Inventing the wheel in Economics

Check out this article by Nick Mangwana. It's a good read. Let us not 'invent' something which is alrealdy known.

Africa Day

Ishe komborera Africa. Ngaisimudzirwe Zita rayo. Inzwai miteuro yedu, Ishe komborera … isu mhuri yayo. x3

This is the great African anthem which was used as a national anthem of many African countries after they became independent. It was composed by a South African, Enoch Sotonga in 1897 I think. It’s a grand old anthem with a significant meaning and calls for the blessing of the motherland and all of the Sons and Daughters of the soil by the Almighty.

The significance of this anthem comes at a time when Africans and the world celebrate the 50th anniversary of the African Union (AU) which was formerly called the Organization for African Unity (OAU) and founded on the 25th of May 1963. While some are quick to point the shortcomings of the AU, it is important for all those concerned that it is a time for us to reflect how best we can fulfill the founding principles of the founding fathers of the AU. Such an issue is not only a duty of the Heads of State and Governments of Africa but is for every African.

The formation of the OAU/AU was as a result of the unity of the people at the time and desire to unify, uplift and empower Africans at large. So if those principles are lacking from the general populace, it means the goal of achieving the objectives of our forefathers is going to be futile. Ever African has a responsibility so the desire has to be in us.

Long live the ubuntu of Africa.

UPDATE: World Bank Presidential Elections.

As expected Washington managed to arm-twist its way into making sure that it's preferred candidate (Jim Yong Kim) was appointed as the World Bank President. What I found intresting was the seemingly choreographed & biased responses to the news of the selection by Western media and policymakers.

The press statement by the Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot is a clear example. In it, he says that 'despite being a US citizen, he (Kim) would not take orders from Washington as anyone that might be appointed from another country'. He goes on further saying that the US uses the WB as a foreign policy tool to advance it's political and economic agenda of mainly neo-liberal economic policies of abandoning state-led industrial and development strategies, and tighter fiscal and monetary policies. But he contradicts himself in a Voice of America (English) article in which he says that since Kim doesn't have much financial experience, hence he will have to rely on WB staff on these issues. So how doesn't that prevent Washington from influencing him, since it controls the WB.
Essentially the real decisions at the WB are about allocating resources among the various competing developmental needs.

Other right-wing guys like William Easterly were completely out of touch by commenting that 'why should we rush with the appointment'. Wow. Is it because Kim was under intense scrutiny. Such a call wouldn't have been made if a candidate from a developing country was under scrutiny. What I noticed from media houses such as AFP via Yahoo & Huffington Post is that they talked about how a success Kim would be, but crucially ignored the issue under contestation that if he was the best candidate for the job.

Peter Chowder of Bretton Woods Project which monitors WB work summed it up by declaring the appointment was a stitchup between the US & Europe.

The World Bank Presidential Elections.

With the World Bank meetings coming up. The race is now up to two candidates, American Jim Yong Kim and Nigerian Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala with the Colombian Jose Antonio Ocampo having dropped out already. Originally I wasn't interested in the news pertaining to the jostling for the job among these world actors. But the endorsement of Okonjo ahead of Kim by The Economist got me thinking. It seemed to me that the Western consensus regarding apportioning these key jobs among themselves on reasons other than meritocracy was losing steam among themselves. The failure by the WB and like-minded institutions to reduce poverty substantially and thereby contributing to sustainable development has necessitated a rethink in how development issues are handled and the first step is having a competent person at the top.

On who should lead the WB among the candidates, it is clear that Okonjo is the best person in terms of depth and experience having been previously been a Managing Director at the same institutioon. Of course Kim has had some experience in issues such as public health but what matters at the end of the day is how the scarce resourses are going to be allocated to achieve an optimun result. Okonjo is one who has been there and seen it. Kim is at present struggling to give a clear picture on how the WB under him will look like. If he wasn't nominated he wouldn't have been a contender for the post therefore I dont see how now he could suddenly be the best guy around. Some supporters of Kim have been theorising that he is unorthodox hence he will present a new face and ideas to the WB. But Kim is not competent enough in wholesome development issues including food security, affordable housing, firm state institutions, the funding matrix etc (he's limited to public healthcare, his area of expertise). Like I mentioned before, the key here is how to balance the books to fund and manage these development areas, something Kim lacks. Other people such as Noam Scheiber have been naive to suggest that appointing an American is essential to secure Congress funding. Here's the case, the Chinese Developent Bank's assets are worth more than those of the WB and Asian Development Bank combined. Hence alternative sources of funding are available other than the US Congress.

Lets hope the WB Presidential election doesnt turn out to be a scripted event by Washington. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala deserves the post.