruption, weak institutions, and lack of transparency make it difficult for aid and development programs to reach those who need them most. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index consistently shows that the most impoverished countries are also among the most corrupt.

In countries with poor governance, even well-meaning efforts can fail. Aid money often doesn’t reach its intended recipients, infrastructure projects stall, and political instability exacerbates existing problems. Addressing governance issues is critical to making any poverty alleviation program successful.

So, will it work this time? The answer lies in a multifaceted approach that goes beyond just financial aid. Here are a few key elements that must be addressed for any hope of success:

  1. Improving Governance: Without addressing corruption and weak institutions, any efforts will be undermined. Initiatives that promote transparency, accountability, and democratic governance will be crucial.
  2. Inclusive Economic Growth: Economic development must reach the most marginalized groups, particularly women, rural communities, and those living in conflict zones. Programs that focus on building local economies and creating jobs will be vital.
  3. Leveraging Technology: Digital tools offer immense potential, but they must be accessible to all. Expanding internet access and digital literacy will be key in enabling the Bottom Billion to participate in the global economy.
  4. Local Solutions for Local Problems: Global strategies must be adapted to local contexts. What works in Southeast Asia may not work in sub-Saharan Africa. Engaging local communities in the decision-making process is essential for sustainable progress.

Lifting the Bottom Billion is one of the most daunting challenges of our time. While the task is immense, it is not impossible. By focusing on good governance, inclusive growth, and technological innovation, the global community has a chance to make meaningful progress in reducing extreme poverty. Will it work this time? Only if we approach the problem with a comprehensive, targeted, and sustainable strategy. The stakes are high, but the rewards—improving the lives of a billion people—are worth every effort.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Easing Africa’s Debt Burdens: a Fresh Approach, Based on an Old Idea

Published

on

By

Spread the love

 

In his address to the 79th session of the UN general assembly this week, South African president Cyril Ramaphosa described debt as “a millstone around the neck of developing countries”. Three legal and economic scholars set out the African debt problem and what must happen if African countries are to get out of what Ramaphosa described as “a quicksand of debt”.

The statistics are stark: 54 governments, of which 25 are African, are spending at least 10% of their revenues on servicing their debts; 48 countries, home to 3.3 billion people, are spending more on debt service than on health or education. Among them, 23 African countries are spending more on debt service than on health or education. While the international community stands by, these countries are servicing their debts and defaulting on their development goals. The Group of 20’s current approach for dealing with the debts of low income countries is the Common Framework.

It requires the debtor to first discuss its problems with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and obtain its assessment of how much debt relief it needs. Then it must negotiate with its official creditors – international organisations, governments and government agencies – over how much debt relief they will provide. Only then can the debtor reach an agreement – on comparable terms to the official creditors – with its commercial creditors. Unfortunately, this process has been sub-optimal.

One reason is that it works too slowly to meet the urgent needs of distressed borrowers. As a result, it condemns debtor countries to financial limbo. The resulting uncertainty is not in anyone’s interest. For example, Zambia has been working through the G20’s cumbersome process for more than three and a half years and has not yet finalised agreements with all its creditors.  The need for a new approach is overwhelmingly evident. Although the current crisis has not yet become the “systemic” threat it was in the 1980s when multiple countries defaulted on their debt, it is a “silent” sovereign debt crisis.

We propose a two-part approach that would improve the situation of sovereign debtors and their creditors. This proposal is based on the lessons we have learned from our work on the legal and economic aspects of developing country debt, particularly African debt.

First, we suggest that official creditors and the IMF create a strategic buyer of “last resort” that can purchase the bonds of debt distressed countries and refinance them on better terms.

Second, we recommend that all parties involved in sovereign debt restructurings adopt a set of principles that they can use to guide the debtor and its creditors in reaching an optimal agreement and monitoring its implementation.

The current approach fails to deal effectively and fairly with both the concerns of the creditors and all the debtor’s legal obligations and responsibilities. Our proposed solution would offer debtors debt relief that does not undermine their ability to meet their other legal obligations and responsibilities, while also accommodating private creditors’ preference for cash payments.

Our proposal is not risk-free. And buybacks are not appropriate for all debtors. Nevertheless it offers a principled and feasible approach to dealing with a silent debt crisis that threatens to undermine international efforts to address global challenges such as climate, poverty and inequality.

It uses the IMF’s existing resources to meet both the bondholders’ preferences for immediate cash and the developing countries’ need to reduce their debt burdens in a transparent and principled way. It also helps the international community avoid a widespread default on debt and development.

Bondholders are a major problem

Foreign bondholders, who are the major creditors of many developing countries, have proven to be particularly challenging in providing substantive debt relief in a timely manner. In theory, they should be more flexible than official creditors.

Developing countries have been paying bondholders a premium to compensate them for providing financing to borrowers that are perceived to be risky. As a result, bondholders have already received larger payouts than official creditors. Therefore, they should be better placed than official creditors to assist the debtor in the restructuring processes. However, despite having received  large returns from defaulted bonds, bondholders have remained obstinate in debt restructurings. Our proposal seeks to overcome this hurdle in a way that is fair to debtors, creditors and their respective stakeholders.

How it would work

First, the official creditors and the IMF should create and fund a strategic buyer “of last resort” who can purchase distressed (and expensive) debt at a discount from bondholders. The buyer, now the creditor of the country in distress, can repackage the debt and sell it to the debtor country on more manageable terms. The net result is that the bondholders receive cash for their bonds, while the debtor country benefits from substantial debt relief. In addition, the debtor and its remaining official creditors benefit from a simplified debt restructuring process.

This concept has precedent. In 1989, as part of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, the international community’s effort to deal with the then existing debt burdens of poor countries, the World Bank Group established the Debt Reduction Facility, which helped eligible governments repurchase their external commercial debts at deep discounts. It completed 25 transactions which helped erase approximately US$10.3 billion in debt principal and over US$3.5 billion in interest arrears.

Some individual countries have also bought back their own debt. In 2009, Ecuador repurchased 93% of its defaulted debt at a deep discount. This enabled the government to reduce its debt stock by 27% and promote economic growth in subsequent years. Unfortunately, the countries currently in debt distress lack sufficient foreign reserves to pursue such a strategy. Hence, they need to find a “friendly” buyer of last resort.

The IMF is well positioned to play this role. It has the mandate to support countries during financial crises. It also has the resources to fund such a facility. It can use a mix of its own resources, including its gold reserves, and donor funding, such as a portion of the US$100 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDR), the IMF’s own reserve currency, which rich economies committed to reallocate for development purposes. Such a facility, for example, would have enabled Kenya to refinance its debts at the SDR interest rate, currently at 3.75% per year, rather than at the 10.375% rate it paid in the financial markets.

It is noteworthy that the 47 low-income countries identified as in need of debt relief have just US$60 billion in outstanding debts owed to bondholders. Our proposed buyer of last resort would help reduce the burden of these countries to manageable levels. Second, we propose that both debtors and creditors should commit to the following set of shared principles, based on internationally accepted norms and standards for debt restructurings.

Guiding principles

1. Guiding norms: Sovereign debt restructurings should be guided by six norms: credibility, responsibility, good faith, optimality, inclusiveness and effectiveness.

Optimality means that the negotiating parties should aim to achieve an outcome that, considering the circumstances in which the parties are negotiating and their respective rights, obligations and responsibilities, offers each of them the best possible mix of economic, financial, environmental, social, human rights and governance benefits.

2. Transparency: All parties should have access to the information that they need to make informed decisions.

3. Due diligence: The sovereign debtor and its creditors should each undertake appropriate due diligence before concluding a sovereign debt restructuring process.

4. Optimal outcome assessment: The parties should publicly disclose why they expect their restructuring agreement to result in an optimal outcome.

5. Monitoring: There should be credible mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of the restructuring agreement.

6. Inter-creditor comparability: All creditors should make a comparable contribution to the restructuring of debt.

7. Fair burden sharing: The burden of the restructuring should be fairly allocated between the negotiating parties.

8. Maintaining market access: The process should be designed to facilitate future market access for the borrower at affordable rates.

The G20’s current efforts to address the silent debt crisis are failing. They are contributing to the likely failure of low income countries in Africa and the rest of the global south to offer all their residents the possibility of leading lives of dignity and opportunity.

Danny Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria

Kevin P. Gallagher is Professor of Global Development Policy and Director, Global Development Policy Center, Boston University

Marina Zucker-Marques is a Senior Academic Researcher, Boston University Global Development Policy Center, Boston University

Courtesy: The Conversation


Spread the love
Continue Reading

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

South African Agriculture Needs to Crack the Chinese Market. How to Boost Exports

Published

on

By

Spread the love

China, the world’s second largest nation by economy and population, is a big buyer of food from the rest of the world. This makes it a potential market for countries that are agricultural producers, like South Africa. But as agricultural economist Wandile Sihlobo says, South Africa has lagged behind its competitors in the Chinese market. To increase its share, the country’s policymakers must up their game

South Africa’s agricultural sector has more than doubled in value and volume terms since 1994. This success has been linked to international trade. Exports now account for roughly half (in value terms) of the annual agricultural production. Other drivers have been improvements in productivity through crop and animal genetics.

Exports are largely to the rest of the African continent. In 2023 these accounted for 38% of South Africa’s agricultural exports. The EU is another important market for South Africa’s agricultural sector, accounting for a 19% share in 2023. In recent years, Asia and the Far East, in particular China, have been identified by the agriculture sector and policymakers as the key growth frontiers.

Asia and the Middle East accounted for a quarter of South Africa’s agricultural exports in 2023. But huge pockets of opportunity remain, in terms of products and countries. China is the biggest opportunity, largely because of its population and economic size. China, the world’s second largest economy after the US, must feed 1.4 billion people. To do this, China is a huge importer, resulting in an agricultural trade deficit with the rest of the world of about US$117 billion. This suggests there’s a gap for countries with good agricultural offerings.

South Africa has lagged behind its competitors in gaining from this growth in Chinese imports. It stands at number 32 in the list of countries that supply China with food. South Africa’s agricultural exports to China accounted for a mere 0.4% of Chinese imports in 2023.

China’s size warrants more attention than it typically receives from South African policymakers. The South African agricultural sector – I am the chief economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa – has been calling for greater effort on increasing South African exports to China.

Exhibit 1: China’s agricultural trade

Source: Trade Map and Agbiz Research

China’s top agricultural imports include oilseeds, meat, grains, fruits and nuts, cotton, beverages and spirits, sugar, wool, and vegetables. South Africa is already an exporter to various countries in the world of these products and is producing surpluses for some. This means there is room to expand to China, especially as South Africa’s agricultural production continues to increase and with more volume expected in the coming years.

It therefore makes sense for South Africa to focus more on widening export markets to China. This means arguing for a broad reduction in import tariffs that China currently levies on some of the agricultural products from South Africa. Removing phytosanitary constraints in various products is also key.

There is room for more ambitious export efforts. Three government departments must lead the conversation – Trade, Industry and Competition; Agriculture; and International Relations and Cooperation.

What’s holding South Africa back

South Africa has strong political ties with China, bilaterally and through the umbrella group known as Brics and the Forum for China-Africa Cooperation. But these forums are primarily political, not trade blocs.

What South Africa doesn’t have is preferential market access to China’s food markets. This hobbles South African farmers who compete for the Chinese market with Australian and Chilean producers. Australia and Chile have secured trade agreements that give them competitive advantage.

The lack of an agreement that secures better access for South African producers means that they face substantial trade barriers. The main ones are:

What China buys

China’s key agricultural imports include soybeans, cotton, malt, beef, palm oil, wool, wine, fruits, nuts, pork and barley. South Africa is among the top ten global agricultural exporters in most fruits, and a significant producer of wine.

South Africa’s current major exports to China are wool, citrus, nuts, sugar, wine, maize, soybeans, beef and grapes. With the exception of wool, South Africa’s market share of these products remains negligible. South Africa expects an increase in various fruits and nuts production in the coming years from trees that have already been planted.

The wine industry also continues to see decent volumes of production. The same is true for the red meat industry, which is on a path to grow and to expand its export markets. The producers of all these products could benefit from wider access to China.

What’s to be done

South Africa stands as an anomaly among the top global agricultural exporters with limited market access to China for various products. If China is to be an area of focus for export-led growth in agriculture, a new way of engaging will be essential to soften the current trade barriers.

Firstly, a strategic approach to the Chinese agricultural markets needs to be adopted. This would entail dedicated teams from both South African and Chinese departments of agriculture that would deal with details of trade barriers.

Secondly, South Africa should use the Brics platform – of which China is also a member – to call for deepening of agricultural trade among the Brics members. This would help add momentum to the bilateral engagements of South Africa and China.

Thirdly, South Africa should encourage foreign direct investment – in particular Chinese investors – in agriculture for new production in areas which have large tracts of underutilised land. These include the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo provinces.

Having Chinese nationals as partners in agricultural development could help boost trade and business ties between the two countries.

Lastly, China provides a good base for the demand for higher-value agricultural products, which South Africa intends to focus on in its development agenda.

Wandile Sihlobo is a Senior Fellow, Department of Agricultural Economics, Stellenbosch University


Spread the love
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Focus on Halal Economy | Powered by Africa Islamic Economic Forum