I suppose you can look at petrochemicals and power generation.
Africa, or at least some countries within it, have oil but no refining capacity. So they have to buy it back in as refined products.
The ubiquitous imported diesel or petrol generators are everywhere in Africa at the back of houses and businesses and switched on when the power load shedding takes place. They also run on imported refined oil products. Yet they are an easily manufactured product.
Software engineers are useful but not critical to the basic energy needs of a country without which a country cannot develop. And renewables are expensive and unreliable.
Still why is manufacturing not there. It can be available capital, few entrepeneurs or corruption.
The people who import make a lot of money out of it and can discourage local manufacturing. An idea is around in Africa that states are gatekeeper states or run on gatekeeper principles. Part of the thought is that the policy was inherited from colonialism. It has been debated by Swedish economists and others though the idea originally came from a New York historian. Botswana and Nigeria amongst others have been discussed in its context. I don't know if you have ever looked at it.
I appreciate the reply. I am or was unaware of the Swedish economists, but yes, some of that is due to a colonial legacy that emphasized tribal division.
But not all of it. After all, the colonial powers did leave some pretty impressive infrastructure ( for their own purposes), and almost all that infrastructure is now in disrepair.
The problem is African governments really don't need to invest in their states to make money from selling raw commodities. So, they don't have to care.
There is, though, an impressive refinery under construction in Nigeria by Africa's richest man, Aliko Dangote. But that just illustrates the scale of the problem: it took an immensely wealthy private individual to solve a government failure.
This is the idea behind the theory of gatekeeper as opposed to development states.
There must be substantial benefits to Nigeria of this refinery. From there they could also move to the other areas of petrochemicals which is a lot more than petrol, diesel and jet A1. An Ineos like company for Nigeria is what is needed. Dangote did well in cement and it is good to see he is diversifying into other sectors.
You are immeasurably welcome. Thank you for the excellent paper. I just completed reading it now. I've been skeptical of the Botswana's success story for years, even though it is clearly one of the best governed countries in Africa.
The problem is adjacency and linkages. You are right about the petrochemical possibility. Africaa needs investment in industries that will open up other industries. That's how economic development works. And the harmful ideas of comparative advantage must be abandoned - it's a myopic theory with disastrous results.
I suppose you can look at petrochemicals and power generation.
Africa, or at least some countries within it, have oil but no refining capacity. So they have to buy it back in as refined products.
The ubiquitous imported diesel or petrol generators are everywhere in Africa at the back of houses and businesses and switched on when the power load shedding takes place. They also run on imported refined oil products. Yet they are an easily manufactured product.
Software engineers are useful but not critical to the basic energy needs of a country without which a country cannot develop. And renewables are expensive and unreliable.
Still why is manufacturing not there. It can be available capital, few entrepeneurs or corruption.
The people who import make a lot of money out of it and can discourage local manufacturing. An idea is around in Africa that states are gatekeeper states or run on gatekeeper principles. Part of the thought is that the policy was inherited from colonialism. It has been debated by Swedish economists and others though the idea originally came from a New York historian. Botswana and Nigeria amongst others have been discussed in its context. I don't know if you have ever looked at it.
I appreciate the reply. I am or was unaware of the Swedish economists, but yes, some of that is due to a colonial legacy that emphasized tribal division.
But not all of it. After all, the colonial powers did leave some pretty impressive infrastructure ( for their own purposes), and almost all that infrastructure is now in disrepair.
The problem is African governments really don't need to invest in their states to make money from selling raw commodities. So, they don't have to care.
There is, though, an impressive refinery under construction in Nigeria by Africa's richest man, Aliko Dangote. But that just illustrates the scale of the problem: it took an immensely wealthy private individual to solve a government failure.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265153644_Botswana_A_Development-Oriented_Gate_Keeping_State
This is the idea behind the theory of gatekeeper as opposed to development states.
There must be substantial benefits to Nigeria of this refinery. From there they could also move to the other areas of petrochemicals which is a lot more than petrol, diesel and jet A1. An Ineos like company for Nigeria is what is needed. Dangote did well in cement and it is good to see he is diversifying into other sectors.
Thanks.
You are immeasurably welcome. Thank you for the excellent paper. I just completed reading it now. I've been skeptical of the Botswana's success story for years, even though it is clearly one of the best governed countries in Africa.
The problem is adjacency and linkages. You are right about the petrochemical possibility. Africaa needs investment in industries that will open up other industries. That's how economic development works. And the harmful ideas of comparative advantage must be abandoned - it's a myopic theory with disastrous results.
At the very least, the refinery would be a start.