Is Africa marginalized in contemporary economics and politics, and in contemporary economic and political research?

Impressions gathered over the years and some evidence (much more could be gathered) indicate that this is the case. I would distinguish three types of marginalization: objective, objectified and subjective marginalization.

Caused by poverty

Africa is not at the forefront of the new economic and social challenges facing advanced economies. Neither does it have the funds to support many intellectuals who create “theories” and an “intellectual climate”. Objectively, both problems are caused by poverty.

It is no coincidence that the economy has developed in northwestern Europe. Modern capitalism, financial crises, the problems of displacement of labor by capital, the use of fiscal and monetary policy to wage war, etc. were first encountered there.

This continues to this day, even though Modern monetary theory, outsourcing, artificial intelligence and others have taken the place of Adam Smith’s discussion of the “invisible hand” or of David Ricardo’s essay on the role of machines. None of these cutting edge issues are present in less developed countries.

Poor countries are therefore attractive as a field of research, but nothing more.

The poorest countries also lack the resources to maintain the intellectual class that could promote “their” (domestic) problems and thus become mere consumers of the ideas produced in the rich countries.

This has led to accusations of global-Nordic ideological hegemony, but it is largely beyond anyone’s control: it is embedded in the very system of economics and other social sciences. We can deplore it, but not much can be done about it.

Sometimes it is reversed, such as when topics such as industrialization, central planning, land reform, savings and accumulation have come to play an important role in the economy. But it was exceptional and we returned to the “normal” division of intellectual labor between rich and poor countries.

Ethical concerns

Through objective marginalization I mean that, while Africa does not autonomously generate subjects to study, it is often used as a “research ground” for themes defined by the north to be examined.

These topics may or may not have a lot to do with African countries and may or may not have a real effect on the ground in Africa.

Consider randomized controlled trials. RCTs have long been plagued by ethical concerns (as well as questionable reproducibility). These arise because the poorest countries and the poor people involved in them don’t have much action – or often even a full understanding of what’s going on and what they’re supposed to be doing.

They are unable to shape projects or participate in a meaningful way.

Moreover, the participation of the poor is cheap since, when compensated, the amounts received are only a fraction of what would have to be paid in rich countries for a similar participation (assuming that such projects include are ethically accepted).

Poor countries are therefore attractive as a field of research, but nothing more.

Last year a project in Kenya shut off water at random to households in default – to find out how they would react and when the lack of water would force them to pay the municipality.

One could not imagine a similar project in which, say, households in New York or Paris, late in paying certain municipal taxes, would be treated the same.

I have seen how foreign funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) determined, and frequently still do, the research agenda in Eastern Europe.

Often these projects have very little national ownership – although on paper it may look different. Northern consultants (who need such projects to write scientific papers or justify their fees) have enormous power over academics and local communities.

They hold the purse strings: if one scholar refuses to participate, another will be easily found.

This does not require outright bribery, but incentives (fees, travel, co-authors) are presented in front of local counterparts. Economist Angus Deaton recently declared: ‘You should not accept using poor people to build a professional CV.’

Self-induced

These problems are not unique to Africa – they are experienced by all less developed countries. I have seen how foreign-funded non-governmental organizations determined, and frequently still do, the research agenda in Eastern Europe – until some of these countries got richer, their academic communities larger. strong and more confident.

But African countries have contributed to their marginalization by failing to develop stronger academic and political counterparts. Such subjective marginalization is self-induced.

For example, the reaction in 1998 of the academic community and policymakers in South Korea to a austerity The program imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) highlighted the lack of reaction of the intellectual communities of many African countries to even more severe IMF programs.

South Korean academics have gone on the offensive, using close ties with their counterparts in the United States and the West in general, to push back on IMF proposals. Outside of South Africa, I have not known anything like it for over half a century in African countries’ relations with the IMF.

If we put together the three causes of marginalization, they clearly flow from structural powerlessness to potential influence.

Self-marginalization is all the more disconcerting as it cannot be attributed to a lack of knowledge of the dominant language of the world. The elites of all African countries speak fluent English and French – many in both.

In contrast, many East Europeans and some Asians do not know English, which cuts them off from the most recent research, even from the mundane knowledge of who to contact and how.

First successes

If we put together the three causes of marginalization, they clearly flow from structural powerlessness to potential influence. There is nothing to be done about “objective” marginalization, unless Africa grows faster, gets richer and thus generates more interest – success always brings interest – and in so doing , become financially capable of shaping the agenda.

What’s this China made. The “objectified” marginalization would also largely take care of itself with greater wealth, although it might take longer to reverse.

It is in subjective marginalization that governments could reap some early successes: it requires devoting a higher share of gross domestic product to research, creating much better universities and think tanks, and attracting foreign researchers. who, if they were to live longer in African countries (not just a fortnight’s visit), would no longer see African issues as a good way to publish an article but would participate fully in university life.

In addition, there needs to be much stronger links between the national research community and government. Then, African countries could take more initiative and exercise greater ownership over the policy advice offered by the Global North.

This article is a joint publication of Social Europe and IPS-Journal.