Introduction
Despite comments by anti-globalists, economic indices justify the fact that globalisation has the potential to bring about the development of a nation and the enhancement of the well-being of its citizens. Following from this, globalisation creates a potential doorway to the development of African countries. However, the behaviour of African leaders hinders the creating of comparative advantage that would have led to sustainable development in the continent. Therefore, the situation in African points to a plausible relationship among globalisation, development, and leadership behaviours. The link between globalisation and development is certain; what remains is appropriate leadership behaviour that will manage people and structures to achieve the link. From practical and empirical evidences, leadership styles are not equally effective in mobilising people and developing appropriate environment that would enhance the performance of people (Amah 2017; Hoch et al. 2018). Lack of development, coupled with extreme poverty levels in Africa, is an indication of the ineffectiveness of the current leadership styles used by African leaders. Major shifts in how leaders are selected and how they perform is expected, so as to achieve what Kofi Annan recommended when he was the Secretary General of the United Nations thus: âWe must ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly shared values and practices that reflect global social needs, and that all the worldâs people share the benefits of globalisationâ.
The view expressed in this book is that globalisation leads to development but with a caveat that there is a moderatorâleadershipâwhich plays a significant role in the realisation of the developmental goals of globalisation. This view agrees with what Kofi Annan said that promoters of globalisation must ensure that all people share in the benefits of globalisation. As the then Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan may have used the word âweâ in his comment to describe world leaders. He did not expatiate on what world leaders should do; this however must include preparing nations for competition in the globalised world in a sustainable manner that would ensure even development and enhancement of wellbeing. The authorâs view and that of Kofi Annan align with the globalist ideology which states that globalisation has potentials for the growth and development of participating nations. Another angle of globalisation is expressed by the anti-globalist ideology, which sees globalisation as a hidden agenda developed by Western nations to recolonise Africa (Prah 2000; Ngwane 2001). The different views on globalisation arose in an attempt to explain the uneven development across countries of the world which was contrary to what globalisation promised. Instead of taking the hard way of finding an acceptable and convincing explanation, the anti-globalists took the uncomplicated way of âthrowing away the baby with the dirty waterâ. Thus, the word globalisation has come to connote many things to many people and many governments. In its simple form, however, globalisation is aimed at mimicking the function and operation of a village thereby forming a âglobal villageâ. In a village, there is no restriction to the movement of people, goods, services, and so on. In a typical African village, hamlets cooperate based on what each hamlet can produce efficiently, and this is traded for what others can produce efficiently. Thus, the basis for even development in a village setting is the comparative advantage possessed by all the hamlets in the village. In the same way, the basis for even development of nations and regions is the comparative advantage they possess. If this principle had been followed, there would have been even development as promised under globalisation.
Many authors however have claimed that rather than bring development to Africa, globalisation brought poverty and inequality because Africa was not properly integrated into the world economy in a way that would have developed her as envisaged. This assertion is too simple and raises two issues: who is to integrate Africa into the world economy? And is the comparative advantage developed by Africa expected to be the basis of her integration to the world economy? The most dangerous path any nation can take is to expect external forces to spearhead its development and economic integration. Many authors have taken different perspectives in an attempt to answer the question: why did globalisation bring development to some regions, and poverty and inequality to others? The answer to this question remains elusive because authors have always aligned to either the globalist or anti-globalist perspective. Before stating my views, I explored the answers given by past authors. Comments made by leading African authors indicate that globalisation was never expected or planned to develop Africa; it was simply a buzzword for a new phase of the recolonisation of Africa. Some even argue that the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank executed through the structural adjustment programmes were disguise that cannot guarantee the development of Africa.
The level of foreign direct investment (FDI) gives an indication of economic development in a nation. However, even though FDI to Africa increased from US$14 billion to US$18 billion between 2003 and 2004, the expected growth and diversification were not realised. According to Bodomo (2017, p. 13), the reason was that âmuch of the investment was targeted at Africaâs resourcesârich oil and mining industries, which often generate low tax revenues and carry high environmental and social costsâ. Based on the performance of FDI in Africa, globalisation was judged to have a net negative benefit to Africa. Who is to be blamed for the pattern of investment under the FDI in Africa, the investor or the nation in which the investment was made? I think African leaders should take the blame for the lopsided nature of investments in Africa. For example, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) produces oil. Any investor to the UAE would however not target oil but tourism, because the leaders of the country have consciously diversified their economy from being oil-dependent to tourism by putting in place structures which would make tourism a sector of choice to any prospective investor. Furthermore, what we failed to accept in Africa is that the effectiveness of any system depends on the skills, attitude, and behaviour of the leaders appointed to run the system.
Landes (1999) advocated that the failure of globalisation in Africa could be traced to environmental factors which helped the rich regions and deprived the poor regions. The rich nations, he claimed, took advantage of the opportunities in the environment and minimised cultural hindrances, hence benefitting from globalisation. Africa and the rest of the poor regions did not seize the opportunity and never went beyond their cultural limitations. There are two reasons why this argument is wrong. The first is that since inanimate objects do not plan to take advantage of opportunities and minimise weakness, it is correct to state that the leaders of the rich regions identified the environmental factors, the opportunities and weaknesses, and managed all to the advantage of their nations. Africa was disadvantaged because our leaders were either incapable or unwilling to do the same. The second is the argument by Diamond (1998) which stated that the issue of environmental differences did not apply since in every region people can always make the best of their situations. The purported rich nations made the best of their environmental factors, and African nations allowed their environment to dictate what they achieved. When a nation adopts the principle that its woes arise because of factors external to it and beyond its control, it will neither develop nor make any attempt to find solutions to its problems.
To fully understand the issues involved in the underdevelopment of Africa, it is necessary to explore the basis for the realisation of the developmental goals of globalisation. Globalisation is designed to lead to the even development of nations and regions when each has a comparative advantage which forms the basis for economic integration. The other aspect is that the basis for the comparative advantage must be in its finished form and not something that requires more resources to bring it into finished form. For example, Nigeria produces over two million barrels of crude oil daily and exports most in a low value-added form. However, because of inefficiency, available refineries cannot produce the countryâs daily requirement of certain crude oil derivatives; hence, the country imports these at excessive costs. The country earns low revenue (because crude oil is not in its finished form) and imports the finished products at a high amount. Nature can confer on a region or nation the basis for comparative advantage. For example, regions and nations that have abundant oil and mining resources have the basis for comparative advantage. Since most natural resources are produced in a low value-added nature, only nations who develop structures and policies which convert the resources into high value-added products which command a high price can really develop acceptable comparative advantage that sets them apart from other nations. However, if nature is not very friendly to regions or nations, they can develop their own comparative advantage. This was what India did by deciding to develop infrastructures which eventually made them the information technology hub of the world. India had abundant human resources; all they did was develop infrastructures and policies which made use of their abundant human resources to develop a comparative advantage. It is thus obvious that leadership is a major factor in the development of comparative advantage for a region or nation. Leadership harnesses the infrastructure and people and develops policies which jointly create true comparative advantage for the region or nation. Let us review the situation of Singapore, China, and India as they took advantage of globalisation and developed their nations. In this way, what is lacking in Africa can be identified.
In the book From Third World to First World: The Singapore Story: 1965â2000, Yew (2000) described how Singapore made it from poverty to prosperity in three decades. In his words âSingapore was not a natural country, but man-made ⊠a heart without a bodyâ (p. 5). Under his leadership, Singapore made tough decisions that saw the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita rise from US$400 to US$22,000 between 1959 and 1999. He outlined the decision options as either to raise an army (with a huge recurrent budget), a nation, or an economy. The choice he made was articulated in these words: âonly if we changed peopleâs thinking and attitude could we raise a large army like Switzerlandâs or Israeliâs. We gave ourselves a decade to accomplish thisâ (p. 18). Lee knew he could not do this alone, so he recruited people of like minds who shared in the vision of moving Singapore forward. Together with these people, Lee developed unconventional solutions to their problems; unconventional because these solutions may not have worked for other nations. He tailored Singaporeâs development to agree with what I call their local content in knowledge , resources, and attitude. A major attitude of Leeâs administration was that no one owed them a living, and so it was wrong for them to hinge their development on borrowed resources. This principle did not mean that they did not welcome gifts from others, it simply ensured that such gifts did not mortgage Singapore to the givers. By the time Lee left governance, he left a sustainable development which has been built upon by successive administrations. Three things drove Singaporeâs growth from poverty to prosperity: âhard-working people, good basic infrastructure, and a government that was determined to be honest and competentâ (p. 58). Did Singapore shut the world out? No. They built internal comparative advantage which formed the basis of their economic cooperation with the rest of the world. In this way, globalisation resulted in development in such a short time. The link between globalisation and Singaporeâs development is le...