Mamdani on trade and aid in Africa

Here at the ASA annual meeting in NY, renowned African scholar Mahmood Mamdani makes (as usual) several thought-provoking points on African development and US foreign policy towards Africa.

First, he says that he regularly points out in his lectures that periods of manufacturing development in East Africa have come during times of crisis in the West—WWI, the Great Depression, WWII—when imports were not possible.

What does this imply for trade policy in Africa? I would caution against the protectionist view. Perhaps what was most important in these instances is that the production advantage ended after some period, exposing firms to the standard competitive pressures after an incubatory period. This is very different from import-bans or other policy-based protection of internal markets, which tend to persist until a crisis and collapse of the manufacturing sector. It does, however, raise the question how we create such incubatory opportunities in the absence of a World War. In my mind the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act offers this promise. Too bad that AGOA is scheduled to expire relatively soon.

In a second (unrelated) comment, Mamdani reports an interaction with a former USAID official in Africa, who resigned from his post because he felt that US policy was not interested in democracy, was not interested in stability, was not interested in development. Rather, the focus is on the war on terror, and on exporting the homeland security act to as many countries as possible.

I take this point, and believe that, to some extent, it must be true. It’s worth noting that (to my surprise) this has not been my personal experience with USAID. Their work in northern Uganda—which is really the only USAID work with which I can claim familiarity—is important, relatively effective, and sincere. They seem, from the outside, to play a relatively productive role in the region. For this I think thanks go most of all to a couple of particularly outstanding officials with a long tenure in Uganda. Undoubtedly it reflects at least some concern for stability and development on the part of the Agency.