Les conditions économiques de l'indépendance à l'ère de la mondialisation

De
Publié par

Dans cinquante ans, l'Afrique ne devra plus être du Tiers-Monde, ni le sujet principal des discours sur l'aide. Pour cela, il faut fonder la vision du futur africain sur le bilan rationnel et dépassionné des cinquante dernières années, au lieu des projections approximatives d'une réalité si mouvante et si oppressive qu'est la mondialisation des mouvements de capitaux, de techniques, des idées et des courants migratoires.
Publié le : mardi 1 novembre 2011
Lecture(s) : 17
Tags :
EAN13 : 9782296472099
Nombre de pages : 300
Voir plus Voir moins
Cette publication est uniquement disponible à l'achat

















Les conditions économiques
de l’indépendance
à l’ère de la mondialisation
Mythes et réalités en Afrique de l’Ouest
















Sous la direction de
Pierre Kipré et Aké G.-M. Ngo






















Les conditions économiques
de l’indépendance
à l’ère de la mondialisation
Mythes et réalités en Afrique de l’Ouest







Actes du colloque de San Pedro
(10-14 mars 2010)























































































































































































































© L’Harmattan, 2011
5-7, rue de l’Ecole-Polytechnique, 75005 Paris

http://www.librairieharmattan.com
diffusion.harmattan@wanadoo.fr
harmattan1@wanadoo.fr

ISBN : 978-2-296-55558-7
EAN : 9782296555587

SOMMAIRE


Avant propos - par Pierre KIPRE ----------------------------------------------------7

PREMIÈRE PARTIE
Gouvernance, institutions et modèle de développement ----------------------- 9
1. Towards a new development paradigm for African Economies in the
aftermath of the financial meltdown. – by Felix FOFANA N’ZUE-------------- 11
2. Politiques d’insertion professionnelle des jeunes en Côte d’Ivoire : bilan
et perspectives - par Clément Kouadio KOUAKOU------------------------------- 37
3. Etat de la democratie et des institutions politiques dans l’espace intégré
de la CEDEAO : bilan et perspectives - par Wautabouna OUATTARA--------- 77
4. Economic analysis of political participation in Côte d’Ivoire: assessment
and prospects - by Zié BALLO ------------------------------------------------------- 91

DEUXIÈME PARTIE
Finance et relations internationales----------------------------------------------113
5. Regard sur les relations économiques entre la Chine et la Côte d’Ivoire
par Pierre Roche SEKA et Clément Kouadio KOUAKOU ----------------------115
6. La coopération UE - ACP sous l’empire de la convention de cotonou :
une marche forcée vers le libre-échange ? - par Abraham GADJI--------------133
7. Quel avenir pour les accords de partenariat économique en Afrique
de l’Ouest ? - par Nafiou MALAM MAMAN ------------------------------------- 149
8. Développement financier et croissance économique dans les pays de
l’UEMOA : bilan et perspectives - par Brou Emmanuel AKA ------------------163
TROISIÈME PARTIE
Performances sectorielles ----------------------------------------------------------193
9. Chaîne des valeurs du cacao ivoirien et réduction de la pauvreté -
par Benoit B. MALAN et Clément K. KOUAKOU --------------------------------195
5 10. Gestion de la filière café – cacao en Côte d’Ivoire : bilan et
perspectives- par Euphrasie Ben HOUASSA KOUAMÉ -------------------------209
11. Efficacité technique du secteur agricole ivoirien : bilan et perspectives-
par Ibrahim DIARRA et Abdoulaye KOUMA -------------------------------------223
12. Analyse de la performance des branches industrielles en période
de crise : cas de la Côte d’Ivoire –
par Alban Alphonse et Emmanuel AHOURE--------------------------------------237

13. Gestion de l’eau potable en Côte d’Ivoire : bilan et perspectives -
par Narcisse A. KOMENAN ---------------------------------------------------------257
14. Cooking energy consumption in urban area of Côte d'Ivoire:
assessment and perspectives - by Wadjamsse DJEZOU -------------------------267

6
AVANT-PROPOS
Voici la deuxième rencontre d’intellectuels qu’organise la C.N.O.C.I.C.I. dans le
cadre des manifestations marquant le cinquantième anniversaire de notre
indépendance. Comme nous l’avons déjà proclamé devant tous, la réflexion
collective est au centre de tout cet anniversaire. Au moment où certains auraient
souhaité que ce pré-colloque ne fût jamais organisé, les nombreux appuis du secteur
public comme du secteur privé signifient un encouragement à nous voir poursuivre
ce projet. Ils signifient surtout un engagement pour fonder la vision du futur africain
sur le bilan rationnel et dépassionné des cinquante dernières années, au lieu des
projections approximatives d’une réalité si mouvante et si oppressive que la
mondialisation des mouvements de capitaux, de techniques, des idées et des
courants migratoires qui nous impose.
C’est le lieu de dire notre joie de voir ici présents les universités et instituts de
recherche de Côte d’Ivoire, ceux de toute l’Afrique de l’Ouest, membres ou non du
CODESRIA. Nous saluons particulièrement les économistes venus, à notre
invitation, de la Banque Africaine de Développement (B.A.D.) et de la Banque
Centrale des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (B.C.E.A.O.). Nous remercions les
autorités de ces organismes interafricains de financement du développement. Car
nous devons tous faire face à la même interrogation majeure : que faire face aux
agressions plus ou moins ouvertes contre notre indépendance ?
Nous ne savons pas toujours quel visage prennent nos agresseurs quand le faible
poids de notre continent dans la production mondiale de biens et services sert de
prétexte à la présence massive de prédateurs de tout acabit. Dans le même temps,
nous-mêmes semblons prêter le flanc à des situations dramatiques. Le faible niveau
de productivité du travail, la faible capacité de mobilisation des ressources
humaines, même de celles que, au prix de mille sacrifices, nos États ont
péniblement réussi à faire former chez nous comme à l’extérieur, les rendent
possibles. Notre approche de l’intégration économique régionale est hypothéquée
par les luttes pour l'hégémonie politique ; et les conflits internes, nombreux et
sanglants, réduisent à néant tous les efforts antérieurs : destructions des
infrastructures, assassinats ou départs en exil forcé des meilleures ressources
humaines, arrêt des investissements productifs au profit des dépenses d’armement,
etc. Le recul de la sous-région, comme d’ailleurs d’autres parties importantes du
continent, s’obtient au profit de ceux dont nous subissons la loi au nom de la
mondialisation. Bref ; à bien y regarder, nous ne semblons pas étrangers à la spirale
de notre propre misère.
7 Les contributions présentées ici nous éclairent aussi sur les raisons de ce
décalage entre la faible disponibilité de richesses dans nos pays et les pressions
sociales qui découlent notamment d’un niveau élevé de la demande de
consommation privée et publique ; car nous réduisons ainsi souvent nos capacités
d’épargne interne, donc nos capacités de financement propres à notre volonté de
progrès économique et social.
Nos populations de San Pedro, de Côte d’Ivoire et d’Afrique subsaharienne,
souhaitent que les analyses savantes de nos chercheurs et universitaires débouchent
sur les axes possibles du meilleur futur, pour leur redonner l’espoir suscité par la
proclamation des indépendances en 1960. Beaucoup, surtout les jeunes dans cette
population venue en grand nombre, attendent, avec impatience, que leur soient
fournis les arguments de la nouvelle véritable reconstruction de nos États et de nos
économies. Car la logique géopolitique favorable aux grands ensembles et le
système inégalitaire fondé sur la circulation optimum des informations autant que
de l’innovation technique sont des phénomènes enclenchés depuis la fin de la
Seconde Guerre mondiale et que l’on veut exprimer par le vocable nouveau de
« mondialisation » - réalité en fait plusieurs fois séculaire - ; ces phénomènes
épuisent rapidement leurs potentialités favorables, surtout en Afrique subsaharienne
où l’État peine à tenir debout en de nombreuses parties du continent. Nos opérateurs
économiques, à la fois si dynamiques et si fragiles, attendent que nous aiguisions
davantage leurs réflexions sur les solutions les plus adaptées à la constitution (ou au
renforcement) des marchés africains, sur les meilleurs moyens de satisfaire les
besoins essentiels de nos populations et sur les armes pour échapper aux chausse-
trappes des négociations à visée universaliste qui pénalisent toujours les États les
plus faibles, dont ceux de l’Afrique subsaharienne.
C’est un impératif catégorique pour tous ; car c’est le rôle d’intellectuels
organiques, en un domaine qui commande beaucoup d’aspects de nos
communautés politiques, notre cohésion sociale et notre dignité. Nous ne pourrons
plus accepter d’être du Tiers-monde dans cinquante ans ! Nous ne devrons plus être,
en 2060, le sujet principal des discours sur l’aide, fût-elle humanitaire ! Nous ne
voulons plus, pour nos descendants, voir nos États tendre la main ; car, comme le
disait feu le Président F. Houphouët-Boigny, « la main qui donne est toujours au-
dessus de celle qui reçoit ! » Il faut, par la puissance de l’intelligence féconde, briser
les chaînes de la pauvreté, nouveau nom de l’esclavage au temps de la
mondialisation. Car à toute résistance il faut un espoir et un terme favorable.
Gagnons donc la bataille de la liberté par le travail productif !

Abidjan, le 28 juin 2010

Pr Pierre Kipré
Président de la Commission nationale
d’organisation du cinquantenaire de la Côte d’Ivoire

8
PREMIÈRE PARTIE

GOUVERNANCE, INSTITUTIONS
ET MODELE DE DÉVELOPPEMENT

1

TOWARDS A NEW DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM
FOR AFRICAN ECONOMIES IN THE AFTERMATH
OF THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN
Felix FOFANA N’ZUE
African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET), Ghana


Abstract
The objective of this paper was to briefly review development paradigms
and their applications to African countries and propose a new development
paradigm. Past development paradigms were briefly reviewed. It was showed
that The Common thread in all the past development paradigms is that they all
failed to consider the recognition of and commitment to The Common Good as
the key element without which other initiatives will not bear sustained
outcomes. I then put forth a set of conditions / propositions to be implemented
for The Common Good to be defined, nurtured, improved, optimized and
sustained.

Key words: Development paradigm, The Common Good, civic education, Civic
service, institutions, security, leadership.
JEL Classification: I20, O10, O55, P16
Introduction
“No problem can be solved from the same
consciousness that created it; we must
learn to see the world anew”
(Albert Einstein)
The global financial meltdown has brought back on the spotlight issues
related to the relevance of current development paradigms and especially
development paradigms for African economies. A paradigm could be thought of
as a prototype. Just like in the manufacturing sector where a prototype of a
product is usually developed then replicated once it has been successfully
11tested, a paradigm is a prototype of patterns that have been conceived and tested
for effectiveness in achieving a given objective. In that line of thinking,
development paradigms (thereafter DP) are developed to conceptualize and
overcome development challenges facing countries. Thus, DPs provide analysis
and or argument on how best to approach development. Once they have been
developed, they should be tested for effectiveness in achieving the objectives
for which they were developed. Thus, failure to achieve these objectives is a
sufficient condition to reject the proposed paradigm.
DPs were developed for the betterment of people. Following the lines above,
if they fail to achieve the objective of improving the lives of people, they should
be rejected and replaced by new ones. This has been the rule as it applies to
economic theory. Indeed, from the modernization paradigm of the 50s and 60s
to the neoliberal development paradigm that led to the Washington Consensus,
many DPs came to life and then disappeared for failing to achieve their
objectives. The last prominent one in line i.e. the Washington Consensus has
also been criticized for its inability to deliver economic growth and thus assure
development in countries where it was closely implemented (Palley 2002).
Moreover, it had the tendency to worsen income distribution and aggravate
deprivation of the poor. Despite the obvious inability of the Washington
Consensus to deliver sustained economic growth leading to socio-economic
development in countries that implemented the suggested reforms, proponents
of the Washington Consensus are still defending its usefulness and even
blaming the countries for not implementing the proposed reforms as they were
2told to (Williamson, 2004 ).
The global financial meltdown came as the blow that has given strong
testimony to the failure of the Washington Consensus worldwide in the sense
that it brought back strong state intervention in economic activities as
exemplified by The United State of America, The United Kingdom just to cite a
few bailing out (not to say nationalizing) private banks. It also provides an
opportunity to revisit DPs for Africa especially to the extent that most DPs
(including those developed by Africans for Africa in an attempt to provide
homegrown alternative solutions to Africa’s development plight) did not help
Africa move up the ladder of sustained economic growth and development.
Why did these DPs not deliver the expected results? What can be done to put
African countries on the path of sustained economic growth and socio-economic
development, especially since past DPs have shown their limit? The main
objective of this paper is to contribute to the ongoing debate by providing an
alternative development paradigm for Africa. Unlike past DPs, this new
development paradigm addresses Africa’s development challenges from its
“root” by putting the recognition of and commitment to The Common Good at
the core of African development and transformation process. The rest of the
paper is organized as follows: the next section (II) provides a brief review of
12DPs and their applicability to the African setting, section III articulates our
proposed DP and section IV concludes the paper.
1. Brief review of development paradigms
Development theories captured through DPs emerged in the 50s to provide
guidance on how the economies of colonies of colonial powers (Britain, France,
Portugal, Spain etc) might be transformed and made more productive as
decolonization approached. Thus DPs in that period had a strong practical
orientation and militated for an equal strong commitment to state intervention
whether they were of the modernization type or not. The neoliberal DP came as
a break from the previous DPs.
All these DPs found their roots in economic theory which is anchored in the
notion that the individual is by essence homo-economicus. Thus the individual
is selfish, greedy (more is better), hedonistic, coldly calculating and perfectly
informed such that his action together with that of other individuals (acting the
same way) will converge towards the betterment of all. I contend that in the
traditional African setting what existed was a communal style of life rather than
individualism. Indeed, life in the community was organized in such a way to
protect and assure the survival of the community. Institutions were setup to
ensure that the organization of the community is sustained. In other words, I
will say that individuals in those traditional African communities were moved
by The Common Good. For instance in those communities, a child’s education
is the responsibility of all and not limited to a single household. Any member of
the community can discipline a child whose conduct is judged to be abnormal.
In these communities individuals are trained not to think selfishly but rather to
always keep in mind the welfare of the community. The above contrasts with
the ideas underlying the notion that the individual is homo-economicus on
which all DPs applied to Africa are based.
In this section, we briefly review some prominent DPs and look at their
applicability to Africa. Although not exhaustive we believe that this will give a
good sense of the DPs applied to Africa. They will include the modernization,
the dependency, the neoliberal and other DPs which could be linked one way or
the other to the neoliberal paradigm.
1. 1- The modernization Paradigm
This paradigm stipulates that socioeconomic development follows an
evolutionary path from traditional society to modern society. That is, there is a
shift from agriculture to industry and from rural to urban (Lewis 1954 cited by
Sharpley and Telfer, 2002). Society therefore moves from an initial state toward
one in which money is central (monetization) and the influence of family as
known traditionally declines to the benefit of institutions. Traditional values are
put aside to embrace more modern values. This modernization paradigm was
13well pointed out by Rostow’s (1960) “Stages of Economic Growth” which
stated that for development to occur, a country must pass through stages of a
traditional society, preconditions for the take-off, the drive to maturity and the
age of high mass consumption. It is then argued that to achieve growth through
these stages countries must invest a proportion of their wealth (with wealth
measured as Gross National Product: GNP). Thus, countries that are able to
save and invest 15 to 20% of their GNP would develop faster than those who do
not (Todaro, 1994). The concept of development poles could also be linked to
the modernization paradigm (see also, Gunnar Myrdal, 1963; Hirschman, 1958
etc.). This paradigm was applied to African countries during and after the
colonization period. In its application, it produced an urban petty bourgeois
class of merchants, doctors, traders, intellectuals, politicians who assumed
prestige, rank and power in the society. This class of bourgeois rejected in most
cases the traditional African setting. Critics of the modernization paradigm
argued that the path to development is not unidirectional as it is advocated.
Moreover, it was argued that modernization paradigm was simply an ideology
used to justify western involvement and domination of the developing world.
It is my view that although traditional societies needed to transform, that
transformation was to be progressive and sequential rather than brutal.
Traditional societies needed to be understood in their functioning in order to
make informed changes for the betterment of the people in those societies. It
could be argued that these societies had a “well” functioning system (maybe not
to the standard of the western societies). Behaviors in those societies were
guided by ethical values. The respect of those values provided them with
freedom. Indeed, in many African traditional societies, integrity / honesty was a
key value that no one should temper with. Thus, anyone found guilty of
violating these accepted rules, although not written, is banished from the
community among other possible punishments.
Applying the modernization paradigm to Africa led to the destruction in
most cases of these traditional settings. Indeed, the bourgeois class was by and
large imbued with western ideology and subscribed to their conception of
freedom where freedom was viewed as the absence of constraints and justice is
sacrificed for law and order (Afari-Gyan K. 1991). For this class of bourgeois
the African traditional society was too constrained. They opted therefore for the
modern society for which they were not prepared to use the western societies’
compass to guide their life. Consequently, they found themselves “trapped” into
two worlds and decided for the easy way out, which is to live in a society with
less stringent ethical values (not to say ethically neutral society). A society in
which individuals can decide to have unethical behaviors without the fear of
“serious” punishments. In so doing, they sacrificed the need for the recognition
of and commitment to The Common Good and opted for a self interest-led
society.
141. 2- The dependency paradigm
This paradigm gained prominence in the early 70s. It came as an attack to
the modernization paradigm thinking. Indeed, where the modernization
paradigm recommended the transformation of traditional societies to modern
ones, the dependency paradigm argued that it was that linkage that was the
problem. It argued that developing countries had external and internal political,
institutional and economic structures, which kept them in a dependent position
relative to developed countries (Todaro, 1997). For the proponents of this
3 4paradigm (among which we can identify Prebisch , Furtado ), the development
process that took place in Europe and other western societies was based on the
external destruction (brutal conquest, colonial control) and the stripping of non-
western societies of their people, resources and surplus (Telfer 2002 p.41).
Some of the common aspects developed under this paradigm include: The
international division of labor (where we have center and periphery) which
5caused the center to be developed to the detriment of the periphery . They
therefore recommended that the periphery be disassociated with the center and
implicitly from the world market to break the chain of surplus extraction. This
should therefore help the periphery to strive for self reliance (Telfer 2002 P.42).
These views were also supported by the neo-Marxist, neocolonial dependency
model, which argued that the developing world exists in a state of
underdevelopment due to the “historic evolution of a highly unequal international
capitalistic system of rich-poor country relationships” (Todaro, 1994). Moreover,
they argued that capitalism itself leads to the development of underdevelopment
since it depends on the exploitation and active underdevelopment of an already
capitalist periphery. Not many countries applied the dependency paradigm. Guinea
can be cited as one of the countries that tried to some extent to disassociate with the
center. It was a decision with very bitter consequences for the Guinean people.
Other African nationalists that we can cite for having exuded a high degree of
confidence in their own ability to push for state-centric development orientations
with diverse fortune mostly failure include Nkrumah (Ghana), Kenyatta (Kenya)
and Nyerere (in Tanzania) just to cite a few. The dependency paradigm was
criticized for being highly abstract, pessimistic and blaming external conditions and
factors over internal conditions and factors.
Although we cannot reject the fact that the center-periphery relationship
involved the exploitation of the periphery, it is not reasonable to put all the
blame on such a relationship. The periphery also benefitted from the
relationship in terms of capacity building, a set of basic infrastructures including
institutions to organize the functioning of the periphery. What is sad is the fact
that many elites of the periphery did not see themselves as actors of
development capable of transforming the periphery. In most cases, what the
African elites did was to perpetuate this dual system of operation within their
countries. Indeed, it was no longer the developed world, it was and is rather the
15African elites themselves that perpetuate a system that hurts (not to say hinders)
the transformation process of their respective countries. This indeed is well
exemplified in almost all Sub-Saharan African countries where after over 45
years of independence on average, where Africans are ruling their own
countries, we still observe impoverished townships co-existing with luxurious
residential areas, inability of African countries to secure regular power supply to
households and businesses, inability to provide basic health care and education
to a large proportion of their population, inability to ensure universal access to
clean water and the list can go on. The center did not ask the elites of the
periphery not to strive towards the transformation of their countries. What
happened was that the short-sightedness and selfishness of the African elites did
not allow them to reflect on their possible guiding role in transforming the
landscape of their countries. They were too happy to replace the colonial
masters and too busy to ensure that the resources of their countries were put at
their disposal for use to fulfill their greediness desires of wealth and power.
The argument for disassociation of the periphery from the center that the
proponents of the dependency paradigm put forth was not tenable before and it
is not tenable today especially with the intertwinements of world economies.
Indeed, no single country is outside the global economic system and no single
country can operate outside the global economic system. The global economic
system should be viewed as a constraint that developing countries will have to
deal with in an “intelligent” manner. It is therefore important that a change of
mindset takes place among African elites to agree on The Common Good and
strive towards it by first addressing the internal conditions and factors that
hinder their move on the path of sustained economic growth and development,
then, deal with the external factors by taking advantage of the opportunities they
proffer while confronting the possible challenges that come with them and stop
the blaming game.
1.3- The Neoliberal paradigm
The development of this paradigm was a reaction against the policies of
strong state intervention. It gained popularity with the first oil crisis at the
beginning of the 70s and the subsequent restructuring of international capitalism
which led to a redefinition of the role of state. Neoliberalism draws on
neoclassical economic theory which treats people as atomistic individuals who
are bound together only through market forces. Moreover, it is rooted in the
work of Adam Smith and his principle of the Laissez-faire (the invisible hand)
and David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which both call for a
minimalist approach to state involvement in economic activities.
The neoliberal paradigm was best exemplified by the so-called Washington
6
Consensus although its author, Williamson (1997, 2000, 2002) himself made a
7feeble defense attempt of the term arguing that it was not his intention to
closely identify his Washington Consensus with Neoliberalism. He later on
16recognized that indeed the Washington Consensus was anchored in the
neoclassical economic theory. Indeed, the original Washington Consensus
8included ten propositions which could be easily traced back to neoclassical
economic theory advocating for a freer market economy. These ten propositions
(termed as first generation reforms) were followed by ten additional
9propositions to cater for the failures / ineffectiveness of the first generation
reforms to deliver what they promised. These propositions (termed second
generation reforms) were to be imposed –willingly or unwillingly- on
developing countries since. Behind the Washington Consensus was a current
that considered as its main task the abolition of the state-run development
policies and the restoration of the free operation of the market regardless of
costs and special features of the developing economies. (Mavroudeas and
Papadatos, 2005; Rodrik, 2006)
This was accepted by Williamson (2002), known as the father of the
Washington Consensus. He stated that: “The three big ideas in the Washington
Consensus are macroeconomic discipline, market economy and openness to the
world (at least in respect of trade and FDI). These are ideas that had long been
regarded as orthodox so far as OECD countries are concerned, but there used to
be a sort of global apartheid which claimed that developing countries came from
a different universe which enable them to benefit from a) inflation (so as to reap
the inflation tax and boost investment) b) a leading role for the state in initiating
industrialization and c) import substitution. The Washington Consensus said
that this era of apartheid was over”. This shows clearly that behind the
Washington Consensus was an ideology that was to be imposed on developing
countries.
The second generation reform proposals also came under fire. One of the
10main criticisms (from within Washington) came from Stiglitz (1989) who
argued in favor of a role for state intervention which should be, according to
him (Stiglitz 1998 p.25), to focus on what he calls the fundamentals (economic
policies, appropriate regulation, industrial policy, social protection, basic
education, health, infrastructure, law and order and environmental protection).
Hence, for Stiglitz, the DPs in general were too narrowly focused and paid
little attention to institutional infrastructures whose quality is one of the critical
determinants to the direction, structure and speed of the transformation process.
Other critics came from Shaikh (2003, 2004) and Fine (2001). For these
scholars, the pressure to liberalize favors the developed countries over the
developing ones.
The above critics of the Washington Consensus are supportive of the idea
that it failed to deliver the promised outcome. The failure of the Washington
consensus also casts doubt on claims (Collier and Dollar 2001) that policy
reform of the conventional type could cut world poverty by half. There is no
evidence to support such a claim (Easterly, 2005; and Rodriguez, 2005).
17It is my view that Stiglitz’s arguments did at least touch on some key
elements that needed to be considered in the development process i.e. the
specific historical and social institutions of countries. Moreover, he said that
development should go through a smooth and gradual process. This is quite
relevant when it comes to development in Africa where reforms were imposed
and had to be implemented irrespective of their current state of progress. The
reforms lacked hierarchization and smoothness. The reforms neglected the now
accepted evidence that culture matters (different communities have different
perceptions about well-being) and to ignore it is to set the path for failure of the
entire development process.
Although the author of the Washington Consensus and many other scholars
from that school of thought believes that it is still useful, the truth is that it has
done more harm than good to developing countries and especially African
countries, through increased impoverished population, increased inequality,
increased corruption, increased ill-governance, increased civil unrest etc. The
Washington Consensus also failed to recognize the need for a consensus on The
Common Good and strive towards maximizing it, as the pre-requisite without
which any development will be fictitious.
1.4- Some other alternative development paradigms
Several others scholars provided their thoughts on the plight of developing
countries. These scholars include among others: Paul Streeten (1974) and
relatively recent writings of two Nobel Prize winners namely Amartya Sen
(1999) and Douglas North (2005), and John Dunning (2006).
For Streeten, the plight of developing countries could be attributed to the
existence of eight gaps in their transformation process. These eight gaps
included: i) a resource gap (gap between desired investment and locally
mobilized savings); ii) foreign exchange or trade gap (gap between foreign
exchange requirements and foreign exchange earnings plus official aid); iii)
budgetary gap (gap between target revenue and locally raised taxes); iv)
management and skill gap (gap between supply of and demand for these
capacities); v) technology gap; vi) entrepreneurship gap; vii) marketing gap;
viii) employment and market structure gap. These gaps need to be filled if their
policy goals are to be met. Unfortunately, not only Streeten did not provide
remedies to fill the gaps but also failed to include an important gap which has to
do with the recognition of and commitment to The Common Good as the pre-
requisite for any development to take place and be sustained.
For Amartya Sen, the plight of developing countries can be explained by the
lack of freedom as he demonstrated in his book “Development as freedom”
advocating for the removal of the sources of unfreedom namely poverty, tyranny,
poor economic opportunities, and neglect of public facilities by enhancing more
11positive freedom of choice, opportunity and personal capability . Sen views
12freedom as a means and an end of development. He was later criticized for
18focusing too much on individual freedoms which could be misleading and cause
severe losses in well-being. Since individual choices have important
consequences upon other people’s lives and given that an individual never lives
alone and that human choices are deeply interconnected with other people’s lives,
focusing on individual capabilities could be very risky for the same countries that
one wanted to help.
It is my view that by focusing too much on individual freedom, Sen did not
see or at least he overlooked the need to consider The Common Good as a
critical determinant of development. Focusing too much on individual freedom
could easily put The Common Good at risk. This could be so because in seeking
individual freedom, economic agent acts as if their behavior is ethically neutral.
When ethic is assumed away, anything can be done or any mean can be used to
achieve one’s selfish objective.
Douglas North put more emphasis on the role of incentive structure and
enforcement systems in affecting the trajectory, structure and impact of
economic development. He defined institutions as the rules that govern the way
13in which human beings structure their interactions. They include of : i) formal
rules (constitutions, laws and regulations); ii) informal rules (ethical norms,
conventions, covenants, voluntary codes of conduct etc); iii) enforcement
mechanisms including incentives and sanctions. He therefore calls for a
realignment of institutions and the belief systems on which they are based, at
every level and stage of decision making (Dunning 2006).
North touched on a point that is essential to African economies which other
DPs have often time neglected. His idea of incorporating flexible incentive
structures, enforcement mechanisms and informal rules in the definition of
institutions is genuine. Indeed, weaknesses of incentive structures especially the
inability to offer competitive remuneration did not permit the retention of
competent staff in public administration (see Danielson in Mugerwa, 2003).
Moreover, lack of enforcement mechanism in Africa has caused much of the
brain drain that the continent has been experiencing overtime. In addition to the
incentive structures and enforcement mechanisms, he also emphasized the
importance of informal rules (ethical norms, covenants, voluntary codes of
conducts etc). These are critical elements in the African setting which influence/
determine the success / failure of initiatives. Yet, these critical elements of
institutions are often overlooked in DPs imposed on Africa. This will continue
to be the case unless there is a total shift in policy making that gives them the
needed recognition and act on it. In so doing their will be a recognition of and
commitment to The Common Good and work towards its improvement and
sustainability.
Dunning (2006), after a critic of what he called the old paradigm for
development (OPD) and attempts by several scholars to come up with new
paradigms of development (NPD), also proposed his own paradigm of
development, the OLI paradigm (Dunning 1977, 1979, 2001). OLI stands for
19Ownership advantages, Location advantages and Internalization advantages. For
him, no matter how necessary the extent and quality of resources, capabilities
and market opportunities may be for the competitiveness of firms, and to the
growth and structural transformations of countries, they may not be a sufficient
condition for development. For him Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) are key
to the development of developing countries in general and especially that of
African countries. For FDI to be effective and be a win-win endeavor
multinational enterprise needs to convince themselves of the OLI advantages
and by the same token countries also need to ensure that the OLI advantages are
effective to attract the former. Yet, Dunning’s own DP was partial since it
focuses on Multinational enterprise and is thus unable to provide an integrated
and global solution to the plight of developing countries.
Other development paradigms that were put forth, but did not gain
prominence as much as the Washington consensus, include the Monterrey
Consensus (UN 2002) and the Kivu Consensus (Brenthurst 2009). All these
consensuses failed to address Africa’s problem at its roots. Indeed, they
neglected the need for a recognition of and commitment to The Common Good
(I shall say, they assumed that there exists an implicit agreement on The
Common Good). In so doing, these DPs are incomplete, ineffective and their
failure is not a surprise. In light of all the above it is evident that the time has
come to rethink all these past DPs, including the Washington Consensus, and
think the development of Africa anew.
2. New development paradigm for African Economies
The DPs briefly reviewed above have all attempted in one way or the other
to help developing countries in general but specifically African countries to
move up the ladder of development. The results have been below the
expectations not to say that they have been disappointing. Indeed, although
some scholars may see in the current performances of some African economies
(often tagged as success stories but yet unable to sustainably transform their
economies for The Common Good) reasons for happiness and therefore, argue
that after all, things are not that bad and that they could have been worse if not
for the reforms undertaken under these DPs, it is my view that African
economies could have taken a different route leading to sustained economic
growth, social development, peace and prosperity if they had focused on
fundamental issues and used the proper sequencing.
Indeed, the recent financial crisis that shook countries all over the world
including Africa provides us with elements to argue that DPs in general and
especially DPs imposed on Africa are passé and that Africa need to take the
opportunity proffered to rethink its own DP focusing on root causes of its lack
of development. In the above brief review of past DPs, I tried to show that a
common thread that led them to fail was the lack of recognition of and
commitment to The Common Good. I consider this as the root cause of Africa’s
20development plight. Thus, unless we solve this fundamental problem,
sustainable development, peace and social well-being for all will not be possible
in Africa. Let us remind ourselves again with Albert Einstein’s phrase: “No
problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it; we must
learn to see the world anew”. It is in agreement with the above insight of
Einstein that Hall (1997) says that “Continuing to do what we have always done
will only get us what we already have”.
I would like to argue that for African countries to really move up on the path
of sustained economic growth and development, there is need to re-diagnose
Africa’s problem. After scrutinizing (through various readings on Africa’s
development attempts) what has happened to African countries since their
independence from colonial powers till today, I strongly believe (as I said it
earlier) that Africa’s problem is rooted in the lack of a recognition of and
commitment to The Common Good for individual countries as well as for the
entire continent. Having said that, there is need to understand what The
Common Good is and how to strive towards maximizing it? But before
dwelling any further on The Common Good, I would like to make it clear that
The Common Good that I am considering need not be disassociated from the
market but rather intertwined with it in an intelligent manner.
As a starting point, I would like to state that textbook economics begins with
the idea that the unit of analysis, the individual, is homo-economicus and he is
moved by his self-interest. Furthermore, as Adam Smith puts it, each individual
in the pursuit of his interest will converge, as if directed by an invisible hand,
towards the general interest. If then that is the case and if Adam Smith was so
right why then are so much poverty, so much misery, so much crime, and so
much environmental destruction putting our existence into peril?
As I argued earlier, the concept of homo-economicus was foreign to
traditional Africa where individuals living a communal life organized
themselves in a way to protect and assure the survival of the community at
large. In those traditional societies, issues touching individuals were
systematically by the community. I gave earlier the example of child education.
They were moved by what I call The Common Good. At this junction, I would
like to recall the definition of development as the change in the mindset of
individuals living together which enables them to consistently increase the
production of goods and services to improve, protect and sustain The Common
Good that they have autonomously identified.
The Common Good is a notion that originated over two thousand years ago
in the writings of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero. It was also found in the Catholic
religious tradition and was defined as consisting of the social systems,
institutions, and environments on which we all depend, work in a manner that
benefits all people (Velasquez et al., 1992). The Common Good was then
assimilated to a good to which all members of society have access, and from
whose enjoyment no one can be easily excluded. Such assimilation made The
21Common Good, a public good and paved the road for critics. Thus, Velasquez
argued that i) different people have different ideas about what is worthwhile or
what constitutes the good life for human being, it will be therefore impossible to
agree on what particular elements to consider as Common Good; ii) the problem
of “free riders”; iii) historical traditions place high value on individual freedom,
on personal rights, and allowing each person to do its own thing; and iv) the
problem of unequal sharing of burdens where particular groups or individuals
bear higher costs than those borne by others.
These criticisms are easily answered and I strongly believe that The
Common Good is and should be at the center of development. In responding to
these criticisms, I would like to start by making a distinction between The
Common Good and a public good to avoid any confusion. The Common Good
encompasses goods and services for which there is a social consensus (or at
least a significant majority agrees) that they benefit all individuals within a
community, country, continent etc.
A public good, is a good that is non-rivalrous (consumption by one
individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others)
and non-excludable (no one can be effectively excluded from using the good). It
is therefore an element of The Common Good but all elements of The Common
Good are not public goods. The Common Good is recognized by all or a
significant majority to benefit all people. It could be public or private.
The Common Good also encompasses a set of interrelated conditions that
once put together, work in a manner that is beneficial to all individuals
regardless of their origin, race, religion, political affiliation within a country.
These interrelated conditions include but are not limited to the following: i) a
social system that trains, educates, builds and develops the capacities of
individuals to recognize and serve The Common Good; ii) institutions to ensure
that individuals operate according to agreed rules (formal and informal) and
provide incentives structures that enable individuals to work to the best of their
abilities and capacities; iii) security to protect and defend The Common Good
and ensure the well functioning of institutions and iv) Leadership to provide
visionary guidance to the entire system in striving towards the sustained
recognition of and commitment to The Common Good within the society.
The third criticism of Velasquez makes things very clear. Indeed, as I have
argued earlier, DPs embodying western culture were imposed on African
countries which had a multiplicity of communities with varying traditions and
cultures. Africans do not recognize themselves into these imported traditions
where high value is placed on individual freedom, on personal rights, and
allowing each person to do its own thing. Africans have tried very hard with a
lot of pain to westernize their traditions with little success (not to say no
success). True freedom is not to allow each person to do his or her own thing;
rather it is to allow each person to do things within a set of rules accepted by all
22or a significant majority. As Rousseau (1973) puts it “freedom is the obedience
to the law that we designed ourselves”.
Hence, the need to put mindset that leads to: improved, protected and
sustained Common Good at the center of the development agenda for Africa.
For this to take place, I suggest the route presented in the figure below:
Figure. Roadmap for a New Development Paradigm for African economies


The figure above shows a mapping of what I believe development paradigm
should be about. The whole process of development should evolve around
change of mindsets to strive towards The Common Good. That is, The Common
Good should be at the center of any development paradigm. In order to
understand and appreciate the reasons why they should strive for The Common
Good, individuals need to be well educated, well trained, in other words build
and develop appropriate human capacity. This is essential for the development
process to be harmonious and self-sustained. Education here encompasses
lifelong civic education, service and skills development. Well educated and
trained individuals, who have a high sense of civism and also a high sense of
service (good citizens), put in place institutions that safeguard the rights of
individuals as well as the rights of the group.
Individuals need to know what it is and what it entails to live together in a
community, country or continent, to learn to appreciate one another, appreciate
the environment in which they live. In other words, individuals need to learn to
be good citizens, hence civic education. Civic education is key because it
teaches individuals how to be good citizens not only through respecting their
23fellow citizens but also and most importantly, recognizing The Common Good,
respecting it and striving to maintain and sustain it.
The agreed upon Common Good and the institutions put in place need to be
protected. Security therefore, is essential in guaranteeing peace and ensuring the
enforcement of effective institutional operations thereby reinforcing The
Common Good. The entire system functions under the visionary guidance of a
good leadership. Let’s tackle these elements one at a time.
2.1- Recognition of and Commitment to The Common Good
Given the hope for everlasting life planted in mankind since the creation, we
all have to some extent an idea of what The Common Good is or should be. It is
in light of this truth that Velasquez argued that different people have different
ideas about what is worthwhile or what constitutes the good life for human
being. Indeed, it is in accordance with that hope that each individual aspire to
better life and happiness, but the extent to which our individual hopes and
aspiration can be aggregated to give a common goal, common sense of hope,
aspiration despite the possible trade-off among our individual objectives, this is
where lies the problem.
This is why I argue that as a group / community we need to put aside our
differences and endeavor to make our individual hopes and aspirations converge
to something good for all or for a significant majority of us. Once we have
identified such a common hope, aspiration in other words The Common Good,
we shall commit ourselves to that hope / good and direct all our efforts toward
attaining and sustaining it. This is not something that is attainable in Africa
under the current ideology based on the concept of the individual being homo-
economicus.
The extent of poverty, inequality, injustice, intolerance, exclusion,
corruption etc., in African countries, despite enormous efforts from past DPs
gives testimony that the maxim that defines life as the pursuit of selfish
individual happiness has failed. We shall therefore consider pursuing a common
aspiration (The Common Good) rather than individual one. There is no shame
in recognizing one’s mistakes and take appropriate corrective actions. What will
be shameful is to persist in the mistake even when it has been pointed out
clearly. The implicit assumption, on which past paradigms operated and
achieved positive results in other parts of the world, is nonexistent in Africa.
Consequently, as a starting point, Africa needs to strive for the recognition of
and commitment to The Common Good at all levels. I insist on real
commitment because a fake commitment based on inculcated selfishness will
only make thing worse. As Mofid (2006) puts it, only harmony with our essence
(I will say, our Africanity) could facilitate our true commitment to The
Common Good.
242.2- Lifelong civic education, service and skill development
At the forefront of this paradigm is lifelong civic education, service and
skills development. For development to be achieved (Development taken as I
defined it earlier) a critical mass of a country’s citizens must possess the skills,
embody the values, and manifest the behaviors that accord with development
and thus promote The Common Good. The citizens must know enough about
what is needed for their country to progress towards The Common Good, they
must know what is needed from them for this to be achieved; they must know
what is at stake if they don’t strive towards The Common Good. They must be
willing and able to take part to the process and believe that their participation is
important in achieving, nurturing and sustaining The Common Good.
The reason why most paradigms failed to make a dent in Africa is because
these paradigms are based on the premises that the state of mind that is
described above exists; that there is an implicit recognition of and commitment
to The Common Good. It is my contention that this is not the case. Indeed, if
this were the case, African Leaders will not leave their people in hunger /
extreme poverty and use their countries’ resources to build mansions in western
world, build up their foreign accounts in tax haven. Moreover, they will not
leave their health care system in such a rudimentary state and seek for
themselves health treatment abroad while their people are dying for not having
access to primary health care. Examples of this type are numerous all over
Africa. It is a clear evidence of the lack of recognition of and commitment to
The Common Good. Africa has lost the essential compass that it needs to guide
its actions throughout a turmoil world. Without this compass made up of values
including but not limited to tolerance, trust in institutions, respect for the rule of
law, a sense of service, sense of civism, achieving sustained growth and socio-
economic development will remain a dream to the Africans. The question that
comes to mind is then how to gain the skills, values and behaviors that are
conducive to The Common Good? My answer is lifelong civic education,
service and skill development.
Let us dwell little further on civic education. Civic comes from the Latin
word civis meaning citizen, hence it is about the citizen and the citizenship.
Civic education therefore teaches the citizen about its role in the society. These
teachings encompass values accepted as being good for all and include but are
not limited to honesty, tolerance, discipline, respect for your neighbor, respect
for life, respect for The Common Good, accepted behaviors in the society etc.
These are values that any individual should purport on a permanent basis. I call
the type of education system that teaches these values on a permanent basis,
lifelong civic education.
14I put emphasis on lifelong civic education because it is a matter of life . It is
not a onetime thing or action. It is not that once you have had it, it is there
forever. It needs to be cultivated and nurtured throughout one’s lifetime. A
25study by USAID (2002) show that it is not enough to be exposed to any civic
education, it is rather the frequency that matters. I tie it to lifelong civic service
because I believe that lifelong civic education alone is not enough.
What is lifelong civic service? Civic service could be defined as a set of
organized activities in which individuals take part, for the benefit of the society
in which they live or other societies. Such service is rendered without or with
minimum compensation. Through civic service, individuals give something
back to society to perpetuate The Common Good. In so doing on a consistent
and regular basis, the individuals come to understand the usefulness of The
Common Good and the need to sustain it. They build a culture of ownership of
actions necessary for their betterment. They will feel that they partake to the
process that creates wealth and wellbeing for their country. This is the
foundation upon which any other strategy could be built. Civic service here
should also be lifelong. It should not be a onetime thing as it is practiced in
many countries.
All these could be termed appropriate human capital development. Indeed,
human capital development as we know it, has neglected this fundamental
dimension which is lifelong civic education and service, though, not so for
skills development. Appropriate human capital development as described above
(integrating lifelong civic education, service and skills development) is key and
it is at the beginning of any sustained growth and development. I strongly
advocate that African countries revisit their education, training and skills
development policies to mainstream lifelong civic education and service. This is
the starting point if Africa is to harness in the future, the benefits of any other
reforms.
Indeed, countries that are developed today invested and continue to invest a
great deal of their resources in building and accumulating appropriate human
capital over the years. The USA for instance, has a history of civic education
and service. Through different organizations, the Americans encourage their
citizens to contribute not only to their own societies but also to other societies in
need. These organizations in America include among others, the Peace Corps,
the America corps, Learn and serve America, citizen corps, senior corps etc.
Indeed, it was in that sense that President Kennedy urged young Americans to
“ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your
country”. In the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and China (just to cite a
few) such organizations also exist. Civic service has been used over the years to
serve different objectives including identity formation, recovery and
rehabilitation, nation building etc. Appropriate human capital is essential as it
increases not only the sense of ownership of the development process but it also
contributes to increase the absorption capacity of a country, enables local /
domestic entrepreneurs (via skills development during the period of service) to
take advantage of possible spillovers of interaction with the outside world.
Skilled and knowledgeable labor force can easily absorb new technologies; new
26management practices. Unless such capacity exists, any effort to make change
happen is doomed to fail. African countries are therefore urged to build and
accumulate sufficient appropriate human capital as a pre-requisite to the
recognition of and commitment to the optimization of The Common Good.
2.3- Institutions
Institutions defined as in the North are rules that govern the way in which
human beings structure their interactions, shape the way individuals strive
towards The Common Good and they are in turn shaped by how individuals
themselves define The Common Good. In one way or the other, knowledge is
critical in order to reflect positively on the interactions among individuals
leading to The Common Good and design institutions that will support it.
Developing good institutions is not a trivial endeavor especially since the
colonial heritage of most African countries had a take on the quality of their
institutions. Indeed, Islam and Montenegro (2002) argued, after reviewing
studies by La Porta et al (2000), Straub (2000), and Chong and Zanforlin (2000)
that African countries with French legal heritage have consistently poorer
institutional quality than those with other legal traditions. As argued earlier, the
westernization of Africa was done in such a way that the institutions that guided
life or the interactions of individuals in these societies were rejected and
replaced by western institutions which were characteristical of their
essence/nature (individualistic) which was in opposition with our Africanity.
The best parts of these institutions need to be brought back to provide
appropriate guidance in our interactions. I strongly believe that this will not be
possible unless Africans commit themselves to lifelong civic education and
service. This is necessary to educate their population to understand The
Common Good and strive for it through developing the appropriate institutions.
Lifelong civic education and service therefore reinforces the quality of
institutions which in turn safeguards the rights of the individuals and that of the
group in their endeavors towards The Common Good. Quality institutions
should therefore include but not limited to the characteristics proffered by North
i.e. formal rules, informal rules, incentive structures and enforcement
mechanisms, coupled of course with lifelong civic education and service that
ensures forward looking to The Common Good. Yet, no matter how good
institutions could be, for them to stand firm in the storm of protest that might
possibly arise because it is human nature to resist change, they need to be
protected, hence the need for ensuring that peace and security prevail at all time.
2.4- Peace and security
Peace and security are essential elements for the existence and protection of
The Common Good. Indeed, The Common Good would not be sustained if
within countries individuals can temper with the normal functioning of
27institutions without fear of retribution and also transform themselves into free-
riders. Similarly, The Common Good will not be sustained if there are no
safeguards against outside threats. For development planning and implementation
which lead to optimization of The Common Good to take place, there is need to
avoid what I will characterize as “Black noise” (civil unrest, civil war, armed
conflicts, external aggressions and the like) which puts the entire final objective at
risk. Security and peace are therefore critical to the betterment of people through
optimization of The Common Good. Countries that are developed today
understood this simple principle and acted on it to produce wealth and protect it
against inside forces as well as outside forces. Indeed, looking at Table 1 below,
we observe that the largest economy of the world (USA) is also the top in military
spending. Which country today will have the audacity to engage in a frontal
aggression of the USA? When we look at the table it is clear that the top 15
largest economies are (with few exceptions) also the top in military spending.
This is a clear testimony to the argument that “only a fool will produce wealth and
leave it unprotected or rely on others to protect it on his behalf”. It is just a matter
of common sense. Even in Africa as Table 2 shows, the top 5 in military spending
are among the top 10 largest economies.
Peace and Security are interlinked with the other two conditions and together
ensure that The Common Good is optimized and sustained. Indeed, lifelong
civic education, service and skills development can truly take place only in a
secured and peaceful environment. This enables individuals to be forward
looking and identify future possible threats to The Common Good and plan for
security accordingly. This is also valid when it comes to institutions. Indeed,
good institutions make provisions for security which in turn protects the
institutions against inside and outside threats. Africans in general and especially
those entrusted with decision making on behalf of the greater number, need to
be aware of this simple principle of life and ensure that the necessary actions are
taken. This cannot occur unless the leadership is up to the task.

Table 1. Ranking of World’s largest economies and their military spending in 2008.
Military GDP 2008
Country Spending in 2008 Rank (Millions of US $) Rank
(Billions of US $)
United 711.0 14,204,322
1 1
States
China 121.9 2 3,860,039 3
Russia 70.0 3 1,607,816 9
United 55.4 2,645,593
4 6
Kingdom
France 54.0 5 2,853,062 5
Japan 41.1 6 4,909,272 2
28Military GDP 2008
Country Spending in 2008 Rank (Millions of US $) Rank
(Billions of US $)
Germany 37.8 7 3,652,824 4
Italy 30.6 8 2,293,008 7
Saudi 29.5 467,601
9 23
Arabia
South 24.6 929,121
10 15
Korea
India 22.4 11 1,217,490 12
Australia 17.2 12 1,015,217 14
Brazil 16.2 13 1,612,539 8
Canada 15.0 14 1,400,091 11
Spain 14.4 15 1,604,174 10
th th
Mexico ranks 13 with a GDP of 1,085,951 million US$ and 40 in military spending
with 3.2 Billions US$.
Sources: International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2008, U.S.
Department of Defense. World Development Indicators database, World Bank, 1 July 2009

Table2. Ranking of Africa’s largest economies and their military spending in 2008.
Military Rank GDP Rank
Spending in 2008 Country
2008 (Billions (Millions Africa World Africa World
of US $) of US $)
Egypt 4.3 1 31 162,818 4 50
South
3.5 2 37 276,764 1 32
Africa
Algeria 3.1 3 42 173,882 3 45
Morocco 2.2 4 50 86,329 6 59
Angola 1.6 5 54 83,383 7 60
Nigeria NA NA NA 212,080 2 39
Libya NA NA NA 99,926 5 56
Sources: International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2008, U.S.
Department of Defense. World Development Indicators database, World Bank, 1 July 2009
2.5- Leadership
Leadership as defined by Kotter (1990) and reemphasized by Hall (1997) has to
do with: i) establishing direction; ii) aligning the people; iii) motivating and
inspiring them; iv) to produce change. For the sake of The Common Good, any
group, community or country needs a leader with leadership competences as those
29presented above. Indeed, leading a country towards The Common Good in an
environment full of surprising, novel and even sometimes messy events implies
learning new ways of operating and behaving based on the demands and reality of a
changing context. As Hall (1997) puts it “living in the present and future world
successfully requires extraordinary changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and
behaviors. Gaining this new capacity requires a focused, conscious awareness of
the learning process and a dedication to improve intentional, personal learning”.
In line with the above, a good leader is the one who has a good
understanding of The Common Good and is willing to strive for its
improvement and sustainability. In other word, he needs to have a clear vision
for the people he or she seeks to rule. This will not happen unless it is backed
by lifelong civic education, service and skills development that enable the
individuals to change or adopt attitudes and behaviors that also contribute to the
improvement of The Common Good. A good leader also shows exemplary
behavior / attitude towards The Common Good. In so doing he will set himself
as a role model for the rest of the society and echo the objective function of the
group which is of course embodied in The Common Good.
Because in any group, community, country or society, there are always
individuals who resist changes and are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure
that the change does not take place, the leader needs to be protected. Beyond the
leader’s protection is the protection of the institutions and The Common Good
that is at stake. There should therefore be harmony among the conditions
surrounding The Common Good and these conditions should be mutually
reinforcing. This type of leadership is well captured by Kotter’s (2007) eight
actions for successful transformation. Which include: i) establishing a sense of
urgency; ii) forming a powerful guiding coalition; iii) creating a vision; iv)
communicating the vision; v) empowering others to act on the vision; vi)
planning for and creating short term wins; vii) consolidating improvements and
producing more change and viii) institutionalizing new approaches. Through his
eight steps, Kotter provides a way to assess leadership and its effectiveness in
optimizing The Common Good. Because it is generally said that Leaders are the
image of the people they rule, it is important to ensure that African Leaders
really portray values embodied in The Common Good.
Conclusion
The objective of this paper was to briefly review development paradigms
and their applications to African countries highlighting their inappropriateness
to resolve the plight of underdevelopment and poverty and to propose a new
development paradigm. Through the brief review I showed that The Common
thread in all the past DPs is that they all failed to consider the recognition of and
commitment to The Common Good as a critical hindrance to Africa’s
transformation towards economic prosperity. I proposed a set of conditions /
propositions to be implemented for The Common Good to be defined, nurtured,
30

Soyez le premier à déposer un commentaire !

17/1000 caractères maximum.