Find us on Google+

Wednesday, 13 June 2007

More "Equinox" salt for that wound? 2nd Edition

Equinox announced this week that they have identified further deposits of copper and uranium near its Lumwana Copper Project, which is presently under construction in Solwezi, North-Western Province. A copy of their press release can found here.

This development also affords me an opportunity to bring the
Mokambo news to your attention, in case you missed it last week. Our nation is truly blessed with enormous resources. Future generations will surely condemn this generation if these resources which are being found on regular basis now aren't fully utilised to the benefit of all our people.

Update:

The key question of course, is whether the Zambian people are "benefiting" as much as they should. Some numbers released by
Magande this week: "For the year 2005/2006, mining companies declared aggregate profit amounting to $397,299,045". Key word is "profit" not just revenues. The same news report says mineral royalties to Government amounted to around $9m (or K36bn) over the same period. Of course through all this we have to bear in mind that "benefit" is a much broader concept.

26 comments:

  1. I do agree with you about posterity judging us harshly. You see, even under ZCCM, Zambia was producing gold, silver, selenium and other metals at the Ndola Precious Metals Plant (PMP) at what used to be Ndola Refinery from slug from copper processing. As usual and simply because of the kleptomanic tendencies of people in power, these are resources that were never fully declared to the nation.
    Zambia's emeralds are among the best in the world and sold as coming from Israel where they are polished. What does this do for the people of Lufwanyama and Ilamba in general? It only leaves gaping holes in the ground. Mwelushi from where these emeralds come, is as undeveloped (I didn't say underdeveloped) as any remote rural area.
    I doubt if the uranium, the nickel and even the oil said to have been found in Chavuma, will do us any better as a nation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gershom,

    I haven't had the opportunity to say it, but great posts, great blog.

    What would your ideal development model for the mines be?

    It is outrageous that the Zambian government doesn't get a major share of the profits, and seriously taxes the rest the mining companies make, and that these companies are not obligated to use Zambian suppliers.

    Considering that these agreements look completely exploitative and useless to the Zambian state or people, and anyone with common sense, I always feel that the individuals who feel obliged to defend them are bribed or have some other financial incentive to defend them.

    And the thing is - if someone takes a bribe during the negotiation process, that is enough to have these agreements annulled.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the world bank perspective:
    http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=310927&area=/insight/insight__africa/

    "On a recent visit to Zambia World Bank economic adviser Paul Collier, said “government has made a tactical error in imposing a tax-free-regime on the copper industry and should quickly impose a windfall tax, so that the people of Zambia can benefit from their resources before the boom in copper prices subsides”.

    I had a chance of meeting Paul Collier at a conference two years ago when he was giving a lecture on "economics of conflicts". He has a new book now I believe, which I haven't read:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bottom-Billion-Poorest-Countries-Failing/dp/0195311450/ref=wl_it_dp/202-4153236-3083828?ie=UTF8&coliid=I167U07IF8TBNY&colid=SRQFPDYM1ZNA

    Any way, the guy is a "planner" - and therefore it is interesting to see him qive "unqualified" support to renegotiation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cho,
    Seriously, how can we start to make our voices heard concerning this issue?
    When I was in Zambia last February it dawned on me just how little the people knew about these mining activities in their own backyard.
    For them it was enough that solwezi had been recognized as a place in Zambia and finally on the map of Africa as if it hasn't always been there. Such is the thinking of the people. We who are better informed MUST find a way to voice these opinions.

    Just look at the amount government accepts as royaties. $9m is nothing when we look at the "profits" these mines produce. We must advocate for zambia.
    I'll get off my soap box now!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good question!

    We have issues in Zambia.

    1. Academia is under-funded and not really interrogating these issues. Lecturers are under paid and the departments are rarely opened. The best Zambian lecturers you'll find them abroad in other institutions.

    2. Zambia has only 2 active think tanks that I can think of. No no independent brain power there.

    3. The PF can try to bring the issue to the fore front but Governments rarely listens to the Opposition, no matter how good the ideas are. Our level of democracy has not reached that mature level yet.

    4. Government gets its advice from the World Bank and the IMF. Not because it necessarily wants to but because no one is really getting into the stuff. How many papers on substantial policy issues are written by Zambians? I am researching the land issue in Zambia at the moment, and I have yet to pick up any credible paper by a Zambian. Zambians really just aren't thinking about these issues.

    5. The Media is not yet diverse enough to allow intellectual inquiry to emerge and a more focused approach to issues. They are not actually researching anything. My piece "Corruption Wars" grew out that frustration.

    6. Zambians in diapora appear uninterested in the issues at a deeper level. As VP Banda said a while back, Government is listening but no one is talking. The general impression Government has got is that Zambians abroad are lazy and aren't able to think through issues...whether wrong or right..

    7. Ordinary Zambians are too concerned about surviving on $2 a day to worry about intricate issues. Certainly they have no time for unreadable documents like the FNDP!! And we can't expect them to.

    So we are stuck!....

    What I think is needed is for Zambians abroad to take the intiative, through forums like this. Organise, set up think tanks, write policy papers, write to the President and his Ministers. Offer them ideas. That requires careful thought and tenacious research on issues. You can't just go to him and say set the mineral royalties at 10%. He'll say where is your analysis?
    You can't tell him to resolve the land issue, he'll say what are the issues? What things do I need to think about? etc etc.

    So it can be done, but it would require some thought...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Academia may not be analysing the issue and the goverment may not be listening to the opposition (another clue?), but what is really intrigueing is who negotiated these contracts and why they gave up everything.

    Magande's predecessor was Edith Nawakwi, and between them, I think they have a lot to say about how these contracts were created.

    Also, this issue cries out for investigative journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can just see the documentary on You tube "Life and Mining Contracts" lol!!

    Nawakwi is actually very quiet on this matter. I never hear her say anything on it.

    Word has it LPM himself will lead the next round of negotiations
    http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL15343628.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. " "Mr Mwanawasa said so far, the mining firms had in principle agreed with the government's intention to increase mineral royalties," Zanis said. "

    Where is Cho's friend now?

    The article concludes:

    " Copper mining earns Zambia the bulk of foreign exchange, but analysts say the country does not reap enough benefits because the mines are owned by foreigners. "

    Now that is the truth.

    The state could easily own half or the majority of mining company shares.

    However, I still don't trust the mining companies and their declared profits. The only way to be absolutely sure is to have the government own the minerals.

    I can just see the documentary on You tube "Life and Mining Contracts" lol!!

    Actually the pressure brought to bear on Zambia was very similar to that used on Jamaica.

    Edith Nawakwi said something like "they wanted blood".

    ReplyDelete
  9. "However, I still don't trust the mining companies and their declared profits".

    I think we can treat the $397m profits as a minimum. There's no doubt about that.

    17 June 2007 00:59

    ReplyDelete
  10. And we already know that something went on with the mystery uranium deposits, and the 'discovery' that the deposits in question are much larger than originally thought.

    'Failure to disclose' is one major issue people sue for.

    If the mining companies knew about these deposits before the contracts were signed, that is deceitful right there. I think the surveys must have been done before the contracts were signed?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think the process was that Government sent its experts and they had theirs. I don't think we can expect them to "disclose" the information. Would you?

    I have a feeling the investors had better equipment :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't think we can expect them to "disclose" the information. Would you?

    If I felt honoust. :) I guess the mining companies didn't - which could constitute 'bad faith'?

    You are really underlying my point that the mines (at very least the minerals) belong in the hands of the state.

    If mining companies are this dishonoust, they don't deserve to control anything in Zambia.

    I'm also wondering what the government geologists found. Or if they were paid off.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here is an interesting piece from Mongolia, that sounds pretty familiar:

    http://www.mongolia-web.com/content/view/518/2/

    Parliament Passes Law on Mining Windfall Tax
    Written by Ulaanbaatar correspondent
    Saturday, 13 May 2006

    Mongolia Web News, Ulaanbaatar. Mongolia's State Great Khural (Parliament) has passed a controversial law on windfall profitts this Friday. The law would enable to government to take up to 70% percent of profits on mineral resources like gold and copper, if these raw materials would rise above a certain price level.
    It is likely that this law was inspired by recent popular protests on the influence of foreign mining companies like Ivanhoe Mines (TSX: IVN)(NYSE: IVN)(NASDAQ: IVN) and the possible drain of mineral resources from Mongolia, without much benefit for the country itself. However the new law could have alarming consequences for the development of the mining sector. If the prospects on profit for large cooperations are weakened by this law, it might mean less interest and a possible withdrawal of large reliable investors from the sector, and leave if it up for grabs for smaller, less reliable parties.
    It seemed the government was very eager to give a signal to the people, indicating that Mongolia is not willing to give up its national resources to foreign investors. The new law was rushed through parliament within a week, with support of both the MPRP and the Democratic Party. But just the sheer haste and apparent lack of in-depth research on this crucial topic, leaves a question of whether this is indeed a step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There's a world wide movement!

    Its really interesting.

    I think we are moving towards a phase of compromise. What has happened is that people are wary of state ownership - it just makes politicians cheaper and makes it easier for them to steal from the people - but also they don't wanna be deprived of their resources - so a middle is being found.

    Windfall taxes should definitely be explored by the Government but would need careful thresholds. Copper prices are just as violatile as anything, we may still get little :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Government and business could cooperate to lock in high copper prices on the financial markets.

    There are futures on copper traded in Chicago and elsewhere.

    It would be interesting if the Zambian government became active in these markets.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That would appear to handle my concerns on low prices nicely! It an issue I also raised to you here:

    http://zambian-economist.blogspot.com/2007/06/mining-debate-warning-from-history.html

    But you still need to address the other point I have raised there.

    In addition it seems you need to spell a full ownership model that exudes "nimbleness" and general responsibility on the part of Government to convince skeptics. State ownership is too generic.

    I look forward to you addressing this point and the "other" point I have raised there on that blog. I accept your point on prices - assuming Government is sophiscated enough it can indeed lock in prices but you probably need to demonstrate that it will be nimble enough to consider such sophiscated alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In addition it seems you need to spell a full ownership model that exudes "nimbleness" and general responsibility on the part of Government to convince skeptics. State ownership is too generic.

    There are several known models:

    Botswana - DEBSWANA

    - 1 state/privately owned joint venture operates nationwide
    - performs 100% of mining activities nationwide
    - 50% of shares in government hands, 50% in private company hands
    - (Per capita income in Botswana: $9,200 per year)

    (Source wikipedia)

    Saudi Arabia - SAUDI ARAMCO

    - Saudi government owns 100% of shares
    * 1973 - 25%
    * 1974 - 60%
    * 1980 - 100%
    - Saudi Aramco enters into joint ventures with other companies

    (Source wikipedia)



    My (provisional) model would be:

    - all minerals are state owned, until the moment they are sold
    - all mines (the structures) are 51% state owned, to ensure continuity
    - all mining companies are privately owned but work for the state, and are paid by the state
    - mineral ownership is managed by a state agency that has oversight and is extremely transparant.
    - strict rules and consequences about government interference in management or nepotism


    In case there is a joint share ownership arrangement instead...

    - holding out, or holding back information by the mining companies must be grounds for confiscation of property; or a punitive increase of share ownership by the state (for instance from 51% to 75%). The penalties for holding out must be steep. Production and sales must be closely monitored.

    I would also like to emphasise the difference between the state and the government. There should be political oversight of state agencies, but there should be clear rights and responsibilities that should not be subject to the whims of politics. (Here we are back to the independence of the civil service again.)

    Here is another alternative - the state owns 50% of the mines, but with the option to increase it's share ownership in the future.

    The way I see it, the ideal would be a 100% state owned mining industry that is efficiently run and free from political interference, allowing 100% of the profits to go to the people and most of the expenditures to stay within the country. The words state and government are often used interchangeably, but there should be a big difference. There are ways to ensure the independence of state agencies and the continuity of the permanent business of the state - like the supervision of longterm mining projects. As always, there are ways to do it, but is there the political will to do it? Is this myopic Presidency willing to give up power to other branches, like the civil service, parliament, local government, etc?


    An article that gives an overview of the mining industry in Botswana
    http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Botswana-MINING.html

    " The government maintained an equity position in most of the major mining companies, but the industry was operated, for the most part, on a privately owned free-market basis. In a 50–50 joint partnership with De Beers Centenary, the government owned Debswana Diamond, the country's largest mining company. De Beers Botswana Mining (Debswana) and Botswana Concessions (BCL), both partly owned by the government, developed major mineral fields in the eastern and central regions in the 1970s. "

    ReplyDelete
  18. I accept your point on prices - assuming Government is sophiscated enough it can indeed lock in prices but you probably need to demonstrate that it will be nimble enough to consider such sophiscated alternatives.

    I think monitoring would be the key, but buying futures and options is not that difficult, especially when they are backed by real deliverable goods. I don't know about the scale that would be required for the state, but the futures markets are among the biggest markets in the world.

    But once they are paid (at least) 50%, the state would have so much money that it could easily convert that into options and futures, or buy a greater stake in it's own company.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mrk,

    Interesting.

    It seems right in front of us you have exposed use to something that works 50% Government - 50% private.

    But I see that you have suggested a different alternative. What flaws do you see with the Debswana model?

    Also I am slightly suprised that you are ascribing more power to our Government in Mining than the Botswana's have done theirs. Now by all account Botswana is a more open society than ours. There system of governance is extremely open. The voting is transparent. The all process is just fantastic.

    When I watched their elections 2 or 3 years ago on Botswana TV when at the time I was in Zambia, it was properly covered on television. No hint of fraud whatsover. I was extremely impressed.

    I guess what I am trying to say is - is it logical that a nation such as ours weak institutionally and much less transparent should have even a greater share in the development of an industry, when a nation even more advanced in terms of the democratic process seems to prefer only a 50% stake?

    I would go as far as to say perhaps we should show the same trust in the private sector that Bots have. They have a company where Government has an equal vote with the private sector! And it seems to work.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mrk

    "But once they are paid (at least) 50%, the state would have so much money that it could easily convert that into options and futures, or buy a greater stake in it's own company."

    I accept your point.
    Its probably not the question of "nimbleness" its one of having the resources. Quite right.

    Actually, coming back to the issue of the ownership model.

    Are you envisaging a SINGLE company owning ALL the MINES in the country?

    Or are you going to allow for small private ventures in certain areas?

    ReplyDelete
  21. But I see that you have suggested a different alternative. What flaws do you see with the Debswana model?

    Only 50% of profits go to the state. :)

    It should be possible to have a setup where 100% of profits go to the state. It should be possible to find a company that only does mine management/mining operations, so their income would be part of the cost of running the mine.

    I guess what I am trying to say is - is it logical that a nation such as ours weak institutionally and much less transparent should have even a greater share in the development of an industry, when a nation even more advanced in terms of the democratic process seems to prefer only a 50% stake?

    They are more transparant and and stronger institutionally, because they have had so much money to put into their various infrastructures, including governance.

    I don't think it works that way. State ownership of the mines or mining profits is not something that is earned or deserved. These natural resources are the birthright of every citizen.

    And I don't think they preferred a 50% stake. Also, look at the Saudi example. Since 1980, they own 100% of their industry. I don't think they are questioning whether they really should.

    The only real question is - what is the model that puts the most money into the hands of the state?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Are you envisaging a SINGLE company owning ALL the MINES in the country?

    It would be ok if the state had a large interest in all the mining companies.

    Also, small mines could be privately owned. The state could own only the major deposits. I think that would encourage small Zambian mining companies to grow and become future partner in government joint ventures. It would be good for competition.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I hereby recall to the table previously discarded option 4, which supposes entering into a cartel with other copper exporting countries to institute collective control over supplies in order to raise and subsequently stabilize prices. Chile is the elephant of the industry, accounting for a fifth of all copper production worldwide and a much larger share of net exports. Get Chile on board and others like Indonesia and Kazakhstan will likely join. The Chileans have a mixed bag of parastatals and multinationals, and have been chafing at the 3% ceiling on copper royalties for years now.

    Copper is a remarkable substance in itself, not solely as the export lifeblood of the nation. As a basic metallic element the only way to make more requires a forge with the heat and pressure of a stellar core, the earth isn't big enough or hot enough. It is one of the most recycleable substances used in modern industry, almost 100% even when mixed into alloys with other substances. New copper provided to the global marketplace by developing countries should fetch at least as much as it would cost those in more developed nations to pick through their refuse for the copper they have already taken.

    Going it alone, the mining companies can treat each copper country as a competitor to all others, as if they weren't intent on pulling as much copper from as many places as they possibly can. If the companies are faced with a collective bargaining position, then they will have to meet the price or get busy digging up those landfills in europe and north america.

    Half as much copper at twice the price would produce the same GDP, but double the working lifetime of the mines. One of the reasons that Botswana gets so much more from their diamond mines is the way diamonds are overpriced in the market through tight control by the international cartel over the supply. Saudi Arabia nationalized their oil industry well after joining OPEC. The first step was to exert control over the volume of exports, and to worry about ownership within each country later on case by case.

    ReplyDelete
  24. MrK,

    ”Only 50% of profits go to the state. :) It should be possible to have a setup where 100% of profits go to the state. It should be possible to find a company that only does mine management/mining operations, so their income would be part of the cost of running the mine”.

    So you see no advantages of private sector involvement?

    In my opinion Botswana have rightly noted that the benefit of having another player on the table like De Beers who brings creativity and excellent marketing abilities and more importantly internally “policies” Government far outweigh the benefits from the additional 50%.

    It also sends a strong message that Government believes in a dynamic private sector working hand in hand with the state. I like the fact that its only 50% - it nicely keeps everyone in perpetual “check” to use a chess phrase.

    “They are more transparent and stronger institutionally, because they have had so much money to put into their various infrastructures, including governance”.

    I don’t think prosperity buys institutions. If anything institutions are a strong prerequisite to prosperity. Botswana is prosperous because they have more transparent institutions. They don’t have transparent institutions because they are prosperous. Empirically we can reject the “reverse causality” in this instance.

    ”I don't think it works that way. State ownership of the mines or mining profits is not something that is earned or deserved. These natural resources are the birthright of every citizen”.

    The resources will always be ours – but they only become useful to us when they are mined. And to do that requires resource and enterprise. Both private and state led. Its only right that those that help our nation tap into its great riches to the benefit of all our Zambian people are also rewarded for doing so, whether Zambian or not.

    ” Also, look at the Saudi example. Since 1980, they own 100% of their industry. I don't think they are questioning whether they really should”.

    I watched a recent CNN special that showed that there’s a lot of secrecy with the Saudi management of their resources. Apparently their reserves are not as deep they suggest. This will be a problem years from now because they have not diversified the economy enough.

    Another issue is that Saudi Arabia has a lot of areas with extreme poverty. Not everyone is benefiting from its riches. Its actually been demonstrated that the country is receding rather than advancing in terms of growth (relatively speaking). So I am skeptical as to whether it provides the appropriate model for Zambia.

    ”The only real question is - what is the model that puts the most money into the hands of the state? “

    A useful distinction here should be drawn between the hands of Government and hands of the people!

    A useful distinction should also be made between money and development.

    In my opinion, we need development not necessary money. What we need is the way in which the mining industry as a whole works toward developing the nation. Money of course is part of that but not the whole thing.


    ”It would be ok if the state had a large interest in all the mining companies.”

    The idea that the state will be running the whole mining industry just limits enterprise and innovation within the sector.

    Also Zambia has no track record of running something like that and on that scale successfully. On what basis do we think the Government will perform better than the private sector? I see nothing on the Government CV that demonstrates that it can deliver a more superior management of the mines. On the contrary I see us currently weak in all areas. We are trying to limit the size of Government not increase bureaucrats.

    Do you really want a bureaucrat running the mines with no incentive to improve? You would need serious policing of these bureaucrats, which would just add to the cost and excess. The beauty of private enterprise is profit is motivation enough.

    ”Also, small mines could be privately owned. The state could own only the major deposits. I think that would encourage small Zambian mining companies to grow and become future partner in government joint ventures. It would be good for competition”.

    No it wouldn’t. They would know that if they ever became big they would be taken over!

    And this is the point. When you start taking over mines and running them because they are profitable, it sends the wrong message to others. It says to them, don’t become too large and profitable because we are coming to your door so. If every time you knew the boss will take your entire bonus whenever it was awarded to you. Would you work hard?

    I guess what I am saying is that I am more sympathetic to using instruments and legislation than to Government intervention. Just what you expect from centralist authoritarian :)

    I am still waiting for your political compass test
    !!

    I keep changing what I think yours is :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2705183461541363969&postID=485750783341667947



    So you see no advantages of private sector involvement?

    I wouldn't completely go that far, but I don't see why they should actually own our natural resources. It is simply a question of oversight, monitoring, and especially drawing up the right contracts to ensure that there is an absence of corruption or incompetence. If it can work in the private sector, it can work in government.

    What I would want to see is a situation where the state owns all the minerals, and private companies perform the operations side of the business.

    Why couldn't the state get a loan from the African Development Bank to develop it's mines? Borrowing money to make more money seems like the only excuse to borrow, for business or the state.

    If it was illegal for banks to give loans for cashflow related issues, then that would cut down on the state borrowing to pay creditors or to finance loss making mines, which is what happened under Kaunda.

    If on the other hand the state was allowed to borrow to cover startup costs of a known and proven mine, that money would actually have a very high probability of being paid back.

    If you look at SAUDI ARAMCO, this has now evolved from a private company, to a wholly state owned company. Where does that leave neoliberalism? :)




    No it wouldn’t. They would know that if they ever became big they would be taken over!

    I mean the deposits/fields themselves, not the mining companies. I just think there should be place for local people who happen to discover a minor deposit, to exploit it for their own benefit.

    At the same time, there could be an arrangement where a substantial part of profits from a major deposit are handed to the local authority where the field is positioned. I would be very flexible on that, because it would mean that profits from the mine stay within the country, and are used in a way that benefits local people.


    I don’t think prosperity buys institutions. If anything institutions are a strong prerequisite to prosperity. Botswana is prosperous because they have more transparent institutions. They don’t have transparent institutions because they are prosperous. Empirically we can reject the “reverse causality” in this instance.

    Prosperity certainly buys infrastructure. We already touched upon most of the voters not having access to even local radio, let alone newspapers or television. Where does that leave the informed electorate that is the key to democracy?

    I think it helps once economic development has taken place, but it is not the essence of the thing. Just looking at the example of Korea or Japan, transparancy, democracy, lack of corruption did not define their economies at all.

    Korea made huge economic strides under the military dictatorship of General Park.

    What he did do, was set up huge corporations that were extremely close to the government.

    The difference is that they kept their profits. The same thing in Japan. They decided that their 'competitive advantage' (a much abused term) was not in agriculture, or tourism, but in manufacturing. This by the way is peculiar to their countries. If you look at Japan, most of it's land is not usable for agriculture - it is mountainous, forrested, etc. Most people live near the coasts. Zambia on the other hand, has plenty of land, lots of fresh water resources and mineral wealth, which is what they would have exploited if they had been in our situation back then.

    What they did not do, was allow foreign companies to set up in their countries and simply use their people for cheap labour. They did not think that development was going to come that way.

    What they did do, was send their own people around the world to gain knowledge and set up companies in Japan and Korea.


    In the words of General Park:

    "The spirit of self-sufficiency means that we ourselves are masters of the country and the subject of historic creation. We should establish a subjective national view based on our tradition and history. We must encourage this self-sufficient spirit so as to create a national renaissance. All I want is the creation of a self-sufficient Korea based on a society composed of simple, diligent and honest people. This is my nature, and it is why I dislike special privileged classes, factional groups and hate authoritarian government."

    And by the way I am not a militarist or authoritarian, but I recognize national pride when I see it. :)

    And I'll take the political test.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ”What I would want to see is a situation where the state owns all the minerals, and private companies perform the operations side of the business.”

    I don’t disagree with that.
    In my view all minerals belong to the Zambian people.

    I don’t disagree with Government owning the companies as long as the management processes can be put in place that deliver the right solution. So there are a number of models you could consider for that including Public Private Partnerships and Delegated Management.


    ”Just looking at the example of Korea or Japan, transparancy, democracy, lack of corruption did not define their economies at all. “

    I agree with you that there are other approaches to institutional make up that deliver development. And this is why in my exchanges with Yakima, I have talked about the importance of considering culture. Ultimately the nations you cite looked at their culture and developed institutions consistent with those. And that created a win win situation.

    So whilst I am a strong believer in institutions, I very much define institutions within a cultural context. Development for me is being able to achieve the right and harmonious balance within the nexus of economic and cultural freedoms. In other words, I am seeking a Zambian solution to Zambian problems. I have even suggested that we must be willing to sacrifice some democratic ideals to preserve our values. For me democracy is just one of the tools for getting there. What matters is clarity on what type of development we are seeking to achieve. And for me culture plays a critical role, because it is that which inspires hard work and so forth.

    More discussion with Yakima here

    ReplyDelete

All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.