Governance in Africa

The political situation in Africa perpetuates the intractable nature of African poverty. Democracy in Africa has not been historically successful, almost always supplanted by centralized authoritarian rule such as military dictatorships. Although some rulers worked to improve the lot of their nation's citizens, others used power purely for their own benefit. Among the most notorious was Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, whose regime has been called a kleptocracy due to its looting of the nation's wealth. According to international measures, the economies of Africa generally rank among the most corrupt. Bribery and graft abound, due to poverty and poorly handled de-colonization, and the superpowers' (Soviet Union and United States) practice during the Cold War of supporting any ruler with the desired political alignment, regardless of their managerial practices or human rights records.


Dependency theory asserts that the wealth and prosperity of the superpowers and their allies in Europe, North America and East Asia is dependent upon the poverty of the rest of the world, including Africa. Economists who subscribe to this theory believe that poorer regions must break their trading ties with the developed world in order to prosper.[51]

Less radical theories suggest that economic protectionism in developed countries hampers Africa's growth. When developing countries have harvested agricultural produce at low cost, they generally do not export as much as would be expected. Abundant farm subsidies and high import tariffs in the developed world, most notably those set by Japan, the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, and the United States Department of Agriculture, are thought to be the cause. Although these subsidies and tariffs have been gradually reduced, they remain high.

Local conditions also affect exports. In addition to lack of mechanization or other infrastructure, state over-regulation in several African nations can prevent their own exports from becoming competitive. Research in Public Choice economics such as that of Jane Shaw suggest that protectionism operates in tandem with heavy State intervention combining to depress economic development. Farmers subject to import and export restrictions cater to localized markets, exposing them to higher market volatility and fewer opportunities. When subject to uncertain market conditions farmers press for governmental intervention to suppress competition in their markets, resulting in competition being driven out of the market. As competition is driven out of the market farmers innovate less and grow less food further undermining economic performance.[52][53]

Although Africa and Asia had similar levels of income in the 1960s, Asia has since outpaced Africa. One school of economists argues that Asia's superior economic development lies in local investment. Corruption in Africa consists primarily of extracting economic rent and moving the resulting financial capital overseas instead of investing at home; the stereotype of African dictators with Swiss bank accounts is often accurate.

Asian dictators such as Suharto often take a cut on everything, necessitating bribery, but enable development through infrastructure investment and the social stability created by law and order.[citation needed] University of Massachusetts researchers estimate that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan countries totalled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts.[54] This disparity in development is consistent with the model theorized by economist Mancur Olson. Because governments were politically unstable and new governments often confiscated their predecessors' assets, officials would stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of any future expropriation.[citation needed]

Corruption encouraged social inequality, because the wealthy elite not only avoided investing at home, but also imported most of its consumption. Desirable luxury goods were generally not locally available. This hindered the development of national markets. Historically, economic development is closely linked to the creation of a middle class with enough income to save and invest but limited influence on governance. In countries without such a middle class, development is all but impossible, beyond resource extraction.