Afrikaanse landen en economische ontwikkeling

[The_Grand_Wazoo]

Ik mis de grote synthese.
Een cliffhanger?

[Olive Yao]

Ik mis de grote synthese.
Een cliffhanger?

Het idee eclectisch komt wel voor. Veel politici zijn vaak pragmatisch genoeg om eclectisch te zijn. Maar deze 'eclecticiteit' kwam in de laatste twee decennia van de vorige eeuw en het eerste van deze eeuw wel onder druk te staan.

Cliffhanger ... wil proberen wat op te bouwen (en daarbij de klippen van bot geschreeuw omzeilen), én kep niet zóveel tijd hiervoor.

[super ick]

.
intermezzo 4 – Anecdotes over electriciteit

Mijn kennissen wonen in een van de grootste steden van Nigeria.

Er is natuurlijk electriciteit, maar zoals in andere afrikaanse landen valt die regelmatig uit. 's Nachts wordt de electriciteit in de meeste stadsdelen uitgezet. Overdag valt hij ook vaak uit.

Veel mensen hebben daarom een generator om hun eigen electriciteit op te wekken. Nadeel van generatoren is, ze gebruiken fossiele brandstof, vervuilen de lucht en maken lawaai.

Mn kennissen hebben een restaurant, en ook zij hebben een generator. In het restaurant hangt een grote breedbeeld televisie als publiekstrekker (veel mensen hebben geen tv), en een tv werkt nu eenmaal op electriciteit. Ze hebben er ook stereo. En leuke, sfeervolle verlichting.

Op een half uur rijden van de stad hebben mn kennissen een hectare grond. Er is daar een klein gehucht, de zwager van een vriendin van me heeft daar een huis. Mn vriendin verbouwt yam, casava en plantain op die hectare.

Toen in de stad de stroom laatst 's avonds was uitgevallen vroeg ik haar:
– In het gehucht bij je land zal het nu wel aardedonker zijn?
– Nee, daar hebben ze altijd electriciteit. Er staat daar een bierfabriek, en die heeft altijd electriciteit, en die voorziet het gehucht van electriciteit.

Aan de zuidkant van de stad staat een groot, vrij modern ziekenhuis, en dat heeft ook altijd electriciteit. Het adverteert er zelfs mee – belangrijk om te weten als je naar het ziekenhuis moet.

Chinezen hebben onlangs een soort fun shopping plaza met spelcomputers neergezet in de stad. “Ze hebben daar alles wat jullie in Europa hebben”, zei mn vriendin. Dat plaza heeft ook altijd electriciteit. Ik vind het wel zonde dat die daarvoor gebruikt wordt.

Waarom klets ik over electriciteit?
Onderdeeltje van het verhaal; geen tijd voor een groot verhaal. De bedoeling zal duidelijk worden.

De strekking is dat er op sommige plaatsen een stabiele elektriciteitsvoorziening is met dank aan kapitalisten die daar een fabriek neerzetten.
Kapitalisten die er oor zorgen dat er voorzieningen zijn. Kapitalisten die zorgen voor arbeid. Kapitalisten die de economie een boost geven.

Wat kan het toch een mooi systeem zijn, als het niet doorslaat.

[Olive Yao]

De strekking is dat er op sommige plaatsen een stabiele elektriciteitsvoorziening is met dank aan kapitalisten die daar een fabriek neerzetten.
Kapitalisten die er oor zorgen dat er voorzieningen zijn. Kapitalisten die zorgen voor arbeid. Kapitalisten die de economie een boost geven.

Wat kan het toch een mooi systeem zijn, als het niet doorslaat.

De strekking die ik bedoel is eenvoudiger, namelijk dat er daar electriciteit is.

Maar nu je dit ter sprake brengt:

Een stap verder terug en algemener:

(Het restaurant hierboven breidt uit. Grote stacaravan gekocht als tweede verkooppunt. Was een zwart metalen gevaarte. Binnen drie dagen gespoten in wit en groen en een roze deur en raamkozijnen).

Mn vriendin in de post hierboven zegt: Als je geld hebt kun je deze dingen doen.
Ze zegt niet, als je een kapitalist hebt kun je deze dingen doen.

Dus een stap terug in het proces: het gaat om de productiefactor kapitaal.
Dat is geen uitspraak over de meest effectieve herkomst daarvan.

Om wat stappen vooruit te kijken, een aannemelijk oordeel lijkt me:

● niet is één en dezelfde herkomst van kapitaal steeds de meest effectieve
● er zijn verschillende mogelijke bronnen van kapitaal, welke bron het meest effectief is, verschilt, afhankelijk van
- de omstandigheden
- en de nagestreefde doelen.

Generalisaties en dogma's zijn verkeerd.

Meteen even een eventueel vooroordeel wegnemen (zonder dat iemand aan te schrijven):
een generalisatie dat mensen daar niet ondernemend zouden zijn is ook nonsens.

[super ick]

De strekking die ik bedoel is eenvoudiger, namelijk dat er daar electriciteit is.

Maar nu je dit ter sprake brengt:

Een stap verder terug en algemener:

(Het restaurant hierboven breidt uit. Grote stacaravan gekocht als tweede verkooppunt. Was een zwart metalen gevaarte. Binnen drie dagen gespoten in wit en groen en een roze deur en raamkozijnen).

Mn vriendin in de post hierboven zegt: Als je geld hebt kun je deze dingen doen.
Ze zegt niet, als je een kapitalist hebt kun je deze dingen doen.

Dus een stap terug in het proces: het gaat om de productiefactor kapitaal.
Dat is geen uitspraak over de meest effectieve herkomst daarvan.

Om wat stappen vooruit te kijken, een aannemelijk oordeel lijkt me:

● niet is één en dezelfde herkomst van kapitaal steeds de meest effectieve
● er zijn verschillende mogelijke bronnen van kapitaal, welke bron het meest effectief is, verschilt, afhankelijk van
- de omstandigheden
- en de nagestreefde doelen.

Generalisaties en dogma's zijn verkeerd.

Meteen even een eventueel vooroordeel wegnemen (zonder dat iemand aan te schrijven):
een generalisatie dat mensen daar niet ondernemend zouden zijn is ook nonsens.

Kapitaal komt niet uit de lucht vallen.
Noem eens een ander, bewezen, systeem dat werkt behalve 1 persoon die een caravan schildert?

Het is toch echt 'kapitalistisch' geld waarmee deze mensen geholpen moeten worden.

[Olive Yao]

Kapitaal komt niet uit de lucht vallen.
Noem eens een ander, bewezen, systeem dat werkt behalve 1 persoon die een caravan schildert?

Het is toch echt 'kapitalistisch' geld waarmee deze mensen geholpen moeten worden.

Ik schrijf niet dat geld uit de lucht komt vallen, en ook niet over een bewezen systeem. Je geeft mn post vorige post verkeerd weer. Ik schrijf dat er verschillende bronnen van geld zijn. (Twee verschillende mensen zijn al twee verschillende bronnen, en dat zijn dan niet meer dan twee mensen).

[Olive Yao]

.
ONTWIKKELINGSECONOMIEËN HEBBEN GEEN THEORIE VOOR ECONOMISCHE ONTWIKKELING

n. b. de kopjes bij de smileys zijn een samenvatting; je kunt alleen die lezen


Hoe is de verhouding tussen:

• de neoklassieke school van economische theorie
en
• neoliberaal kapitalisme?

Neoliberaal kapitalisme is:
– een vorm van kapitalisme, ideologie en praktijk
– een politiek-economische ideologie en praktijk.

In de neoklassieke school bestaan twee stromingen:
a. markten kunnen falen
b. economische subjecten zijn rationeel, daarom kunnen markten niet falen.

Stroming b levert de theoretische grondslag voor neoliberaal kapitalisme.


De neoklassieke school en neoliberaal kapitalisme domineren sinds rond 1980

(de combinatie kort ik af als NK-NK).

Het proces dat hiertoe geleid heeft bestaat uit:
• feitelijke politieke en economische geschiedenis
• ideeëngeschiedenis.

Dit is natuurlijk complex. Er zijn wel hoofdlijnen:
• de economische geschiedenis van elk land is uniek, maar in vrijwel elk land heeft NK-NK sterke invloed op de economie;
• de dominantie van NK-NK heeft te maken met economische belangen van een klasse van economische actoren;
• centraal streven is overheden en staten uitschakelen.

De dominantie van NK-NK is wereldwijd. Slechts enkele landen hebben het op afstand gehouden of alleen beperkt toegelaten. Met name China en India.

Niet te zwart-wit oordelen -
economische politiek in de stijl van Keynes is in praktijk nooit weggeweest. Met name niet in het land waar bepaalde economen er fel tegen ageren: de VS.


De neoklassieke school heeft alle andere scholen van economische theorie verdrongen

– Zo publiceerden tal van economische vakbladen alleen nog artikelen in de neoklassieke school.
– Invloedrijke posities werden (en worden) bekleed door neoklassieke economen.
– De studie economie aan universiteiten is beperkt tot de neoklassieke school (de afgelopen 5 jaar hebben studenten in diverse landen geprotesteerd tegen de eenzijdige studie).


In ontwikkelingseconomieën is economische ontwikkelingstheorie verdrongen door de neoklassieke school

Economische politiek in ontwikkelingseconomieën wordt sinds rond 1980 niet meer gebaseerd op economische ontwikkelingstheorie, maar op de neoklassieke school.


De neoklassieke school heeft geen theorie van economische ontwikkeling

Economische theorie van de neoklassieke school gaat over conjunctuur. Kernvraag is, hoe bereikt de economie evenwicht? Evenwicht is een toestand van de conjunctuur. Deze theorie gaat niet over economische ontwikkeling, waarmee de school zich alleen zijdelings bezighoudt.


Ontwikkelingseconomieën hebben geen theorie voor economische ontwikkeling

Ontwikkelingseconomieën verkeren sinds rond 1980 in de volgende absurde situatie:

economische politiek is gebaseerd op een economische school die geen theorie over economische ontwikkeling heeft

– en die ongeschikt is voor ontwikkelingseconomieën.


In een volgende post meer over economische ontwikkelingstheorie.

[Olive Yao]

.
Op oudjaarsdag, 31 december vorig jaar verscheen er een artikel in Foreign Policy.
Forumleden zouden de thema's inmiddels kunnen herkennen.


Africa's boom is over

Rick Rowden, Foreign Policy donderdag 31 december 2015

Africa was never going to get far without manufacturing — and it can’t do so under today’s trade and investment treaties.

(...)

(...) In 2013 I argued that Africa’s growth would not be real, lasting, or beneficial for its people until it was based on industrialization rather than exporting raw commodities. Rather than focusing on the hype of mobile phones and African billionaires, I urged advocates of the “Africa Rising” argument to look at some basic development indicators: Was manufacturing increasing as a percentage of GDP? Were the goods African countries exported becoming more valuable — finished products rather than raw materials?

(...)

Reflecting these trends, the IMF has cut its 2015 projection for growth in sub-Saharan Africa from 4.5 to 3.75 percent, concluding that the decade-long commodity cycle that had raised African export revenues “seems to have come to an end.” With a population boom on the horizon, experts now worry about how the continent will produce enough jobs for its people.

(...)

To be fair, critics of industrial policies were correct to cite some historical cases where the policies had badly misfired in developing countries, particularly in Africa and Latin America in the 1960s and 70s. But these critics were often selective in their criticisms, ignoring successful cases and neglecting to explain why they worked so well in the United States, Europe and East Asia while failing so badly in Africa and elsewhere. In Africa and Latin America, industrial policies often failed because they were focused inward on small domestic markets. Companies were often given support based on corruption or nepotism, rather than their efficiency. On the other hand, the successful East Asian countries focused on international markets, and they instilled discipline in companies by cutting off support to those which failed to improve. But this says more about how to do industrial policy — not whether it should be done.

(...)

Africans, too, have taken notice. Recent annual meetings of African finance and development ministers, the African Union, and the U.N. Economic Commission on Africa have been raising the issue in a high-profile way. The ECA has begun promoting what it calls “smart protectionism,” suggesting that trade policy in Africa should be “highly selective,” with special treatment for certain sectors to advance national development goals.

But if industrial policy is making a comeback, its not likely to be so easy for those in Africa. Many African countries have foolishly signed on to World Trade Organization rules that have clearly restricted their “policy space” for using such policies. And while WTO rules still afford them some limited provisions, this is not the case under a raft of other newer and further-reaching regional free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties promoted by rich countries over the last 15 years. And even more are on the way: Some of the biggest deals on the immediate horizon are the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Trade in International Services Agreement (TiSA), and the EU’s free trade deals with several African regions, known as Economic Partnership Agreements.

So, even as we are seeing a renewed appreciation of industrial policy, trade negotiators from the rich countries are twisting arms, cajoling developing countries into signing new treaties and agreements that will restrict their use of industrial policies. Many developing country leaders either buckle under such pressure or willingly sign on in the hope that they can export more of their primary commodities into rich country markets in the short-term, even if this means foregoing long-term industrialization.

Given this situation, the logical conclusion is still seldom spoken in polite company: African leaders who are serious about pursuing industrialization will have to back-track, renegotiate, and re-design their previous international trade commitments, and refuse to sign new ones that put them at a disadvantage. Offending more powerful trading partners and big foreign investors would likely invite serious short-term consequences, including lawsuits, threats to cut off foreign aid and trade preferences, and possibly lower foreign investment. But the longer-term consequences of not doing so may be far worse.

In Johannesburg, I recently asked the Chairperson of the African Union, Nkosazana Clarice Dlamini-Zuma, how Africa could expect to industrialize if it signs on to the European Union’s Economic Partnership Agreements.
Her reply: “We’re going to have to renegotiate some of them.”



Om het geschrijf over "Africa's boom" in het juiste licht te zien is het artikel in post #83, From a marginalised to an emerging Africa? nuttig.

[Olive Yao]

.
Benjamin William Mkapa, voormalig president van Tanzania, is op 4 juli 2020 overleden.

Zijn volgende redevoering is uit 2017 tijdens een bezoek aan Lagos, N.


REMARKS BY THE GUEST SPEAKER H. E. BENJAMIN WILLIAM MKAPA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA:

SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2017 IN LAGOS

Your Excellency Muhammadu Buhari, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,

Honourable Frank Udemba Jacobs, President of the Manufactures Association of Nigeria (MAN),

Your Excellency Akinwumi Ambode, Governor of Lagos State,

Honourable Ministers and Senators Present,

Members of the Diplomatic Corps,

Members of the Nigerian Manufacturers Association,

Distinguished Invited Guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is a privilege and an honour for me to join you in this august gathering of Nigerian business executives and to have this opportunity to address you as Guest Speaker.

I must begin by thanking you Mr. President for the invitation but also all members of the National Council who unanimously thought that my thoughts and opinion are worthwhile and may be of use to Nigeria’s manufacturing sector. I also thank you for the hospitality you have accorded to me and my delegation since my arrival here in Lagos.

While I thank the fraternity for giving me such an honour, I must however, express my surprise that you chose me from, I am sure the long list of luminaries who would have been more eligible than me for such an honour. I am humbled therefore by your words in the invitation letter that you invited me to share my experience as a leader of my country and steps I took to revive my country’s economy in our collective endeavour as Africans to extricate ourselves from endemic retrogression of the manufacturing sector. I thank you for the appreciation of the work I did to my country as President.

You will appreciate my bewilderment when you attempt to compare the size of GDPs of our two sister countries, the number and sizes of manufacturing industries present in our countries and the size of our countries’ domestic markets in terms of the population size which is vital for the growth of industries. According to Tradingeconomics.com, Nigeria’s GDP was estimated at $ 405 Billion in 2016 representing 0.65% of the world economy and is almost a quarter of Africa’s total GDP. In startling contrast, Tanzania’s GDP in the same year was 47.43 billion US dollars, a paltry 0.08 per cent of the world economy!! The two economies can barely sustain comparison!!

I overcame my surprise when I realised that the structure of your economy is typical of the developing countries, with a significant proportion of its GDP accounted for by the primary sector, with agriculture leading the way and the industrial sector ―comprising of manufacturing, mining and utilities―contributing a modest fraction of less than 5%. With such strikingly similar structures, I found more commonalities than differences when it comes to the assessment of the problems afflicting African countries’ manufacturing sector.

As a start, it is important for Nigeria to pause for reflection and assess its own economic history and profile so as to determine its impact on its manufacturing sector growth or decline so far. As Socrates once aptly said, “An unexamined life is not worth living”. And as the Yoruba saying goes, “ A lame man said the load on his head was not properly balanced, and was told its unevenness began from the ground”.

My approach to this address is more broad, general and pan-Africanist than parochial and nationalistic. But I fully acknowledge an important truism, namely that Nigeria remains an extremely important economy and has a major role to play in the continent’s crusade for economic liberation, which in my opinion can best and easily be achieved through strategic industrialisation, with emphasis in the manufacturing sectors that will help us to increase our share in the global trade.

Mr. President,

Distinguished invited Guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The subject “Revitalising Nigeria’s Manufacturing Sector”, is both topical and relevant for the era we find ourselves in, especially in the face of teething globalisation, increasing global uncertainties and fierce agitation for control of Africa’s abundant resource reserves.

Generally speaking, the future of manufacturing industry not only in Nigeria, but in Africa as a whole, is not that rosy as it is very uncertain. The onset of emerging technologies such as mobile connectivity, artificial intelligence, next-generation robotics, and 3D printing, supply chains, etcetera has victimised, so to speak, the manufacturing sector. We are in an epoch that other commentators have termed as the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. This revolution entails new forms of collaboration that drive innovative value chains and business models that are condemning the traditional industrial patterns to oblivion.

That global trend notwithstanding, we will be making a grave mistake if we look at the development of industries in the world and think that we ought to follow a similar path to that industrial economies have followed, and ignore areas where we have comparative advantage. The structure of our economies portrays one undeniable fact, namely that the entry point to Africa’s industrialisation dreams is ONLY through the primary sector using the resources that we have in abundance. We have the possibility of leap-frogging the developed world by designing industrial policies that do not replicate their mistakes but also hasten our industrialisation process. The only safeguard is that we should be careful and inquisitive enough to draw lessons from history and thence recalibrate our industrial development strategies basing on our domestic realities and global trends. There are a number of factors that necessitate this strategic reorientation:

Firstly; the resource base which others have used in the past to build their industrial base has changed. Colonialism was used to ensure reliable supply of resources for industries in the West to flourish. It is not only counter-productive but also impossible to aspire to mould any industrial growth strategy based on similar overt, dependent and exploitative arrangements.

Secondly, the geopolitical environment is vastly different from the past and demands us to relentlessly be on guard against machinations and overtures that mean more harm to us than good. EPAs are the classic cases and which I will address later;

Thirdly, globalization has made it almost impossible to think of viable national industrial development strategies without putting into account global collaborations into the equation, and hence, the advent of the concept of global value chains in concert with national value chains.

Mr. President,

Distinguished Guests

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Looking at the manufacturing sector in Nigeria, I have learnt that it is driven by increased investment inflows, stock market capitalisation of companies, technology adaptations, though not to a satisfactory level, and accumulation of skilled industrial human resource over years of practice and training. The same sector faces debilitating constraints some of which the President of the Association has alluded to very eloquently. The problem of unreliable power supply and high cost of power, high cost of borrowing, increasing competition from often cheap and low-quality imports from Asian countries; and inability to fully adapt to modern technologies are not problems limited to Nigeria alone,, but almost all African countries. Potentials for the growth of the Nigerian Manufacturing sector is there for you; what is needed is effectively to make use of the opportunity to tap into the large domestic market with an ever increasing middle class with higher disposable income. These, to begin with, are dominant issues that I argue should engage our minds if the strategy for revitalizing the Manufacturing sector in this country is to succeed.

[Olive Yao]

.
My Experience in Tanzania as a Leader

Members of the Manufacturing Association of Nigeria

Distinguished Invited Guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen

My experience in leading my country Tanzania is laden with memories of many initiatives taken to tackle similar and persistent challenges that you are facing, of course with varying results. Even though we are products of different political history, in the context of the OAU and the AU, our paths have converged and we are facing very similar macroeconomic challenges. I therefore believe my experience may be practically eye-opening.

After our independence, our founding Father, President Mwalimu Julius Nyerere chose the socialist path culminating in the nationalization of substantial industrial enterprises and of all major means of production and exchange, effectively creating a command economy with the Arusha Declaration in 1977.

Large financial, economic and industrial enterprises were nationalized which in turn deterred new local and external investments. This process reached the level where butcheries were owned by local government authorities!! Development projects were under-written by corruption. I must hasten to add that this policy was not wholly bad; indeed it may have enabled the evolution of a national consciousness and a sense of ownership which defines Tanzania today. But it stunted economic growth.

When Mwalimu retired and Mzee Mwinyi, my predecessor took over, the demands of the time necessitated opening up of the economy as a condition by the Bretton-Wood institutions who prescribed the famous Structural Adjustment Program (SAP). President Mwinyi embarked on that enterprise up to a certain level. The nation and the economy began opening up.

When I came to Office in 1995, I inherited a country that was at its very initial stages of transformation with a very small, fragile and nascent private sector. There was a plethora of inefficient and loss making parastatals most of which survived almost entirely on subsidies from the Government. On top of that, revenue collections were at the lowest, tax evasion was high denying the-much-wanted revenues to the government to drive any meaningful socio-economic inroads.

In addition to re-orientation of the mindset of party and government cadres, I faced three critical obstacles to reform. Firstly successful implementation of government policy requires a contented Civil Service. In my case the civil service sought security of remuneration from the small private sector. With the help of friendly bilateral cooperation countries I was able to reverse this trend.

Secondly I addressed the problem of absence of consultations with the private sector and prospective investors, both internal and external. I instituted regular meetings with Associations of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture along with professional associations. I thus was able to reduce the undercurrent of hostility and aversion between government and these critical movers and shakers of the economy. The best example of the readiness to establish common ground with compatible interest occurred when I decided to open up the mining sector. We held a three day national conference to work out the elements of a mining policy; it brought together political party leaders, parliamentarians, civil society leaders, religious leaders, academics and mining groups from abroad. This encounter enabled a consensus for legislation which has opened up the mining sector.

Thirdly, I had to repair the fragile relations that existed between government and bilateral aid givers on the one hand, and international financial institutions, led by the IMF and the World Bank on the other. I was able to achieve this by demonstrating firmness in the commitment to Reform and Transformation, while at the same time asserting ownership of policy, strategy and implementation. No one would dictate to Government or Parliament.

After very careful consideration within the ruling Party CCM and the Government, both of which institutions I led, I embarked on the privatisation of the loss making parastatals. In undertaking that exercise, I was guided by the deep conviction that we can only make meaningful macroeconomic strides if the private sector is made key to whatever industrial policy we are envisaging. My intention then was to widen the private sector and create an environment that will spur its growth and enable it to be robust enough as an engine of growth of the country’s economy.

I am fully aware of the robustness of Nigeria’s private sector that has seen the emergence of the likes of Aliko Dangote, Mike Adenuga, Tony Elumelu, among many others. I salute them for their entrepreneurial spirit, but more importantly for the fame and respect they have earned for Nigeria and mother Africa. I am retracing this history in my attempt to inform you that despite different paths that we have passed since our independence, the challenges that our manufacturing sectors are facing today remain very similar and demand a Pan-African approach.

I went on instituting a number of measures geared at boosting revenue collection, stamping out bureaucracy and red tape as well as corruption so as to better the country’s investment climate and attract foreign direct investments. However, I must admit one of the mistakes I made was not to establish a mechanism to monitor the performance of the privatised enterprises to an extent that most of them are either in abeyance or in disarray as a result of mismanagement, lack of business acumen, and so on. Therefore in terms of industrial development story, we remain with a very fragile and insignificant manufacturing sector. Our balance of trade remained in the negative territory and it has remained there to date. We continued to romanticise exportation of primary products and shun value addition just as we were during colonial times. My current President H. E. John Pombe Magufuli is embarked on a fierce industrialisation drive as his motto; strides are yet to be recorded as he is in very early years of his Presidency.

I am happy that in Nigeria, the macroeconomic indicators of your economy are improving. Your Industrial Revolution Plan (NIRP) is positively poised to help manufacturing revenues. The plan, as I have learnt, will add a further $25 billion to the manufacturing revenues in the next three years. Other measures as enumerated in your President’s speech are heartening as they seek to address the very problems that have crippled the sector over many years. Despite security challenges in some places, I am optimistic that with these compelling growth stories, demographic advantages that you have in terms of your population size and political stability, the future remains promising but only if you put your act together domestically and remain on the lookout internationally. We must be guided by the Fulani saying: What cleverness hides, cleverness will reveal.

Distinguished Invited Guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Permit me to express my carefully considered proposals on the way forward. In this regard, I wish to highlight the need for the following growth pillars as catalysts for accelerated growth of the Manufacturing sector:

• Encourage Youth and Women Entrepreneurship;

• Continuous improvement of Business Environment;

• Adaptation of Technology; and

• Adopting Effective trade policies.

Encouraging Youth and Women Entrepreneurship

We all in Africa bear witness to your world acclaimed entrepreneurial spirit that has seen a number of Nigeria’s businessmen emerge as global business icons. It is imperative that the Federal Government, State

Governments and private entities like yours develop in harmony policies and incentives that seek to encourage many more Nigerian youth and women to venture into business rather than leaving it to individual entrepreneurial acumen. Support systems such as Venture Capital Funds, Business Advisory Centres, Shared Office Space, Supply Quota for Women and Youth Manufacturers, and provision of patient capital, among others will go a long way to revive the spirit of entrepreneurship which is already existent in Nigeria. Special attention must be given to Business Management training, branding, product development, marketing and communication as vital aspects to business success during crafting and implementation of such policies.

Improving the Business Environment

This is one area in Africa where tremendous improvements are badly needed and it is one area that has preoccupied me a great deal since my retirement in 2005. In 2004 British Prime Minister Tony Blair brought together 17 people, the majority of them Africans to form a Commission for Africa with the objective of defining the challenges facing Africa and to provide clear recommendations on how to support the changes needed to reduce poverty. I was one of the Commissioners. In our report titled “Our Common Interest”, we recognised the imperative to establish a Fund to assist the transformation plans of African countries to this end. Until recently, I have been a Co-Chair of the Invest Climate Facility for Africa (ICF), a development organization established in 2007 with a sole mandate of boosting Africa’s economic growth by removing barriers to doing business in the continent. Our modus operandi was to collaborate with Government and businesses to identify and improve priority areas that drive investment climate critical for job creation, income growth and poverty reduction across the continent. In the 9 years life span, ICF had tremendous impact on African development. It is ironic that, despite the remarkable strides, it has had to wind up due to funding challenges as we were dependent significantly on foreign donors.

From my experience in chairing the ICF, I have come to realise the imperative of the private sector and all levels of the government (Federal, State and Local) to work in concert to continuously improve the business climate. In this endeavour MAN should take the lead advocacy role in pushing for business climate improvement reforms to make them competitive for the domestic and export markets. The government needs to deal with issues of bureaucracy and red tape, endemic corruption, reform of business registration procedures. In 9 years of activities, the ICF has had a tremendous impact on African development, with quick interventions, clear targets and tangible results, making it easier to do business in Africa. It worked with 21 partner governments, impacting 36 countries in 73 projects. These projects involved creating commercial courts, launching single window for trade, reducing the time and costs obtaining construction permits, facilitating business registration and reducing informality, improving the management of land administration and introduction of online tax systems to reduce the time and cost of fulfilling tax obligations.

Reform of commercial courts must be looked at so as to enable courts to play the role effectively in adjudicating commercial disputes. As part of our mandate in ICF, we have worked with tremendous success in promoting business arbitration and mediation in Ivory Coast, establishment and operation of Fast Track Commercial Courts in Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Mauritius, Operationalization of the Court of Arbitration in Togo and similar projects in Zambia and Tanzania. I therefore have a full appreciation of how efficient dispute settlement mechanisms can improve the overall business environment with tremendous impact on the overall efficiency of the manufacturing sector.