Africa and the World

Geography of Africa:
- Africa a vast continent (second only to Asia): 30 million square kilometers; 20,3% of
world’s land surface 1,275,920,972 people; c. 16.0% of world’s population in 2018.

Massive political changes during 20th Century:

- Historically, one of the most colonized regions of the world.
- Gradual withdrawal of Imperial powers during the 20th Century (Britain, France,
Germany, Belgium, Italy, Portugal).
- Emergence of newly independent African nations from 1950s/1960s onwards. For
example:
1. 1957: British Gold Coast >> Ghana (Kwame Nkrumah, 1957-1966)
2. 1963: Kenya (Jomo Kenyatta, 1963-1978)
3. 1964: German, then British, colonial rule of Tanganyika and Zanzibar >>
Tanzania (Julius Nyerere, 1964-1985)
4. 1964: Zambia (Kenneth Kaunda, 1964-1991)

Later on:
1. End of the apartheid regimes: 1980: Rhodesia >> Zimbabwe (Robert Mugabe,
1980-2017)
2. 1994: South Africa (Nelson Mandela, 1994-1999)

Africa at the time of Independence

An era of considerable optimism:

In political terms: liberation from the brutalities of colonial rule.
In economic terms: principal objectives included economic modernization, achievement of
social justice, expansion of public health and education systems.
Strategies and policies adopted heavily influenced by ideas of socialism, ujaama, state
intervention in economy, national liberation, Pan-Africanism and solidarity of developing
world in general
But in late 20th Century/early 21st Century: Sub-Saharan Africa remains the most
economically and socially deprived continent.
 Consequences of Economic Underdevelopment

Chronically low levels of economic growth and development have had – and continue to
have – very serious consequences for the material well-being of Africa’s population
→ Vulnerability of African people to disease, malnutrition, famine, drought, and poverty.
 Summary

In comparison with developed world, Africa as a whole is considerably worse off in

economic, material and social terms.
Human suffering not exclusive to Africa, but is heavily concentrated on African continent
Nonetheless: considerable variation between countries of Africa: in economic terms, some
countries significantly better off than others.

Underdevelopment in Africa

Two questions arise:

1. Why is Africa, in general, worse off than the rest of the world?
2. What explains variation between African countries?
 Africa and the International Economy

Various economic arguments for why Africa as a whole is poorer than the rest of the world:
- African countries are economically exploited by richer, developed, countries.
- African countries not sufficiently integrated into world economy.
- African countries’ economies lack diversity – over-reliance on one or two resources.

Variation within Africa

But why are some African countries doing better than others?
Political science: conditions for prosperity and for citizens’ well-being:
- Political stability [democracy]
- Strong economic base
- Good governance [rule of law, professional bureaucracy, competent economic
management, absence of corruption]
- Absence of violence / conflict / war
Very few African countries have all these things at the same time!!

Equatorial Guinea

GDP per capita (2018): US $ 10,174.

Major resource: oil. Now one of Sub-Sahara’s biggest oil producers. Also natural gas. High
rates of economic growth.
But: brutal political system:
- Francisco Macias Nguema (1968-79): genocide, repression of political opposition.
- Teodoro Obiang (1979-): continuing severe abuse of human rights.
- Corruption and enrichment of ruling elite; links with US oil companies.
- High levels of poverty. Less than half of population with access to clean drinking
water; nearly 10% children die before reaching age five.
Gabon
GDP per capita (2018): US $ 8,030 Similar story to Equatorial Guinea. Relative prosperity a
result of oil resources
But: politically authoritarian system; only 3 Presidents since independence in 1960:
- Leon M’ba (1960-1967)
- Omar Bongo (1967-2009 [!!])
- Ali Bongo [son] (2009-)
Huge wealth gap between urban elite and rural poor; high levels of poverty. For example, in
2012, 18% of children under 5 were malnourished; in 2018, an extremely high rate of
Tuberculosis (525 per 100,000).

Nigeria
GDP per capita (2018): US $ 2,028
Africa’s most populous nation (c. 175 million).
Major resource: oil (one of world’s largest producers)
But:
- Political instability: from independence in 1960 up to 1999: long history of military
intervention. Civilian rule since 1999.
- Deep ethnic and religious divisions.
- High levels of corruption and economic mismanagement.
Well-being of population: huge economic inequality (poverty rate of 62% in 2010); high levels
of infant mortality (76 per 1,000 live births in 2018); high level of child malnutrition (36% in
2011); high incidence of tuberculosis (219 per 100,000 in 2018).

Botswana and Sierra Leone

Both countries have a high-value principal resource in common: diamonds.
But since Independence, countries have followed very different trajectories:
- Botswana, since Independence in 1966, has the oldest and most consolidated
democratic system on the African continent, with low levels of corruption and firm
respect for human rights.
His context of political stability has generated favorable conditions, in lone term, for
economic growth and development: With GDP per capita of US $8,259 in 2018,
country is one of the African continent’s most prosperous.
- In contrast, modern history of Sierra Leone demonstrates catastrophic effects of
internal conflict on long-term economic development:
● Civil war, 1992-2002, with tens of thousands of deaths, atrocities … Illegal
trafficking of diamonds (“blood diamonds”) undoubtedly prolonged war.
● Economic and social consequences for population have been horrendous:
1. Poverty level of 56.6% in 2011.
2. Infant mortality of 107 per 1,000 in 2013 – at time, worst rate in Africa
(though rate had declined to 79 per 1,000 by 2018).
3. High incidence of tuberculosis (298 per 100,000 in 2018) and of child
malnutrition (37.9% in 2013).
Above all, GDP per capita of only US$ 523 in 2018. Country is one of the world's
poorest, despite its natural resources. Almost one half of the government's annual
income consists of foreign aid (which comes at a high price).
For sure, various factors explain the contrast between Botswana and Sierra Leone,
but at mínimum, the devastating impact of internal conflict on economic development
is clear. (Burundi would be a similar example).

Malawi
GDP per capita (2018): US $ 389.
Resources: few. Largely subsistence agriculture. Vulnerability to both flooding and drought.
Food supply is precarious; heavy reliance on thousands of tons of food aid every year.

Weak economic base made worse by:

 - Long 30-year period of authoritarian rule after independence (though democracy
established since mid-1990s).
- High levels of corruption and inefficiency (though some improvements in healthcare
and education provision during the last 10 years).
- Combination of weak economy and corruption: devastating effect on well-being of
population: high levels of infant mortality (35 per 1,000 live births in 2018) and of HIV
infection (10,3% in 2013) and catastrophic levels of child malnutrition (47,8% in 2010,
one of worst rates in Africa) and poverty (72,2% !!! in 2010).

Summary Point

Individual country histories show that Africa’s problems cannot be explained entirely by
injustices of international economic order. It matters what happens, politically, inside each
country!!
Clear example: Botswana and Sierra Leone both have diamonds as their principal economic
resource. But dramatically different internal political histories:
- stability and democracy in Botswana have made it a middle-ranking, relatively
prosperous, nation by world standards.
- In contrast, disastrous internal conflict has made Sierra Leone one of the world's
poorest countries! (But to what extent is it possible to separate, analytically, so-called
“external” and “internal” factors? Are they, in fact, intertwined?).

A Tale of Two Countries: South Africa and Zimbabwe

Both countries were under white minority rule for most of 20th century – arguably most
vicious form of colonialism.
Both countries made transition to black majority rule relatively late – Zimbabwe in 1980 and
South Africa in 1994.
Both countries at time of independence rich in resources:
- South Africa: mining (diamonds, coal) and manufacturing.
- Zimbabwe: tobacco and agriculture for export (“a potential breadbasket for
surrounding countries”).
But similarities end here!
- Since 1994, South Africa has remained an authentically functioning democracy.* True
that ANC dominates (Presidents Mandela, Mbeki, Zuma and Ramaphosa all from
ANC). But rights of political opposition respected, free functioning of opposition
parties, press freedom, observance of human rights and rule of law. *Though severe
problems of high levels of crime, homicide, political and economic corruption…
- In contrast, Zimbabwe, under continuous rule of 37 years of Robert Mugabe (finally
replaced by Emmerson Mnangagwa in November 2017), has collapsed into
authoritarianism.
High levels of corruption, internal conflict (both between black majority and white
minority and within black majority), persecution of political opposition, atrocities and
abuse of human rights, economic mismanagement.
Contrasting effects of these differing political paths on economic performance of both
countries are staggering:
South Africa: True that crime is major problem, as are very high rates of tuberculosis (520
per 100,000 in 2018) and HIV (20.4% in 2018 - one of world’s highest).
On other hand, economic development and growth have been constant and solid, in terms of
GDP per capita:
- 1980: US $ 2,906
- 1994: US $ 3,445
- 2018: US $ 6,374
In addition, despite considerable inequalities of South African society, the poverty rate –
9,4% in 2011 – is very low by continental standards.

In contrast, in Zimbabwe: Consolidation of increasingly authoritarian and corrupt regime has

coincided with a much more erratic economic trajectory, with very negative consequences
for population:
GDP per capita:
- 1980: US $ 902
- 1994: US $ 612
- 2008: US $ 357 (!!)
- 2018: US $ 2,147
Effects of long period of economic stagnation, decline and collapse which marked first 30
years of Mugabe regime (despite economic recovery in more recent years), have been
severe:
- Very high rate of infant mortality (55 per 1,000 live births in 2013) and of child
malnutrition (32,3% in 2010) and above all of poverty.
- In fact, no official statistics on poverty, but BBC analysis in 2013 reported it as being
“endemic”: “Many Zimbabweans survive on grain handouts. Others have voted with
their feet; hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans, including much-needed
professionals, have emigrated”.

Conclusions

Economic factors, of course, play an important role in explaining Africa’s problems of

underdevelopment, poverty, human deprivation and suffering.

Trade barriers and other injustices of international economic order have prevented many
African countries from developing, and from integrating themselves into world economy

Many African countries have very few valuable natural resources.

Many African countries rely on only one or two commodities for export, so vulnerable to
shifts in prices and in international market.

Thus many African leaders in 21st Century criticise the defenders of neoliberalism in the
most advanced economies because they never acknowledge the various injustices of the
so-called “free” international market.
But wrong to see African continent as one, homogenous, mass:
Each African country is unique:
 - Some have valuable economic resources, some do not.
- Some are stable democracies, others are corrupt dictatorships.
- Some observe rule of law, others abuse human rights.
- Some governments are corrupt and inefficient, others are transparent and relatively
competent.
Internal political choices and structures therefore matter: they help explain why so many
African countries, starting from roughly similar situations, have, in the course of the last 5-6
decades, ended up so differently.