LAST week Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (Brics) announced they are joining forces to establish an alternative to the World Bank. The proposed new Brics bank will be capitalised to the tune of $50-billion (R526-billion) which is about the same size as the World Bank’s loan to Brazil.
While the size of the initial capital allocation does not stack up in comparison to the World Bank’s, this could still prove to be a significant opportunity to change the global system more in favour of the developing world.
The power of the World Bank is not so much in its deep pockets but more so in the enormous research and communication capacities it deploys to set the developmental agenda globally. Almost every sector of international social and economic development has been researched by the World Bank with findings disbursed in international conferences and dominating the developmental agendas of most developing countries. The World Bank’s almost hegemonic control of “development speak” has even translated itself into developing countries’ own development planning processes. It is no coincidence that most developing countries have medium term development plans that mimic the World Bank’s “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers” that almost always put economic growth and wealth creation before labour and equitable economic participation.
In the past, the West’s authority over “preferred models” for economic growth have gone pretty much unchecked in the developmental discourse. However, now more so than ever the real economic growth stories come from the developing world. Unfortunately, while the West takes pause to lecture China on how it should structure its economy, it has little such hesitancy with South America, Africa and South Asia even though countries like Bangladesh, Colombia, Rwanda and Ethiopia are amongst the fastest growing countries in the world. At the same time, the 2007 financial crisis has exposed how corrosive vested interests and corruption are in the international economic system. Make no mistake, the “economic recovery” has done little to put the millions of Americans and Europeans back into the homes and jobs they lost.
The problem is these lopsided agendas do an enormous amount of economic damage. Sheer perceptions of risk, founded or not, increase borrowing costs, thus undermining the competitiveness of the developing world. For this reason, investors looking at opportunities in Africa demand a “risk premium” over comparable opportunities in countries like Ireland, Portugal, Spain or Greece all of whom have defaulted in recent memory.
The way to change this is to forcefully attack the Western generated assumption that the developed world is somehow less competent. Here the Brics bank should invest aggressively in analysis and communication that illustrates African success stories and development solutions. Africa is rising, but without a champion its successes go unnoticed.
The developmental discourse is political and entirely about power and economic advantage. When the World Bank and its research networks create methodologies they not only create the opportunities but also give themselves a comparative advantage. It is not unfair to say that too often international actors convince the developing world they have a problem that is then fixed by the West with funds to be repaid by the developing world. This comparative advantage means the World Bank’s consultants and “in-house” expertise are the first to be called on, thus allowing them to set the agenda and influence what projects get funded and what priorities are pursued.
The Brics bank, on the other hand, is an enormous opportunity to change this dynamic. All over sub-Saharan Africa we are seeing the rise of a new breed of intellectuals and urban elites. The Brics bank should reach out to Africa’s emerging leaders, give them a voice and let them define the problems to be solved and draw attention to home-grown solutions. The more the Brics bank raises the profile of and confidence in Africa’s emerging leaders, the more the developmental agenda can have an African flavour thus empowering Africans in their own development processes.
Another problem undermining African sovereignty is that often the developed world has a better understanding of the economic opportunities in Africa than governments even do. International investors are often more confident of investing in Africa than African companies are. For example, the Financial Times reported on July 11 this year that the world’s biggest reserve of graphite, essential to the manufacture of electric batteries, is in Balama, Mozambique. The rights for this graphite are owned by a company in partnership with Glencore, which was started and is owned by a South African who does not live at home.
Graphite is important because another South African abroad, Elon Musk, is building the biggest electric battery factory on the planet, largely to feed production of his booming electric car company. It’s fundamentally wrong when one of the biggest economic opportunities of the century (electric cars) is not only building on access to Africa’s resources but is being controlled by foreign companies, beneficiated overseas and is actually owned by Africans abroad.
This is only one example, but it is a foregone conclusion that too often Africa’s economic opportunities are identified and acted on by foreign companies. The Brics bank could go a long way to leading and directing African investment in African opportunities. Here, the Brics bank should act as a champion in attracting Africans to African opportunities and it should do so not only by putting its money where its mouth is but also by identifying and communicating economic opportunities to Africans.
Finally, the Brics bank should invest in structural opportunities to improve growth and development in Africa. This means investing in essential intra-continental trade, transport and information networks. For example, transferring funds between African countries, as is done by millions of migrants across the continent, too often relies on international banking services, even though cheaper African solutions exist. Similarly, it makes no sense that trade between African countries is facilitated by foreign owned and foreign flagged shipping companies when the skills and even the capital can be developed domestically.
If the Brics bank invests in local solutions and local opportunities it could go a long way to convincing Africans what they should already know: that social and economic development is entirely dependent on Africa leading and owning its national resources. Let’s hope the Brics bank knows that too.
Alexander O'Riordan is an aid effectiveness and donor funding researcher. This article was sourced from the South African Civil Society Information Service website
New Brics bank could firm African development mettle
While the size of the initial capital allocation does not stack up in comparison to the World Bank’s, this could still prove to be a significant opportunity to change the global system more in favour of the developing world.
The power of the World Bank is not so much in its deep pockets but more so in the enormous research and communication capacities it deploys to set the developmental agenda globally. Almost every sector of international social and economic development has been researched by the World Bank with findings disbursed in international conferences and dominating the developmental agendas of most developing countries. The World Bank’s almost hegemonic control of “development speak” has even translated itself into developing countries’ own development planning processes. It is no coincidence that most developing countries have medium term development plans that mimic the World Bank’s “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers” that almost always put economic growth and wealth creation before labour and equitable economic participation.
In the past, the West’s authority over “preferred models” for economic growth have gone pretty much unchecked in the developmental discourse. However, now more so than ever the real economic growth stories come from the developing world. Unfortunately, while the West takes pause to lecture China on how it should structure its economy, it has little such hesitancy with South America, Africa and South Asia even though countries like Bangladesh, Colombia, Rwanda and Ethiopia are amongst the fastest growing countries in the world. At the same time, the 2007 financial crisis has exposed how corrosive vested interests and corruption are in the international economic system. Make no mistake, the “economic recovery” has done little to put the millions of Americans and Europeans back into the homes and jobs they lost.
The problem is these lopsided agendas do an enormous amount of economic damage. Sheer perceptions of risk, founded or not, increase borrowing costs, thus undermining the competitiveness of the developing world. For this reason, investors looking at opportunities in Africa demand a “risk premium” over comparable opportunities in countries like Ireland, Portugal, Spain or Greece all of whom have defaulted in recent memory.
The way to change this is to forcefully attack the Western generated assumption that the developed world is somehow less competent. Here the Brics bank should invest aggressively in analysis and communication that illustrates African success stories and development solutions. Africa is rising, but without a champion its successes go unnoticed.
The developmental discourse is political and entirely about power and economic advantage. When the World Bank and its research networks create methodologies they not only create the opportunities but also give themselves a comparative advantage. It is not unfair to say that too often international actors convince the developing world they have a problem that is then fixed by the West with funds to be repaid by the developing world. This comparative advantage means the World Bank’s consultants and “in-house” expertise are the first to be called on, thus allowing them to set the agenda and influence what projects get funded and what priorities are pursued.
The Brics bank, on the other hand, is an enormous opportunity to change this dynamic. All over sub-Saharan Africa we are seeing the rise of a new breed of intellectuals and urban elites. The Brics bank should reach out to Africa’s emerging leaders, give them a voice and let them define the problems to be solved and draw attention to home-grown solutions. The more the Brics bank raises the profile of and confidence in Africa’s emerging leaders, the more the developmental agenda can have an African flavour thus empowering Africans in their own development processes.
Another problem undermining African sovereignty is that often the developed world has a better understanding of the economic opportunities in Africa than governments even do. International investors are often more confident of investing in Africa than African companies are. For example, the Financial Times reported on July 11 this year that the world’s biggest reserve of graphite, essential to the manufacture of electric batteries, is in Balama, Mozambique. The rights for this graphite are owned by a company in partnership with Glencore, which was started and is owned by a South African who does not live at home.
Graphite is important because another South African abroad, Elon Musk, is building the biggest electric battery factory on the planet, largely to feed production of his booming electric car company. It’s fundamentally wrong when one of the biggest economic opportunities of the century (electric cars) is not only building on access to Africa’s resources but is being controlled by foreign companies, beneficiated overseas and is actually owned by Africans abroad.
This is only one example, but it is a foregone conclusion that too often Africa’s economic opportunities are identified and acted on by foreign companies. The Brics bank could go a long way to leading and directing African investment in African opportunities. Here, the Brics bank should act as a champion in attracting Africans to African opportunities and it should do so not only by putting its money where its mouth is but also by identifying and communicating economic opportunities to Africans.
Finally, the Brics bank should invest in structural opportunities to improve growth and development in Africa. This means investing in essential intra-continental trade, transport and information networks. For example, transferring funds between African countries, as is done by millions of migrants across the continent, too often relies on international banking services, even though cheaper African solutions exist. Similarly, it makes no sense that trade between African countries is facilitated by foreign owned and foreign flagged shipping companies when the skills and even the capital can be developed domestically.
If the Brics bank invests in local solutions and local opportunities it could go a long way to convincing Africans what they should already know: that social and economic development is entirely dependent on Africa leading and owning its national resources. Let’s hope the Brics bank knows that too.
Alexander O'Riordan is an aid effectiveness and donor funding researcher. This article was sourced from the South African Civil Society Information Service website
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos