Month: March 2018

African foreign policy: looking west together

It is clear that we must find an African solution to our problems, and that this can only be found in African unity. Divided we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world. – Kwame Nkrumah

Africa’s history with the West (when I refer to the west I am referring to Europe and the USA) is a tortured one. Slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, Cold War proxy conflicts all colour a set of relationships where the West still holds the upper hand. Whether it is trade, security, or healthcare policy, through aid, loans, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO Africa still gets raw deal on the international stage.

The West however, is in a peculiar moment, both Europe and America are turning more insular. In America this is embodied by Trumps ‘America First’ policies which are alienating allies and narrowing American interests and engagement around the world. Sec. Tillerson’s recent trip to Africa was centred on security and criticism of China, but unlike previous administrations there was no Power Africa or PEPFAR (The President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) nor much talk about democracy or development, clearly the US agenda on the continent has narrowed. Europe is grappling with Brexit, populist right-wing politics, holding the EU together, a retreating America and a resurgent Russia. Their major engagement on the continent also centres around security with the addition of stemming the flow of migrants. Some in foreign policy circles see this shift inwards from the west as a problem for the continent. That without western money and support the war on terror will lag, aid and development funding will shrink and advocacy for democracy and human rights will be blunted. However, I see this as an opportunity, the perfect time for Africa to start playing a greater role on the world stage and pursuing its key interests. Africa can only do this if it works together, no one African country has the clout to be a player on the world stage but acting in concert as a continent Africa can make real changes to the terms on which the rest of the world deals with it and benefit people around the continent.

Too small to matter

Sub-Saharan Africa has a combined GDP of $US 1.5 trillion[1], which may seem large but is less than half of the US$ 3.9 trillion[2] spent by the US government last year. The largest economy in Africa is that of Nigeria with a GDP of US$ 404 billion[3], the most valuable company in the world is Apple with a stock valuation of over US$ 900 billion[4]. I cite these figures to illustrate a point, individually on the world stage African countries are economic rounding errors, Africa is largely talked in terms of natural resources or as a market with potential. The fundamental issue with this is that African economies operate in a world where the rules of the game are still dominated by Western nations and institutions. Trade rules are governed by the WTO, banking rules by western regulators, investment treaties are lopsided against developing nations, and development spending and their associated policies conform to priorities and ideals of the states that fund institutions like the World Bank. That African nations operate at a disadvantage on the world stage is not news, the key issue is what policies can African nations adopt to rectify this.

A united front: trade, tax and investment

While Africa is currently a bit more than just a drop in the ocean in terms of economic size, the continents GDP is projected to grow to approx. US$ 30 trillion[5] over the next 40 years and Africa will matter. However, the continent cannot afford to wait that long, the lopsided terms investment with which Africa deals with the west will continue to siphon off much-needed income and asset ownership off the continent, and trade rules continue to limit policy options (such as protecting infant industries) for African governments. Individually African nations have no hope of changing the status quo, as a continent with a smart policy approach at a time where western engagement in the world is limited by their own domestic focus, things can start to change.

Getting African countries to act together is a well-known headache. Africa has for over fifty years heard big talk from leaders on broad pan-African cooperation, numerous regional and trade blocs and the OAU and AU with ambitious agendas, though they never seem to get too far. In my view this is because African leaders have bitten off more than they are willing to chew with ambitious programs which have neither the political support, funding or organisational capacity to succeed. Rather than overambitious agendas, it may be more productive if African countries coalesce around a defined set of issues which are cross cutting and beneficial to all, making it easier to form and maintain a joint agenda. When it comes to a prospective joint African foreign policy to the west there are 3 issues which cut across all countries and which they could stand to benefit from; trade, taxes and investment treaties.

Trade, taxes and investment treaties.

Trade – unfair terms of trade faced by African countries, taxes – the inability to tax profits made in Africa and investment treaties which unfairly disadvantage African states in international arbitration and de-emphasize the link between FDI and development. These may seem narrowly economic and non-people or development focused agenda, however these issues have real impacts on people’s lives and livelihoods. Unfair terms of trade put African farmers and businesses at a disadvantage and restrict the policies that government can employ to support private sector growth. The ability of global corporations to avoid and transfer taxes off the continent means Africa loses out on more than US$ 50 billion[6] a year in tax revenue. If that were an African economy, it would be the 10th largest on the continent. Bilateral investment treaties which are an agreement establishing the terms and conditions for private investment by nationals and companies of one state in another state, protect the investments of foreign companies from what they see as unpredictable local courts and politics, forcing disputes to be settled in international arbitration centres which usually rule in favour of the investor over other concerns such as development, the environment or labour rights.

Why these three issues? First, these are three issues upon which the West is still the most influential, if we can force changes in western policy it can change the way others around the world and key institutions engage with Africa. Secondly these are three issues which can be connected to wider and more pressing concerns that the West has around security and migration. With better terms of trade and fairer investment, Africa has a much better chance at creating more and better jobs, governments will have more development policies open to them, and more revenue will allow governments to invest more in job creation, and anti-terrorism initiatives. Third, with tax evasion a priority even in the West making tax evasion in Africa part of the narrative is not an impossibility. Finally, this set of issues is narrow enough and beneficial enough to most African states that a coherent negotiating position can be built out of it.

So, what exactly is it that Africa should be aiming for with this new focused foreign policy. On trade the goal is twofold, first shielding African farmers from the hefty agricultural subsidies that western farmers get and allows them to dump cheap produce on the continent and second is loosening the rules that stop African nations from adopting industrial policies such as infant industry protection and product imitation that both the West and East Asia used. On taxes, the goal is to tax profits where they are made with the goal of ensuring that money made on the continent pays its fair share. On the investment treaties it would be impossible to change them whole sale rather the goal would be to insert clauses that make protection of the environment, labour and development into the body of the treaties rather than just as principles in the preamble.

To achieve these goals African countries would have to present a united front, combining their influence, negotiating teams and knowledge to match those of western nations. Crafting and deploying public narratives in Africa (that together they are fighting to free the continent from restrictions and better the lives of African citizens) and in the West (that doing this wont cost strained public finances anything and has the potential to stop the migrants and contain the security threat).

For too long African foreign policy has either been a tool for the West or the weak entreaties of states wielding no influence. The West is weaker and less united than it has since at least the 1930s, facing challenges externally while dealing with internally divisive politics and social cleavages. This is the perfect time for Africa to start changing the status quo, to start changing the terms on which the West sees and deals with Africa. To do so Africa must look West but do so together, around a common set of focused objectives that everyone can rally around and that would resonate with the wider public at home and abroad. Even if only half the agenda succeeds it would be a victory for the continent and the first step towards an African foreign policy agenda finally free from its western past.

 

 

 

[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=ZG

[2] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52408

[3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=NG

[4] https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-apple-stocks/apple-market-value-we-may-need-a-bigger-chart-idUKKBN1D20BQ

[5] http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/12/05/african-wealth-will-double-every-decade-for-generations-to-come/

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/feb/02/africa-tax-avoidance-money-laundering-illicit-financial-flows

Ending the African debt trap: A developmental debt policy framework

“We have been indebted for fifty, sixty years and even more. That means we have been led to compromise our people for fifty years and more.” – Thomas Sankara OAU July 1987

In 2005 developed countries wrote off billions in debt accumulated by Highly Indebted Poor Countries many of those in Africa. Debt relief gave many countries some breathing space from crushing debt and structural adjustment programs that saw public services decimated, and development expenditure minimised. Over a decade later much of the continent is walking into the same trap, accumulating foreign currency denominated debt with very vague ideas of how we are going to pay it back (figure 1)[1].

If we are not careful many African nations will find themselves where they were in the 1990s (some like Ghana already have); cutting spending and services to get IMF bailouts so that they can pay their debts.

As Thomas Sankara alluded to in 1987 this is no way to develop a continent, because in the world of international finance, banks and bondholders do not care about your people, they just want to be paid back on time. When it comes time to pay back this current binge of debt of what African nations are accumulating, just like in the 1980s and 1990s it will be the people who suffer, making the claims of leaders justifying this debt in the name of development a cruel joke.

African governments need to learn how to borrow smartly and use the money prudently. In my view African governments need to develop a framework through which borrowing is assessed; based on a set of principles that benefit Africans rather than burden them. Ending the African debt trap doesn’t mean ending African debt, it means making it work for us.

Debt: Bonds, Loans and Guarantees.

Governments in Africa borrow and accumulate debt in three primary ways. First, by issuing bonds, where investors lend money to the government by buying the bond who in turn promise to pay investors back in full, with regular interest payments[2]. Loans are straight forward, and work in the same way as a bank loan you would get. The main sources of government loans are international banks, multinational institutions like the IMF or World Bank and direct loans from individual states. Guarantees are slightly different, the government does not borrow directly but guarantees the debt of a company, usually a state-owned company, so that if it fails to repay its loans the government has to repay them.

Debt is not inherently a bad thing. It allows you to access funding that you do not otherwise have to invest in growth. For companies, debt is used to fund expansion, new machinery, hire more workers etc., to grow it is revenues. For countries debt can be used to fund investments in the country beyond what is available from tax revenue. It gives government the ability to invest in areas such as infrastructure, education, industrial or agricultural initiatives that give people and wider economy a higher capacity for growth and development. Put simply if you use debt to invest areas that create more value than the value of debt then you are fine, as the debt will pay itself back.

The problem with African debt

Debt becomes a problem when you have trouble paying it back. As your debt load increases you start borrowing money simply to pay for earlier debt, like using a credit card to pay off another credit card. Eventually you are forced to ask for help, going cap in hand to your creditors and asking for a bit more time or to the IMF for a bailout and as Africa discovered in the 80’s and 90’s, when that happens your fate is no longer in your hands.

In Africa bad debt falls into 3 broad categories. The first is corruption and misuse, where money borrowed is not even used in any form of gainful investment but essentially stolen. Mozambique was one of the success stories of the last few years with 7%+ growth rates even as it borrowed heavily (Figure 2).

Investors were not concerned with the debt levels because of Mozambique’s huge gas reserves. In 2013, Mozambique borrowed $850 million dollars to invest in a new tuna fishing fleet meant to jumpstart the countries fishing industry. However, Mozambique did not buy fishing boats, it bought gunboats, and shortly afterward it emerged that the government had been hiding an additional $1.4 billion of in loans whose use is shrouded in mystery. By 2016, Mozambique was unable to pay its loans and it defaulted on its debt. Mozambique is now in the arms of it is creditors and the IMF. When its gas fields start producing commercial gas in 2023, the money will go towards paying its loans first before it goes to the people of Mozambique.

The second way African debt tends to get out of hand is through investment in misguided projects, otherwise known as white elephants. These projects are often pursued for political reasons such as being in the part of a country the minister comes from, or connected people getting the contracts rather than development objectives being main goal. Today there is a building frenzy across the continent as governments invest in infrastructure to boost economic growth. This infrastructure is expensive, and governments have to borrow to fund it and it is a large part of the significant increase in debt on the continent over the last few years. If these roads, railways and dams are white elephants and provide little value to communities and countries they are in, Africans will be saddled with debt for vanity projects.

The third way in which governments accumulate debt is through providing guarantees to state-owned companies who take on debt for a variety of purposes. However, many state-owned enterprises in Africa are poorly run, with spotty oversight and take out debt for poorly conceived expansion plans or to fulfil poorly thought-out political directives. Eskom is South Africa’s publicly owned electricity monopoly, but it is in dire condition. Mismanagement, corruption, old power generation plants, expensive construction of new plants and a failure by the government to let it raise tariffs has put Eskom into a precarious position. Eskom has over the years borrowed to cover the gaps using government guarantees. According to figures provided by the power utility, total debt amounted to R359 Billion (29 Billion Dollars). This amount of debt, as the finance minister recently conceded is a threat to the South African economy. And Eskom is not the only state-owned enterprise in South Africa in trouble. Government guarantees to state owned enterprises stood at R467 billion at the end of 2015/16. Standard & Poor’s forecasts they will swell to over R500 billion by 2020 – 10% of South Africa’s current GDP, adding to South African debt that is already worth over 55% of GDP.

The problem with African debt is that too much of it is ill-considered, too much of it is stolen and most of it is not put into smart investments which will improve people’s lives and create value.

The trap closes – International control.

A key feature of international debt markets that puts the continent at a distinct disadvantage is who controls the debt. Creditors are not usually terribly concerned with what governments do with debt as long as it is paid back. Thus, when governments get into tight monetary circumstances, creditors usually demand that actions be taken to ensure that the debts are paid. The vehicle for this is usually the IMF, the multinational institution charged with securing global financial stability and debt defaults are bad for stability. When the IMF comes in to bail out a government it comes with conditions and as Africans found out in the 80s and 90s (and as Greeks are experiencing now) those conditions are painful. They usually involve a mix of cutting government spending and services, raising taxes and cutting subsidies, privatising public services, selling public assets, cutting the number of government employees and limits on development, spending and investment. With African governments piling up more and more debt we are getting closer to being subject to IMF conditionalities again, and the pain and protest seen in Greece will become a feature in Africa.

A Developmental Debt Policy Framework

The question becomes, how do we make sure any money we borrow is good debt. How do policy makers, politicians and the wider public decide what is worth borrowing money for? If Africa is to end the debt trap cycle it must change the way it decides to borrow, if African countries need to borrow money to fund development expenditure, then we must have something that guides that process. This requires a developmental debt policy framework, that is based on a set of principles that guides various actors as they decide whether the government should be borrowing money. The principles upon which responsible developmental debt would be based are simple. It must be sustainable, valuable, and accountable. These three principles would answer the key questions of why we are borrowing, how are we borrowing, can we afford it and will it create value for the country.

Sustainable

Put succinctly, sustainability in debt is about the ability of country to afford the debt. Can the money borrowed, both the principal sum and interest, be paid back by either normal revenues or by the revenues generated project being funded, without requiring extra burdensome measures, such as additional taxes or cutting of existing government services. Ensuring debt meets this requirement of sustainability will ensure that African states can afford the debt they take on.

Valuable

The principle of value is aimed at ensuring that the areas the debt funds have value to the nation. Value can come in two forms. First, value to people, improving the living conditions or opportunities of people. If it can be demonstrated that a policy, initiative, service or project that requires funding will demonstrably improve the lives of the public, it is not money wasted, as fundamentally development is about improving the living conditions and opportunities available to Africans. Secondly, value for money, which is simply, can the project, or initiative generate enough revenue to pay for the money being borrowed. These two forms of value do not limit the options for governments, rather they ensure that the money borrowed will go into something of importance. For instance, improved healthcare is key to improving the lives of millions around the continent and this requires that Africa train and deploy many more healthcare workers, as doctors, nurses, lab technicians etc., but this is an expensive undertaking. However, the training and deployment of a significant number of healthcare workers is not cheap. If the government can develop a program that trains and deploys healthcare workers in a way that benefits the majority of the population, borrowing to fund this can be justified. In terms of value for money this would be aimed primarily at infrastructure projects and guarantees to state owned enterprises, if it can be demonstrated that these projects (e.g. a new railway) or state corporation (e.g. an airline) can reliably pay for itself then borrowing to fund the investment can be justified.

Accountability

The principle of accountability is simple, the public finances must be public. Transparency in public financing creates accountability. Accountability in public debt transactions would require governments to open about what the borrowing is going to fund, the terms upon which the money is to be borrowed, how they plan to pay the debts back and tracking the use of the borrowed funds to ensure that unlike Mozambique’s gunboat tuna fleet, it goes where it is intended.

These three principles are interrelated. Debt that creates value is far more likely to be sustainable and being open and accountable about the terms on which the money is being borrowed allows for sustainability and value to be accurately and properly assessed. Having a developmental debt policy framework based on these three principles, would help ensure that Africa takes on debts that serve a developmental purpose. Furthermore, these principles can be developed into more detailed project and policy assessment frameworks, which policy makers, politicians, civil society and the wider public can use to access the government’s borrowing and hold it to account. Unlike the conditionalities imposed by the IMF or bond holders using these principles to guide African debt would be aimed at development not just paying back the money, they would give Africans agency over their own debt by requiring responsibility on the part of African policy makers. To end the cycle of African debt traps where development and vital services are sacrificed on the altar of fiscal responsibility, will  require Africa to adopt policies that better guide how the continent borrows and what it uses for.

[1] IMF, Regional Economic Outlook Sub-Saharan Africa: Fiscal Adjustment and Economic Diversification, October 2017 https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/REO/AFR/2017/October/pdf/sreo1017.ashx?la=en

[2] http://guides.wsj.com/personal-finance/investing/what-is-a-bond/