Kiwifruit has been one of New Zealand’s niche exports for over the past forty years. New Zealand producers nearly 30% of the international traded kiwifruit. Kiwifruit is purchased by one large monopsony and then on sold to the international market by the large dominant buyer. During this period of time the value of kiwi exports has risen and fallen. Lately due to technological developments the fruit has undergone a process of product differentiation through cross-pollination of existing species and intensive marketing. Zespri a New Zealand company is attempting to extert dominance in the market to maximize profits.

Kiwifruit was originally known by its Chinese name, yáng táo (Sunny Peach) but was marketed as Kiwifruit in the 1950’s by the New Zealand export industry. This was to fit with the needs of the North American market. The name Kiwifruit was however never trade marked and thus other producers from Chile, Europe and China cashed in on the marketing and New Zealand producers lost their unique advantage and potential monopoly advantage.

In 1996 the New Zealand Kiwifruit industry undertook a new marketing venture to rebrand the humble kiwifruit as Zespri, a term that captured the zesty nature and vitality of the furry fruit. Overtime the New Zealand product again became noticeable in supermarkets in Europe and Asia and thus differentiated from the competition through branding. In 1987 the first yellow kiwifruit was developed by New Zealand horticulturists and last week the first red hulled fruit was developed for the export market. The NZ Herald reports here that

A variety of red-centred kiwifruit, called Hongyang, already exists but it doesn’t travel or store well so researchers are working on developing a more commercially useful version that can feed the huge export market.

The new red fruit is slightly smaller than the traditional green kiwifruit and has a sweet taste that resembles a tamarillo. Around the core is a deep red colour, which changes to yellow- green nearer the green skin.

Zespri has the largest kiwifruit species breeding programme in the world, keeping up to 50,000 seedlings in trial.
“We are trying to deliver the next generation of kiwifruit for the market to grow and increase the brand around the world,” said Rosstan Mazey, green produce category manager for Zespri.”

Globally the market for kiwi exporters potentially fits the assumptions of several market structures. The international market appears to fit the characteristics of an oligopoly. The barriers to produce and knowledge to export kiwifruit are significant. Nations or export focused companies such as Zespri are attempting to differentiate their products using new cross-pollination techniques to thus develop different varieties and to clearly distinguish their products from other exporters. The qualities of each variety may be very similar but customers will be willing to pay a little more for the uniqueness of the product. The costs of production for the different species of kiwifruit will likely be very similar in the long run thus firms can expect significantly higher profits.

These are some characteristics of market structures which can help us understand the Kiwifruit market.

Numbers: Although there are many producers in the international market for Kiwifruit it appears that a few firms or countries have a high concentration of the total global market share, Italy, New Zealand and Chile. The theory also suggests that each firm in an oligopolistic structure is interdependent on each other. You could argue that instead kiwifruit producers are independent and there is a high degree of competition and not collusion.

Ease of entry: There does exist some barriers to entry in the market due the high costs of setting up a fruit growing industry and then developing the channels to successfully export the product. But these barriers are also discouraging firms from exiting the industry. Farmers and the industry have large sunk costs, which would be hard to recover if they were forced to enter the market. A kiwifruit vine is a clear example of a sunk cost and is research and development. We could therefore assume that the industry is oligopolistic.

Product: Each firm or country in the Kiwifruit industry attempts to produce a branded product. There are becoming distinct differences in the products on offer as illustrated by the development of new species of yellow and red centered kiwifruit in New Zealand. Many economists believe that the main form of competition in oligopoly is non-price competition, and advertising in particular, to highlight the differences in the products. These differences such as country of origin increase the perceived value of the product.

This analysis perhaps explains how technological developments in cross-pollination are leading to a change in the global market structure for Kiwifruit as firms are able to produce significantly different products leading to technological barriers to entry and less contestability. Thus shifting the description of the market from monopolistic competition, which it may be been in the 1960’s to towards a perhaps oligopoly structure without the collusion, but with high barriers to entry and with greater competition.

For more reading on contestable markets, oligopolies and monopolistic competition the UK site here  S-Cool – Economics is a great start.

Discussion Questions:

1. Find examples from your local area of oligopolies, monopolistic and contestable markets?
2. What do the MR / AR curves look like for an oligopoly and monopolistic structure?
3. Compare and contrast the difference between an oligopoly and monopolistic competition?
4. How is a monopoly different from a monospony?
5. Find other examples of how technological change is altering a market structure. Does Apple have monopoly power in the portable music industry?

The latest version of my study guides for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Economics are available for download for free by following the link at the top of this blog for “W.W. Study Guides”.

Students and teachers may download these study guides for free. Teachers who are interested in ordering the orginal Smart Notebook files to use in their own classes may contact me to indicate which units they would like to order.

Feel free to make a small donation if you decide to download the .pdfs, these study guides represent hundreds of hours of thoughtful work over my last three years of teaching AP and IB Economics. Enjoy, and good luck on the upcoming AP and IB Exams! – Jason Welker

Economic View – A Dose of Skepticism on Government Spending – NYTimes.com

We all understand that fiscal stimulus is one of the tools that governments can use to increase the level of economic activity during a recession. The fiscal medicine can be delivered in one of two ways. The government can tweak the tax systems to boost incentives to spend and work or it can increase government spending. One tool that we can use to evaluate the merits of these two policies is to compare the relative multipliers that relate to government spending and taxation.

The multiplier is the key component of Keynesian theory and shows the possibility of a given increase in injections, e.g. government spending, investment and exports, increasing aggregate demand by more than the initial value. This logic fits with our understanding of the circular flow where say increased government spending will lead to increased derived demand for other products, and increased demand for labour. Workers will spend additional wages on other products which leads to further increases in aggregate demand. This flow on effect can be diluted by withdrawals from the system such as taxation or savings.

Greg Mankiw wrote an excellent analysis of this issue in the New York Times in Janurary. “A dose of skepticism on government spending”

An essential skill for IB and AP Economics students is to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of Keynesian  demand-side policies as well as classical supply-side policies, both fiscal and monetary. An understanding of multipliers can improve a student’s ability to evaluate fiscal policy. Greg writes:

“Economics textbooks, including Mr. Samuelson’s and my own more recent contribution, teach that each dollar of government spending can increase the nation’s gross domestic product by more than a dollar. When higher government spending increases G.D.P., consumers respond to the extra income they earn by spending more themselves. Higher consumer spending expands aggregate demand further, raising the G.D.P. yet again. And so on. This positive feedback loop is called the multiplier effect.

In practice, however, the multiplier for government spending is not very large. The best evidence comes from a recent study by Valerie A. Ramey, an economist at the University of California, San Diego. Based on the United States’ historical record, Professor Ramey estimates that each dollar of government spending increases the G.D.P. by only 1.4 dollars. So, by doing the math, we find that when the G.D.P. expands, less than a third of the increase takes the form of private consumption and investment.”

This low multiplier effect implies that any government spending must be used in an effective manner where it will increase the long-term productivity of the country. During a “jobs think-tank” recently in New Zealand, a media release announced an idea of the government spending a vast sum of money to develop a walking track from one end of the country to the other. Would this lead to increased tourism? How much money would these hiking visitors spend? Would it create more jobs?

Should we therefore expect that tax cuts will lead to a greater increase in GDP through the feedback loop compared to government spending? Well, we have to remember that not all tax cuts will be spent immediately, according to the marginal propensity to consume. In a recession some workers will be pessimistic about the future and save the money. Will tax cuts compensate workers who are working shorter hours? Greg suggests that tax cuts might actually be more potent than government spending according to current research.

“Textbook Keynesian theory says that tax cuts are less potent than spending increases for stimulating an economy. When the government spends a dollar, the dollar is spent. When the government gives a household a dollar back in taxes, the dollar might be saved, which does not add to aggregate demand.

The evidence, however, is hard to square with the theory. A recent study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, then economists at the University of California, Berkeley, finds that a dollar of tax cuts raises the G.D.P. by about $3. According to the Romers, the multiplier for tax cuts is more than twice what Professor Ramey finds for spending increases.

Why this is so remains a puzzle. One can easily conjecture about what the textbook theory leaves out, but it will take more research to sort things out. And whether these results based on historical data apply to our current extraordinary circumstances is open to debate.”

So the current research indicates that one-dollar of tax cuts can increase G.D.P by $3 compared to an additional dollar of government spending increasing GDP by $1.40. But why is there such a large difference? Is this related to the arguments about the efficiency of increased government spending? The verdict is still out and we may need to wait till the next global recession to find out.

Below is a picture of the aptly named Bridge to Nowhere located in the central North Island of New Zealand. It was built by the government in a spending splurge in the 1936 to open up land in the area. The land is now no longer fertile or accessible and all access to the area is cut off except for this concrete relic. The area is now popular with trampers.

Discussion Questions:

1. How do economists calculate the multiplier?
2. What are leakages from the circular flow that reduce the multiplier effect?
3. Explain the link between the accelerator model and the multiplier.
4. What would multipliers for other injections such as export receipts or investment look like? Would they be higher or lower than multipliers for taxation or government spending?
5. Evaluate the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus to increase the level of economic activity.

From today’s New York Times:

Just How Progressive Is the Tax System? – Economix Blog – NYTimes.com

Not as much as you might think. So says Citizens for Tax Justice, which today released an updated analysis of the effective tax rates for Americans at different income levels.

Data released last week by the Congressional Budget Office underscored the progressive nature of the federal tax system. And in an op-ed article today in The Wall Street Journal, Ari Fleischer, who served as President George W. Bush’s press secretary, used that data — in particular, the income tax numbers — to argue that the wealthiest Americans bear an unfair share of the tax burden. Other research has found that many states and local governments have more regressive tax systems, though, that might offset the progressiveness of federal tax rates.

The research from Citizens for Tax Justice — a liberal organization that advocates “fair taxes for middle and low-income families” — uses 2008 data for all federal, state and local taxes combined. It found that the average effective tax rate is 29.8 percent, and that including state and local taxes makes the tax curve look much less steep:

Horizontal axis shows the income group. Vertical axis shows the percentage of income that the average member of that group pays in taxes. Taxes include all federal, state and local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.). Incomes include cash income, employer-paid FICA taxes and corporate profits net of taxable dividends.

The group also finds that in 2008 the share of total federal, state and local taxes paid by each income group was relatively close to the share of income that that group brings in, at least as compared to comparable 2006 numbers for effective federal tax rates:

Horizontal axis shows the income group. Taxes include all federal, state and local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.). Incomes include cash income, employer-paid FICA taxes and corporate profits net of taxable dividends.

Discussion questions:

1. Based on the data above, do the rich in America pay an unfair proportion of the total taxes the US government collects? Why or why not?
2. Why do the richest 5% in America actually pay a lower level of tax on average than the 5% below them?
3. How much of America’s total income is earned by the richest 1% compared to the poorest 20%? Does America’s progressive tax system destroy the incentive for Americans to work hard and become rich? Why or why not?
4. Does the gap between the richest and the poorest Americans surprise you? Do you think that America’s tax system is effective at re-distributing the nation’s income? How does it succeed? How could it do better?

• China’s consumption is a disappearing act – FT.com / China / Economy & Trade

  The 19th-century Englishman who mused that, if every Chinese lengthened his shirttail by a foot, textile mills would spin year-round, has been replaced by 21st-century westerners hoping that Chinese will step in to buy their sedans and insurance products. But can they?

  The picture is not easy to decipher. By some measures, Chinese consumers have in fact become relatively less important. In the 1980s, household consumption averaged slightly more than half China’s gross domestic product. That proportion fell in the 1990s to 46 per cent, reached 38 per cent by 2005 and is about 35 per cent today. By comparison, in 2007 US household consumption was running at what we now know was an unsustainable 72 per cent of GDP.

  …Consumption rates tend to be higher in poorer countries than China where people spend a large part of their income to survive, and richer ones where discretionary spending takes hold.

  Jonathan Garner, emerging markets strategist at Morgan Stanley, is another believer. In his 2005 The Rise of the Chinese Consumer, he predicted that by 2014 Chinese consumption would have risen from 9 per cent of US and 3 per cent of world consumption in 2004 to 37 per cent and 10.5 per cent respectively. By then, he forecast, the Chinese shopper would have displaced the US consumer “as the engine of world growth”. He says his prediction is still on track…

  There are several factors holding back the Chinese consumer. First, people have for years witnessed the destruction of the “iron rice bowl”, as once-free health and education systems have been dismantled. Now the government is committed rhetorically – and, increasingly, in practice – to rebuilding the social safety net. But it will be years before people trust the state to look after them, and run down their precautionary savings.

  Second, most Chinese are what Dragonomics, a research firm, calls “survivors”, whose purchases of basic food and clothing are meaningless for multinationals or global demand. Only about 150m are part of “consuming China”, although this

  tags: economics

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Taxes

The following was published in the Chicago Tribune’s “Voice of the People” page on October 29, 2008 in the midst of the US presidential race:

Redistributing wealth
On my way to lunch recently, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama; I need the money.” I laughed. In a restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie. Again I laughed. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Barack-Obama-redistribution-of-wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need—the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

—A. Hart, Forest Park

The comment reflects a general contempt for the concept of taxation, specifically progressive taxes, or those that tax high income earners at a higher rate than those who earn low incomes. The idea behind a progressive tax, of course, is that higher income earners have income left over after they have provided themselves with the necessities of life, therefore should bear a larger burden of the nation’s tax revenue, which thereby enables the government to “re-distribute” wealth from the nation’s higher income earners across all levels of society through the provision of public goods.

The federal income tax in the United States is progressive in that the higher one’s income, the higher the percentage he or she pays to the US government. As seen in the table below, America’s poor will pay as little as 0-10% in income tax, while the nation’s richest households can pay up to 35%.

Opponents of progressive income taxes, which are also known as direct taxes because they are taken directly from a person’s income, argue that such a tax system creates a disincentive to work among American households. They argue that progressive income taxes penalize hard work and innovation, since the higher a worker’s productivity, the more of his income he must relinquish to the government.

One commonly misunderstood fact about the US income tax, however, is that it is a marginal tax system, meaning that when a person goes from, say the 25% to the 28% bracket, he does not pay 28% on ALL of his income, only on the marginal income above  $82,250 (according to the 2009 column above).  The implication is, therefore, that the average tax paid by an American will at any level of income be lower than the marginal tax. Below is a graphical representation of this concept. [source: http://aufrecht.org/pictures/images/858554/tax400.png]

It is the re-distributive intentions and effect of a progressive income tax system such as America’s (and every other country, click here to see tax rates from around the world) that has led to such intense opposition to the US tax system. Many in America’s government have proposed a “fair tax” that does away with America’s current direct tax system in favor of a nation-wide indirect, or sales tax on most goods and services. Watch the video below:

The fair tax is a indirect tax, meaning it is levied not directly on peoples’ income but indirectly on the purchase of goods and services in the economy, and is described as follows:

The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23 percent of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30 percent traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent before taxes).^[4] The effective tax rate for any household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates that are used to “untax” purchases up to the poverty level.^[3] The tax would be levied on all U.S. retail sales for personal consumption on new goods and services.

The two guests argue that the fair tax “is the only tax that totally untaxes the poor; the poor get a free ride totally across the board at the federal level under this plan.”

However, a national sales tax is a “regressive tax” meaning that as a percentage of income, the fair tax places a larger burden on lower income earners than higher income earners. An example is useful:

• Two shoppers walk into a computer store. One earns $50,000 a year, the other $100,000 a year.
• Both are looking at a computer that costs $2,000. Under the fair tax, $460 of the purchase price of this computer will go to the government as tax.
• $460 represents .92% of the income of the shopper who earns $50,000 per year.
• $460 represents .46% of the income of the shopper who earns $100,000 per year.
• The higher income earner pays a lower percentage of his income to the government in tax than the low income earner, making this a regressive tax.

One of the four macroeconomic goals governments aim to achieve in their policy making is more equal distribution of income. The fair tax, despite the arguments its advocates make, does not achieve a more equal distribution of income in America. It does place a smaller tax burden on the rich than the current system, but on the other hand America’s lower income earners bear a relatively larger burden of tax.

Discussion Questions:

1. Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
2. Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
3. On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?

• Economics – EU Revision: Carbon Trading and the Environment

  This four page revision note provides some analysis and evaluation on the European Union emissions trading system – designed for AQA A2 economists but hopefully also useful for those preparing for the 2888 paper and for students preparing environmental questions for the Edexcel Board.

  tags: economics

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Teaching the Prisoners’ Dilemma Will Never Be the Same Again « Cheap Talk

Rarely does such a perfect illustration of the Prisoner’s Dilemma come along for Econ teachers to use in their classroom:

The payoffs are clear:

Each player has a weakly dominant strategy, which is to choose to steal. By choosing to steal, the player has a chance at maximizing his own payoff, but will do no worse than he would if his opponent also chooses to steal and at least will have the satisfaction of thwarting his opponent’s attempt to steal the money.

There are three Nash equilibria in the game, which are outcomes at which a player can not do better on his or her own by changing his or her strategy. The outcome Steve was hoping for by chosing “split” (50/50) was not a Nash equilibrium because Sarah knows she can do better if she chooses steal when Steve chooses split. Steve doomed himself by choosing split because he should know that Sarah’s dominant strategy is to choose steal. However, Sarah would also have doomed herself by choosing split because she should assume that Steve would also chose steal since steal is a dominant strategy for him too.

John Nash, who pioneered the field of Game Theory, assumed that humans were coldly rational, self-interested, deceptive creatures that would not hesitate to stab one another in the back to get what was best for themselves. His theory of human behavior is only partially proven correct in this game, in which Steve is shown to be the sucker and Sarah the coldly rational self-interested player. The best chance for Steve to go home with any money would have been for him to use the one minute of discussion time to convince Sarah that he would choose SPLIT, yet be willing to go home with something LESS THAN $50,000 and accept that Sarah was going to choose STEAL. He could have threatened to chose steal if she did not agree to share her winnings with him to some extent. Then again, any promise Sarah makes she could later break, thus further empowering the players to choose steal.

Discussion questions:

1. What in the world is going on here? Why did Sarah choose steal rather than collaborate with Steve and share the $100,000?
2. Was Steve totally wrong to choose split? What would you have done in his situation?
3. How do the choices faced by Steve and Sarah relate to the choices faced by firms in oligopolitic markets? Now that you’ve seen this video, can you explain why collusive agreements between oligopolists often fall apart? Why do cartels such as OPEC often fail to achieve the high price targets agreed upon in meetings of their leaders?

allAfrica.com: Africa: G20 Leaders Promise Billions for Low-Income Nations

While the G20 leaders meet in England to formulate their plan for increasing aid to Africa, the message from the continent seems to be that not aid, bur more trade, foreign direct investment and the establishment of free markets is the key to achieving meaningful economic growth and development. Dambisa Moyo explains the problem with aid on Colbert Nation on April 1:

What, exactly do the G20 leaders have planned for the less economically developed nations of Africa in the $1.1 trillion global stimulus package?

The leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies, recognizing that the global financial crisis has “a disproportionate impact” on vulnerable people in poor countries, have promised to make hundreds of billions of United States dollars available to these countries as part of a $1.1 trillion plan to rescue the world economy.

In a communiqué released by the Group of 20’s London Summit on Thursday, the leaders announced what they called “a global plan for recovery on an unprecedented scale.”

They said the rescue package would include resources totalling $850 billion, to be channelled through global financial institutions, “to support growth in emerging market and developing countries by helping to finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalisation, infrastructure, trade finance, balance of payments support, debt rollover, and social support.”

Outlining allocations for materially poor nations, they promised:

• An increase in lending of at least $100 billion by multilateral development banks, including loans to low-income countries;
• An amount of $50 billion for social protection, to promote trade and to safeguard development in low-income countries; and
• The selling of gold reserves to help the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provide $6 billion for the world’s poorest countries over the next two to three years.

The increase in aid from the rich world to sub-Saharan Africa comes mostly in the form of loans from the IMF and the World Bank. Development aid such as this is meant to help poor countries improve their human capital through investments in education, health and infrastructure. Historically, loans from the “multilateral development banks” have been made on the condition that the recipient nations adopt certain “structural adjustment policies”:

Some of the conditions for structural adjustment can include:

• Cutting social expenditures, also known as austerity,
• Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction,
• Devaluation of currencies,
• Trade liberalization, or lifting import and export restrictions,
• Increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment with the opening of domestic stock markets),
• Balancing budgets and not overspending,
• Removing price controls and state subsidies,
• Privatization, or divestiture of all or part of state-owned enterprises,
• Enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-a-vis national laws,
• Improving governance and fighting corruption.

Critics of such SAPs, which developing countries are forced to adopt as conditions of receiving loans from the IMF and World Bank, say that they limit the extent to which the poor country can direct the loan money towards combating poverty, reducing inequality, and thereby achieving meaningful economic development for the poor.

Recently TIME magazine had an article in which the efficacy of such financial aid from the rich world to the poor world is challenged.

Africa is hopeless, a place of war and famine seemingly populated almost entirely by tyrants and children with flies in their eyes. According to this view, if Africa generates any kind of growth, it is in suffering — and in the overseas aid sent to address that, now a $40-billion-a-year industry. Naturally, with a new appeal every year and a new disaster every other, some people have begun to wonder if all that money is doing any good. They argue that aid creates dependence, fuels corruption, undermines democracy and stifles development.

Aid in any form, at a fundamental level, positions Africa as a dependent child, and the “rich world” as the paternalistic benefactor. Aid, despite the good intentions of the west, does little to do promote meaningful economic development in poor countries:

Though it rarely occurs to Westerners who’ve been instructed that Africa needs their help, charity is humiliating. Not emergency charity, of course: when disaster strikes, emergency aid is always welcome, whether in New Orleans or Papua New Guinea. But long-term charity, living life as a beggar, is degrading. Andrew Rugasira, 40, runs Good African Coffee, a Ugandan company he set up in 2004 to supply British supermarkets under the motto “Trade, not aid.” He is emblematic of a new generation of African antiaid, antistate entrepreneurs. For Rugasira, aid not only “undermines the creativity to lift yourself out of poverty” but also “undermines the integrity and dignity of the people. It says, These are people who cannot figure out how to develop.” Aid even manages to silence those it is meant to help. “African governments become accountable to Western donors,” says Rugasira, “and Africa finds itself represented not by Africans but by Bono and Bob Geldof. I mean, how would America react if Amy Winehouse dropped in to advise them on the credit crisis?”

The G20 nations should keep this view of aid in mind as they further develop their plans to help the poor nations of the world achieve economic growth and development. Trade, not aid, is what Africa needs to achieve meaningful progress towards economic development, defined as an improvement in the quality of life, health, education, and incomes of the people of a nation. Despite over $40 billion a year of aid that has flowed into Africa over the last decade, it is foreign investment and trade that has only recently led to sustained economic growth for the continent.

In 2006, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, foreign investment in Africa reached $48 billion, overtaking foreign aid for the first time. That gap has only widened, reflecting a quadrupling of foreign investment since 2000. As the senior adviser in Africa for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), David Nellor, noted in a report last September, sub-Saharan Africa today resembles Asia in the 1980s. “The private sector is the key driver,” wrote Nellor, “and financial markets are opening up.” War is down. Democracy is up. Inflation and interest rates are in single digits. Terms of trade have improved. Crucially, said Nellor, “growth is taking off.” The IMF puts Africa’s average annual growth for 2004 to ‘08 at more than 6% — better than any developed economy — and predicts the continent will buck the global recessionary trend to grow nearly 3.3% this year.

Despite the platitudes from Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Ban Ki Moon about the “disproportionate impact” of the financial crisis on the poor nations of the world, it is Africa that is likely to achieve economic growth this year, even while the rich nations of the world enter recession. It is little thanks to aid that the people of Africa are finally experiencing meaningful growth; rather, the economic ties between the continent and, not the West, but China, have fueled this movement towards higher incomes and quality of life. Perhaps it’s more and fairer trade, not aid, that Africa needs now. And maybe that’s what we in the West need too in this time of economic chaos.