STWR - Share The World's Resources

James Waters ~ STWR Member, 20th Dec 06 - STWR

Here is a proposal for a new reality television show.  It is called “Country Swap! The UK Government goes to Africa”, or just “Country Swap!” for short.  The idea is that the United Kingdom Government is sent to a low income African country, and becomes their government for a decade or so.  Accusations of colonialism could be avoided in part by the politicians taking out full citizenship of their host country, which could keep them at the end of the show.  Sure, there would be democratic issues, but everyone involved could be handsomely compensated after the series by a major sponsorship deal from Coca Cola, Nokia, or some other suitable corporate partner.

 The press release could go like this: “Governance is the new buzzword in international economic parlance.  Leading brains have identified it as the missing part of the growth jigsaw, and conferences on the subject are spreading like an academic rash.  We take the pick of the UK political crop and sow them in Africa, and try to find an answer to the question: would Africa be successful if only they had leaders of British quality?”

To make things realistic, in episode one the government would immediately have to confront a major foreign debt crisis.  Fortunately, the UK had some experience in the 1970s of going to the International Monetary Fund asking for financial assistance, so it could draw on its past experience.  The likely outcome would be loans granted with stringent economically liberal conditions attached. There is also a precedent from recent UK history for such an economic approach, with all governments since the late 1970s adopting highly liberal policies.  The UK economy has expanded quite quickly by the standards of its European neighbours, so it is tempting to suppose that the African country would experience rapid growth.  It would be nice to think that after a period of social difficulty, in the medium term IMF sponsored packages lead to growth.  Even socialists might be able to find some accommodation with them.  However, the overall experience of developing countries with IMF sponsored economic packages has been surprisingly bad, according to the majority of independent academic assessments.  For example, one recent piece of research (*) finds that IMF loans are associated with reduced economic growth, and have no effect on government consumption, inflation, investment, or openness to trade.  It is most regrettable if IMF packages cannot even bring economic growth to a country.  To be fair, some articles have presented counter-arguments which claim that the evidence is misinterpreted and the IMF is in fact responsible for promoting growth in countries, at the very least.  The trouble is that these papers seem to be mostly written by IMF employees, which of course does not invalidate their arguments, but does not engender much trust either.

Maybe the displaced UK government would not adopt a highly liberal economic policy in their African charge, but the evidence suggests they would.  They have a preference for market solutions to economic problems, liberal economics remains the policy option for developing countries preferred by international policymakers, and the IMF would exert huge influence over the economy through its loans.  The policy would likely be liberal and the outcomes uncertain or negative.  An economic contraction would bring increased child mortality and starvation in its wake, given that the country is extremely poor in the first place.

An aspect of the UK experience which would transfer readily to a developing country is rising inequality.  The new government might not be familiar with the Wa-Benzi, the collective term in Swahili slang for owners of Mercedes Benz cars.  Mercedes Benz does not have quite the same aspiration value in the United Kingdom as in East Africa, except for local bank managers.  It should not take too long for the government to adapt however, since in the UK there is a small group of Wa-Ferrari and a tiny one of Wa-Caribbean Islandi.  The producers of Country Swap! should decide how seedy they want the show to be.  If they really want to see corruption, they should ensure that the African country has petroleum deposits.  Although the UK is quite financially clean by international standards, it is not exceptionally clean given that it is among the world’s richest countries and rich countries usually have high probity.  There is every reason to suspect that if the government was displaced to one of the poorest ones in the world and the toxin of oil added, it would preside over some seriously spectacular improprieties.

The current UK government has prioritised education and health in its expenditure.  If it followed the same policies in an African country, then growth would probably increase.  It would encounter the problem of brain drain to developed countries, including the UK.  The potential for some televisual drama should be obvious: “Catherine, the health service is woefully understaffed.  Who has been luring away all the nurses?  You have, Prime Minister.”

The government would have to take a position on the use of force in international matters.  Realistically, it would not be affordable for a Sub-Saharan state to send troops to the Balkans.  Nevertheless, there are some characteristics of British governments which are so strong that presumably they would still apply if the government was transferred to Africa.  In particular, Britain has been tenacious in defence of its territorial integrity.  In the 1980s, a UK task force was dispatched halfway around the world to defend the Falkland Islands against Argentine aggression.  Presumably, if the UK government was responsible for an African state it would defend the country’s soil just as ferociously.  Thus, if the UK government was responsible for Democratic Republic of the Congo, it would have to mobilise the army against Rwandan and Ugandan incursions.  If it was responsible for Eritrea, it would have to mobilise against Ethiopian incursions.  If it was responsible for Ethiopia, it would have to mobilise against Eritrean incursions.  Unhappily, these incursions and the government responses have precipitated two bloody wars in the last decade.

The UK government is a strong ally of the United States in its various global conflicts. It is not clear whether the origin of the commitment is ideological, financial, or practical.  In Africa, adherence to the United States’ foreign policy would be risky for the government, so they may find it convenient to abandon their commitment to the global battle against things they do not like.  If the government is ideologically committed and just can’t say no, then they may find that they encounter major opposition in their African host, particularly if the country is Saharan.  Major civil disturbances would probably raise viewing figures for Country Swap!, but they are a double edged sword since the show’s producers may have to raise a mercenary force to defend the government, which would be expensive.  There is also the risk that an overused and underpaid army would attempt a military coup.  Again, problems.

At this point that the corporate sponsor may well end their support, being worried about association with an unpopular government.  The program makers would have no choice but to pull the show.  Depending on the viewer figures throughout the series, it does not have to mean that the format is finished, however.  The international market could still be conquered.  An edgier program would be required, one with bigger bangs and better-known characters.  How about “Country Swap 2!  The US Government goes to Iraq”?

* Barro, R.J., Lee, J.-W. (2005). IMF programs: Who is chosen and what are the effects? Journal of Monetary Economics. Vol. 52, pp. 1245-1269

James Waters is a research fellow at the Westminster Buisiness School, University of Wesminster  

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment