Connect with us

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

What China’s Belt Road Initiative means for Africa

Published

on

Spread the love

China’s presence in Africa has sparked a huge debate on whether China is the new neo-colonizer or a new development partner for Africa. This debate has, for the most part, ignored the role African nations play in this relationship.

This relationship is necessary for both parties. The Belt and Road Initiative which is an illustration of China’s investments and aid for the African economies (BRI), with the help of (BRI) China will gain access to all the export markets, vital resources, and international support on sensitive issues, such as the human rights abuses that have been taking place in the area of Xinjiang, the policy of One China and the suppression of democratic institutions that have been taking place in Hong Kong. However, China’s relationship with each and every African nation is mostly in the favour of Beijing because of the deep pockets, “non-interference” policy, and rhetoric of its benign intentions, that’s why China has been and will be the preferred partner for many African countries. This is exemplified by China’s 2021 white paper on Africa, which asserts that Beijing’s goal on the continent is “giving more and taking less, giving before taking and giving without expecting anything in return, so China welcomes African nations aboard the development express train with its open arms.”

Despite the admirable nature of these sentiments, the question remains: how can African nations maximize their gains from such an imbalanced relationship? Accepting Chinese aid, investments, capital, and technology for massive infrastructure projects is insufficient for extracting benefits. What is required is the practice of local agency, which entails exerting influence to extract the greatest possible benefits. This would necessitate that the government emphasizes the localization of BRI projects so that political, social, and economic actors are involved. In this regard, Nigeria can be the case study of what transpires when an African nation fails to exert its own influence to shape its relationship with China to meet the needs of its people. Since 2006, Beijing and Abuja have been strategic partners, and their economic relationship has flourished in a manner that both parties would generally describe as a “win-win.” In terms of trade and investment, China has emerged as a major player in Nigeria, and in terms of development assistance, China has become Nigeria’s preferred partner.

China has been Nigeria’s primary source of funds to re-establish its deteriorating infrastructure, with Abuja joining the BRI formally in 2018 at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) Summit in Beijing. China and its economic actors, particularly the China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC), has emerged as the driving force behind Abuja’s infrastructure reconstruction goals. Beijing was also instrumental in the construction of the Kaduna-Kano ($1.7 billion), Lagos-Kano costing $6.7 billion, and the Lagos-Ibadan railway lines costing $1.5 billion. Even in the construction of airports and information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure, Chinese companies have assumed a leading position.

The advantages are evident. The delivery of essential public goods to Nigeria will stimulate economic activity. Although Nigeria’s political elites have repeatedly thanked China for their assistance. Nonetheless, not everything is perfect. The operationalization of the BRI in Nigeria has been a mystery to local actors, preventing their participation in decision-making and project implementation. According to an Afrobarometer survey, only 28% of Nigerians are aware of Chinese “loans/development assistance” in their country, which is significantly lower than the average of 47% across 33 nations.

 Nigeria’s national legislature has deplored the lack of transparency surrounding loan agreements which are existing between the executive and Chinese state banks. This conforms to a pattern identified by AidData: Typically, Chinese loan agreements contain “extensive confidentiality clauses.” Due to Nigeria’s inadequate institutional capacity, BRI projects are beset by secrecy, corruption, and flagrant disregard for domestic laws.

As a result, there are no comprehensive links between the megaprojects China has undertaken in Nigeria and the domestic economy. Chinese development assistance have generally tied Chinese companies, technology, and capital, which tend to threaten thet supplant indigenous economic actors. Already, Nigerian construction firms are complaining that they are excluded from BRI projects. Nigeria’s transport minister, Rotimi Amaechi, responded by urging these companies to increase their capacity to undertake such large-scale projects. In reality, these domestic corporations operate within a system that disadvantages them. As the managing director of the Nigerian engineering and construction firm Dutum Company Limited, Temitope Runsewe remarked, “These Chinese companies appear with cheap funds from China… They will say to our government, “Show us the projects, and we will mobilise and begin construction immediately.” This is extremely enticing, and the majority of our government officials succumb to it at the expense of local capacity building.”

This tendency frequently conflicts with the Nigerian Public Procurement Act of 2007, which stipulates that bids must be competitive, open, and transparent. Recently, Amaechi, Abubakar Malami, Nigeria’s minister of justice and attorney-general of the federation, and the CCECC were taken to court for procurement irregularities relating to the awarding of a contract to the CCECC to construct a 190-kilometer narrow gauge track from Minna in Niger State to Baro for approximately $210 million. In addition, the government has shown reluctance to implement local content requirements in BRI projects. For instance, Nigeria’s House of Representatives Committee on Treaties, Protocols, and Agreements argued that local content requirements were not present in the loan agreements under review.

According to Ian Taylor, this demonstrates that the Nigerian government’s agency can be described as “agency as corruption.” The actions and inactions of those in authority benefit a minority at the expense of the majority. Amaechi’s request that Chinese loan agreements not be scrutinised as “they are sensitive to what you say” exemplified this point. He argued that criticism could discourage Chinese development aid. This attitude represents the government’s lack of political will to exercise the authority necessary to localise the BRI.

The question that arises is whether Nigerians are receiving the best possible deal from the relationship between their government and China. According to the World Bank Report on the BRI, the risks associated with the BRI – debt sustainability, stranded infrastructure, and harm to local communities and the environment – are exacerbated by the presence of weak domestic institutions and the concomitant growth-stifling corruption. To maximise the benefits of the BRI, good governance practises that advocate for openness, transparency, adherence to domestic procurement laws, and an emphasis on local content requirements are required.

As demonstrated by the preceding analysis, this is not the case in Nigeria. The lack of public consultation and the propensity to use backdoor channels to approve projects have resulted in infrastructure projects that are “largely inaccessible to the public while all but inaccessible to the government.”


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