Why joblessness and diamonds fuel civil war

The Dual Private Sector Dilemma: Why IMF Market-Led Growth Models Fail to Create Jobs in Fragmented African Economies

Mon, Aug 24 2026 /Mpelembe Media/ — The economic relationship between sub-Saharan Africa and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has its roots in the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, where the few developing nations present failed to secure explicit references to their development financing needs in the Articles of Agreement. From its inception, the IMF maintained a rigid, short-term balance-of-payments focus, famously denying Ethiopia’s first request for financial assistance on the grounds that its needs were neither immediate nor temporary. By the 1980s and 1990s, this short-term framework was formalized into neoliberal Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which mandated strict conditionalities such as market deregulation, extensive privatization of state-owned enterprises, and rapid trade opening. Although promoted as pathways to long-term macroeconomic stability, these interventions frequently triggered severe adverse social consequences, including declining real wages, heightened poverty, and the systematic deterioration of basic health and social welfare systems. In response to widespread critique in the late 1990s, the IMF purported to shift its operational model, replacing traditional SAPs with the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) and, subsequently, various credit facilities under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT). However, empirical evidence indicates that these contemporary programs represent “SAPs in disguise,” with loan conditionalities and stringency steadily rising, and core prescriptions of fiscal consolidation and state retrenchment remaining largely unchanged.

Critics and heterodox economists argue that these IMF stabilization policies trap African nations in a recurring cycle of structural dependency. Under this pattern, a state increases its borrowing to fund infrastructure and social development, but commodity price volatility and weak tax structures compromise its repayment capacity, forcing it to seek IMF assistance. The resulting IMF-mandated austerity, spending cuts, and subsidy removals depress household demand and slow economic growth, which ultimately forces the state to borrow anew to support its economy, restarting the loop. This cycle was deeply felt by former Senegalese President Abdou Diouf, who recounted that he “governed in pain” under the weight of SAP conditionalities. Today, modern leaders continue to reject negotiated restructurings under the IMF, arguing that such programs bring a country closer to near-bankruptcy, damage international credibility, and enforce highly restrictive austerity measures. This disinvestment in public systems is further exacerbated by the “African premium,” an extra 46 basis points (rising to over 120 basis points during global shocks) that sub-Saharan African sovereigns must pay on Eurobond issuances compared to peer nations with similar ratings. This premium forces states to withdraw from public investment precisely because borrowing is expensive, which leaves their domestic economies structurally weak, resource-dependent, and prone to risk, reinforcing the high-risk perceptions and creating an “austerity trap” where programs regularly underperform their growth forecasts. Compounding this is the IMF’s “gatekeeper” role, where bilateral donors and multilateral lenders rely on IMF-supported programs as a “seal of approval” for debt relief and donor support, perpetuating prolonged use.

The severe real-world impacts of these policies are clearly illustrated in the recent experiences of Ethiopia, Nigeria, and South Africa. In Nigeria, the IMF-praised removal of the fuel subsidy and foreign exchange unification resulted in an extreme cost-of-living crisis, with rural inflation hitting 25 percent, food insecurity affecting millions, and credit becoming highly concentrated in the oil and gas sectors while local SMEs were starved of affordable credit. In Ethiopia, the transition to a market-determined floating exchange rate under an IMF program triggered a massive depreciation of the Birr and highly elevated inflation, which critics argue deepened poverty, devalued international development aid, and shifted economic gains toward a narrow group of financial institutions and connected firms. In South Africa, the IMF-advocated unbundling of state utilities like Eskom and product-market liberalization have been criticized for failing to expand domestic demand or generate mass employment in an economy where ownership and finance remain highly concentrated and youth unemployment remains chronically high. Across these nations, the IMF’s framework is criticized for treating the private sector as a single, uniform actor, failing to recognize that African private sectors are highly dualistic and structurally fragmented, characterized by a sharp division between millions of survivalist, under-capitalized informal operators and highly concentrated, capital-intensive foreign multinational corporations.

To break this cycle of dependency and state retreat, heterodox economists and policymakers advocate for reclaiming policy space through the construction of “African Developmental States”. This model, drawing on historical East Asian experiences and frameworks like the Douala Consensus, defines a developmental state as one that prioritizes rapid, sustainable, and inclusive economic development, and designs active state instruments to direct investment, build productive capabilities, and foster local industrialization. Rather than confining state action to horizontal, market-conforming reforms focused solely on general business regulation, developmental states utilize targeted, sector-specific industrial policies, active use of Special Economic Zones (SEZs), and local-content rules to build dynamic comparative advantage. Key pillars of this alternative paradigm include coordinated public investment to overcome market coordination failures, strategic exchange rate management linked to targeted export promotion, and early external debt restructurings backed by regional development banks to preserve policy space. Additionally, governments must make public expenditures on health, education, and universal services legally binding rather than discretionary, protecting human capital from fiscal consolidation and preserving the social contract. Ultimately, the path forward requires transitioning from passive integration in global commodity value chains to active, state-coordinated structural transformation that builds domestic productive power.

The Great African Reset: 5 Takeaways That Will Define the Continent’s Next Decade

Step into the humming tech hubs of Nairobi or the sprawling, hyper-kinetic markets of Lagos, and the energy is unmistakable. It is the sound of a continent striving to leapfrog into the future. Yet, look at the ledger of the last three years and a different, more chilling story emerges. According to recent IMF analysis, the average real GDP per capita growth rate in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has slowed to just 1.4%. At this tepid pace, it would take half a century—a full 50 years—for average incomes just to double.This is the “50-year warning.” It signals a convergence crisis where, despite pockets of brilliance, the region is not catching up to the global economy; it is drifting further away. The old playbook—commodity-driven exports and massive, state-led infrastructure projects fueled by debt—has hit a wall of high interest rates and dwindling foreign aid. To avoid a lost century, policymakers must internalize five hard truths that define a radical, private-sector-led “Growth Reset.”

Takeaway #1: The 20% Dividend (Why “Middle of the Pack” is the New Gold Standard)

In the world of structural reform, there is a tendency to chase “first-best” global perfections that feel light-years away. The more pragmatic, and far more exciting, reality is that Africa doesn’t need to become Singapore overnight to see a massive windfall.The data reveals a staggering “reform dividend”: if Sub-Saharan African nations closed just  half  the gap between their current standing and the average of other emerging markets in foundational areas—governance, regulation, and trade—regional output would surge by 20% within five to ten years. For oil exporters and fragile states, which start from a lower base and face wider structural gaps, the gains are even more transformative.”Governance reforms, in particular, deliver durable dividends by leveling the playing field, boosting tax compliance, and strengthening state capacity.”This is a call for “middle of the pack” status. By simply aiming for the global mean, policymakers can unlock a cycle of productivity and investment that the state-led model can no longer provide.

Takeaway #2: The “Foundations First” Rule (Why Sequencing is Everything)

A common strategic failure in the region is the attempt to launch sophisticated industrial policies or sector-specific “winners” before the basic rules of the game are set. The “Growth Reset” demands a “Foundations First” methodology. You cannot build a modern factory on the shifting sands of a broken legal system.The sequencing must be absolute: macroeconomic stability and institutional integrity must precede sector-specific interventions.Foundational Reforms must prioritize:

Governance:  Institutionalizing transparency and the rule of law.

Business Regulation:  Dramatically lowering entry barriers and cutting the “red tape” that kills entrepreneurship in the cradle.

External Sector:  Liberalizing trade and external finance to allow the free flow of ideas and capital.We are already seeing the professionalization of the state in action. Benin and Rwanda have secured “early wins” through digitalization, moving firm registration online. To build deeper political capital, reformers are moving toward “risk-based inspections” for food and standards and establishing public e-registries of regulations, as seen in Ghana. These are not merely technical tweaks; they are the necessary precursors to any viable industrial future.

Takeaway #3: The Conflict Paradox (Greed, Poverty, and the Institutional Shield)

There is a direct, mathematical link between the 1.4% growth rate and the region’s security. Economic theory—and history—suggests that civil war is often a “failure of development” rather than a purely ethnic or ideological struggle. In an environment of stagnation, rebellion becomes a rational “expected utility maximization decision.” When there are no jobs and no growth, the opportunity cost of joining a rebellion is tragically near zero.The root of the conflict is often found in the soil rather than the soul. As Ibrahim Kamara, Sierra Leone’s former Ambassador to the UN, foundationaly observed regarding his country’s civil war:”The root of the conflict is diamonds, diamonds, and diamonds.”To break this cycle, nations must build “High-Quality Institutions”—the rule of law and democratic accountability—that serve as an “institutional shield.” These act as shock absorbers for the social tensions that arise in any diverse society. As GDP per capita rises, the opportunity cost of war becomes “too expensive” for rational actors, making economic growth a nation’s most effective defense strategy.

Takeaway #4: The SOE Bottleneck (Reforming the “Dominant Engine”)

State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) currently act as the dominant engine of African infrastructure, but they are increasingly a binding constraint on the private sector. The numbers are bleak: 40% of SOEs in SSA are unprofitable, draining roughly 1% of GDP annually in fiscal support.Nowhere is this more damaging than in the energy sector, where 70% of firms identify unreliable electricity as a primary barrier to doing business. To unlock private drive, a pragmatic, five-point playbook for SOE reform is required:

Opportunism:  Act during crises when the cost of the status quo is politically unbearable.

Stakeholder Mapping:  Identify and mitigate the incentives of those who profit from current inefficiencies.

Cost-Recovery Pricing:  Align tariffs with reality to allow for maintenance and new capacity.

Social Transparency:  Be explicit about social goals (like expanding rural access) rather than hiding them in murky balance sheets.

Clear Communication:  Explicitly state how the net savings from reform will be reinvested into the public good.

Takeaway #5: The Social Contract as a Binding Constraint

Technical excellence is the easy part. The “Growth Reset” ultimately lives or dies based on “Societal Ownership.” To succeed, a nation must navigate the “narrow corridor”—that delicate space where a capable state is held in check by robust societal oversight.Reform cannot be a top-down decree that survives only until the next election. It requires institutionalized transparency. Jamaica’s Economic Program Oversight Committee (EPOC) is the gold standard here; as an independent body, it monitors progress and reports to the public, ensuring the government stays honest. Similarly, South Africa’s “Operation Vulindlela” uses structured engagement with social partners to drive delivery in electricity and logistics. These mechanisms ensure that reform is not a “winners and losers” game, but a shared national mission.

Conclusion: The Road to the Demographic Dividend

The window of opportunity is open. Macroeconomic stabilization is advancing across much of the region, creating the quietude necessary for a structural push. Success stories exist: Mauritius and Seychelles have insulated their civil services; Botswana has leveraged resource wealth through transparent management; Côte d’Ivoire has closed half its governance gap since 2011, attracting a tenfold increase in foreign investment.If the payoff for closing just half the gap with emerging markets is a 20% output boost, the question is no longer technical—it is moral. Is your nation’s social contract a living agreement for the future, or is it a legacy of stagnation? Sub-Saharan Africa cannot afford to wait another 50 years to realize its potential. The reset must begin now.