Kicking Away the Ladder, A review

Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (Anthem; 2002) ISBN 978-1-84331-027-3
Review by Edmund Adu Poku
Kicking away the Ladder, is simply a critique of the suggested route to development made known to the aspiring to develop nations of the global south by the West and the Bretton Woods institutions. Dr. Ha-Joon Chang basically with the aid of historical evidence suggests that the so called “good policies” the west is currently preaching, which include free trade, liberalization, free market, privatization amongst others, were not the ingredients used to spark up development in such countries, he further suggests that the Global south will inevitably fail if they use these policies. The book suggests interestingly that, states like the United Kingdom and the United States of America, which most contemporaries deem as the custodians and strict adherents of free-trade and free-market policies, were the most ardent users of “bad” trade and industrial policies, such as infant industry protection and export subsidies – practices that are detested, if not actively banned, by the WTO in recent times, in the earlier stages of their development. The author further argues that, in terms of institutional development, until the early 20th century, when these states were quite developed, the Global north countries had very few of the institutions deemed essential for developing countries today, like democratic political institutions, a professional bureaucracy, and the central bank. Indeed, when they were developing countries themselves, the developed countries had much lower-quality institutions comparatively, than today’s developing countries at similar levels of development.
His assertions therefore suggest that, the developed world are therefore preventing developing nations to make it to the top of the development ladder, by preventing them from using the same policies they adopted in the early stages of their development story. They are therefore “kicking away the ladder” of development, preventing developing nations from attaining the height of development.
Chan therefore suggests a reformation in the development plan of developing nations, since they would inevitably fail to attain their goal with the widely propagated “good policies” and “good institutions” of the Bretton Woods institutions.
The book suggests, that the true historical facts of the development stories of the developed countries should be more widely publicized so that the developing countries can make
more informed choices about policies and institutions. Again, it argues, that policy-related conditions attached to financial assistance from the IMF and the World Bank or from the donor governments should be amended, on the grounds that many of the policies that are these days considered “bad” are in fact not, and that there can be no “best practice” policy that everyone should use. Moreover, the WTO rules and other multilateral trade agreements should be revised in such a way that a more active use of infant industry promotion tools (e.g., tariffs, subsidies) is allowed. Last but not least, improvements in institutions should be encouraged, but this should not be equated with imposing a fixed set of institutions on all countries which are highly influence by British and American political traditions. Caution must be taken in order not to demand excessively rapid upgrading of institutions that are not really essential in the earlier stages of economic development (such as strong intellectual property rights), this can divert resources away from other crucial sectors such as education, health, and infrastructure.
The author argues that, policies and institutions that are more suitable to their stages of development and to other conditions countries face, must be adopted to aid the developing countries grow faster. This will benefit not only the developing countries but also the developed
Countries in the long run, as it will increase the trade and investment opportunities available to the developed countries in the developing countries.
In all, in my humble opinion, I think the book brings to mind some well-argued and objective analysis on the historical underpinnings of the development process of the west, it bring to our understanding some strategies they used which are now banned by the W.T.O.
But the question I would love to ask the learned Chang if I get the opportunity is, “Are these W.T.O ‘detested policies’ the only tactic to foster development?”. In my humble opinion my answer would be no. Current development around the globe, featuring now developed nations like Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Brazil etc. even suggests that the so called “hypocritical” policies of the Bretton Woods institution could successfully yield positive developmental results. Even though, most of his assertions about the historical details of western nations are correct, I think developing nations must stop always blaming history, and attack some woes like corruption which also hinders their development and also look out for innovative ways of fostering economic development rather that spending lots of years crying over spilt milk.

Nkrumah; War on African Unity and Liberation

Dr Kwame Nkrumah, the first prime minister of the first sub Saharan country to gain independence outlined his motives concerning international affairs on the African continent, the very day he gained independence. In his independence declaration, he made the statement that “…the independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked to the total liberation of the African continent.” The total liberation of the African continent was indeed the backbone of Nkrumah’s foreign policy; Dr. Nkrumah was indeed committed to eliminating all forms of dependency in all territories in Africa. His evident support for the independence struggle of colonized states at the time was realized by his financial support as wells as training and mentoring for freedom fighters in countries like Mali, Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe to mention but a few.

Attached to this motive of the total liberation of Africa was a related goal of, African Unity. Nkrumah with experience from the United States of America had the view that Africa would never be competitive in the global front unless it was united politically. To him the only way forward for Africa was to form the “United State of Africa”, with a common government as wells as former colonial territories serving as loose territorial boundaries, with compromised sovereignty, just as in the case of the United States of America. Nkrumah on the preface of his book “Africa Must Unite” writes

 “No single part of Africa can be safe, or free to develop freely and independently, while any part remains unliberated, or while Africa’s vast economic resources continues to be exploited by imperialists and neocolonialist interests. Unless Africa is united, under an All-African Union Government, there can be no solution to our political and economic problems” (Nkrumah, 1963).

My task for this paper, is therefore to assess the level at which these aims were or were not achieved. To asses first, whether Nkrumah won the war on the total liberation of Africa, and again to test the assertion that “Nkrumah lost the battle on African Unity”. In my candid opinion neither the total liberation of Africa nor Africa unity has been achieved, comparing the current circumstances of Africa to references made by Nkrumah.

Nkrumah’s concept of the liberation of Africa is not limited to the decolonization of the African sub region. Indeed his goal for independence went beyond that, it included cultural, economic as well as political independence to mention but a few. Nkrumah in his book “Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of imperialism” written in 1965, enlightens readers about the dangerous effects of African countries, being dependent on economic aid by the west, and its consequence of leading to a new form of colonialism which he termed as Neo colonialism. The irony of the case is that the same author of this book was in the process of receiving 25 million dollars in aid from the U.S State Department, which was eventually cancelled as a sharp note of protest to his arguments raised in his book. Contrary to somewhat popular believe that Nkrumah’s war of total liberation was achieved in 1994, marked by the fall of the Aparthied regime of South Africa, and therefore the total political decolonization of Africa, I am of the view that Nkrumah war on the total liberation of Africa, was and had never been won by Nkrumah himself or any other African leader.

Indeed I would like to also address the philosophical gap in the assertions made by Nkrumah, to the fact “African should not depend on the west for nothing”. The reality however is that, no country can ever exist oblivious of dependency from other countries in the Global economic system. The western countries are arguably dependent on the raw materials from the global south; almost a majority of all raw materials used in their industries are obtained from the global south. Minerals like bauxite, copper, zinc, crude etc. which are essential for the production of their sophisticated goods are all obtained from our parts of the world. Africans however depend on these nations for technological and rather sophisticated goods. There is therefore inter dependency in the global arena, and it cannot be the cause of the woes of Africa. The woes of Africa, in my opinion are as a result of the inability of African leaders to manage these resources. The activities of organizations like OPEC (Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries) have giving as practical evidence of how the monopoly of a resource and unity of producers of commodities can influence international relations. Receiving aid therefore cannot be the cause of Africa’s problems, from history it is realized that nations in Europe, example, U.K, Italy received aid through the then Marshall Aid Plan after the Second World War. However, these countries are back on their feet and still competitive in the Global arena. In the case of Africa countries the case is totally different and I vehemently assert that, the underdevelopment of Africa it is due to mismanagement of aid and resources by African leaders and not the aid or resources by itself.         

Nkrumah’s war on the total liberation of Africa was lost in the 1960s.In fact Nkrumah himself lost the battle of liberation in Ghana. He “begged” the United States government for financial support for the Akosombo Hydroelectric Dam project. He requested aid to the tune of 25 million dollars from the United States Federal Government about the same period. In fact, if any form of liberalization was realized, it was in the minimal sense, which was marked by the fall of Aparthied and the total decolonization of Africa.

Liberalization in African has so far just been the replacement of the white skinned governors as representatives of imperial authority, with dark skinned African governors serving the same function. African till now are still dependent on aid, continually from the west. In fact about 90 percent of all African nations continually depend on aid from the west and Bretton Woods institutions to fund their budgets. The African was never totally liberalized by decolonization. However, even with this pseudo liberalization, I must say that Nkrumah deserves commendation as its pioneer in Africa, he continued this fight by helping other nations in Africa, to some point however, but failed to complete it. His ideologies and tactics for freedom struggle, which was characterized with radicalism, failed in South Africa. In the end, the negotiation strategy which was adopted by Mandela and the ANC won. Africa is just experiencing what the wise Dr. Nkrumah termed Neo colonialism, himself a victim of this phenomenon.

I vehemently agree however to the assertion that Nkrumah “lost the battle on African unity”. His plan of uniting Africa was a failure, mainly due to presence of the opposition from other leaders on the continent. Nkrumah’s definition of African unity was defined and not ambiguous. It is clearly realized in his writings. Nkrumah opted for a tighter and well defined union than what is now found in Africa as the African Union. He wanted an ‘All-African Union Government’ (Nkrumah, 1963), a politically united Africa like the United States. Even in his speech at the inaugural ceremony of the OAU in 1963, he reaffirmed his position clearly making us understand that his aim was not in the process of the being realized with the OAU the mother organization of the AU. He suggested the setting up of “A common market of Africa”, “An African currency”, “African monetary zone”, “African Central Bank”, “Common African Citizenship” to mention but a few. All these recommendations show clearly, that his goal was not met then, and even in present times.

To put the icing on the cake he concluded his speech by saying,

“Your Excellencies, with these steps, I submit, we shall be irrevocably committed to the road which will bring us to a Union Government of Africa…”.

The fact that Nkrumah was not content with the OAU and AU style of unity is evident and He suggests ways through which his ideal African Union can be achieved. His suggestions and recommendations sadly have not been realized since the 60s.

In all, it can be asserted that indeed Nkrumah is widely acclaimed as one of the main faces so far as independence struggle as wells African liberation is concerned. However, evidence enlisted in this essay clearly suggests that, his dream concerning Africa liberation as wells African unity if achieved had been done in the minimal sense. In spite of this failure I strongly agree that Africa needs to unite, to be competitive in the global arena. Evidence, from organizations like the E.U has really given us a case on the importance of states coming together under a union. Unification will give Africa a strong army, a large economy as well boost Africa’s image in the Global arena to mention but a few, “Africa must Unite”.   

                                                       

REFERENCES

1.      Nkrumah. K, Africa Must Unite. First published in 1963 Reprinted 1970, 1974, 1985, 1998.

2.       Nkrumah. K, Neo-colonialism the Last Stage of Imperialism. First published in 1965, Reprinted 1971, 1974, 2002.

3.      www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=275088