 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 August 2000 Issue No. 494 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 August 2000 Issue No. 494
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Books Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Full of sound and fury
By Aziza Sami
The enthusiasm with which reports on the Egyptian economy tend invariably to be greeted in official quarters should not blind us to the fact that such enthusiasm has a remarkable tendency to play up positive findings and to brush anything that might be construed as negative firmly beneath the carpet. Out of sight, out of mind.
The heavy editing in the press of the annual report on economic trends issued by the US embassy on 20 July is a particularly blatant example of this tendency. While citing the report as evidence of the government's success in pursuing its economic reforms, concern over the recent economic slowdown and the dangers this poses for continued growth and investment are blithely glossed over.
The fact is, of course, that such selective readings of reports negate any positive influence they might have. They must be looked at squarely in the face, and discussed in a balanced manner if they are to be worth anything at all.
In a significant, if seemingly cursory paragraph, the US report notes that the contribution of Egypt's agricultural sector to GDP declined from 20 per cent in 1986-87, to 17.3 per cent in 98-99, causing it to "remain one of the world's major food importers."
How, one might ask, does this reflect on food aid and its associated USAID programmes? Is it any coincidence USAID's agriculture programmes in Egypt began in 1986?
The US embassy report is undoubtedly important, not least because of its implications as to how global funding institutions are viewing the Egyptian economy. Nevertheless, like other reports issued by international institutions, it should not be dealt with as a kind of unbiased testimonial on economic progress, issued in some vacuum of neutrality.
That international reports dealing with Egypt's economy provoke only two responses -- euphoria or anger -- is a result of the unbalanced manner in which they are received. Just think of the furor that broke out following the publication of UK investment bank Robert Flemings report on the Egyptian economy in February.
It is a strange phenomenon that such reports, which when measured against developmental concerns only skim the surface of things, should provoke such passionate responses. And when a report's ultimate recommendation, as was the US embassy's, is in the predictable vein of "more structural adjustment is needed," it is surely time to call in the comment of economists who might have an alternative spin on what this means than the bland assumption that it is "a good thing."
Economists not operating in the context of globalisation-oriented think tanks, economists who might, indeed, be ideologically at odds with the economic reform process, must be encouraged to speak their minds and provide analyses of what they believe is impeding the participation of the layman in the reform process -- an issue which if not addressed will increase the political tensions associated with reform, tensions that already play a role in government hesitation over implementing some recommended policies.
In his important work, Economic Crisis and the Politics of Reform in Egypt, Ray Bush, a professor of political economy at the University of Leeds in the UK, makes a statement based on his discussions with a wide segment of Egyptian commentators and analysts. "The strategy promoted by international financial institutions," writes Bush "has been inappropriate to Egypt's needs because it has focused on changes in the structures of prices and incentives while not sufficiently promoting productivity [or taking into account] the traditional organization of relations of power."
He goes on to say that international agencies' incomplete characterisation of poverty has -- in the rural context for instance -- stressed Egyptian farmers' ignorance and poor technological know how, while rejecting their all important capacity for common resource management.
One may not agree with Bush, but his views, and those of many others, could usefully be solicited in assessing the recommendations of international reports gauging Egypt's reform process.
When this happens, such reports will be greeted as neither compliments nor accusations, but as occasions meriting rational discussion.
