Dependency redux: why Africa is not rising

Abstract

Whilst numerous accounts claim that the continent is on the rise, driven by high growth rates and supposed better governance and economic policies, Africa's dependent position in the global economy is being reified. This article seeks to analyse the dynamics which are accompanying a notional ‘rise’ of Africa but which are actually contributing to the continent being pushed further and further into underdevelopment and dependency. It calls into question the superficial accounts of a continent on the move or that declare that the continent has somehow turned a definitive page in its history. A ‘rise’ based on an intensification of resource extraction whilst dependency deepens, inequality increases and de-industrialisation continues apace, cannot be taken seriously. A model based on growth-for-growth's sake has replaced development and the agenda of industrialisation and moving Africa up the global production chain has been discarded. Instead, Africa's current ‘comparative advantage’ as a primary commodity exporter is celebrated and reinforced. History repeats itself.

[« Le retour de la dépendance » : pourquoi l'Afrique ne croît pas.] Alors que de nombreux récits affirment que le continent est en croissance, tiré par des taux de croissance élevés ainsi qu'une gouvernance et des politiques économiques supposées plus efficaces, la position de dépendance de l'Afrique vis-à-vis de l’économie mondiale est réifiée. Cet article tente d'analyser les dynamiques qui accompagnent une « croissance » notionnelle de l'Afrique mais qui poussent en fait le continent vers plus de sous-développement et de dépendance. Ceci remet en question les récits superficiels d'un continent en mouvement ou qui déclare que le continent a tourné en quelque sorte une page définitive de son histoire. Une « croissance » basée sur l'intensification de l'extraction des ressources alors que la dépendance se renforce, les inégalités augmentent et la désindustrialisation se poursuit rapidement, ne peut pas être prise au sérieux. Un modèle basé sur l'intérêt de la croissance pour la croissance a remplacé le développement, et le programme d'industrialisation et d'intégration aux chaines de production mondiales a été abandonné. Au lieu de cela, « l'avantage comparatif » actuel de l'Afrique en tant qu'exportateur de produits de base primaires est célébré et renforcé. L'histoire se répète.

Keywords:

• Africa
• growth
• development

Mots-clés:

• Afrique
• croissance
• développement

Note on contributor

Ian Taylor is Professor in International Relations and African Politics at St Andrews, Chair Professor in the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China and Professor Extraordinary in Political Science at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The eight countries are: Ghana, Uganda, Senegal, Niger, Malawi, Benin, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe.

2. Despite a flurry of reports talking about Africa being ‘the new Mecca for luxury brands’ (African Business, September 19, 2013) and how the number of millionaires is set to rise on the continent, one in three people living in SSA are undernourished, 589 million people live without electricity, more than 50% of Africans have a water-related illness such as cholera, 62% of people living in urban areas live in slum conditions and women in SSA are over 230 times more likely to die during childbirth or pregnancy than women in North America (see United Nations 2014). Meanwhile, the percentage of people living on less than $2 a day in SSA is around 70% (in 1981 it was 72.2% – in other words, in over 30 years, poverty reduction in SSA has been negligible). The absolute number of people on $2 a day or less has doubled (see World Bank 2013c, 542). So much for ‘Africa Rising'.

3. This is apart from the $52.9 billion – roughly 5.5% of GDP – that SSA loses in illicit financial outflows each year (Global Financial Integrity 2014). See also Boyce and Ndikumana (2012).

4. The classic example being the World Trade Organization, but there are plenty more.