http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29GhXsx7-Rs&feature=related

If you are cataloging unfair rules, I think we should also look at the rules involved in the delivery of aid. The contracting, reporting, and fiduciary requirements of virtually all major donors effectively exclude small commercial or nonprofit organizations from being the primary recipients and implementers of aid programs. Governments are the only local organization able to meet some of these donor requirements, but holding host country governments accountable is difficult to say the least. These rules explain why, in spite of significant increases in aid to Africa, organizations that have grown the most are not African, but US based or Europe based consulting firms, non profits, and charities that are able to adhere to these rules while delivering the aid.

In Africa, in most parts, at least, agriculture is 50% or more of the economy. Lifting the State off 50% or more of the economy is important, whatever else we say about race, tribes, IP or industrialisation.

1. It took steps to internally liberalise, and later it became more integrated into the global economy. I think it’s a myth that China’ success is a result of integration into the world economy, rather development (and lots of state support) preceeded the entry into the global economy.

2. Tricky one this – but the fact that China is 90% one ethnic group (Han) is surely important. As a result, there has been relatively little internal ethnic conflict – with the exception of the Tibetan and Uighur populations in the west.

3. China was not colonised by western powers in the same way that Africa was. As a result, it has been less influenced by the west. Instead, the country has developed in a Chinese way.

International rules are certainly unfair on African countries. I think the China took the long term view and only joined the international system when it felt the rules worked for it. China’s size meant it had that luxury. Sadly, African countries don’t.

As Adam says, funny how old ideas come around. That’s effectively “regulation srtangles growth”…..and as proponents of that like me point out, it strangles the growth of the small and the new businesses that cannot afford it much more than it does the large and established who can absorb it.

It’s just that we who propose it as an obvious point think it happens in hte rich countries as well as the porr: the solution being simply to have less such regulation.

Owen replies:

Owen

Karl Marx, more or less

The challenge, I think, is to link the appreciation that political economy matters at a national level to the appreciation that political economy matters at a global and international level.

Borders do matter and make a difference, but global political economy (and resulting governance arrangements at that level), does shape national political economies (and resulting governance options and arrangements at that level). (and vice-versa if the country is big and powerful). Such are the realities and challenges of multi-level governance for a capitalism that goes far beyond – and therefore takes advantage of – borders.

… which is one of the reasons (shameless plug) why my web-site http://www.alanhudson.info is called “beyond the borders” (I am annoyed that CNN now use the strap-line “beyond borders”, but what can you do!)

Alan – thanks. I agree. I am interested in the strange dichotomy that most of us believe that it is a role of the nation state to limit and try to reverse the inequalities and divergence caused by capitalism between people within a nation state, but that many people do not accept the need for an international polity to do that between countries.

“The challenges we face are numerous. So we must be selective and strategic about where and how we get involved. But whether it’s to improve long-term security in places torn apart by conflict, like Afghanistan, or to further progress in countries that are on their way to becoming regional anchors of stability, like Tanzania, we pursue development for the same reasons: to improve lives, fight poverty, expand rights and opportunities, strengthen communities, and secure democratic institutions and governance; and in doing so, advance global stability, improve our own security, and project our values and leadership in the world.”

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/06/hillary_clinton_on_development_in_the_21st_century)

In a broader sense I’m not sure how useful it is looking at the problems facing Africa as a finite number of fixed ‘traps’ (not least because, as you show Owen, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility to add to them).

Decent economic analysis mixed with a much greater focus on the political economy of particular situations is where it’s at. I’m just yet to be convinced the ‘trap’ narrative is useful for more than selling books.

An example: China was marginalised, colonised and abused for at least 100 years. It’s possible to place this in the box of a ‘trap’. Their solution was to have a Communist revolution, then put in place an agrarian strategy that, to be generous, had its ups and downs, but one offshoot was that when they came to implement gradual economic reform they had institutions in place which, whether through luck or judgement, could drive staggering levels of capital accumulation and growth. Would a ‘trap’ narrative really have helped diagnose this?

And even if it could, we probably wouldn’t take too kindly to suggesting countries have Maoist revolutions…

Adam: you make a good point. The word “trap” is not very helpful (except, as you say, for selling books). I certainly don’t want to imply that this is a situation from which African can never extract themselves. But I do think there is a vicious circle which makes it harder for poor countries to extricate themselves from their situation because their political weakness makes it hard to shift the rules.