Africa's Debts and Economic Recovery
Authors: Avramovic Dragoslav 
Published: March 2008

A substantial reduction of external debt burden of many African countries is needed, for four reasons. First, the present debt burden of Africa is extremely heavy. Africa's debts are equivalent to more than 100% of its GNP, compared to less than 50% in Latin America – another heavily indebted region – and even less elsewhere. The weight of Africa's burden is exacerbated by its lower per capita income than elsewhere in developing regions. Secondly, Africa is experiencing adverse effects of falling commodity prices more than any other region because of its greater dependence on primary products than other regions. Over the last forty years, export commodity prices other than oil have fallen by 50% in real terms, a staggering development with far‐reaching adverse effects on many producers. Between May 1989 and January 1991, commodity prices other than oil fell 23% in SDR terms – speed of decline similar to that experienced in the great price fall 1980‐82 which marked the beginning of the debt crisis of the 1980s. Cocoa and coffee, two major exports of Sub‐Saharan Africa, were particularly badly hurt. Thirdly, while debt in other debt‐affected areas has stabilized in recent years, that of Africa has continued to grow as interest is charged on interest and capitalized. Many African countries have been compelled to suspend their debt service payments; according to World Bank calculations, less than one half of Africa's debt service due is now being paid. Even so, debt service which is still being paid absorbs 27% of Africa's shrunken exports – a proportion which severely curtails Africa's capacity to import and to grow.

Fourthly, debt settlement is needed to clear the way for resumption of Africa's economic development, now virtually stagnant for a decade in aggregate terms and falling in per capita terms. Africa has the capacity to modernize and grow, and this has been proven in one critical area and against all odds. Between 1980 and 1987, exports of manufactures from Sub‐Saharan African countries rose 42% in U.S. dollar terms or 5.7% per year. In 1988, out of 33 countries for which data are available, exports of manufactures rose in 28, and the overall increase for the 33 was 15.8 %. In 1988, eleven Sub‐Saharan countries exported manufactures in excess of US $100 million each, compared to seven countries in 1980; and in 1989, there was none. There also have been setbacks, for various reasons. But taking Sub‐Saharan as a whole, to achieve a 60% increase in exports of manufactures to US $4 billion on a non‐negligible base of US $2.5 billion in 1980, over an eight‐year period marked by a commodity collapse, droughts, debt crisis, wars and policy disasters, is a remarkable achievement by any standard. In North Africa, exports of manufactures more than doubled between 1980 and 1987, and then accelerated at 18% per year in 1988‐89. North African exports of manufactures are now running at US $5 billion per year.

This diversification and growth of African exports must be sustained. For this purpose, African countries must have realistic exchange rates, undistorted product prices across the economy, sufficient supply of industrial inputs and hence adequate growth of agricultural and mineral output, and they must reconstruct the existing capital stock, in many places obsolete, and add new facilities. Their investment, a crucial element for further growth, has fallen sharply in the last decade of the debt crisis in Sub‐Saharan Africa: the fall has been so severe that some countries have not even been able to fully replace depreciating capital. At the present level of domestic savings and international commodity prices, most of Africa cannot undertake the reconstruction, modernization and expansion out of domestic ressources to any significant extent. Foreign capital inflow is needed to initiate the recovery and to help sustain it thereafter. But such capital inflow will not take place until the present debt situation is cleared up. This is a necessary condition, even though it is not sufficient: it must be supported by domestic efforts single‐mindedly dedicated to economic recovery and social justice.

Past efforts at the solution of the debt problem, some of them imaginative and generous, have proven insufficient and uncoordinated. A new deal is needed, attacking the core of the Sub‐Saharan problem: debts held by some multilateral financial institutions and debts held by the private sector, in addition to a further shrinking down of service on official bilateral debt or its total cancellation in an imaginative proposal. In North Africa, the acute liquidity squeeze of Algeria – debt service absorbing almost 70% of exports of goods and services per year – needs to be alleviated through debt rescheduling over the long term, thus releasing resources for needed economic recovery. Algeria's debt outstanding is relatively low; it is the service structure which needs radical change.

While Africa's commodity problem is not on the agenda of the Abidjan Roundtable, one specific commodity situation can perhaps be handled: the cocoa crisis which affects severely a large part of West Africa and for which remedy seems relatively easily in hand. It is proposed that a consortium of international financial institutions be organized to finance, through loans of, say, 15 years duration, the sale of surplus cocoa stocks to Eastern Europe, thus contributing to cocoa price recovery and hopefully stabilization, and improvement of food supply in Eastern Europe. The operation would be no more risky than other balance‐of‐payments structural adjustment lending. Cocoa producing countries in parts of Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia would be also beneficiaries.

Adjustment and development programmes should be prepared, and seen to be prepared, by national authorities of African countries rather than by foreign advisers and international organizations. Otherwise commitment will be lacking.