Positive Feedback and Vicious Circles Sierra Leone

Preview Pre-colonial and colonial Sierra Leone Marketing board and agriculture Diamonds Non-inclusive government Non-inclusive government and civil wars Non-inclusive economies and non-inclusive governments Economic and social indicators

Pre-colonial and colonial Sierra Leone Freed American slaves repatriated themselves to Africa to found Freetown, Sierra Leone in the late 1700s. In the latter 1800s, the British invaded Freetown and then fully extended their rule throughout the country by 1896 through a series of treaties with local rulers. There was no central government, and the country consisted of separate fiefs or provinces that often fought each other.

Pre-colonial and colonial Sierra Leone In 1896, slavery still existed in Sierra Leone, with up to 50% of the population enslaved or as prisoners of war. Fighting occurred among the traditionally indigenous population as well as between the descendants of freed slaves and the indigenous population. Some local chiefs were willing to ally with the British so that they could use their imported military to fight local enemies. In turn, the British used the local chiefs to enforce their interests. Because the British favored some people, towns and tribes more than others, social power based on hereditary classes continued or worsened.

Pre-colonial and colonial Sierra Leone However, in January 1898, many tribes and towns thought that the British had gone too far by trying to impose a “hut” tax on households. A rebellion started, but the British military quickly suppressed the rebellion. After the rebellion, the British continued to try to develop the economy for its interests. They built railroads to move agricultural produce, other products and people from the port city of Freetown to the interior of the country, mostly to the south to Bo.

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

Marketing board and agriculture In 1949, the British established a government-mandated monopsony (single buyer) to buy coffee, cocoa and palm kernels from farmers at regulated prices. This “marketing board” set artificially low prices, a policy which effectively acted as a tax on farmers. The government then sold the produce on world markets for a profit.

Marketing board and agriculture Sierra Leone became independent in 1961, but the independent government did not end the marketing board, and in fact, it made the marketing board lower prices even more. By the mid-1960s, the marketing board paid farmers of palm kernels only 56% of the world price, paid farmers of coffee only 49% of the world price and paid farmers of cocoa only 48% of the world price. By 1985, these numbers were 37%, 27% and 19%, respectively, and during some years some prices had been as low as 10%. These policies removed incentives for farmers to invest and to expand production, as well as exacerbated income inequality between farmers and a government elite.

Marketing board and agriculture Even more insidiously, farmers did not have direct ownership of the land. Land was/is communally owned, and the village chief ultimately determined land property rights for each villager. As a result, land can not be bought and sold by its tenant, nor used as collateral. This is especially costly for people not politically connected to the village chief. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_xtBUPbjDQ for a description of agricultural production and sales in Sierra Leone.

Diamonds Besides agriculture, Sierra Leone’s economy was also based on diamond mining. And like agriculture, diamond mining also resulted in ambiguous property rights.

Diamonds During colonial times, the British created the Sierra Leone Selection Trust to act as a single producer and seller (a monopoly) of Sierra Leone’s diamonds, whose effect was somewhat similar to the agricultural monopsony (marketing board). But because of the alluvial (river) deposits of diamonds, it was difficult for the Trust to completely limit the mining and sale of diamonds, and illegal diamond mining flourished. In 1955, the British government allowed licensed diggers to access some diamond deposits, although the Sierra Leone Selection Trust still maintained the richest areas in Yengema, Koidu and Tongo Fields.

Diamonds After independence, in 1970, the increasingly autocratic president, Siaka Stevens, effectively nationalized the Trust, and allowed the government to control 51% of the stock. The government maintained control of operations and profit. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TT3NfoeDrc for a description of the mining industry today.

Non-inclusive government When Sierra Leone became independent in 1961, the country was set up as a democracy and it had democratic elections until 1967. But the winner of the 1967 presidential election, Siaka Stevens, increasingly used violence to acquire more power. In particular, his political opposition was primarily from Southern ethnic groups, and he began to violently these groups. In addition, the railroad that the British had built in the South was destroyed and the region’s economy was likewise wrecked. Mr. Stevens’ ethnic group was from the North, and he likewise favored these people.

Non-inclusive government As in colonial times, power at the local level continued to be based on heredity class, with lower castes or classes forced to do menial labor and the upper castes or classes having political power.

Non-inclusive government and civil war Sierra Leone had to suffer from more than two decades of autocratic, inept and violent rule from Stevens’ All People’s Congress (APC), which was led by Joseph Momoh in 1991. Then, civil war started and the country’s condition went from bad to horrible. In 1991, a militia called the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), led by Foday Sankoh, entered Sierra Leone from Liberia to overthrow the government. Formerly a corporal in the Sierra Leonean army, Mr. Sankoh was imprisoned after trying to overthrow Siaka Stevens’ government in 1971.

Non-inclusive government and civil war After decades of inept and corrupt economic and political policies, the government and army of Sierra Leone had no will or ability to fight the RUF. In fact, some people suffering under the APC initially joined the RUF, but then RUF then started killing citizens who were suspected to be “collaborators”, as well as government soldiers. As the RUF tried to control different parts of the country, the killing intensified, and rape and amputation were added to horror. The RUF also forced people into labor, particularly diamond mining. Government (APC) forces began to fight back, but they also committed killing, raping and amputation of suspected rebel sympathizers.

Non-inclusive government and civil war The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), led by Nigerian soldiers, tried to impose peace, but they also engaged extrajudicial killing. The British also intervened in 2000 to fight the RUF. By the time that the war ended in 2002, probably 80,000 people had died. Roads, houses and other buildings were destroyed, and the will and ability to invest in anything but basic survival was eliminated. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve42DWluB8A

Non-inclusive government and civil war Many civil wars in Africa after independence were not to expand voting rights or to expand property rights but to capture power and enrich one group at the expense of the rest. After training with Mr. Sankoh, Charles Taylor started a civil war in 1989 that lasted until 1996 (and a second civil war started in 1999). Angola, Chad, Cote D’Ivorie, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia (discussed later), Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, the Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda had similar situations. Civil wars in these countries often replaced existing governments (sometimes democratic, sometimes autocratic) with new autocratic, violent institutions.

Non-inclusive economies and non-inclusive governments Of course, civil wars wrecked the domestic economies. Even during relatively peaceful times, government policies in other African countries were often inept or corrupt. Similar to Sierra Leone before 1991, Ghana, Kenya and Zambia also had agricultural monopsonies (marketing boards), a large amount of government control and regulation of other industries and hierarchical, hereditary-based rule at the local level both before and after independence.

Economic and social indicators

Economic and social indicators

Economic and social indicators