Book Review by Dr. Johannes Plagemann Ian Taylor (2014), Africa Rising?: BRICS – Diversifying Dependency, Woodbridge, U.K. &...
Book Review by Dr. Johannes Plagemann
Ian Taylor
(2014), Africa Rising?: BRICS – Diversifying Dependency, Woodbridge, U.K. &
Rochester, NY: James Currey, ISBN 97818470 10964, 208 pp.
Ian Taylor
tackles two hot topics in recent debates on Africa. One is the “Africa rising”
trope, largely derived from recent growth records across a variety of African
nations; the other is the engagement in Africa of the emerging economies –
namely, Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). As the two themes are clearly
interrelated, it makes sense to treat them in a single monograph. In fact, the
book’s greatest value is its laying out of the extent to which the trends
interrelate. Taylor shows how the growth in African economies has coincided
with a boom in commodity prices over the past decade, which in turn can largely
be attributed to growing resource hunger in China and, to a lesser degree, in
India and Brazil. As the lack of diversification in African economies has
intensified (127-129), the BRIC states – as trading partners – have not helped
African economies in structural terms. Thus, Taylor argues that the BRIC
states’ efforts in Africa essentially reify the continent’s historical
dependence on resource extraction, which has resulted in the “jobless growth”
of the past decade and deindustrialization (139-141), and which has –
presumably – contributed to the further entrenchment of neopatrimonial modes of
government within African regimes. Taylor’s pessimistic claims are backed by
helpful individual analyses of Brazil, Russia, India and China in Africa, in
which he delineates their differences with regard to style, interest and
strategy (South Africa, the “S” in “BRICS”, is not regarded as an emerging
economy by Taylor and is therefore not included in his analysis).
Yet, one wonders
whether Taylor took the “noise” around a rising Africa a bit too seriously.
After all, few commentators aside from investment gurus and consultant firms
portray Africa in such a rosy light. Most prominently, The Economist made a
U-turn in its headline assessment (from “a hopeless continent” in 2000 to a
“hopeful” one in 2013), but the 2013 special report also recognized the
elephant in the room: the fact that much of the recent growth resulted from a
natural-resource bonanza. Independent economists have been cautious with regard
to the “Africa rising” thesis, although government representatives, investment
managers and the World Economic Forum, all quoted by Taylor, do not share their
scepticism. The “rising Africa” trope was also partly a reaction to the
Afro-pessimism of the 1990s and its postcolonial undertones.
Similarly, by
exposing the fact that emerging economies are not proposing an “alternative
economic paradigm” in Africa, Taylor chose a particularly weak straw man. Most
academic commentators highlight the 116 Book Reviews BRIC states’ ambiguous
effects in Africa. At least in the Western sphere, there is a pronounced
scepticism vis-à-vis the BRIC states and their intentions in Africa. China has
long been struggling with its dismal reputation as a mere resource extractor
unwilling to employ locals. In Mozambique, for instance, accusations of Chinese
illegal logging and the view that Chinese built infrastructure is of poor
quality are more widespread than the belief that China or the other BRIC
countries are at the vanguard of an alternative economic paradigm. More recently,
investments in mining by the Brazilian company Vale aroused considerable
protest from displaced locals, and projects by two Indian companies – Rites and
Ircon, contracted to reconstruct a vital rail link between the port in Beira
and landlocked coal mines – were delayed to the point that authorities
cancelled their contracts in 2011. All of this happened against the backdrop of
extensive investments in resource extraction from Brazil, India and South
Africa (among others) and a public debate around the shortcomings of resource based
growth in terms of poverty alleviation and employment. Thus, the celebration of
South–South solidarity as a panacea for African development seems to be
confined to BRIC and IBSA statements.
Taylor’s claim
that BRIC states are merely diversifying African dependency is based on his
description of the BRIC states as almost exclusively focused on resource
extraction and as “rigidly doctrinaire” in both their “application of
neoliberal policies” and the principle of non-interference in dealing with
African governments. Their rhetoric notwithstanding, the impact of the emerging
economies in Africa, according to Taylor, was structurally similar to that of
the established powers. Taylor also writes that the BRIC states had nothing in common
with each other beyond their rhetoric and significantly rising GDPs. These
assertions are debatable at best: While relevant differences between emerging
economies in Africa and their Northern competitors persist, the fact that
African states remain relatively less powerful vis-à-vis both groups does not
alter that. Consider, for instance, the prominent role played by the state both
within BRIC countries and in their relations towards Africa, which is markedly
different from the role the state generally plays in Western style capitalism.
The development bank that the BRIC states are envisioning and the effective
coalition-building they have been undertaking amongst themselves in various
global negotiations since the turn of the millennium are noteworthy, too.
Moreover, aid from BRIC states has at least some characteristics that
distinguish it from Western countries’ modes of development cooperation. Taylor
notes the export of medicine from India to Africa and successes in overcoming
rigid patent laws upheld by Western countries in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
These are Book Reviews 117 pertinent differences, which brings me to other
lines of argumentation I disagree with: Taylor’s overly negative portrayal of
emerging economies as partners in trade and aid along with his dismissal of any
positive developments in the wake of Africa’s recent growth records.
First,
competition in trade bolsters the negotiating position held by African
governments. Take, for instance, India’s unilateral opening towards least developed
countries, noted by Taylor. This is surely a positive step from an African
perspective, as it precipitated the OECD countries’ opening markets in some
areas in order to remain competitive. More fundamentally, having a more diverse
group of potential customers decreases the dependency inherent to
resource-based economies, albeit insufficiently. And if we decry African
states’ lack of power and influence on the global stage, then the emergence of
new and diverse partners willing to ally with African governments – out of
whatever strategic interests – appears to be a rather favourable political
development, as well. Take Brasília’s two-faced identity manifested in the
claim to global status, on the one hand, and its historical preference for
multilateralism (42-43), on the other. In fact, Brazil is highly unlikely to
achieve the kind of global status it seeks anytime soon. Thus, no matter what
the rationale behind its approach to international politics is, middle-power
characteristics are unlikely to dissipate (not least because of recent poor
growth figures), and multilateralism is as deeply engrained into the foreign
policy establishment as is the demand for global status. Thus, underscoring
Brazil’s desire to gain global-power status while belittling the
characteristics of middle-power multilateralism when debating former’s
relations with Africa, is somewhat unfair. Likewise, the increasing engagement
of emerging economies in foreign aid, as Taylor notes, may have positive
effects. OECD donors in many countries have harmonized their development
policies since the Paris Declaration in 2005. New donors do not want to be part
of these alliances. On the one hand, this undermines Western attempts to
improve governance, democratic standards and the rule of law by conditionality
(whose effectiveness is debatable). On the other hand, it gives African regimes
a choice where they had (almost) none before. Moreover, Taylor does admit that
“technology, advice and professional assistance from a country such as Brazil that
already practises policies domestically in a developmental setting may be more
useful to recipient countries’ needs than that offered by the traditional
donors” (51). Consider the hugely successful Brazilian social assistance scheme
as a model for (much less developed) African countries. Yet, concrete examples
with the potential to shed a more benign light on the presence of emerging
economies in Africa, such 118 Book Reviews as Brazilian aid towards democracy
promotion in Guinea-Bissau, go unmentioned. Or consider Brazil’s “ethanol
diplomacy”, which seeks to establish a global market for biofuels based on
Brazilian technology. This, Taylor suggests, was exemplary of the replacement
of one dependency (oil) with another (biofuels). The “ethanol diplomacy” is a
fascinating aspect of Brasília’s foreign policy, and its effects in Africa are
surely noteworthy. Yet, Taylor fails to mention both potential benefits of the
production of biofuels for developing countries and the fact that the high
level of attention it enjoyed under President Lula da Silva has effectively
come to an end as a result of an ailing domestic ethanol industry. Future
research should look in more detail into the forms of cooperation between new
donors and African states before dismissing such cooperation as a mere tool of
power politics or as detrimental to Western aid efforts, or both.
Second, the
“rising Africa” trope was essentially based on the claim that a middle class
was emerging where there was none before, this claim sometimes being augmented
by references to new technology such as mobile banking. Taylor questions these
claims convincingly (24), yet one wonders whether there wasn’t a kernel of
truth in the argument that a larger (though comparatively small in a global
context), more urbanized and better-educated middle class did make a difference
in some African countries. Surely, the issue merits a more detailed treatment –
by reference to either macro-indicators (health, education) or individual
cases.
Third, the book
deserved a more thorough edit. Some quotes are difficult to read and, in
certain cases, quoted authors seem to contradict each other (for example, on
the principles underlying Russian foreign policy, 64-68). In other instances,
the text becomes somewhat declaratory when quotes are not backed by empirical
information. For instance, Taylor quotes a source stating that support for
Brazilian foreign policy was a de facto requirement for being granted
assistance from Brasília (51). This is surely an important piece of information,
yet no further explanation is given with regard to what kind of support
Brasília asked for and in what instances such informal conditionality was
applied. The same is true with regard to Indian conditionality and Taylor’s
critique that Brazilian businesses did not provide employment opportunities for
locals (48). With fewer quotes and less repetition, Taylor would have had the
space to include examples from some of those countries with particularly close
relationships with BRIC states, which could have both backed his overall claim
(“diversifying dependency”) and increased our understanding of the actual
differences among emerging economies and/or between BRIC states and the
established powers.
About The Author:
About The Author:
Dr. Johannes Plagemann
is a Research Fellow GIGA Institute of Asian Studies, achelor in Philosophy
& Economics Universität Bayreuth und Universidade de São Paulo, Master in
Political Sciences Universität Hamburg und Bordeaux IV; PhD from
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Email: johannes.plagemann@giga.hamburg
____________________________________________________
Publication
Details
Africa Spectrum,
50 (2015) 1, ISSN 0002-0397, p. 115-118, PID: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-438741
This book review originally published at Africa Spectrum and distributed by
SSOAR under Creative Commons 3.0 license.
Image Attribute: Portside Tower Under construction in Capetown, June 2012/ Source: Wikimedia Commons [Link]
Image Attribute: Portside Tower Under construction in Capetown, June 2012/ Source: Wikimedia Commons [Link]
Ratings:
Africa Rising?: BRICS – Diversifying Dependency Ian Taylor 978-1847010964 Johannes Plagemann Rating: 6 out of 10 Africa Spectrum