An interesting article, Steven.

I think that there are many little reasons, which all add up to the difference. For a start, there are huge cultural differences.

A bloke from Africa once explained it to me this way: "When a Westerner has a few bob, he starts a business, builds it up and leaves it to his kids. When an African has a few bob, he takes a second wife, or a third wife."

Jacob Zuma is a fine example of that.

The Asians have a history of being industrious and being great traders. That is less so with Africans. One of my memories of South Africa in the 60s, was that nearly every window had burglar bars, as already then, crime was a major issue. I never saw anything like that on my travels to Asia.

Meyer's article is interesting although I think the reason for the success over asia over africa is not hard to find.

For a start, Asian societies tend to be more coherent.. although there are racial mixtures in asia.. Chinese in Malaysia for example, that mixture has caused nothing like the problems of tribal mixtures in African countries.

But far more importantly, although Asian governments can be very authorative, rule of law has a greater hold.. a citizen who makes a few dollars is more likely to be allowed to keep it. I seem to recall that it has been shown that the strength of rule of law is strongly associated with economic success.. Look at the early success of Hong Kong and Singapore, for example, as opposed to the rest of Asia. they had UK-style rule of law well before the rest of teh region.

That's not teh whole story of course, but any investigation of economic success needs to start there..

This article makes some interesting points. I agree with Curmugean, though. We need a more nuanced understanding of the success of south and east Asia, if we are to learn any useful lessons for Africa.

First, I’d argue it’s not the focus on manufacturing that was the catalyst for Asian growth, but a focus on trade. In practice the two may seem to mean much the same, as it was trade in manufactures that drove growth. But India’s experience suggests that trade was the determining element, not manufacturing. In the early decades of Steven’s study period (1960s and 1970s), India’s government tried to grow domestic manufacturing behind high protectionist walls supported by regulation and subsidies. It failed. Only when the government started to open the economy to trade did India’s relative economic performance start to improve, and even today India is exceptional among developing countries because its most productive economic sectors, and a large part of its trade growth, are in services, not manufacturing or primary products.

Secondly, the nature of manufacturing production changed enormously as economies developed. The East Asian model, pioneered by Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore and being followed by China today, begins with trade-led growth centred on comparative advantage in low wage costs (I’m old enough to remember when “made in Japan” or “made in Hong Kong” signified cheap shoddy goods produced by large unskilled workforces). As living standards and productivity rise, the emphasis switches to high-tech production and increasingly, services. Cheap mass production by low paid workforces shifts elsewhere, to where wage costs are lower. This is already starting to happen with production shifting away from China as its costs rise.

So I’m less pessimistic than Steven about Africa’s chances to follow Asia’s example. Asia’s rising costs represent an opportunity for Africa to follow a similar development path to Japan and China. But as other posters have said, it will require the right mix of policies and governance.

I think the tone of my article makes it clear that I am an Afro-pessimist.

The world has been shocked by the videos of South African police shooting down striking miners with automatic weapons (sub-machine guns) at the Lonmin Platinum Mine in Marikana, South Africa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIXlPofaAzI

Incidentally Cyril Ramaphosa, one time head of the National Union of Mineworkers, is a Lonmin director.

Well this one happened in front of the TV cameras. However this kind of mining related violence is endemic to Africa.

See: Congo's tragedy: the war the world forgot

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/congos-tragedy-the-war-the-world-forgot-476929.html

(Independent Newspaper, 5 May 2006)

>>In a country the size of Western Europe, a war rages that has lasted eight years and cost four million lives. Rival militias inflict appalling suffering on the civilian population, and what passes for political leadership is powerless to stop it. This is Congo, and the reason for the conflict - control of minerals essential to the electronic gadgetry on which the developed world depends - is what makes our blindness to the horror doubly shaming. Johann Hari reports from the killing fields of central Africa>>

Let's put this into some sort of perspective. In proportion to population this is equivalent to Australia suffering a million deaths in a civil was. Imagine a war in Australia in which one out of five people is killed. This does not count the greater numbers who are maimed.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a tough region.

Correction:

I wrote:

>>Imagine a war in Australia in which one out of five people is killed>>

I meant to write:

Imagine a war in Australia in which 5% of people are killed

Steven, I know that you lived in South Africa. If you ever want to understand the Central Africa, Congo story, there is a great book written by Redmond O'Hanlon, about his travels through the Congo.

He's a great writer and few white people venture where he went.
It gives you a whole new insight about the culture. Its a world of witchcraft, the jail sentence for murder is one week, human life has no value. Its called " No Mercy". The debate is still on, as to wether pygmies are really people and should be eaten or not.