The ‘brain drain’ has long been a common concern for migrant-sending countries, particularly for small countries where high-skilled emigration rates are highest. However, while economic theory suggests a number of possible benefits, in addition to costs, from skilled emigration, the evidence base on many of these is very limited, according to this review. Moreover, the lessons from case studies of benefits from skilled emigration may not be relevant to much smaller countries. This paper presents the results of innovative surveys which tracked academic high-achievers to wherever they moved in the world in order to directly measure at the micro level the channels through which high-skilled emigration affects the sending country. The results show that there are very high levels of emigration and of return migration among the very highly skilled. The income gains to the best and brightest from migrating are very large, and an order of magnitude or more greater than any other effect. There are large benefits from migration in terms of postgraduate education. Most high-skilled migrants from poorer countries send remittances; but involvement in trade and foreign direct investment is a rare occurrence. There is considerable knowledge flow from both current and return migrants about job and study opportunities abroad, but little net knowledge sharing from current migrants to home country governments or businesses. Finally, the fiscal costs vary considerably across countries, and depend on the extent to which governments rely on progressive income taxation – the greater the reliance on progressive taxation, the higher the fiscal cost of losing health professionals to the economy.
Health equity in economic and trade policies
This study’s objective was to assess the effect of food taxes and subsidies on diet, body weight and health through a systematic review of the literature. Researchers searched the English-language published and grey literature for empirical and modelling studies on the effects of monetary subsidies or taxes levied on specific food products on consumption habits, body weight and chronic conditions. Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The study found that, in general, taxes and subsidies influenced consumption in the desired direction, with larger taxes being associated with more significant changes in consumption, body weight and disease incidence. However, studies that focused on a single target food or nutrient may have overestimated the impact of taxes by failing to take into account shifts in consumption to other foods. The quality of the evidence was generally low. The study concludes that food taxes and subsidies have the potential to contribute to healthy consumption patterns at the population level. However, the empirical evaluation of existing taxes should become a research priority, along with research into the effectiveness and differential impact of food taxes in developing countries.
This discussion paper underlines a major risk in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) implementation process so far: the perceived gradual dilution of the political substance of the new policy framework. This risk lies in contrast to the original negotiations for the JAES, where there was a much stronger commitment to negotiating political differences. It is reflected in the fact that the JAES finds it difficult (so far) to politically uplift the partnership ‘beyond Africa’, ‘beyond cooperation’ and ‘beyond institutions’. According to this paper, the dilution should be a matter of concern considering that the added value of the JAES, compared to existing policy frameworks such as the Cotonou Agreement or bilateral relations, precisely lies in its ambitious political agenda to renew and transform Africa- EU relations. Little tangible progress has been achieved in establishing the JAES as the overarching political framework for Africa-EU relations. Levels of ownership tend to be low beyond the inner circle of those concerned with the JAES. The paper argues that that the current difficulties experienced by the JAES are linked to fundamental political choices in the implementation strategies followed so far rather than to the validity of the overall vision underlying the search for a renewed Africa-EU partnership.
The Economic Development in Africa Report 2010 examines recent trends in the economic relationships of Africa with other developing countries and the new forms of partnership that are animating those relationships. It discusses the variety of institutional arrangements that are guiding and encouraging these new economic relationships, provides up-to-date information on African trade with other developing countries outside Africa, describes official financial flows and foreign direct investment into Africa from those countries and assesses important policy issues that arise from the new relationships in each of these areas. The report argues that South–South cooperation opens new opportunities for Africa, and the main challenge facing African countries is how to harness these new relationships more effectively to further their long-term development goals. It also stresses the need to broaden the country and sectoral focus of cooperation with the South to ensure that the gains are better distributed across countries. It argues that South–South cooperation should be seen as a complement rather than a substitute for relations with traditional partners, and that the latter can make South–South cooperation work for Africa by strengthening support for triangular co-operation as well as through better dialogue with developing country partners.
This paper discusses how regional integration processes may contribute to state building and reduce economic and social insecurity. After presenting a simple conceptual framework to discuss the effects of external and regional integration in weak states, it analyses the policy trade-offs that may arise in such contexts. The paper then reviews the specific regional experiences of sub-Saharan countries. Finally, it discusses policy implications for the European Union (EU) in the context of its regional trade and development policies with African countries. The author concludes that a two-tier approach to regional integration, which combines both top-down and bottom-up processes, is necessary; the EU approach to regional integration in Africa should promote ‘building blocks’ and not ‘stumbling blocks’; and specific considerations should be given to make the strategy for trade integration responsive to the needs of fragile states.
The African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Council and the ACP-EU (European Union) Council of Ministers met from 17-22 June to sign the revised ACP-EU Partnership Agreement. Aimed at eradicating poverty and supporting sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP states into the world economy, the agreement was finalised in 2000 and is reviewed every five years. The 2010 amendments seek to improve EU policy coherence for development, the promotion of domestic resource mobilisation, an d the role of non-state actors in cooperation. Cooperation and political dialogue is also enhanced to address the Millennium Development Goals, climate change, food security, state fragility, HIV and AIDs, organised crime and aid for trade. The revision further contains enhanced regional integration provisions and makes the African Union a partner to the agreement. The parties also adopted joint statements on the Millennium Development Goals and on climate change which should strengthen their position in the upcoming international negotiations on these issues. The ACP Council adopted unilateral declarations asking the EU to revisit its position on contentious issues in the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations and on trade arrangements in bananas, sugar and cotton.
The intensity of trade among countries belonging to the same region depends not only on the existence and effectiveness of a regional integration agreement, but also on other factors, which include the overall trade policy orientation and the relative level of geo-graphic and economic barriers affecting intra- and extra-regional trade. The paper presents a set of indicators aimed at measuring the intensity of bi-lateral trade preferences. These indicators suggest that most African countries trade more intensely with coumtries in the same region than with the rest of the world.
The global financial crisis has also exposed serious weaknesses in global economic governance, according to this report. The report proposes fundamental revisions of the existing institutions for global economic governance. But for an effective more sustainable rebalancing of the global economy much closer coordination is needed across the trading system, the new regime for international financial regulation, the global reserve system and the mechanisms for mobilising and channelling development finance and climate funding. At present, the Group of 20 (G20) is taking on some areas of coordination, but as an informal platform responding to the crisis it has mostly focused on financial reforms. The report notes that sustainable rebalancing of the world economy will take years, if not decades, and can only be successful if there is greater policy coherence. To this end, it proposes that the international community consider institutionalising a global economic coordination mechanism within the more representative multilateral system.
In this interview, Alhaji Mohamed Daramy affirms his support for economic partnership agreements (EPAs) but warns that the required fiscal reforms will not come without an upfront cost, and he believes an EPA regional fund should be created to support this process, to which the European Union (EU) should contribute. He argues for a five-year transition period after the signature of an EPA, after which an efficient indirect taxation system should be put in place. Within this period, ECOWAS will aim to move some activities from the informal sector to the formal economy. The certainty and sustainability of financing ECOWAS activities will then be reviewed at this point.
The African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries face a massive challenge in tackling hunger and under-nutrition, but many critics have argued that the commitments required of ACP countries under Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) will make this more difficult. This article investigates the threat to food security posed by these agreements. While some observers blame trade liberalisation for these problems, the article identifies the lack of investment to improve productivity and address supply-side constraints as the major limiting factor. It argues that the debate around the issue of EPAs and food security distracts from the more important question of what domestic initiatives ACP countries need to take to ensure that agriculture can play its role as an engine of economic growth and poverty reduction. Government should invest in agriculture rather than rely on trade restrictions for food security. The potential of EPAs to improve food security can only be realised by a focus on greater agricultural investment and improved institutions. Resources can be made available from the EU budget, the EU’s European Development Fund and bilateral external funders, but the prerequisite is that these requirements are prioritised by the ACP countries themselves.