Je vous souhaite la bienvenue sur SAOTI, le site de l'Afrique digne et libre. Dans cet espace, je publie des articles relatifs à l'indépendance et à la Renaissance africaine, écrits par des journalistes talentueux, que j'ai la chance de compter parmi mes amis. Vous pourrez apprécier les plumes de Melvin Akam, Nathalie Yamb, Ambroise Ebonda, Sylvestre Konin... et aussi quelques uns de mes papiers. Bonne lecture et n'hésitez pas à laisser vos commentaires! Mahalia Nteby
| Juillet 2009 | ||||||||||
| L | M | M | J | V | S | D | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||||
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ||||
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ||||
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||||
|
||||||||||
Côte d'Ivoire: Une coopération sans contraintes, sans menaces, sans exigences ni humiliations
|
|
|
|
For once the World Bank says something smart about the real causes of prosperity
A Mexican migrant to the U.S. is five times more productive than one who stays home. Why is that?
The answer is not the obvious one: This country has more machinery or tools or natural resources. Instead, according to some remarkable but largely ignored research—by the World Bank, of all
places—it is because the average American has access to over $418,000 in intangible wealth, while the stay-at-home Mexican's intangible wealth is just $34,000.
But what is intangible wealth, and how on earth is it measured? And what does it mean for the world's people—poor and rich? That's where the story gets even more interesting.
Two years ago the World Bank's environmental economics department set out to assess the relative contributions of various kinds of capital to economic development. Its study, "Where is the
Wealth of Nations?: Measuring Capital for the 21st Century," began by defining natural capital as the sum of nonrenewable resources (including oil, natural gas, coal and mineral resources),
cropland, pasture land, forested areas and protected areas. Produced, or built, capital is what many of us think of when we think of capital: the sum of machinery, equipment, and structures
(including infrastructure) and urban land.
But once the value of all these are added up, the economists found something big was still missing: the vast majority of world's wealth! If one simply adds up the current value of a country's
natural resources and produced, or built, capital, there's no way that can account for that country's level of income.
The rest is the result of "intangible" factors—such as the trust among people in a society, an efficient judicial system, clear property rights and effective government. All this intangible
capital also boosts the productivity of labor and results in higher total wealth. In fact, the World Bank finds, "Human capital and the value of institutions (as measured by rule of law)
constitute the largest share of wealth in virtually all countries."
Once one takes into account all of the world's natural resources and produced capital, 80% of the wealth of rich countries and 60% of the wealth of poor countries is of this intangible type. The
bottom line: "Rich countries are largely rich because of the skills of their populations and the quality of the institutions supporting economic activity."
What the World Bank economists have brilliantly done is quantify the intangible value of education and social institutions. According to their regression analyses, for example, the rule of law
explains 57 percent of countries' intangible capital. Education accounts for 36 percent.
The rule-of-law index was devised using several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations.
The latter include civil society groups (Freedom House), political and business risk-rating agencies (Economist Intelligence Unit) and think tanks (International Budget Project Open Budget
Index).
Switzerland scores 99.5 out of 100 on the rule-of-law index and the U.S. hits 91.8. By contrast, Nigeria's score is a pitiful 5.8; Burundi's 4.3; and Ethiopia's 16.4. The members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development—30 wealthy developed countries—have an average score of 90, while sub-Saharan Africa's is a dismal 28.
The natural wealth in rich countries like the U.S. is a tiny proportion of their overall wealth—typically 1 percent to 3 percent—yet they derive more value from what they have. Cropland, pastures
and forests are more valuable in rich countries because they can be combined with other capital like machinery and strong property rights to produce more value. Machinery, buildings, roads and so
forth account for 17% of the rich countries' total wealth.
Overall, the average per capita wealth in the rich Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) countries is $440,000, consisting of $10,000 in natural capital, $76,000 in produced
capital, and a whopping $354,000 in intangible capital. (Switzerland has the highest per capita wealth, at $648,000. The U.S. is fourth at $513,000.)
By comparison, the World Bank study finds that total wealth for the low income countries averages $7,216 per person. That consists of $2,075 in natural capital, $1,150 in produced capital and
$3,991 in intangible capital. The countries with the lowest per capita wealth are Ethiopia ($1,965), Nigeria ($2,748), and Burundi ($2,859).
In fact, some countries are so badly run, that they actually have negative intangible capital. Through rampant corruption and failing school systems, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo are destroying their intangible capital and ensuring that their people will be poorer in the future.
In the U.S., according to the World Bank study, natural capital is $15,000 per person, produced capital is $80,000 and intangible capital is $418,000. And thus, considering common measure used to
compare countries, its annual purchasing power parity GDP per capita is $43,800. By contrast, oil-rich Mexico's total natural capital per person is $8,500 ($6,000 due to oil), produced capital is
$19,000 and intangible capita is $34,500—a total of $62,000 per person. Yet its GDP per capita is $10,700. When a Mexican, or for that matter, a South Asian or African, walks across our border,
they gain immediate access to intangible capital worth $418,000 per person. Who wouldn't walk across the border in such circumstances?
The World Bank study bolsters the deep insights of the late development economist Peter Bauer. In his brilliant 1972 book Dissent on Development, Bauer wrote: "If all conditions for
development other than capital are present, capital will soon be generated locally or will be available . . . from abroad. . . . If, however, the conditions for development are not present, then
aid . . . will be necessarily unproductive and therefore ineffective. Thus, if the mainsprings of development are present, material progress will occur even without foreign aid. If they are
absent, it will not occur even with aid."
The World Bank's pathbreaking "Where is the Wealth of Nations?" convincingly demonstrates that the "mainsprings of development" are the rule of law and a good school system. The
big question that its researchers don't answer is: How can the people of the developing world rid themselves of the kleptocrats who loot their countries and keep them poor?
Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine, le 05 octobre 2007
Do not leave Africa in scramble

To many minds, Africa is a picture of hopeless misery: afflicted by poverty, scarred by
corruption and ravaged by Aids and war. These facts are true, but they tell only half the story. In many sub-Saharan African countries output briskly outpaced population growth during the last
decade, leading to sustained growth in income per capita and promising a lasting escape from poverty.
Behind the success lies many African leaders’ willingness to adopt solid macroeconomic
policies and move towards more transparency and less red tape. Economic integration with the world deepened and trading relations diversified. Record-breaking prices boosted commodity exporters’
incomes. The private sector’s success, for example in telecommunications, showed that Africa does not lack good business opportunities. Before the crisis, countries such as Ghana were on course
to escaping aid dependence by entering global capital markets.
But Africa is now slipping. Foreign direct investment has shrivelled. Capital markets have
seized up as funds flee to the safety of rich-country sovereign bonds – with which the market is flooded. The price of trade credit has soared, sharply halting trade flows, with commodity
exporters suffering additionally from the drop in prices.
As tax revenues fall and demands on public services rise, governments without large savings
are in a squeeze. African leaders warn of a popular backlash: if the public suffers undeserved pain after governments followed what rich countries told them to do in the 1990s, economic growth
and democratic stability are at risk. Already coups and riots are on the rise.
The world’s leading countries must act to end the global crisis as soon as possible. In the
meantime, Africa should not be a casualty of other priorities. African governments that have shown a commitment to sound policies must be helped to fill temporary funding gaps. And rich countries
should quickly prop up trade finance: it would do much good and cost little.
Development aid can do ill as well as good; the long-term goal must be to get rid of it. But that is no argument against
short-term crisis assistance, which has been provided – quickly – to small and relatively rich European countries; many African countries need the same. Moreover, rich countries made aid promises
at the Gleneagles summit that they have yet to fulfil.
The potential cost of the crisis in Africa is not just unemployment; it is starvation, civil
war and the closing of an escape route from poverty. That is a price the world cannot afford to pay.
Editorial
Financial Times
Le 16/03/2009