Originally Posted by
jungle
African economies boomed during the 1950s as growth and international trade multiplied beyond their pre-war levels. The insatiable demand for raw materials in the rebuilding economies of Asia and Europe and the strong growth in North America inflated the price of raw materials. By the end of the colonial era in the 1960s, there was great hope for African self-sufficience and prosperity. However, sporadic growth continued as the newly independent nations borrowed heavily from abroad.
The world economic decline of the 1970s, rising oil prices, corruption, and political instability hit Africa hard. In subsequent decades Africa has steadily become poorer compared to the rest of the world; South America experienced solid growth, and East Asia spectacular growth, during that same period. According to the World Economic Forum, ten percent of the world's poor were African in 1970; by 2000, that figure had risen to 50 percent. Between 1974 and 2000 the average income declined by $200. Beginning in 1976, the Lomé Convention and Cotonou Agreement between the European Union and ACP countries, including Sub-Saharan Africa, have structured economic relations between the two regions.
WIKI
Internal corruption and civil wars have played a far greater role in modern African economic history than the end of European colonialism. There was never any US colonialism.
An independent country must right it's own wrongs to move forward.
Another view of the causes of crisis:
What's wrong with Africa | open Democracy News Analysis
Lomé has provided entry of agricultural and mineral exports into European markets duty free, however, when these minerals have "value added" to them and the finished product is then exported back to these countries, my question still remains...what's the bottom line in terms of GDP? Is there growth or decline?
For example, the Africa continent and the Middle East yield more yellowcake, in terms of metric tons than any other place on earth. As we know, yellowcake is used in the production of pure uranium. US involvement in the Middle East is more than just about oil. We go in, establish these trading agreements that can be lopsided that can perpetuate the "developing country" syndrome. How long will be these countries be designated as such? Why not go in and ensure
(again the US using all it's human capital to achieve a much desired end) that sound fiscal and monetary policies would benefit all that are involved? We would have to look at making some changes in the fiscal, financial and monetary policies
(soft window loans) that are now in place at the World Bank, IMF and IBRD.
You are 100% correct when you mention the fact that corruption has run rampant within some of the governments of the nations in Africa. The list is long and distinguished
, however, the people of each nation will have to hold themselves accountable and responsible not only for the content of the treaties that are agreed upon and consumated with the EU and America, but also those whom they have elected to negoiate these treaties and run the government of their respective countries.
atp