Why African Resource Exporting Nations Need Tariffs

by John Brian Shannon

Many nations in Africa are presently experiencing a boom in resource exports. And that is truly wonderful news as exports of any kind contribute handsomely to national GDP and balance-of-trade figures. Not only that, millions of dollars of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) often accompany resource exports.

For workers involved in the resource sector of a nation, it is unquestionably a positive development. Many other businesses and citizens at the periphery of the resource sector benefit too.

But does resource extraction benefit the rest of the society? It is heartening when one sector experiences strong growth – but when that rapid economic growth is limited to a small proportion of the population, tensions can become inflamed.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics and Professor at Columbia University has noted the problems inherent to resource-based economies in his recent and excellent article; “From Resource Curse to Blessing” which I urge you to read. Early into his piece, he says;

“On average, resource-rich countries have done even more poorly than countries without resources. They have grown more slowly, and with greater inequality – just the opposite of what one would expect.” — Stiglitz

Rather than develop the resource sector to the exclusion of all else and hope the rest of the society holds itself together — it would be prudent to tax all raw resources which are leaving the country.

In that case, comparatively few people will still make a good living directly from the oil (or other resource) company, while the rest of the country benefits in other ways from additional government spending on programs like improvements to national infrastructure, such as airports, highway systems, rail transportation and hospitals and schools on account of the tariff revenue.

When governments take in additional multi-millions of dollars from raw resource tariffs they will have additional money to improve services across the country.

The one thing governments shouldn’t do is add a tariff when resource prices are high! The major powers in the world will not let that happen as prices begin to skyrocket because that will add to uncertainty in the stock market and huge pressure will be brought to bear against any government attempting such a thing.

The time to add a small tariff is now, when prices are comparatively low and therefore, complaints will be few. Prices won’t drop much anytime soon. Due to the supply and demand equation they will be more often rising in the coming decades.

As we know, many African nations export significant amounts of unrefined oil, raw metals (ore and ingots), minerals or uncut and un-mounted gemstones. When African nations implement a 5% tariff on every exported tonne of resource — or barrel of oil — their economies will fire on all cylinders and with little complaint from rapidly growing and resource-hungry nations.

John Brian Shannon

ABOUT JOHN BRIAN SHANNON

I write about green energy, sustainable development and economics. My blogs appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, United Nations Development Programme, WACSI — and other quality publications.

“It is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.”

Green Energy blog: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Economics blog: https://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Twitter: @JBSCanada

Will the Collapse of the Western Manufacturing Base Create a Worldwide Depression?

by John Brian Shannon

The Eastern economies have traditionally been the manufacturers and purchasers of downmarket goods in their own region, while Western economies have traditionally been the manufacturers and purchasers of upmarket goods in their particular region.

Over the past 40 years Asia has taken much of the West’s upmarket manufacturing base, so much so, that the West has lost fully 50% of the manufacturing jobs it once enjoyed previous to 1980. That is the single most important reason why there is significant unemployment, under-employment and worryingly, under-reported unemployment (people who no longer look for work) stats in the Western economies.

Which obviously leaves a big hole in the economy of the West, translating into lower Western economic performance and recessions in North America, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand since the 1970’s.

The fact that many Western corporations are making huge amounts of money at this (outsourcing their manufacturing to Asia – resulting in better corporate profits due to the much lower labour rates there) is now a complete side-issue.

It has now come down to this; The once broad base of Western consumers with generous amounts of disposable income is changing to an ever-broadening base of Western consumers without much disposable income.

If things continue, soon it will impact the Eastern economies — as there won’t be enough people in the West with enough disposable income to afford much of those upmarket goods and services! Translating into reduced economic performance there.

For now, China and India are the only significant economies in the entire world which maintain a healthy growth rate. They have been the economic engines of the world since 1998. Here in the West, we have suffered two recessions since then — and that, with China and India firing on all cylinders and their admirable growth rates of at least 8% per year and sometimes much higher than that.

The U.S. growth rate was an anemic 2% last year and is expected to come in at 1.5% to 1.6% next year. The U.S has not seen any growth rate over 4% since the 1980’s. Europe and Canada have posted similar percentages over that same time-frame.

If demand for Eastern-produced goods slackens any further in the West, the Eastern economies will see recession too. At that point, with the West still mired in the fog of recession — the entire world economy will tailspin resulting in a worldwide depression. This is the fear of many economists — including economists in Asia.

Which is why I favour keeping some significant amount of manufacturing here in the West, as manufacturing produces (relatively speaking) a lot of jobs — while removing resources from the ground and shipping them to Asia produces relatively few jobs.

Oil refineries here cost 12 – 13 billion dollars, while in China they cost 1 billion dollars. No new refineries are planned for the West for obvious reasons. As much as I’d like to say otherwise, there is precious little chance of adding value to our petroleum exports when new refineries are so expensive here.

Which is why we need to find ways to add value to our other resources.There are many North American resources that are being exported away and some would say, squandered away. We need much more focus on a value-added economy. We need to add value to our diminishing resources before they leave our Western economy.

One way, is to manufacture products out of our resources — and then sell them abroad, to enhance our balance of payments, which would contribute to enhancing our GDP, thereby lowering our overall debt-to-GDP ratio. Those ratios are killing us right now in the West.

Another good way to improve our Western economic picture is to tariff all resource exports and use that money to fund infrastructure projects, which would contribute much to the economy, but only temporarily. After all those projects reach completion in about ten years, workers (consumers with disposable income) will again be unemployed or under-employed, just as they are now. What then?

Some economists have suggested a Goods and Services Tax for the U.S. economy and to use those windfall tax funds for national infrastructure programs, as was done in Canada so successfully from 1990 – 2004. I am one of those people. However, with the latest projected U.S. growth rates set to be 1.5% to 1.6% for next year, that means there is a lot of fragility in the economy and some economists say a large, useful Goods and Services Tax might stall the recovery process. A smaller tax would be much less useful, but the taxation rate could be increased as the economy builds positive momentum. Even with those limitations, it is still a good option for the U.S.

It keeps coming back to the fact that we need to add more value to our economy, especially to our export economy on a long-term sustainable basis. We need to create MORE jobs from the resources we extract and from our agriculture and forestry industries — or eventually there won’t be enough demand for Asian-produced products and when those Asian sales sag due to lack of demand in the West, it will hit the fan everywhere.

.

John Brian Shannon writes about green energy, sustainable development and economics from British Columbia, Canada. His articles appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint Asia, EnergyBoom, the Huffington Post, the United Nations Development Programme – and other quality publications.

John believes it is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.

Check out his personal blog at: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Check out his economics blog at:
https://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Follow John on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

Canada – Resource Boom or Manufacturing Boom? Why Not Both!

by John Brian Shannon

I’m a big fan of Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall. You can’t argue with success and the province has excelled with Brad Wall as premier. Well done on all counts, Premier Wall.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has a point, however. By devaluing the dollar, a huge part of Canada’s economy (almost 50%) could ALSO start to perform at a high level instead of continuing to sputter along at half-speed.

Not just the resource-based provinces romping along as they have been doing — but manufacturing provinces could return to full performance.

For manufacturing, a lower dollar will drive the demand of exports higher, Canadian production will ramp up, employment will increase. And we all know where – Ontario which is Canada’s largest ‘value added‘ economic zone.

Some people use the term manufacturing, but I call it what it really is, value-added. We take our provincially-owned raw resources and add value to those resources by manufacturing something from them or processing them, instead of merely selling our finite resources out of the country and getting nothing more from them.

Manufacturing has stalled in Canada, due in part to Canada’s strong dollar – our exports have become uncompetitive over the years as the dollar has risen. A direct correlation exists between those two stats.

If you want the biggest economic engine in Canada to suddenly begin to receive larger volumes of orders from other countries including the U.S. our biggest trading partner, causing those goods to become cheaper is the way to go.

Devaluing the Canadian dollar has NO EFFECT on Canadian consumers at all, unless you are purchasing goods and services from outside Canada. And if you are buying goods from other countries – shame on you – buy Canadian!

If devaluation inconveniences you because you purchase goods from other nations, a booming economy (Cdn resources PLUS Cdn manufacturing) firing on all cylinders should more than make up for it!

Some may wonder about losing our strong resource sector exports, which are already performing very well due to high demand for them in the rest of the world.

The price of raw resources will not drop when demand is so high.

It’s only different in the case of Canadian coal exporters who are facing dropping demand, which equals lower prices ($192.86 in July 2008, now at $99.75 in May 2012) devaluation could help, however, as a lower price will increase demand.

Those coal quotes are the 60 month (thermal coal) contract price from indexmundi.com — but are representative of world thermal coal price trends: http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60

It is better to sell lots of coal at $85.00 per metric tonne, than hardly any at all at $100.00 per metric tonne.

Tourism to Canada would also receive a major boost as our prices would become more affordable due to devaluation of our dollar.

So, what’s the downside of getting Canada’s manufacturing sector and related (which together represent up to 50% of Canada’s economy) again firing on all cylinders — by devaluing the dollar by up to 20%?

As long as demand remains high for gas and oil there should be little downside for Canada’s resource-based provincial economies, as that high demand dictates prices will stay the same, or continue to increase.

I can understand Premier Wall’s concerns for Saskatchewan’s resource and agriculture based economy – but at this point in time, world demand remains high for all resources – and for coal too – but only at the right price.

Follow John Brian Shannon on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

________________________________________________________