A Continent Gone Wrong

(8 of 10)

in part because Tanzanian farmers lacked incentives to cooperate. As a result, production of Tanzania's key export crops (coffee, cotton, tea, pyrethrum and sisal) is 40% lower than it was in 1970. The manufacturing sector, which was also taken over by the state, has fared no better. Mainly because of a lack of foreign exchange to buy raw materials and spare parts, many factories are now operating at less than 20% of capacity. That has sparked a vicious circle of economic decline. Without consumer goods to buy, farmers produce only enough food for themselves, which in turn means even less foreign exchange to keep Tanzanian factories running. Says Venance Chaka, a Himo farmer: "Africans are just like Europeans or Asians. They want to live better, and they don't really care which system provides the better life."

In most other countries, the problem has been outright neglect of agriculture in favor of more glamorous industrial development. As population growth and urbanization have surged out of control, the plight of rural areas has worsened. Often the state pays artificially low prices for farm commodities in order to finance urban-development schemes and to lower prices for people in the cities. One result: the importation of food has tripled in Africa during the past decade. Nigeria, which was once largely self-sufficient, spends $2 billion a year on imported food. In terms of per capita income and the availability of food, the citizens of many sub-Saharan countries are worse off now than they were at independence.

The solution, according to most experts, is to stress the development of agriculture. Elliot Berg, who was coordinator of the African Strategy Review Group for a 1981 World Bank report, argues, "No continent or region or country is going to modernize itself and develop its resources unless it begins with agriculture." The problem, says the World Bank report, is not financing alone. It estimates that aid earmarked for agricultural projects in sub-Saharan Africa totaled some $5 billion between 1973 and 1980. Berg holds Western governments partly responsible for approving expensive and inappropriate projects in the first place.

As the situation has worsened, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have begun to impose stricter conditions on countries receiving aid. These include devaluation of inflated currencies, realistic exchange controls, scaled-back development projects and more efficient administration of loans.

Wila D. Mung'omba, executive president Wila D. Mung'omba, executive president of the Abidjan-based African Development Bank, believes that additional changes are necessary if Africa is to manage an economic recovery successfully. Among them: aid recipients must curb nonessential imports, end policies tailored to deliver cheap food to the cities, and begin giving greater incentives to farmers.

The response thus far has been mixed. Zimbabwe has taken steps to reduce food subsidies from $200 million annually to $58 million. It has raised the price of bread 25% and milk 50%. In addition, the government has raised taxes and devalued the Zimbabwe dollar in order to qualify for $375 million in IMF and World Bank loans to improve railroads and roads. Before General Buhari's coup, Nigeria had hoped to receive a threeyear, $2 billion IMF loan. But like the Shagari government, the