The FT includes an article this afternoon that is headlined:
I have to say I am not surprised: anyone who ever expected anything else had to be wildly optimistic. It is however worth noting the reasons given, which it reports to be:
Since 2011 there has been considerable interest from international investors in Africa. The prospect of high returns – matched by high risk – has brought more than $16bn in capital to the region from specialist private equity funds. [However] the majority of financing is going to sectors in Africa that have limited or no positive effects on economic growth. For example, the extractive sector received $4.8bn, or 21 per cent, and the consumer sector $3.2bn, or 14 per cent, of all funds but do not stimulate structural economic change. Similarly, the telecommunications sector received $5.7bn, or 25 per cent, of all funds despite already being well-funded, making incremental gains for growth small. By contrast manufacturing, a sector that is key to job creation and structural change in the economy, received a mere $0.6bn, or 3 per cent, of investments.
To summarise then, private equity is looking to free-ride off investment already made or to extract rents. No surprise there then.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The free movement of capital – a condition of the Single Market.
God forbid a hard brexit stops predatory EU capital finacialising the UK.
If our privatized railways were not owned by nationalised French operators they would
be in an even worse state!
John, it’s such a British trait to blame others, predominantly foreigners, for things that successive UK governments have embraced religiously.
To imply that free movement of capital is an issue uniquely inspired by the EU when it seems to have been accepted as an act of ideological faith, and actively promoted, by every UK government since 1979, is no more or less than naive.
To suggest that predatory financialisation is a uniquely EU creation is somewhat ridiculous given the domination of UK GDP by our financial services industry.
But then to give the impression that the ownership by nationalised EU operators – you forgot Germans! – was based on their predation when it was the UK government’s decision to sell, and then destroy your argument by saying that EU ownership has been a good thing, suggests that that argument is, to put it as kindly as I can, confused.
Who’s blaming foreigners?
The global elite are pretty much stateless. Sure, neo-liberalism is a global phenomenon. The EU single market agreement locks in free movement of capital and locks out sovereign money ( see Lisbon Article 123 ).
Sure, our politicians have enthusiastically stepped up to implement the program and then moved on to lucrative sinecures with global financial institutions and oligarchs newspapers.
I would like to see the railways and the natural monopolies re-nationalised. Under the EU, not permitted. Thatcherism is locked in. Social democracy NOT.
And international capital IS predatory. Britain is the world tax haven hub and a main player in financial imperialism. My remarks on the third world, stand-in-the-aisle railways were sarcastic.
I agree that the blaming of Europe for our woes is an entrenched British trait.
How often do we hear that we ‘won the war, but lost the peace’?
The sad fact is that we lost the peace because in part of the actions of America over its lend lease arrangements after WWII. Apparently they cut off lend lease to us immediately after the cessation of hostilities but kept it open for mainland Europe as part of the rebuilding effort. The US was motivated by getting its hands on the what was left of the British Empire at that time.
‘Special relationship’ huh? Yeah…………….very special .
Sure, and financial imperialism marches on.
No point in having a navy these days. Purchase is far cheaper than conquest. The government needs to maintain an army to guarantee the safety of foreign owned assets, otherwise who would buy them?
Britain is a major exporter of weapons to vicious despotic regimes, all to advance the interests of British Big Oil. The domestic economy is of no importance to the British establishment which is only interested in positioning itself to own and control the juicy bits of the NHS.