Territorial
conflicts and Africa: the first steps back to dignity
Colonialism resulted in artificial borders in Africa.
Formerly cohesive communities were divided. It is a fact these some of these
communities had relations far from peaceful before the colonial times. Yet, it
is a fact too that the whole continent has been in constant struggle since
then. Directly linked to territorial disputes (inter-states and within the
newly formed states) have translated into poverty, humanitarian crisis, arms
trafficking, and many more avoidable outcomes. The post today includes a
summary of a report by the World Banks that combines these elements (colonial
background, ethnicity, borders, poverty and development).
This fragmentation has its origin in the
region’s colonial history, kicked off during “the Scramble for Africa.” This got
worse after independence, with the break up of federations (e.g. Northern Rhodesia
Federation), customs unions, currency zones (only the CFA zone survived)—as
countries established their own trade regimes, central banks, and immigration
systems. This process further fragmented policy frameworks, fractured
transportation networks (e.g. disbanding of East African Railways), and led to
more trans-shipments and longer transit times, as well as more limited backhauls.
So the problem of isolation is not merely one of market size, but also the
absence of cohesion of policy across potentially larger investment areas.
Colonial structures of political control
were both arbitrary—with boundaries cutting across historical patterns of
politics and trade—and effective. Their abrupt departure meant that the
challenge of economic development was in many cases confounded from the outset
with an acute problem of nation building. Nigeria provides a telling example of
the impact of ex
ante regional polarization on political and economic
development. But similar patterns of internal polarization, often created or
reinforced in the encounter with conquering European powers, existed throughout
the continent in 1960.
While the salience of ethno-regional
polarization was clear to political scientists in the early 1960s, economists
have only recently begun to come to grips with the implications of
nation-building for African economic growth. Two approaches have been
important. As a legacy of low population densities and arbitrary colonial
boundaries, the probability that any two randomly chosen individuals in a given
African country would belong to the same ethnolinguistic group is very small.
Moreover, on a global basis, ethno-linguistically heterogeneous countries tend
to grow more slowly, as a result of weaker public sector performance. Reports show
similar finding for Kenya and Tanzania. However, the adverse impact of
heterogeneity is strongly contingent on political institutions. In democracies,
ethno-linguistic heterogeneity has no impact either on overall growth or on
microeconomic efficiency (as measured by the economic return on World Bank
projects). In dictatorships, the impact is strong.
The post tomorrow will continue with the
World Bank’s report. So far, it is easy to identify the direct link between
past and present realities in Africa. After introducing the roots of conflict,
the posts will evaluate means to solve them. To identify the ones who are responsible
for the current situations is the first step towards giving back to Africa what
is (and has always been) of Africa: dignity.
Challenges
of African Growth (The World Bank)
Jorge
Emilio Núñez
Twitter:
@London1701
16th October 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment