Even though I agree with the overall idea, I thought I would expect a bit more from someone like Calestous Juma. I think value addition to raw materials is a good start. Juma is crazy to dismiss it. The real problem is that even that rarely happens.
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Africa-must-shift--its-focus-to-industrialise/-/440808/2640624/-/lptrxp/-/index.html
An incredibly lazy article. The argument about adding value to raw materials is not that it should be done to the exclusion of all else. The basis of the argument is that:
(a) Currently quite a few African countries export raw materials and then import, at substantially higher prices, the value-added products from those materials. So why not do the value-adding themselves?
(b) Depending on the materials, the process of value-adding can necessitate some industrialization that would also bring about new types of jobs. Indeed, the
Industrial Revolution itself has its roots in changes in the value-adding processes in textile-production and iron-making.
So what exactly is he proposing alternatives? First, he says that
"The focus should be on industrial development that does not require countries to have their own raw materials."Yes, but what about those countries that have a lot of those? Should they ignore them, or should they value-add? His chosen examples are careless ones:
In the first place, one should consider separately countries that have a lot of raw materials and countries that don't: countries like Taiwan, South Korea, etc. industrialized in the manner they did because they had no other options; certainly, they did not have the sort of raw materials that many African countries have. What is more significant, however, is that he does not consider the effects of value-adding even in such countries. Take, for example, South Korea's and Japan's huge steel industries, based on adding value to raw materials from elsewhere, and look at the automotive+related industries, ship-building, and so forth. Or take a look at what Taiwan exports as value-added products from some the oil it imports.
Second, considering his suppose example a country with plenty of raw materials: Finland has a long history of adding value to wood and still does to a very high degree; nothing has changed because of mobile phones. In fact, seeing that he is impressed with their mobile-phone abilities, he forgets an incredible bit of history: Nokia AB started out making money as Nokia Company (Nokia Aktiebolag), a pulp-mill business! It got into things electric when it got involved in electricity generation for its pulp mills. It also got into the business of adding value to rubber. Etc. Those are the activities from which it made the money that provided the basis for the activities for which it became most famous.
Apart from that, he doesn't have much else to suggest. Basically his ideas for African industrialization are that:
(a) There should be more STEM education. Wow. Original. And then do what with the products of the education?
(b) African governments should monitor emerging technologies. What they are supposed to do after the monitoring is left unstated.
(c) African governments should listen to more people like him. Presumably, if they listen, they will be told (a) and (b)!
The most important point Juma misses is this: No matter how one looks at it, the business of industrialization has at its core the conversion of "raw materials" into "more useful" or "more desirable" products---the value adding. Some people have the raw materials to start with, and others have to get them elsewhere; all other things being equal, the former should be considered as having a starting advantage.
Topic: Interesting economic growth: Kenya economy truly resilient (Read 7049 times)