http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=26932By Michael Power
07 Dec 2006 at 10:44 AM EST
...
Nomads dread overgrazing. Their cattle risk weight loss, even death. When overgrazing threatens, nomads herd their cattle on in search of greener pastures.
So it is with capitalists. They dread commoditisation. Their capital risks value reduction, even destruction. When commoditisation threatens, capitalists migrate their capital in search of better returns.
...
From a 20th-century perspective, therefore, one might have been able to conclude that Africa was forever cursed to be on the commoditised periphery of the global economy and that Afropessimists’ worst fears were justified. But since 2000 there has been a momentous change in the overall character of the global economy which has rendered that conclusion 180° wrong: China’s economy has reached sufficient size to change the very nature of what is value adding and what is not.
...
How is it that China has transformed Africa’s prospects when — in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-centric world — Africa had effectively commoditised? The fact is that, when it comes to economic development, China is “living in a different world”, and here is why. Even as Deng Xiaoping’s Open Door policy was rolled out in China during the 1980s, China continued to adopt a Closed Door policy when it came to capital flows, particularly resident outflows. The result has been that, while trade has flowed freely with the rest of the world, capital has flooded essentially only one way: into China.
The upshot is that China has managed to create its own “atmosphere” for capital, an economic zone protected by exchange controls and reinforced by a managed exchange rate. This means that China’s “atmospheric pressure” is lower than is found in most other parts of the world where nomadic capital can migrate freely across borders. This allows the China of today to be far more suited to producing profit from the earlier dynasties of the value-adding hierarchy of economic development (essentially those of land, labour and machine capital). It also means that, in China’s atmosphere, these earlier dynasties have not — yet — commoditised, as had largely happened in a more economically advanced, U.S.-centred, brand-oriented, intellectual property-driven global economy.
As everyone now knows, the result has been spectacular economic growth for China since 1980. This growth has been driven primarily by a combination of the harvesting and exploitation of land, the harnessing of abundant low-cost labour and now the large-scale mobilisation of machine capital. Profits, where they have been earned in China, are far more likely to have been made from these three more traditional dynasties of economic activity.
By contrast, profits from more modern dynasties — the world of brands, for instance — have been far harder to come by. This is attested to by most western multinationals that have invested in the Chinese market in the hope of exploiting this purported economic Shangri-La of a billion-plus consumers.
...
So how does Africa fit into this multi-atmospheric world? The simple answer is it far prefers the new economic order defined by China to the old economic order centred upon the U.S.. Why? Because it will profit far more from trading with the East than it has from trade with the West.
Marc Faber, the famed Hong Kong-based investor, recently noted that, “There is no continent better suited to China than Africa.” In this context “suited” primarily means having the relatively unusual status of “producing products that China needs”. This means that Africa at its current state of economic development is much more in sync with China than virtually every western country, except perhaps for those few who, like Africa, are commodity-rich — such as Norway, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
In terms of historical precedent, Africa is to China today what Australia and Argentina were to the U.S. and continental Europe in the late 19th century: a resource-rich region supplying resource-short regions going through their most resource-intensive stage of economic development — industrial takeoff and the massive urbanisation associated with it. Such provision of inputs can be immensely profitable: hence the belle époque simile of “as rich as an Argentine”.
And it should therefore come as no surprise that it is the Chinese, closely trailed by the Indians, who are today leading the new scramble for Africa’s natural resources.
By maintaining its own atmosphere for capital, China has succeeded in turning back Africa’s economic clock to an era that is more suited to its natural endowments. This has also allowed China to develop at its own pace — albeit following a well-trodden path — and to serve its own immediate needs. China has deliberately excluded itself from being a fully-fledged participant in the western-designed “free trade and free capital flow” construct that forces the lion’s share of capital to flow from the periphery to the core — the U.S. alone consumes two-thirds of the world’s mobile savings.
By preventing that migration of capital and rather supplying the core with manufactured goods for which it must be paid, China has found a formula that instead facilitates the transfer of capital from the West to the East.
Extending the atmospheric metaphor, this process appears to be allowing China to “build up a head of steam” that, if and when released, could well carry it through to being the world’s next economic hegemon. One aspect of that “steam” is a foreign exchange reserve cache that has recently topped $1-trillion.
So as the 21st century progresses, Asia is throwing Africa a lifeline. But it is not a lifeline with an unlimited shelf life. The march of commoditisation will continue, even in the fresher atmosphere for financial capital now being created by Beijing. How wisely Africa uses this oriental lifeline over the next two decades will determine whether it can yet escape that overgrazed destiny towards which so many Afropessimists still feel it is marching.
/more...