Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Finance and Economic Development in Africa: Introduction and Overview

Finance and Economic Development in Africa: Introduction and Overview Abstract It is clear that a lot remains to be learnt about the role of the financial sector in African growth and development process. All three papers in this volume focus on the existing consensus in the literature that there seems to be a positive relationship between financial development and economic progress. Harris aptly draws attention to the broad association between financial sector development and economic growth, and Murinde even suggests that financial development may be as important as human capital accumulation. Andersen et al., in turn, are more sceptical and bring out the existing ambiguities, both theoretical and empirical, underlying the finance-growth consensus. They highlight that existing empirical results are far from robust, a point also clearly subscribed to by Harris. Consequently, the contributors are agreed that the usefulness of the existing literature is severely constrained when it comes to drawing up policy relevant conclusions. 1. Introduction The three studies included in this Journal of African Economies Supplement provide three stimulating and largely complementary perspectives on this important area of economic policy and development research. It is clear that a lot remains to be learnt about the role of the financial sector in African growth and development process. All three papers focus on the existing consensus in the literature that there seems to be a positive relationship between financial development and economic progress. Harris aptly draws attention to the broad association between financial sector development and economic growth, and Murinde even suggests that financial development may be as important as human capital accumulation. Andersen et al., in turn, are more sceptical and bring out the existing ambiguities, both theoretical and empirical, underlying the finance–growth consensus. They highlight that existing empirical results are far from robust, a point also clearly subscribed to by Harris. Consequently, the contributors are agreed that the usefulness of the existing literature is severely constrained when it comes to drawing up policy-relevant conclusions. Murinde is a bit more favourable than Harris and Andersen et al. in the assessment of the econometric literature; but he pointedly notes the existence of a ‘chicken or egg’ problem in terms of understanding the direction of causality, and it is evident that a general insight is that great care is required in drawing up policy implications. It can be added here that while Harris and Murinde do not delve into technical issues related to whether available instrumental variables are satisfactory in econometric work, Andersen et al. pursue this topic at some length. They also ask to what extent African countries have actually embraced financial liberalisation, and what can be said of their experiences under financial liberalisation. The three groups of authors are unified in stressing the importance of interaction effects. Financial development is not sufficient to guarantee economic growth and development. Harris makes this point in general, and Murinde refers explicitly to the Chinese experience as an illustrative point of reference. Andersen et al. also review the Chinese case and add further comments based on experiences from Vietnam and the EU. There are two other areas where the lines of reasoning in the three studies are broadly similar. First, it is the importance attached to the need for increased understanding of the mediating channels of influence, or transmission channels as Harris puts it. Second, there is clear agreement that financial sector reforms are potentially very costly. Great care is advised in this area of policy; Andersen et al. note that real-option theory teaches us that the favoured reform must not only be better than the alternatives, it must be better by a sufficiently large margin to justify implementation. The three studies are summarised below in somewhat greater detail. 2. Financial development and economic growth: global and African evidence Victor Murinde explores the existing evidence regarding the relationship between financial development and economic growth, both theoretical and empirical. He sees the evidence to be, in general, weighing in favour of the argument that financial development is crucial for economic growth. Theoretical work discussing the relationship between finance and growth can be divided into nine main elements. The essence of these theoretical approaches is that the financial sector provides services to the real sector, which is the main link from finance to economic growth. When well regulated and functioning properly, the financial sector enhances growth in many ways. Of these, Murinde highlights especially the flow of funds framework, which, through illustrating the various sources and uses of funds, pins down the channels from finance to growth. It thus provides a general framework for studying the financial sector and its relationships with the real sector. The focus is on the banking sector, which needs to be properly regulated and provided financial stability to serve its purpose. If this crucial sector is not functioning properly, it can have negative welfare effects for the entire economy: ‘asset creation will suffer, intersectoral flows of funds will stagnate, savings and investments will slow down, the government sector may crowd out the private sector and, consequently, particularly living standards [in Africa] will languish’. Finance in endogenous growth models is the second focal point in Murinde's literature survey. In these models, financial development mobilises savings, channels the savings efficiently to investments and new, innovative entrepreneurs. Empirical evidence suggests that financial development is at least as important as human capital in the growth process. Opposing evidence also exists: financial development, it is found, may itself be unsustainable, and the effect of this costly reform activity on economic growth can be ambiguous. Together these theories explain the diverse experiences of countries regarding the results of financial reform. These two frameworks are emphasised because of their general nature: they consider the broad linkages between financial and real sectors, and the channels to economic growth. The other literature strands are more specific in nature, focusing on a particular channel of growth, such as the external sector channel, capital allocation channel, the role of transaction costs, and institutional factors. On the empirical side, the number of studies focusing on the relationship between finance and growth is mounting. Panel data analyses find in general a positive effect of financial development on growth. Some ambiguity is caused by findings of the causality running from growth to finance, or even a two-way causality. Several researchers have embarked on resolving this ambiguity—the ‘chicken-and-egg problem’—with the help of VAR models to test for causality. In general, these studies find unidirectional causality from finance to growth. However, the coexistence of Granger causality both from finance to growth and from growth to financial development is sometimes found. The experience of China offers an important exception on these general findings, as it has been growing at very high rates even with an underdeveloped financial system and a weak institutional setting. The reasons for growth in China are not well established in empirical findings, but as a case study it serves to illustrate that financial development is not always a necessary requirement for growth. As for finance–growth linkages in African countries, the empirical evidence is mixed. Most confusing is that several studies find exactly opposing results regarding the direction of causality, even by using the same econometric methodologies. The direction of causality has implications on policy conclusions; whether it is advisable to promote financial development or policies that directly enhance economic growth. Some studies do find a significant relationship between banks, stock markets and economic growth, indicating that this form of financial development would promote economic growth. Studies focusing on the role of external sector finance (foreign aid, inflows of foreign direct investment) also yield mixed results, but here the reason may lie in the variance of model specifications and data sets. However, one recent study is able to establish that FDI inflows and cross-border lending have a significant impact on economic growth in African countries, and that this effect seems to be contingent on financial development in most countries. Murinde ends on a positive note that, overall, there seems to be strong evidence that financial development promotes economic growth, though some methodological problems remain. Further research should however be directed at understanding the mechanisms and channels through which this effect takes place, rather than at producing more ‘chicken-and-egg’ studies. 3. The finance–growth thesis: a sceptical assessment The literature discussing whether financial liberalisation leads to increased economic growth is critically reviewed by Andersen, Jones and Tarp. The conventional view in the literature is that financial liberalisation leads to financial development, which in turn leads to economic growth. The argument has evolved over time, as early theoretical works in the 1970s focused on the first of these relationships. In this literature, state intervention in the financial sector was seen to reduce savings and thus the amount of intermediated funds as well as their efficient allocation. Empirical evidence was seen to support these arguments, though the number of studies was affected by the poor availability of data. Models such as the financial endogenous growth model were developed in the 1990s. These models were able to extend the finance–growth argument by establishing a relationship between financial development and economic growth, the second relationship. Given the availability of data, empirical studies linking financial development and growth emerged already in the early 1980s, establishing the consensus regarding the finance–growth argument. The article brings forth the ambiguities, both theoretical and empirical, underlying this consensus. The predictions of economic theory regarding the effects of financial liberalisation or financial sector development are shown to be indeterminate. The alleged beneficial relationships with growth rely on assumptions about the nature of information and market competition. Once these assumptions are relaxed to more realistic levels, financial liberalisation and development cannot be shown unambiguously to lead to increased economic growth. Empirically, it has been noted that the existing institutional framework of the country matters for the effects of liberalisation. The authors also point out many econometric weaknesses in finance–growth studies. In addition, empirical evidence suggests that financial liberalisation is not always a binding constraint for growth: a look into the experiences of China, where tremendous growth rates have taken place even with financial repression remaining a very descriptive trait of the economy, suffices as proof. Given that the finance–growth argument has gained substantial terrain, especially in World Bank and IMF policies, it is reasonable to ask what kind of effects these policies have had. With an exploratory analysis on cross-country data on Sub-Saharan Africa, the authors find that the doctrine of financial liberalisation has gained popularity in the region, as the pace of reform has been very fast compared with other regions. However, evidence of this wave of liberalisation promoting financial sector development is found to be weak. The only variable affected is real interest rates, whereas credit to private sector remains unaffected. Instead, financial liberalisation is found to be correlated with price stability and inflows of foreign direct investment. However, the data show little evidence of a robust relation between financial liberalisation and savings, investment or growth. The conclusion is therefore that if there are some economic gains that can be shown to originate from financial liberalisation, they do not seem to be channelled through the financial development channel as suggested by the finance–growth consensus. Financial reform might induce some positive macroeconomic effects, but a robust causal link to economic growth cannot be established. Country experiences of financial reform outcomes are also very diverse. The evidence thus leaves the authors sceptical regarding the conventional view on financial reform impacts. They therefore suggest that future research efforts be directed at understanding better the potential positive effects that liberalisation has had on other macroeconomic variables, rather than on the classical finance–growth thesis, which they see as unfruitful. 4. From financial development to economic growth and vice versa: a review of international experience and policy lessons for Africa Laurence Harris reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship of financial sector development and economic growth from a policy perspective. Despite the large amount of evidence in favour of a positive relationship, he finds few policy lessons directly derivable from it. This is true especially for African countries. Harris considers two strands in finance–growth literature: those focusing on a ‘broad association between financial development and economic growth’ and those studying ‘detailed relationships that potentially act as links between financial development and economic growth’. Regarding the first set of studies, a general consensus is that there is strong evidence of financial development promoting economic growth, though studies differ in their estimates of the magnitude of this effect. However, Harris is sceptical of drawing conclusions from such results, as a theoretical model of how financial development influences growth (the second strand) is also needed, along with systematic empirical evidence on the functioning of these transmission channels. To date, empirical evidence regarding these channels remains mixed. The theoretical framework for specific transmission channels of growth-enhancing financial development is the basic AK growth model. In this model, the ways in which financial development can increase the growth rate are by inducing a higher savings rate, by raising the marginal productivity of capital (entrepreneurship and FDI inflows can be considered examples of this channel) or by improving the intermediation of savings towards productive uses. Though systematic evidence for these linkages remains wanting, some positive results have been found regarding financial development and total factor productivity. Despite the strong consensus on the relationships between financial development and economic growth in the literature, policy-relevant conclusions are not readily available. This is due to several shortcomings in the studies: empirical results regarding finance–growth linkages are not robust to the time period of data, and even the positive evidence is not always specific enough to be useful. Furthermore, studies with multi-country data sets fail to grasp country-specific effects such as those of legal institutions, or cultural effects. Financial development also calls for carefully designed regulation and supervision on financial institutions, but the empirical studies do not provide clear-cut solutions on regulation design—too stringent regulation might hamper the development of the sector but too lax regulation increases the riskiness of the sector. In addition to the empirical problems, Harris finds that also the theoretical foundations are not known well enough. Designing effective policies would require reliable information, both theoretical and empirical, on the broad relationship as well as on the specific linkages. In addition to these general problems in the literature, there are additional reasons as to why useful policy advice for African economies is not easily drawn. For one, the impacts of other growth-enhancing state policies might substitute for or complement financial sector reform, so that finance–growth literature alone is not sufficient for policy purposes. In addition, Harris notes that implementing reforms can be costly in many senses, against which the alleged benefits of reform would have to be weighed. Comprehensive cost–benefit analyses would thus be needed, although the author acknowledges the inherent difficulty of this task. Overall, Harris sees the shortcomings of the literature—weak theoretical and empirical reliability, failure to take into account other roles of the state and to weigh reform costs and benefits against each other—weakening the policy-relevance of the existing literature, especially to the detriment of African economies. Author notes † We are grateful to Tuuli Ylinen for research assistance. © The author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for the Study of African Economies. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com © The author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for the Study of African Economies. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of African Economies Oxford University Press

Finance and Economic Development in Africa: Introduction and Overview

Ajakaiye, Olu; Tarp, Finn
Journal of African Economies , Volume 21 (suppl_1) – Jan 1, 2012
Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/finance-and-economic-development-in-africa-introduction-and-overview-aPkHBixUK5

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Centre for the Study of African Economies
Subject
Articles
ISSN
0963-8024
eISSN
1464-3723
DOI
10.1093/jae/ejr048
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract It is clear that a lot remains to be learnt about the role of the financial sector in African growth and development process. All three papers in this volume focus on the existing consensus in the literature that there seems to be a positive relationship between financial development and economic progress. Harris aptly draws attention to the broad association between financial sector development and economic growth, and Murinde even suggests that financial development may be as important as human capital accumulation. Andersen et al., in turn, are more sceptical and bring out the existing ambiguities, both theoretical and empirical, underlying the finance-growth consensus. They highlight that existing empirical results are far from robust, a point also clearly subscribed to by Harris. Consequently, the contributors are agreed that the usefulness of the existing literature is severely constrained when it comes to drawing up policy relevant conclusions. 1. Introduction The three studies included in this Journal of African Economies Supplement provide three stimulating and largely complementary perspectives on this important area of economic policy and development research. It is clear that a lot remains to be learnt about the role of the financial sector in African growth and development process. All three papers focus on the existing consensus in the literature that there seems to be a positive relationship between financial development and economic progress. Harris aptly draws attention to the broad association between financial sector development and economic growth, and Murinde even suggests that financial development may be as important as human capital accumulation. Andersen et al., in turn, are more sceptical and bring out the existing ambiguities, both theoretical and empirical, underlying the finance–growth consensus. They highlight that existing empirical results are far from robust, a point also clearly subscribed to by Harris. Consequently, the contributors are agreed that the usefulness of the existing literature is severely constrained when it comes to drawing up policy-relevant conclusions. Murinde is a bit more favourable than Harris and Andersen et al. in the assessment of the econometric literature; but he pointedly notes the existence of a ‘chicken or egg’ problem in terms of understanding the direction of causality, and it is evident that a general insight is that great care is required in drawing up policy implications. It can be added here that while Harris and Murinde do not delve into technical issues related to whether available instrumental variables are satisfactory in econometric work, Andersen et al. pursue this topic at some length. They also ask to what extent African countries have actually embraced financial liberalisation, and what can be said of their experiences under financial liberalisation. The three groups of authors are unified in stressing the importance of interaction effects. Financial development is not sufficient to guarantee economic growth and development. Harris makes this point in general, and Murinde refers explicitly to the Chinese experience as an illustrative point of reference. Andersen et al. also review the Chinese case and add further comments based on experiences from Vietnam and the EU. There are two other areas where the lines of reasoning in the three studies are broadly similar. First, it is the importance attached to the need for increased understanding of the mediating channels of influence, or transmission channels as Harris puts it. Second, there is clear agreement that financial sector reforms are potentially very costly. Great care is advised in this area of policy; Andersen et al. note that real-option theory teaches us that the favoured reform must not only be better than the alternatives, it must be better by a sufficiently large margin to justify implementation. The three studies are summarised below in somewhat greater detail. 2. Financial development and economic growth: global and African evidence Victor Murinde explores the existing evidence regarding the relationship between financial development and economic growth, both theoretical and empirical. He sees the evidence to be, in general, weighing in favour of the argument that financial development is crucial for economic growth. Theoretical work discussing the relationship between finance and growth can be divided into nine main elements. The essence of these theoretical approaches is that the financial sector provides services to the real sector, which is the main link from finance to economic growth. When well regulated and functioning properly, the financial sector enhances growth in many ways. Of these, Murinde highlights especially the flow of funds framework, which, through illustrating the various sources and uses of funds, pins down the channels from finance to growth. It thus provides a general framework for studying the financial sector and its relationships with the real sector. The focus is on the banking sector, which needs to be properly regulated and provided financial stability to serve its purpose. If this crucial sector is not functioning properly, it can have negative welfare effects for the entire economy: ‘asset creation will suffer, intersectoral flows of funds will stagnate, savings and investments will slow down, the government sector may crowd out the private sector and, consequently, particularly living standards [in Africa] will languish’. Finance in endogenous growth models is the second focal point in Murinde's literature survey. In these models, financial development mobilises savings, channels the savings efficiently to investments and new, innovative entrepreneurs. Empirical evidence suggests that financial development is at least as important as human capital in the growth process. Opposing evidence also exists: financial development, it is found, may itself be unsustainable, and the effect of this costly reform activity on economic growth can be ambiguous. Together these theories explain the diverse experiences of countries regarding the results of financial reform. These two frameworks are emphasised because of their general nature: they consider the broad linkages between financial and real sectors, and the channels to economic growth. The other literature strands are more specific in nature, focusing on a particular channel of growth, such as the external sector channel, capital allocation channel, the role of transaction costs, and institutional factors. On the empirical side, the number of studies focusing on the relationship between finance and growth is mounting. Panel data analyses find in general a positive effect of financial development on growth. Some ambiguity is caused by findings of the causality running from growth to finance, or even a two-way causality. Several researchers have embarked on resolving this ambiguity—the ‘chicken-and-egg problem’—with the help of VAR models to test for causality. In general, these studies find unidirectional causality from finance to growth. However, the coexistence of Granger causality both from finance to growth and from growth to financial development is sometimes found. The experience of China offers an important exception on these general findings, as it has been growing at very high rates even with an underdeveloped financial system and a weak institutional setting. The reasons for growth in China are not well established in empirical findings, but as a case study it serves to illustrate that financial development is not always a necessary requirement for growth. As for finance–growth linkages in African countries, the empirical evidence is mixed. Most confusing is that several studies find exactly opposing results regarding the direction of causality, even by using the same econometric methodologies. The direction of causality has implications on policy conclusions; whether it is advisable to promote financial development or policies that directly enhance economic growth. Some studies do find a significant relationship between banks, stock markets and economic growth, indicating that this form of financial development would promote economic growth. Studies focusing on the role of external sector finance (foreign aid, inflows of foreign direct investment) also yield mixed results, but here the reason may lie in the variance of model specifications and data sets. However, one recent study is able to establish that FDI inflows and cross-border lending have a significant impact on economic growth in African countries, and that this effect seems to be contingent on financial development in most countries. Murinde ends on a positive note that, overall, there seems to be strong evidence that financial development promotes economic growth, though some methodological problems remain. Further research should however be directed at understanding the mechanisms and channels through which this effect takes place, rather than at producing more ‘chicken-and-egg’ studies. 3. The finance–growth thesis: a sceptical assessment The literature discussing whether financial liberalisation leads to increased economic growth is critically reviewed by Andersen, Jones and Tarp. The conventional view in the literature is that financial liberalisation leads to financial development, which in turn leads to economic growth. The argument has evolved over time, as early theoretical works in the 1970s focused on the first of these relationships. In this literature, state intervention in the financial sector was seen to reduce savings and thus the amount of intermediated funds as well as their efficient allocation. Empirical evidence was seen to support these arguments, though the number of studies was affected by the poor availability of data. Models such as the financial endogenous growth model were developed in the 1990s. These models were able to extend the finance–growth argument by establishing a relationship between financial development and economic growth, the second relationship. Given the availability of data, empirical studies linking financial development and growth emerged already in the early 1980s, establishing the consensus regarding the finance–growth argument. The article brings forth the ambiguities, both theoretical and empirical, underlying this consensus. The predictions of economic theory regarding the effects of financial liberalisation or financial sector development are shown to be indeterminate. The alleged beneficial relationships with growth rely on assumptions about the nature of information and market competition. Once these assumptions are relaxed to more realistic levels, financial liberalisation and development cannot be shown unambiguously to lead to increased economic growth. Empirically, it has been noted that the existing institutional framework of the country matters for the effects of liberalisation. The authors also point out many econometric weaknesses in finance–growth studies. In addition, empirical evidence suggests that financial liberalisation is not always a binding constraint for growth: a look into the experiences of China, where tremendous growth rates have taken place even with financial repression remaining a very descriptive trait of the economy, suffices as proof. Given that the finance–growth argument has gained substantial terrain, especially in World Bank and IMF policies, it is reasonable to ask what kind of effects these policies have had. With an exploratory analysis on cross-country data on Sub-Saharan Africa, the authors find that the doctrine of financial liberalisation has gained popularity in the region, as the pace of reform has been very fast compared with other regions. However, evidence of this wave of liberalisation promoting financial sector development is found to be weak. The only variable affected is real interest rates, whereas credit to private sector remains unaffected. Instead, financial liberalisation is found to be correlated with price stability and inflows of foreign direct investment. However, the data show little evidence of a robust relation between financial liberalisation and savings, investment or growth. The conclusion is therefore that if there are some economic gains that can be shown to originate from financial liberalisation, they do not seem to be channelled through the financial development channel as suggested by the finance–growth consensus. Financial reform might induce some positive macroeconomic effects, but a robust causal link to economic growth cannot be established. Country experiences of financial reform outcomes are also very diverse. The evidence thus leaves the authors sceptical regarding the conventional view on financial reform impacts. They therefore suggest that future research efforts be directed at understanding better the potential positive effects that liberalisation has had on other macroeconomic variables, rather than on the classical finance–growth thesis, which they see as unfruitful. 4. From financial development to economic growth and vice versa: a review of international experience and policy lessons for Africa Laurence Harris reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship of financial sector development and economic growth from a policy perspective. Despite the large amount of evidence in favour of a positive relationship, he finds few policy lessons directly derivable from it. This is true especially for African countries. Harris considers two strands in finance–growth literature: those focusing on a ‘broad association between financial development and economic growth’ and those studying ‘detailed relationships that potentially act as links between financial development and economic growth’. Regarding the first set of studies, a general consensus is that there is strong evidence of financial development promoting economic growth, though studies differ in their estimates of the magnitude of this effect. However, Harris is sceptical of drawing conclusions from such results, as a theoretical model of how financial development influences growth (the second strand) is also needed, along with systematic empirical evidence on the functioning of these transmission channels. To date, empirical evidence regarding these channels remains mixed. The theoretical framework for specific transmission channels of growth-enhancing financial development is the basic AK growth model. In this model, the ways in which financial development can increase the growth rate are by inducing a higher savings rate, by raising the marginal productivity of capital (entrepreneurship and FDI inflows can be considered examples of this channel) or by improving the intermediation of savings towards productive uses. Though systematic evidence for these linkages remains wanting, some positive results have been found regarding financial development and total factor productivity. Despite the strong consensus on the relationships between financial development and economic growth in the literature, policy-relevant conclusions are not readily available. This is due to several shortcomings in the studies: empirical results regarding finance–growth linkages are not robust to the time period of data, and even the positive evidence is not always specific enough to be useful. Furthermore, studies with multi-country data sets fail to grasp country-specific effects such as those of legal institutions, or cultural effects. Financial development also calls for carefully designed regulation and supervision on financial institutions, but the empirical studies do not provide clear-cut solutions on regulation design—too stringent regulation might hamper the development of the sector but too lax regulation increases the riskiness of the sector. In addition to the empirical problems, Harris finds that also the theoretical foundations are not known well enough. Designing effective policies would require reliable information, both theoretical and empirical, on the broad relationship as well as on the specific linkages. In addition to these general problems in the literature, there are additional reasons as to why useful policy advice for African economies is not easily drawn. For one, the impacts of other growth-enhancing state policies might substitute for or complement financial sector reform, so that finance–growth literature alone is not sufficient for policy purposes. In addition, Harris notes that implementing reforms can be costly in many senses, against which the alleged benefits of reform would have to be weighed. Comprehensive cost–benefit analyses would thus be needed, although the author acknowledges the inherent difficulty of this task. Overall, Harris sees the shortcomings of the literature—weak theoretical and empirical reliability, failure to take into account other roles of the state and to weigh reform costs and benefits against each other—weakening the policy-relevance of the existing literature, especially to the detriment of African economies. Author notes † We are grateful to Tuuli Ylinen for research assistance. © The author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for the Study of African Economies. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com © The author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for the Study of African Economies.

Journal

Journal of African Economies – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.